Citation
Child temperament and maternal behavior

Material Information

Title:
Child temperament and maternal behavior effects on children's behavior during anesthesia induction
Creator:
Abeles, Linda A., 1959-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 96 leaves : ill. ; 29 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anesthesia ( jstor )
Chess ( jstor )
Child psychology ( jstor )
Children ( jstor )
Heart rate ( jstor )
Inductive reasoning ( jstor )
Mathematical variables ( jstor )
Mothers ( jstor )
Parents ( jstor )
Temperament ( jstor )
Anesthetics -- administration & dosage ( mesh )
Child Behavior -- drug effects ( mesh )
Clinical and Health Psychology thesis Ph.D ( mesh )
Dissertations, Academic -- Clinical and Health Psychology -- UF ( mesh )
Maternal Behavior ( mesh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 1987.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 90-95.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Linda A. Abeles.

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:
030455260 ( ALEPH )
19891879 ( OCLC )
AET3563 ( NOTIS )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

EPK3Y1680_325XIN.xml

childtemperament00abel.pdf

childtemperament00abel_0077.txt

childtemperament00abel_0096.txt

childtemperament00abel_0095.txt

AA00009092_00001_pdf.txt

childtemperament00abel_0039.txt

childtemperament00abel_0011.txt

childtemperament00abel_0037.txt

childtemperament00abel_0061.txt

childtemperament00abel_0075.txt

childtemperament00abel_0088.txt

AA00009092_00001.pdf

childtemperament00abel_0097.txt

childtemperament00abel_0081.txt

childtemperament00abel_0099.txt

childtemperament00abel_0085.txt

childtemperament00abel_0005.txt

childtemperament00abel_0066.txt

childtemperament00abel_0079.txt

childtemperament00abel_0080.txt

childtemperament00abel_0100.txt

childtemperament00abel_0001.txt

childtemperament00abel_0073.txt

childtemperament00abel_0036.txt

childtemperament00abel_0067.txt

childtemperament00abel_0059.txt

childtemperament00abel_0104.txt

childtemperament00abel_0071.txt

childtemperament00abel_0051.txt

childtemperament00abel_0003.txt

childtemperament00abel_0062.txt

childtemperament00abel_0068.txt

childtemperament00abel_0107.txt

EPK3Y1680_325XIN_xml.txt

childtemperament00abel_0043.txt

childtemperament00abel_0048.txt

childtemperament00abel_0056.txt

childtemperament00abel_0049.txt

childtemperament00abel_0017.txt

childtemperament00abel_0052.txt

childtemperament00abel_0083.txt

childtemperament00abel_0060.txt

childtemperament00abel_0098.txt

childtemperament00abel_0018.txt

childtemperament00abel_0013.txt

childtemperament00abel_0040.txt

childtemperament00abel_0027.txt

childtemperament00abel_0034.txt

childtemperament00abel_0020.txt

childtemperament00abel_0010.txt

childtemperament00abel_0024.txt

childtemperament00abel_0105.txt

childtemperament00abel_0046.txt

childtemperament00abel_0063.txt

childtemperament00abel_0072.txt

childtemperament00abel_0004.txt

childtemperament00abel_0025.txt

childtemperament00abel_0074.txt

childtemperament00abel_0054.txt

childtemperament00abel_0093.txt

childtemperament00abel_0092.txt

childtemperament00abel_0058.txt

childtemperament00abel_0038.txt

childtemperament00abel_0055.txt

childtemperament00abel_0070.txt

childtemperament00abel_0050.txt

childtemperament00abel_0103.txt

childtemperament00abel_0082.txt

childtemperament00abel_0042.txt

childtemperament00abel_0102.txt

childtemperament00abel_0007.txt

childtemperament00abel_0057.txt

childtemperament00abel_0019.txt

childtemperament00abel_0035.txt

childtemperament00abel_0021.txt

childtemperament00abel_0026.txt

childtemperament00abel_0009.txt

childtemperament00abel_0022.txt

childtemperament00abel_0091.txt

childtemperament00abel_0032.txt

childtemperament00abel_0108.txt

childtemperament00abel_0031.txt

childtemperament00abel_0023.txt

childtemperament00abel_0078.txt

childtemperament00abel_0000.txt

childtemperament00abel_0033.txt

childtemperament00abel_0008.txt

childtemperament00abel_0089.txt

childtemperament00abel_0094.txt

childtemperament00abel_0030.txt

childtemperament00abel_0029.txt

childtemperament00abel_0086.txt

childtemperament00abel_0064.txt

childtemperament00abel_0069.txt

childtemperament00abel_0084.txt

childtemperament00abel_0006.txt

childtemperament00abel_0106.txt

childtemperament00abel_0012.txt

childtemperament00abel_0016.txt

childtemperament00abel_0047.txt

childtemperament00abel_0053.txt

childtemperament00abel_pdf.txt

childtemperament00abel_0045.txt

childtemperament00abel_0101.txt

childtemperament00abel_0002.txt

childtemperament00abel_0090.txt

childtemperament00abel_0028.txt

childtemperament00abel_0015.txt

childtemperament00abel_0076.txt

childtemperament00abel_0014.txt

childtemperament00abel_0044.txt

childtemperament00abel_0041.txt

childtemperament00abel_0087.txt

childtemperament00abel_0065.txt


Full Text











CHILD TEMPERAMENT AND MATERNAL BEHAVIOR:
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DURING ANESTHESIA INDUCTION



By

LINDA A. ABELES


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

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1987




CHILD TEMPERAMENT AND MATERNAL BEHAVIOR:
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DURING ANESTHESIA INDUCTION
By
LINDA A. ABELES
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1987


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. James H. Johnson
and Dr. Barbara Melamed for their direction in the
completion of this dissertation. Their support and
encouragement are greatly appreciated. Drs. Andrew
Bradlyn, Sheila Eyberg, Nancy Norvell and Marjorie White
served with Drs. Johnson and Melamed on my dissertation
committee and I thank them for their time and helpful
comments. The assistance of Mark Lumley in the
implementation and statistical analyses of this study was
invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Marc Zola for
his advice regarding the statistical analyses.
There are a great number of people without whom this
dissertation would not have been possible. The
encouragement and support of my parents Jeanette and Norman
Abeles, Betty Lee and Richard Bensen, Hugh Davis, Marilyn
Sokolof, Leslie Cleaver and Karen Bronk Froming are much
appreciated. Finally, I would like to give special thanks
to Peter Lee Bensen, who provided encouragement, support
and advice during the completion of this dissertation.
-li-


TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Temperament 2
Relationship of Parent Variables and
Child Temperament 14
Goodness of Fit 20
Temperament and Hospitalization 22
Predictions 24
II METHODS 27
Subjects 27
Measures 27
Background Information Interview Form 27
Parent Temperament Questionnaire 28
Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale 29
Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale 32
Heart Rate 32
Procedure 33
III RESULTS 35
Demographic and Questionnaire Measures 35
Reliability of observational measures 39
DPIS intercorrelations 41
ORBRS-R and heart rate intercorrelations..46
Tests of Hypotheses 46
Relationships between temperament,
maternal characteristics, and
children's behavior during anesthesia
induction 48
-iii-


PAGE
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction 49
Direct relationships between children's
temperament and outcome measures 4 9
Direct relationships between maternal
behavior and outcome measures 51
Phase 2 of Anesthesia Induction 52
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction 52
Direct relationships between children's
temperament and outcome measures 52
Relationships between maternal behavior
and outcome measures 54
Influence of maternal and child
variables on heart rate levels 55
IV. DISCUSSION 67
Children's Temperament and Behavior
During Anesthesia Induction 68
Goodness of Fit 69
Maternal Patterns of Behavior 71
Situational Components 73
Child Temperament and
Maternal Involvement 75
Limitations 77
Conclusions 79
APPENDICES
A BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTERVIEW FORM 82
B OPERATING ROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--
REVISED 83
C SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
PARENT TEMPERAMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 8 6
D SIGNIFICANT MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS 87
REFERENCES 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 96
-iv-


LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Demographic Characteristics 36
2 DPIS Inter-rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients 40
3 ORBRS-R Inter-rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients 42
4 Intercorrelations Among DPIS
Parent Behavior Categories 43
5 Intercorrelations Among DPIS
Child Behavior Categories 45
6 Intercorrelations Among ORBRS-R Ratings .... 47
-v-


LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
PAGE
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Use of
Distraction as Predicting Number
of Distress Behaviors 53
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Use of
Distraction as Predicting Number
of Distress Behaviors 56
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationships Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 58
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 60
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 62
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Restraint
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 64
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Agitation
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 66
-vi-


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
CHILD TEMPERAMENT AND MATERNAL BEHAVIOR:
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DURING ANESTHESIA INDUCTION
By
LINDA A. ABELES
December 1987
Chairman: James H. Johnson, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology
This study explored children's adjustment to anesthesia
induction and how this is related to temperament factors.
Additionally, the relationship between maternal
characteristics and children's behavioral adjustment to
anesthesia induction was investigated.
Sixty mother-child dyads were interviewed in the Ear,
Nose, Throat Clinic waiting room at the J. Hillis Miller
Health Center, Gainesville, Florida. Mothers completed the
Parent Temperament Questionnaire regarding their child's
temperament. Mothers and children were then escorted to a
clinic examination room. A videotape recording was made of
the waiting period before the doctor entered the
examination room. Videotapes were subsequently scored
using the Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale. On the day
of surgery an observer met the child and parent in the
vi i


pre-operative holding room. The observers used the
Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale-Revised to rate the
number of distress behaviors and level of cooperation
during the anesthesia induction procedure. Children's
heart rate was recorded as soon as the electrodes were
attached.
Only a limited number of temperament factors and
maternal behaviors were directly related to children's
adjustment to anesthesia induction. Instead, temperament
variables including approach/withdrawal, and the overall
temperament score in interaction with the maternal
behaviors of ignoring, restraint, reassuring, agitation and
distraction were the best predictors of children's behavior
during anesthesia induction. Both difficult and easy
temperament children displayed a higher number of distress
behaviors and had higher heart rate levels depending on
maternal behavior. The difficult child was adversely
affected by less ignoring, restraint and agitation, more
reassurance and varying amounts of distraction. In
contrast, the easy child was adversely affected by high
rates of ignoring, restraint and agitation, less
reassurance and varying amounts of distraction. These
findings support the view that maternal behaviors cannot be
judged as either "good" or "bad." Rather it appears that a
"goodness of fit" or "poorness of fit" exists between dyads
in different situations. Implications of these results
-vni-


with regard to possible interventions are discussed.
-lx-


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Every year millions of children undergo medical and
dental procedures (Melamed & Siegel, 1984). In the
hospital a child, who may have previously functioned
adequately may become anxious in response to medical
procedures so that normal coping behaviors are ineffective.
Following a hospital stay, as many as one third of all
children show some evidence of long-term psychological
adjustment problems (Davies, Butler, & Goldstein, 1972) .
For some children, however, the hospital experience can be
viewed in some respects as a positive one and approximately
one quarter of all children are rated as behaviorally
improved after hospitalization (Vernon, Foley & Schulman,
1967). While there is little information regarding factors
that predict coping versus maladaptive behavior in the
medical setting, there is reason to suspect that
temperament characteristics may be of importance as
temperament has been found to be a significant predictor of
behaviors problems (Thomas & Chess, 1977). At present,
however, the relationship of child temperament
characteristics to children's adjustment to a hospital
experience has yet to be researched. This study proposes
to explore children's temperament, its relationship to
1


2
adjustment to a medical experience, and the extent to which
this relationship is influenced by maternal behaviors
exhibited in the medical setting.
Temperament
The concept of temperament dates to medieval times when
it was used to refer to an individual's mental disposition,
as constituted by the combination of the four cardinal
humours (Rutter, 1982) Today, the general consensus is
that temperament involves style rather than content; that
is the how rather than the what or why of behavior (Plomin,
1982) .
There has been, however, much confusion regarding the
difference between the terms "temperament" and
"personality." While Goldsmith and Campos (1981) state
that there is no clear-cut distinction between temperament
and personality, Allport (1937) has suggested that
temperament includes those stylistic aspects of personality
that are stable and are influenced by heredity. Kagan
(1982) reflects the prevailing view of most temperament
theorists stating that any quality which has persisted for
more than two years is to be considered a temperament
trait. In its current usage temperament is considered a ".
. rubric for a group of related traits and not a trait
itself" (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas, Chess,
Hinde and McCall, 1987 p. 506) The temperamental rubric
encompasses phenomena such as irritability, activity level


3
and fearfulness. Goldsmith et al. (1987) outlines several
general points of convergence among contemporary approaches
to temperament. One is that temperamental dimensions
reflect behavioral tendencies and may not correspond
directly to discrete behavioral acts. Other points of
convergence include emphases on biological underpinnings,
continuity relative to other aspects of behavior, and
consensus that temperament refers to individual differences
rather than species general differences. Existing research
literature, however, has not always clearly supported these
positions and questions remain regarding both the
constitutional basis and stability of temperament
characteristics.
Temperament research in the United States began in the
1950s with the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) by
Thomas, Chess and Birch (Thomas & Chess, 1977) The goals
of the NYLS included (a) the development of a method for
classifying behavioral individuality in early infancy in
terms of objectively describable and reliably rated
categories of temperament; (b) the study of consistencies
and inconsistencies of these early characteristics in the
course of development; (c) the analysis of the pertinence
of early temperament to later psychological development;
(d) the dynamic of temperament in the mastery of


4
environmental demands and expectations at meeting age
appropriate tasks of development; (e) the identification of
those children who develop behavior disorders, and the
analysis of the etiology and course of these disorders in
terms of a continuously evolving child-environment
interactional process.
The first intensely studied group by Thomas, Chess and
Birch was comprised of 141 children from 85 families.
Sample collection was begun in 1956 when the children were
from 2-3 months of age and completed in 1963. As of 1984,
133 children were still being followed by the researchers.
These children and their parents were of middle- to upper-
middle class background and most of the parents were born
in the United States.
In 1961, a second longitudinal study was initiated by
Thomas, Chess and Birch (1968). This study involved 95
children of working class Puerto Rican parents; of this
sample 86% lived in low-income public housing projects.
This study was begun so as to research a population of
contrasting socio-economic background, as compared to the
original group. Additionally, Thomas, Chess and Birch
began longitudinally researching two samples of deviant
children. One sample included 68 children born prematurely
with low birth weights--approximately 40% of these children
had clinical evidence of neurological impairment at age
five years. This group was followed from birth.
The


5
second group was comprised of 52 children with mildly
retarded intellectual levels but without evidence of motor
dysfunction or body stigmata. This group has been followed
since when they were between 5- and 11-years-old. A
special population of 243 children with congenital rubella
was also studied in a cross-sectional experimental design
at 2- to 4-years of age, and during a follow-up four years
later.
For all of subjects the parents were the primary source
of information on the child's behavior in infancy. As the
child grew older, behavioral data were obtained through
teacher interviews in nursery and elementary school, direct
observations in the school setting and psychometric testing
at ages 3, 6 and 9 and direct interview with each youngster
and parent separately age 16-17 years. Academic
achievement scores were gathered from school records.
Additionally, whenever anyone in contact with the child
suspected that there was a behavioral disturbance, a
complete clinical evaluation was completed.
For each phase of data collection different individuals
assessed each child. Thomas and Chess (1977) report that
the intra- and interscorer reliability was at the 90% level
of agreement.
The nine categories of temperament, their definitions
and the three point scoring scales are as follows:


6
(1) Activity level is defined as the extent to which a
motor component is present when a child is engaged in
bathing, eating, playing, dressing, being handled,
sleeping, reaching, crawling and walking (high, medium,
low) .
(2) Rhythmicity is defined as the predictability and/or
unpredictability in time of any function. It can be
analyzed in relation to the sleep-wake cycle, hunger,
feeding patterns and elimination schedules (regular,
variable, irregular).
(3) Approach or withdrawal is defined as the nature of
the child's response to a new stimulus, whether it is a new
food, toy or person (approach, variable, withdrawal).
(4) Adaptability is defined as the responses to a new
or altered situation over time. In contrast to the
approach-withdrawal dimension, the concern in this case is
the ease which the responses are modified in the desired
directions (adaptive, variable, non-adaptive).
(5) Threshold of responsiveness is defined as the
intensity level of stimulation necessary to evoke an
observable response from the child (high, medium, low).
(6) Intensity of reaction is defined as the energy
level of the response (positive, variable, negative)
(7) Quality of Mood is defined as the amount of
pleasant, joyful, and friendly behavior as contrasted with


7
unpleasant, crying and unfriendly behavior (positive,
variable, negative).
(8) Distractibility is defined as the extent to which
the environmental stimuli changes an ongoing behavior
(distractible, variable, non-distractible).
(9) Attention span and persistence concerns the length
of time an activity is pursued by the child and the
continuation of an activity in the face of obstacles
(persistent, variable, non-persistent) .
Qualitative
and factor
analyses
of these
nine
dimensions
by
Thomas and
Chess (1977) yielded
three
temperament
constellations of
functional
significance
: the
most common pattern, the easy child, was seen in about 40%
of the children. It is characterized by regularity,
positive approach, high adaptability and mild or moderately
intense mood which is mostly positive. An opposite pattern
is seen in the difficult child. This child has been found
to have an irregularity in biological functions, negative
withdrawal responses to new stimuli, non- or slow-
adaptability to change, and intense and negative mood.
This pattern was found in approximately 10% of children.
The third constellation has been termed the slow-to-warm-up
child and was seen in 15% of the sample. These children
were active, withdrawing, low in adaptability, tended to
have a negative mood and a low intensity of reaction level.


8
Thomas, Chess and Birch (1968) found that 70% of
children classified as "difficult" developed behavior
problems, whereas only 18% of those children identified as
"easy" developed such difficulties.
Graham, Rutter and George (1973) attempted to replicate
the findings of the NYLS on a population of children all of
whom who had a mentally ill parent. Subjects were obtained
through an outpatient clinic of a London psychiatric
facility. For an unspecified time period, all parents of
children between the ages of 3.0 and 7.11 years who
attended the clinic were included in this study. After an
initial appointment to explain the purposes of the study,
parents were interviewed both separately and together.
Ratings were made at this time regarding the quality of the
parental marriage and the amount of criticism expressed by
the mother towards the child. Additionally, mothers were
asked to complete a behavior questionnaire, on which a
judgment of "psychiatric abnormality" was made, and a
"temperamental characteristics" interview about the child.
This interview regarding the child's temperament was
divided into three sections. In the first section the
mother was asked to describe the child's behavior over a
wide range of routine situations including behavior at
breakfast and while watching television. During the second
section, the mother was asked for details of the child's
regularity in areas such as sleep patterns, appetite and


9
bowel function. Finally the mother was questioned about
the child's behavior in various non-routine situations.
From this interview each child was rated on seven
categories of behavior: mood, intensity of emotional
expression, activity, regularity, malleability,
fastidiousness, and approach/withdrawal to new people.
Five of these categories including mood, intensity,
activity, regularity and approach/withdrawal directly
corresponded with Thomas, Chess and Birch's (1967) Parent
Temperament Questionnaire. One year later the mother again
completed the behavior questionnaire on her child.
Results indicated that those children judged as
"psychiatrically abnormal" at the first administration of
the behavior questionnaire were more likely to be intense
in their emotional expression than those judged as
psychiatrically normal. One year later, the
psychiatrically abnormal children were found to have been
characterized at the onset of the study as negative in mood
and irregular in their biological functioning than those
children judged as normal.
While these results support the hypothesis that
temperament factors affect children's adjustment, several
important issues are raised concerning this study. The
first concerns the validity of the parental reports of the
behavior and temperament of their children. Bates (1980)
has questioned the validity of parent reports and has


10
suggested that "difficult temperament" is a parental
perception. This may be especially relevant as one of the
children's parents in this study was presumably
psychiatrically ill. Additionally Graham et al. (1973)
assume that temperament is a relatively constant trait.
This has not been totally supported by the literature
(Hooker, Nesselroade, Nesselroade & Lerner, 1987) .
In a study which sought to identify antecedent
characteristics of children that best predicted behavioral
problems in young children, Bates, Maslin and Frankel
(1985) found that a difficult temperament, as perceived by
parents and secondary care givers, predicted behavior
problems as measured by the Preschool Behavior
Questionnaire. Specifically, those children with the
difficult temperament traits of negative emotion,
unadaptability/unsociability and high activity level were
rated by their mothers as higher in anxiety, hostility and
hyperactivity. These results, however, must be interpreted
cautiously as they might be reflective of bias in mothers'
report. Only one temperament dimension--unadaptability--
was found to correlate significantly with one child
behavior problem--anxiety. Furthermore, Bates et al.
(1985) writes that correlations between difficult
temperament, child and mother self-reported anxiety,
defensiveness and social desirability, reflect that anxious
mothers are more likely to have anxious children, and that


11
these children may express their proneness to anxiety via a
difficult temperament.
Weber, Levitt and Clark (1986) investigated temperament
and its affect on children's attachment to their mothers.
Previous research has found that differences in children's
temperament and qualitative differences in children's
attachment are associated with different behavioral
outcomes (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall 1978) .
Temperament and attachment data were collected on 36
mother-child dyads. Temperament was assessed with the
Dimensions of Temperament Survey (DOTS) (Lerner, Palermo,
Spiro & Nesselroade, 1982) The dimensions of the DOTS are
conceptually similar to those identified by Thomas and
Chess (1977) except some of the Thomas and Chess catagories
were combined and the quality of mood dimension was
eliminated. The DOTS dimensions include activity level,
attention span, adaptability, rhythmicity, and reactivity.
Attachment was assessed via the strange situation
(Ainsworth et al., 1978) The strange situation is divided
into eight 3 minute episodes. The situation begins with
the mother and child alone in a room. A female stranger
enters the room, sits quietly at first, then talks to the
mother and attempts to play with the child. The mother
then leaves the room leaving the child with the stranger.
After 3 minutes, the mother returns and the stranger
leaves. The mother settles her child if necessary and


12
encourages the child to play with toys. The mother exits
again, leaving the child alone. After 3 minutes the
stranger returns. In the final episode the stranger departs
and mother and child are reunited. Based on the strange
situation children were classified as avoidant, resistant
or secure in their attachment relationship to their mother.
The results of this study indicated that child
temperament showed little relation to behavior directed
toward the mother but was related to behavior to the
stranger. The dimension of temperament that showed the
strongest association with strange situation behavior was
adaptability. Children rated as more adaptable experienced
less negative and more positive interactions with the
stranger. Summary ratings of child difficult temperament,
however, correlated with resistant behaviors towards both
the mother and stranger. These results suggest that
children's temperament characteristics do in fact
contribute to their social development.
Although the literature has indicated an association
between temperament and school performance (Carey, Fox &
McDevitt, 1977; Thomas & Chess, 1977), the actual process
variables through which variation in temperament has not
been identified. Paget, Nagle and Martin (1984)
investigated the relationships between child temperament
characteristics and first-grade teacher-student
interactions. Teachers of 105 first grade children


13
completed the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas &
Chess, 1977) This questionnaire is based on the Parent
Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas & Chess, 1977) and
contains seven sub-scales including (a) activity level, (b)
adaptability, (c) approach-withdrawal, (d) sensory
threshold, (e) intensity, (f) distractibility, and (g)
persistence. Shortly after the questionnaires were
completed, videotapes were made of classroom interactions.
For each child a total of 5 hours of observation data was
collected. These videotapes were rated by the Brophy and
Good (1969) observation system. This observation system was
teacher-student interactions rated as falling into one of
three general categories: Response Opportunities, Child-
Initiated Contacts, and Teacher-Initiated Contacts. A
response opportunity occurred when a child publicly
attempted to answer a question posed by the teacher, or
when the child read aloud; child initiated contacts were of
two types: work contacts occurred when a child asked a
teacher for help with work and procedure contacts occurred
when the child asked to engage in an activity such as
sharpening a pencil, or asked what work he or she should
begin to work on; teacher-initiated contacts were also of
two types: work contacts in which the teacher helped a
child with work without being asked, and behavior contacts
which involved questions of discipline or classroom control


14
when the teacher commented on a child's nonacademic
behavior.
Paget, Nagle and Martin (1984) found that children's
temperament characteristics predicted teacher-student
interactions. The findings suggested that the most
adaptable and attentive children were the least likely to
receive contact for their behavior, particularly contact
involving praise. These results were explained in terms of
a reinforcement cycle being in effect. That is, more
praise is given to withdrawn children as they are more
responsive to praise than more extroverted children.
Taken together this selective overview suggests that
children's temperament characteristics influence their
behavior in a variety of environments, and furthermore
temperament characteristics may influence other
individuals' responses.
Relationship of Parent Variables and Child Temperament
One factor affecting the child's psychological
functioning within various environments may be the parent-
child relationship including parent-child interaction
characteristics. Webster-Stratton and Eyberg (1982)
assessed 35 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years-old
and their mothers on variables including child temperament,
child behavior problems and mother-child interaction.
Temperament was assessed by the Colorado Childhood
Temperament Inventory (CCTI) (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). This is


15
a parental rating instrument for children 1 through 6 years
of age. The CCTI was derived from the joint factor
analyses of the Parent Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas et
al., 1968) and Buss and Plomin's (1975) temperament
questionnaire. Mothers also completed the Eyberg Child
Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Eyberg, 1980) on their children.
This measure surveys a wide variety of parental concerns
regarding child conduct problems. Finally, behavioral
observations were obtained by videotaping each mother-child
dyad for 30 minutes in a play room through a one-way
mirror. The videotapes were then rated using the
Interpersonal Behavior Construct Scale (IBCS) (Kogan &
Gordon, 1975) Dimensions included on this scale are
positive affect behavior, negative affect behavior, non-
acceptance behavior, dominance, and submissiveness.
Webster-Stratton and Eyberg's (1982) findings suggested
that children with high levels of activity and low
attention span tended to be negative, non-accepting, and
noncompliant in their interactions with their mothers.
Additionally, children described by their mothers as more
social in temperament were judged as non-accepting in their
interactions with their mothers. With regard to the
interaction of the mother-child relationship with child
temperament, mothers of highly active, low attention span
children were observed to be more negative in affect, more
non-accepting and more submissive with their children.


16
Furthermore, mother positive affect was found to be
negatively correlated with child sociability.
Two observational studies examined the relationships of
maternal characteristics and child temperament. Stevenson-
Hinde and Simpson (1982) investigated the relationship
between mother's mood and child temperament. Subjects
included 26 boys and 21 girls from families composed of
both parents and one sibling. Maternal mood was assessed
by a self-report inventory developed by Snaith,
Constantopoulous, Vardne and McGuffin (1982; cited in
Stevenson-Hinde & Simpson, 1982) which provided summary
ratings for depression, anxiety, inward irritability and
outward irritability. Child temperament was assessed
twice, once at 3 1/2 years of age, and again eight months
later by the Temperamental Characteristics Interview. This
structured interview was based on the interview schedule
developed by Garside, Birch, and Scott (1982; cited in
Stevenson-Hinde & Simpson, 1982). Dimensions assessed by
the Temperamental Characteristics Interview included
activity level, shyness, dependency, moodiness, intensity,
malleability, irregularity, assertiveness and attention
span. Stevenson-Hinde and Simpson (1982) found that the
more temperamentally difficult the child (composed of the
dimensions of moodiness, intensity, unmalleability,
irregularity, assertive and decreased attention span) the
more anxious and irritable (inwardly and outwardly) was the


17
mother. The findings of this study state the authors,
raise the broader issue of how mothers influence and are
influenced by children's characteristics.
Hinde, Easton, Meller and Tamplin (1982) studied the
interaction of child temperament with maternal behavior.
Data were collected from 21 girls and 24 boys at 42 (n=45)
and 50 months of age (n=37) Children's temperament was
assessed with the Temperamental Characteristics Interview
(Garside et al., 1982 cited in Hinde et al., 1982), and
maternal behavior was rated with an observational scale
during an interaction with their children. Dimensions
included on this observational scale included physical
friendliness, verbal friendliness, expression of pleasure,
types of speech, types of questions, types of controls,
non-compliance, hospitality and excitement. Hinde et al.
(1982) found that moody children, especially girls, were
the recipients of maternal hostility and more physical
responses and fewer verbally friendly responses.
In a study of infant temperament, maternal level of
depression and child behavior problems, Wolkind and De
Salis (1982) found that children assessed at 4 months of
age as temperamentally difficult tended to have more
behavior problems than other children when again assessed
at 42 months of age. Additionally, the researchers found
that maternal depression was positively associated with
child behavior problems when the child was in the extreme


18
quartiles of either end of the dimensions of temperament,
i.e., extremely easy or extremely difficult. Wolkind and
De Sallis (1982) explain these somewhat curious results by
stating that perhaps totally different mechanisms operate
for these two groups of children. That is, at the
"difficult" end there may be a group of children who are
objectively difficult. These children could put stress on
a mother and cause her to be depressed. On the opposite
end of the spectrum there exists a group of "easy"
children. It may well be the case that these children are
truly easy, but their mothers may lack the capacity to cope
with any stresses which arise.
In addition to investigating child temperament and the
prediction of behavior problems, other studies have
examined the interaction of child temperament, parental
behavior and child behavior problems. Cameron (1977, 1978)
utilized the data from the NYLS for his research. Parents
were interviewed and completed the Parent Temperament
Questionnaire on their child at various intervals during
the child's life. Near the child's third birthday parents
were also administered a focussed interview which included
such topics as the degree of parent conflict and tension,
the degree of warmth, protectiveness and permissiveness
directed toward the child, and the degree and forms of
discipline used. Cameron (1978) found that first year
temperament scores predicted later child behavior problems.


19
Parental psychopathology was related to behavior problems
in both male and female children; additionally, for male
children, behavior problems were also related to negative
temperament changes over time. Furthermore, these negative
temperament changes were associated with parental
intolerance, inconsistency and conflict (Cameron, 1977).
This study suggests that while child behavior problems may
be related to a difficult temperament, other variables
including parent characteristics may affect children's
behavioral adjustment.
Lee and Bates (1985) examined mother-child interaction
as a possible mediating process between early child
temperament and later behavior problems. Temperament was
assessed on 111 children at the ages of 6, 13, and 24
months old via mother ratings on age appropriate forms of
the Infants Characteristics Questionnaire. Additionally,
each mother-child dyad was observed at home during two 2-3
hour observational periods several
days apart.
These
observational
periods were
coded
by observers,
who
continuously
entered behavior
codes
on electronic
event
recorders. The behavior coding system used for the mother-
child interaction sequences consisted of 65 descriptors of
parent and child behaviors. The major categories of the
codes included affection, maturity demands, communication,
interpersonal control and child trouble behaviors. Child
problem behavior was described in terms of conflict


20
sequence variables. Specifically the sequence variable
consisted of a child trouble behavior, a mother control
response and a child's response to the mother's control
attempt.
Lee and Bates (1985) found that children perceived as
difficult in temperament were more likely to have
conflictual interactions with their mother than
temperamentally easy children. The "difficult" child was
observed to be more negative or resistent in response to
mothers' control attempts and the mothers of such children
were likely to use more intrusive control strategies
including restraint of the child and a demand for maturity.
Lee and Bates conclude that the data presented support the
hypotheses that the quality of mother-child interaction can
be considered a mediating process between a difficult
temperament and later behavior disorders.
Goodness of Fit
Thomas and Chess (1977) state that "temperament is
never considered by itself, but always in its relationship
to, or in interaction with the individual's abilities,
motives, external environmental stresses and opportunities"
(p.l). Thus, temperament is to be considered within the
context of the environment. This interactionist approach
requires that information on an individual's behavior style
be considered within the specific context in which it has
occurred. That is, an individual's temperament cannot be


21
understood without a knowledge of the environmental
situation within which the behavior was demonstrated.
Additionally, a parent's response to a child and the
parents' accompanying child-rearing characteristics cannot
be assessed without a simultaneous consideration of the
child's temperament and their influence on the parent.
From this interactionist approach to temperament,
Thomas and Chess (1977) have used the concept of "goodness
of fit" and "poorness of fit." The "goodness of fit" model
postulates that favorable psychological adjustment and
development will be possible if environmental demands and
expectations are congruent with the individual's
capacities, abilities, motivations and temperament.
Similarly, if environmental demands and expectations are
not congruent with an individual's capacities, abilities,
motivations and temperament, a "poorness of fit" will exist
and unfavorable psychological adjustment and development
will be the results (Lerner, 1984) .
The goodness of fit model is a contextual one which
stresses that psycho-social functioning can best be
predicted when one places the individual within a specific
context. From this mode, neither adaptive psychological
nor social functioning derive directly from either the
individual's characteristics or the demands of the
individual's environment. Goodness of fit is the extent to
which an individual's characteristics are congruent with


22
the demands of the environment. Therefore, those
individuals whose characteristics are not congruent with
the environmental demands may have difficulties in adapting
in that environment (Lerner, Lerner, Windle, & Hooker,
1985) .
Temperament and Hospitalization
Children's responses to new places and procedures are
strongly influenced by their temperament characteristics
(Thomas and Chess, 1977) One situation which often
includes new or unfamiliar surroundings and procedures is
coming to the hospital, a situation that can be very
stressful for some children (Melamed and Siegel, 1984) .
The stress of hospitalization for a child includes the
distress of unfamiliar surroundings, the actual physical
discomfort of surgery or recovery from illness and the
loneliness precipitated by isolation from peers and school
(Melamed, Robbins & Fernandez, 1982) Many children suffer
behavior problems during the hospital stay. Not all
children, however, are equally vulnerable to the effects of
the hospital experience. Vernon et al. (1967) investigated
the effects of hospital admissions and anesthesia induction
on children between the ages of 2 and 6-years-old. They
found that when the level of potential stress is low, as
during the admission procedures to the hospital,
differences in the children's responses are "primarily a
matter of personality" (p.173). It is only those children


23
who are unusually sensitive to the situation who become
upset. Most of the children are not upset. Furthermore,
for some children, hospitalization may have a beneficial
effect, as 25% of the children were rated by their mothers
as behaviorally improved after a hospitalization experience
(Vernon et al., 1967).
Thomas and Chess (1977) describe some of the ways
children's temperament may influence their responses to
physical symptoms, the physician and the medical setting.
For example, the child who is brought to a medical setting
is confronted with an unfamiliar place, a number of
unfamiliar persons, unusual sounds and is subjected to a
physical examination and procedures which may be
discomforting and sometimes painful. Thomas and Chess
(1977) write that depending on the child's temperament, the
child may fuss quietly and briefly squirm a bit and then be
immediately cheerful once the procedures are completed. Or
the child may howl loudly from the moment he or she enters
the physicians' office, struggle violently during the
physical examination and inoculation, take up to several
hours to subside, and then start up again with even more
intensity at the next visit. The child with the low
activity level will sit quietly in the waiting room. The
high activity youngsters, by contrast, will fidget, jump
around, try to poke into drawers and closer and make a


24
nuisance of themselves, if they have to wait a long time
before the doctor sees them.
The purpose of this study was to investigate children's
adjustment to a surgical experience and how it is related
to temperament factors. Additionally, the mediational
effect that maternal characteristics have on children's
behavioral adjustment to the surgical experience was
investigated. The literature has indicated the importance
of temperament in influencing children's reactions to
different stressors; however, individual differences in
children's adjustment to a surgical experience as prompted
by temperament factors had yet to be investigated.
Additionally, children's temperament was to be considered
in relationship to the parent and could not be assessed
without the simultaneous consideration of the parent's
response to the child.
Predictions
Predictions regarding children's temperament, their
behavioral adjustment to the surgical experience and the
mediational effect that parent-child interaction had on
children's behaviors in the hospital were as follows:
(1) Children with a "Difficult" temperament make up
would more frequently display the behaviors of "Distress"
and "Exploration" as measured by the Dyadic Prestressor
Interaction Scale during a pre-operative visit to the
clinic, as compared to children with an "Easy" temperament.


25
(2) Children's behavioral adjustment to anesthesia
induction would vary depending on the child's temperament.
That is, difficult temperament children would display more
problematic behaviors and would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as less cooperative during anesthesia
induction than those children with an easy temperament.
(a) Specifically, children who tended to have negative
withdrawal responses to new stimuli and/or non- or slow
adaptability to change would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as displaying more disruptive behaviors
and less cooperative during anesthesia induction as
compared to those children who tended to approach new
stimuli and/or tended to adapt to change.
(3) Children whose parents used distraction,
reassurance, and information provision during the pre
operative visit to the clinic would display fewer distress
behaviors and be rated by observers and anesthesiologists
as more cooperative during anesthesia induction as compared
to those children whose parents demonstrated ignoring,
agitation and restraint during the pre-operative visit.
(4) Children's behavioral adjustment to the surgical
experience would be mediated by parent characteristics
assessed during parent-child interaction characteristics.
Those children with a "Difficult" temperament and whose
parents demonstrated agitation, restraint, or ignoring
during the pre-operative clinic visit would have higher


26
heart rate levels and would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as displaying more distress behaviors and
less cooperative behavior during anesthesia induction than
children with an "easy" temperament and whose parents
demonstrated distraction, reassurance, or information
provision during the pre-operative clinic visit.


CHAPTER II
METHODS
Subjects
Sixty children between the ages of 4- and 10-years-old
being seen at the Ear, Nose, Throat Outpatient Clinic at
Shands Teaching Hospital, J. Hillis Miller Health Center,
Gainesville, Florida for a scheduled preoperative
evaluation along with their mothers served as subjects.
Shands is a tertiary care hospital, and clinic patients are
usually referred from local pediatricians or general
practitioners. Children included in the study were
admitted for surgery usually one to two days following
their visit to the Ear, Nose, Throat Clinic. All subjects
in this study had elective surgery. Additional
characteristics of the sample will be discussed in some
detail in the Results section.
Measures
Background Information Interview Form (BIIF) (Appendix A)
This questionnaire provided data on factors that may
influence the child and parent's behavior in the medical
situation. Information obtained from this short,
structured interview form included age, sex and race of the
child. Brain and McClay (1968) found age to be an
27


28
influencing factor with regard to the child's response to
medical procedures. The parents also used a four-point
scale to indicate how their child had reacted to previous
medical experiences and how well they expected their child
to react to the hospitalization experience. Research has
demonstrated the importance of taking into consideration
the child's previous experiences (Melamed, Meyer, Gee &
Soule, 1976) Therefore, the experimental interviewer
ascertained the subjects' previous surgical experience.
Parent Temperament Questionnaire (PTQ)
The PTQ is a 72 item questionnaire developed by Thomas
and Chess (1977). The questions relate to a range of child
behaviors reflective of the nine temperament dimensions
discussed earlier with eight items pertaining to each
dimension. The parent is asked to rate each item on a
seven point scale (l=hardly ever occurs; 7=almost always
occurs) A mean score ranging from one to seven is
determined for each dimension. Five of these dimensions of
temperament including Mood, Adaptation,
Approach/Withdrawal, Intensity and Biological Rhythmicity
are used to calculate a child's standing on a continuous
scale of difficult-easy temperament.
Difficult temperament children were defined using
Thomas and Chess's (1982) specifications, i.e. negative
mood, slow adaptability to change, tendency to withdraw


29
from new situations, tendencies towards intense
expressiveness and irregularity of biological functions.
Katz-Newman and Johnson (1986) reported that both the
overall temperament score and the individual sub-scale
scores obtained on the Parent Temperament Questionnaire
showed adequate test-retest reliability over a two-week
period. Reliability for the overall score was .78. With
regard to the scales which comprised the "Easy'V'Difficult"
continuum Katz-Newman and Johnson (1986) reported the
following reliability coefficients: adaptability .73,
approach/withdrawal .92, intensity .64, mood .80, and
biological rhythmicity .64. Regarding the validity of the
measure, it can be noted that there is evidence from a
number of studies to indicate significant relationships
between ratings of difficult temperament via this measure
and later behavioral difficulties (Graham, Rutter & George,
1973; Maurer, Cadoret & Cain, 1980; Rutter, Birch, Thomas &
Chess, 1964; Thomas et al., 1968) .
Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale (DPIS)
The DPIS was used to rate videotaped mother-child
interactions in the examination room prior to the beginning
of the physical examination. Observers rated the tapes
using the instantaneous scan method (Altmann, 1974) every
five seconds, to determine whether a behavior was occurring
at that moment.


30
This DPIS was constructed on the basis of related
literature and extensive narrative descriptive clinic
observations (Bush, 1982). The child categories on this
scale were chosen because of their theoretical relevance to
the attachment literature (Bretherton & Ainsworth, 1974)
and because recent studies (Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979;
Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983) suggest that a continuity of
the quality of early mother-child interactions exists with
regard to older children's competence in problem solving.
The parent categories on the DPIS were selected based on
the empirical literature on parents' child management
styles as they relate to children's fear development and
independence (Bush, Melamed, Sheras & Greenbaum, 1986).
This scale consisted of four classes of functionally
similar child behaviors and six parent behaviors.
Within each class four specific behaviors were defined.
The child categories included attachment, distress,
exploration and social behavior. The parent categories
corresponded to dimensions of parent behavior which
previous research had found to be related to the child's
adjustment in the medical setting. The categories included
information provision, reassurance, ignoring, distraction,
agitation and restraint. Bush et al. (1986) established
the reliability for the DPIS in a stressful medical
situation. Inter-observer reliability for eight of the ten
behavior categories was above .90 with only distress (.77)


31
and restraint (.60) falling outside of this range. The
results of the Abeles (1984) study, which showed that those
parents who demonstrated informing in response to child
attachment had children who were less distressed in the
medical setting, support the importance of looking at
observational data on specific interactions between parents
and their children, as measured by the DPIS, in predicting
children's reactions to medical procedures.
For the purposes of the present investigation, inter
rater reliability of the DPIS was assessed by comparing the
ratings made by two independent observers. In order to
estimate the reliability of these ratings, a Pearson
correlation coefficient was calculated for each DPIS
behavior for half (30 subjects) of the sample.
Operating Room Behavior Rating ScaleRevised (ORBRS-R)
(Appendix B)
This scale was developed by Lumley and Melamed (1986)
and was adapted from Meyer and Muravchick's (1977) measure
of the extent of cooperation with anesthesia induction
procedures. It consists of a checklist of disruptive
behaviors and a seven point cooperation scale (l=total
uncooperation/ 7=total cooperation) across the three phases
of anesthesia induction. Phase one consisted of that time
period from the child's separation from the mother and
entry into the operating room until the child was
transferred to the operating room table; phase two included
that time from when the child was transferred to the


32
operating room table until the mask or needle was viewed by
the child; and phase three included that time from when the
child viewed the mask or needle, until complete anesthesia
induction.
At the completion of anesthesia induction,
anesthesiologists were asked to rate children's level of
cooperation on a seven point scale (l=total uncooperation;
7=total cooperation).
In the present study inter-rater reliability of ORBRS-R
was assessed by the ratings made by two independent
observers. In order to estimate the reliability of these
ratings, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated
for approximately 20% of the sample.
Heart Rate
Children's heart rate levels were recorded during
phases two and three of anesthesia induction. Heart rate
data were considered relevant to this study, as
accelerations
in
heart
rate
have
been
found
to
be
significantly
associated
with
increased
levels
of
fear
(Andreassi,
1980).
After
the
child
was
placed
on
the
operating room table (phase 2), electrodes were attached to
the child which electronically monitored his or her heart
rate. Observers manually recorded initial heart rate and
changes in heart rate during the anesthesia induction
process. Due to the varied number of recordings during
each phase of anesthesia induction, mean heart rate levels


33
were computed for each phase. This was completed by
averaging the first, middle and final recording within each
phase of anesthesia induction..
Procedure
Subjects were initially approached in the clinic's
general waiting area by one of the experimenters. The
mothers and their children were asked to participate in a
study seeking to investigate how people handle coming to
the hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all
subjects. Approximately 95% of the mothers asked to
participate in this study agreed to do so.
At this time mothers were interviewed using the
structured format provided by the Background Information
Interview Form (BIIF) and completed the Parent Temperament
Questionnaire (PTQ). After this interview, children and
their mothers were sent to laboratory for a venipuncture as
part of the routine preoperative evaluation. After
returning from the laboratory, the child and the parent
were escorted to a clinic examination room where they were
to see a physician for the preoperative examination. A
videotape recording was made of the waiting period before
the doctor entered the examination room. These videotapes
were rated by observers using the Dyadic Prestressor
Interaction Scale (DPIS).
On the day of surgery, an observer met the child and
parent in the preoperative waiting room. After a time


34
period varying from 10 minutes to 1 hour the child was
taken to the operating room by the anesthesiologist. While
the child was in the operating room the mother usually
waited to be called by hospital staff in one of several
waiting rooms. The observer used the Operating Room
Behavior Rating ScaleRevised (ORBRS--R) to rate the
number of distress behaviors and level of cooperation
during the various phases of the anesthesia induction
procedure. Children's heart rate was recorded as soon as
the electrodes were attached. After anesthesia induction
was completed, anesthesiologists were asked to rate the
children's level of cooperation with the induction
procedure.
In order to address the major hypotheses of the study
several approaches to data analyses were taken. Initial
analyses involved computing means and standard deviations
for all measures used in this study. This was followed by
multiple regression analyses designed to examine both the
direct and interaction relationships between temperament,
parenting behaviors, and children's responses to anesthesia
induction as well as the combined effects of temperament
and parent variables.


CHAPTER III
RESULTS
This section will be organized as follows: first,
demographic information will be presented; then preliminary
data on measures will be presented; finally, data regarding
tests of hypotheses will be considered.
Demographic and Questionnaire Measures
Table 3-1 presents the demographic characteristics of
the sample of 60 mother-child dyads used in the data
analyses. As can be seen the sample was reasonably balanced
with respect to both age and sex. More than one half (55%)
of the children had some type of previous surgical
experience involving general anesthesia.
Means and standard deviations for subjects on all
questionnaire measures are presented in Appendix C. On the
Parent Temperament Questionnaire (PTQ) mothers used a seven
point scale to rate their children across nine dimensions
of temperament. As a group, the subjects were rated as
having an overall moderate temperament (M=4.77, SD=.57,
range=3.43-6.01) With regard to the specific dimensions
of temperament, mothers rated their children as having a
moderately positive mood (M=5.06, SD=.89, range=l.88-6.63)
and moderate levels of adaptability (M=5.16, SD=.96,
range=l.75-6.88) Mothers also rated their children as
35


36
Table 3-1
Demographic Characteristics
Age years 4 5
6 7
8
9 10
N
7 11 12 10 8
11 1
Males (N)
Females (N)
Sex
36
24
Experience (N) No Experience
(N)
Previous Surgical
Experience 33 27
Laser of
Papilloma
Removal or Tonsillectomy
Insertion and/or
of Tubes Adenoidectomy Other
(N)
(N)
(N) (N)
Surgical
Procedure
4
27
14
15


37
being about moderate in terms of biological rhythmicity
(M=4.58, SD=.94, range=2.50-7.50), tendency to approach new
stimuli (M=4.60, SD=1.13, range=l.38-6.71) and low to
moderate in intensity of reactions (M=3.70, SD=1.00,
range=l.88-5.88) .
The DPIS was used to rate videotaped mother-child
interactions. A time-date generator was used to
superimpose an elapsed-time digital clock onto the tapes
without obscuring the visibility of subjects. Observers
then used this clock to make instantaneous scan ratings
(Altmann, 1974) of the 10 DPIS categories every 5 seconds.
Every 5 seconds, observers rated whether each of the 10
behavior classes was being engaged in at that moment. The
5-second interval was chosen as it has been used
successfully in previous studies (Bush, Melamed, Sheras, &
Greenbaum, 1986/ Abeles, 1984) and because this interval
minimized the frequency of scorable behaviors occurring but
not being scored due to onset and offset between
scanpoints. It is important to realize that each parent
behavior and each child behavior are rated independently;
therefore collectively, the DPIS behaviors will not sum to
100%.
During the waiting period before the physician entered
the examination room, children were observed engaged in
social behaviors 51.33% of the time (range=0-100) .
Attachment behaviors were the next most frequently


38
occurring at 36.02% of the time (range=l.8-100). Children
engaged in exploration 25.84% of the time (range=0-100) and
exhibited distress 19.11% (range=0-90.6) of the time.
Among the parent behaviors, distraction was the most
frequently occurring at 40.02% of the time (range=0-100).
Information provision was the next most frequently
occurring behavior at 21.08% of the time (range=0-97.30)
followed by reassurance at 14.97% (range=0-100). Mothers
were observed ignoring their children at an average of
13.27% of the time (range=0-75.60). Maternal agitation was
observed 7.68% of the time (range=0-60.00). Restraint was
the least frequently observed behavior occurring at 3.70%
of the time (range=0-33.90). These findings are similar to
those found by Bush et al. (1986) .
Videotaped recordings of the mother-child interactions
ranged in length from 5 to 10 minutes. Correlational
analyses of the relationship of length of recording to
percent of each behavior displayed revealed that a higher
percentage of child attachment behaviors were displayed
when the recording period was shorter (r=-.27, p<.04), and
a higher percentage of maternal ignoring behaviors were
displayed when the recording period was longer (r=.39,
p<.003) No significant relationships were found between
the other DPIS behaviors and the length of the videotape
recording.


39
On the Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale-Revised
(ORBRS-R) the mean number of distress behaviors displayed
by children during entry into the operating room until
transfer to the operating room table (phase 1) was .66
(range=0-5, SD=1.09) Cooperation during this phase was
rated at a mean level of 6.05 (l=total uncooperation,
7=total cooperation) (range=l-7, SD=1.42) From the time
the child was transferred to the operating table until the
child viewed the mask or needle (phase 2) children
exhibited an average of 1.68 distress behaviors (range=0-6,
SD=1.5). The mean level of cooperation during phase 2 was
rated as 6.00 (range=2-7, SD=1.31). In the final phase of
anesthesia induction (phase 3--view of the mask or needle
until complete anesthesia induction) children displayed an
average of 2.22 distress behaviors (range=0-9, SD=2.39) and
were rated as having a mean cooperation level of 5.22
(range=l-7, SD=2.05). Anesthesiologists rated 44 children
as having a mean cooperation level of 5.55 (range=l-7,
SD=2.02) during the complete course of induction.
Reliability of Observational Measures
DPIS. Interobserver reliability of the DPIS was
evaluated by comparing the percentages of behaviors rated
as being present by two independent observers. DPIS
ratings were made by two raters on 50% of the dyads,
Pearson product moment correlations were obtained for the
DPIS and are presented in Table 3-2. A correlation


40
Table 3-2
DPIS Inter-Rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients
Attachment
.94
Distress
. 66
Exploration
.75
Social
. 94
Ignoring
. 98
Reassuring
.52
Distraction
.83
Restraint
.50
Informing
.74
Agitation
.89


41
coefficient was computed for each DPIS category. These
coefficients provided estimates of the reliability of the
DPIS total frequency scores within each DPIS category.
The DPIS was found to have adequate to high reliability
for observational measurement of mother-child interactions.
Good concordance was found for all categories except
distress, reassurance and restraint. Bush et al. (1986)
attributes the low reliability coefficient for restraint to
be due to the observed incidence and short duration of
restraining behaviors during videotaping.
ORBRS-R. Interobserver reliability of the ORBRS-R was
evaluated by comparing the number of distress behaviors and
level of cooperation as rated by two independent observers.
Pearson product moment correlations were obtained for the
ORBRS-R and are presented in Table 3-3. The distress
behavior scores and cooperation ratings showed adequate
interobserver reliability for all phases of anesthesia
induction.
DPIS Intercorrelations
Intercorrelations among parent behaviors. Correlation
coefficients between parent behaviors are presented in
Table 3-4. Parental ignoring was significantly related to
distracting, informing, and agitation. Ignoring is defined
so as to be the only behavior on the DPIS not able to co
occur in any one interval with parental reassurance,
distraction, restraint or informing; however, ignoring can


42
Table 3-3
ORBRS-R Inter-Rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients
Phase 1 Distress Behaviors 1.00
Phase 1 Cooperation Level .73
Phase 2 Distress Behaviors .80
Phase 2 Cooperation Level .73
Phase 3 Distress Behaviors .98
Phase 3 Cooperation Level .72


43
Intercorrelations
Table
Among DPIS
3-4
Parent Behavior Categories
Ignore
Reassure
Distract Restrain Inform
Ignore
Reassure
-.05
Distract
-.41*
LT)
O
1
Restrain
-.03
-.01
-.11
Inform
-.37*
-.01
-.46**
o
o
Agitation
.39*
.01
-.24
o
o
* p < .005
** p < .0005


44
co-occur with agitation. Consistent with the operational
definitions of behaviors included on the DPIS, ignoring was
found to be inversely correlated with distraction and
informing, and positively related to parental agitation.
Parental distraction was found to be inversely correlated
with parental informing. This finding is reflective of the
definitions of distraction and informing. Distraction is
defined as engaging in play or conversation which is
unrelated to medicine, and informing is defined as the
parent giving information, exploring and answering
questions which are medically relevant. These findings
are consistent with previous research findings (Bush, et
al. 1986/ Abeles, 1984).
Intercorrelations among child behaviors. Correlation
coefficients between child behaviors are presented in Table
3-5. In general, child behaviors were related to one
another. Social/affiliative behavior was found to be
inversely correlated with attachment, distress and
exploratory behaviors. Child attachment was positively
correlated with distress behavior. These results while not
discrepant with previous findings are somewhat different in
that Bush et al. (1986) report no relationships between
social/affiliative behavior and the other child behavior
categories.


45
Table 3-5
Intercorrelations Among DPIS Child Behavior Categories
Attachment Distress Exploration
Attachment
Distress .33*
Exploration .16 .08
Social -.31** -.59*** -.72***
*p < .01
**p < .05
***p < .0001


46
ORBRS-R and Heart Rate Intercorrelations
Correlation coefficients between child distress
behaviors, ratings of cooperation and heart rate are
presented in Table 3-6. Amount of distress behavior was
related to ratings of cooperation and to children's heart
rate. Children who demonstrated many distress behaviors
were rated as less cooperative by observers and their
anesthesiologists across the three phases of anesthesia
induction. Ratings of cooperation by independent observers
and anesthesiologists were strongly positively correlated
especially in the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Analyses of physiological data indicated a positive
relationship between children's heart rate across phases of
anesthesia induction. Additionally, children who had a
high heart rate during the final phase of induction tended
to display more distress behaviors and were rated as less
cooperative by observers and anesthesiologists.
Tests of Hypotheses
Initial analyses were conducted to examine the
relationships between children's temperament
characteristics and their behavior as assessed by the DPIS
during the pre-operative visit to the clinic. No
significant relationship was found between children's
status on the overall composite measure of easy-difficult
temperament and their distress during the pre-operative
visit. When separate dimensions of temperament were


47
Table 3-6
Intercorrelations Among ORBRS-R Ratings
DST1
COOP1
DST2
COOP2 HR2
DST3
COOP 3
DSTla
COOPlb
-.49*
DST2C
.36*
-.37*
C00P2d
-.32**
.86*
-.53*
HR2e
.24
-.26
.16
-.14
DST3f
.22
-.11
.37*
k
-.31 .11
C00P3g
-.16
.47*
-.39*
.68* -.08
-.75*
HR3h
.09
-.07
.16
-.27 .63*
.42*
-.48
ANES1
-.03
.36**
-.32
k
.62 -.14
-.71*
. 87
HR3
-.43
k
^distress behaviors phase 1 **P<-01
^cooperation ratings phase 1 p<.05
^distress behaviors phase 2
dcooperation ratings phase 2
rheart rate levels phase 2
^distress behaviors phase 3
^cooperation ratings phase 3
.heart rate levels phase 3
xanesthesiologist ratings


48
considered, contrary to predictions, children's tendency to
approach new stimuli was associated with higher rates of
distress behavior during the clinic visit (r=.27, p<.03)
No significant relationships between any of the other
dimensions of temperament and children's behavior in the
clinic were obtained.
Relationships Between Temperament, Maternal Characteristics
and Children's Behavior During Anesthesia Induction
Multiple regression analyses were completed in order to
examine any main and interaction effects between children's
temperament, maternal specific characteristics as assessed
by the DPIS, and children's behavior during the three
phases of anesthesia induction. Because previous
experience with medical procedures and the age of the child
have been found to be influencing factors with regard to
children's responses' to medical procedures (Melamed,
Meyer, Gee and Soule, 1976/ Brain and McClay, 1968), the
multiple regression analyses also included these variables.
The overall easy-difficult temperament score comprised of
the five sub-scales of temperament, (mood, adaptability,
approach/withdrawal, biological rhythmicity and intensity)
and the individual sub-scale scores of approach/withdrawal
and adaptability were used in these analyses. DPIS
parenting variables were entered separately in each of the
analyses. Results of those analyses yielded a number of


49
significant findings and are presented in the following
sections.
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction
Direct relationships between children's temperament and
outcome measures
Multiple regression analyses of phase 1 data revealed
no significant findings regarding the overall temperament
score or adaptability sub-scale score. Significant
findings, however, were obtained when the
approach/withdrawal temperament dimension was used in the
equation.
Influence of child temperament on children's distress
levels. The multiple regression model which included the
variables of age, previous experience, children's tendency
to approach or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal
information provision, and an interaction of
approach/withdrawal and information provision as predicting
the number of distress behaviors displayed by children upon
entry into the operating room, was significant [F <5,49) =
2.40, p<.05]. Together these variables achieved a multiple
R of .44 accounting for approximately 20% of the variance.
When controlling for the other variables entered into the
equation, children's tendency to approach new stimuli was
negatively associated with the number of distress behaviors
displayed (F=4.33, p<.04). Children who were described by


50
their mothers as withdrawing from new stimuli tended to
display more distress behaviors.
No significant findings were obtained regarding the
interaction of approach withdrawal and maternal information
provision in predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the first phase of anesthesia
induction.
Influence of child temperament upon children's
cooperation levels. The multiple regression model which
included the variables of children's tendency to approach
or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal information
provision and an interaction of approach/withdrawal and
information as predicting children's cooperation levels
during the first phase of anesthesia induction was
significant [F(3,51) = 3.13, p<.03]. Together these
variables achieved a multiple R of .39 which accounted for
approximately 15% of the variance. When controlling for
the other variables entered into the equation, children's
tendency to withdraw from new stimuli was positively
associated with ratings of cooperation (F=6.29, pc. 02).
Children who were rated as withdrawing from new stimuli
were rated as less cooperative by observers during the
first phase of anesthesia induction.
No significant findings were obtained regarding the
interaction of approach/withdrawal and information


51
provision as predicting children's cooperation levels
during the first phase of anesthesia induction.
Direct relationships between maternal behaviors and outcome
measures
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
main effect findings regarding maternal ignoring,
reassurance, restraint, information provision or agitation.
Significant findings were obtained, however, when maternal
distraction was used in the equation.
The multiple regression model which included the
variables of age, previous experience, children's tendency
to approach or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal rates of
distraction and the interaction of approach/withdrawal and
distraction as predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the first phase of anesthesia
induction was significant [F (5,49)=4.09, p<.004].
Together these variables achieved a multiple R of .54
accounting for approximately 29% of the variance. When the
other variables in the equation were controlled for,
maternal distraction was positively associated with the
number of distress behaviors [F=8.65. p<.005]. High levels
of maternal distraction were associated with a high number
of distress behaviors during the first phase of anesthesia
induction. Additionally, the interaction of the
temperament characteristic approach/withdrawal and maternal
distraction was a significant predictor of distress


52
behaviors (F=5.88, p<.02). Figure 3-1 demonstrates the
nature of the interaction. Children who tended to withdraw
from new stimuli and whose mothers provided distraction at
low levels displayed fewer distress behaviors during phase
1 of anesthesia induction than did those withdrawing
children whose mothers provided distraction at higher
levels. Children who tended to approach new stimuli,
however, appeared not to be affected by different levels of
parental distraction. Overall, temperamentally withdrawing
children of parents who provided high levels of distraction
displayed the most number of distress behaviors, while
children who tended to approach new stimuli were unaffected
by different levels of parental distraction during phase 1
of anesthesia induction.
Phase 2 of Anesthesia Induction
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
findings regarding temperament or maternal behaviors as
predicting children's distress behavior, cooperation
ratings or heart rate levels during the second phase of
anesthesia induction.
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction
Direct relationships between children's temperament and
outcome measures
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
findings regarding the overall temperament score,
approach/withdrawal or adaptability sub-scale scores as


53
Withdrawal Approach
-Q- Hi Distraction
Avg Distraction
-* Low Distraction
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater
nal Use of Distraction as Predicting
Number of Distress Behaviors.
Figure 3-1


54
predicting children's distress behaviors, cooperation
ratings or heart rate levels during the third phase of
anesthesia induction.
Relationships between maternal behavior and outcome
measures
Multiple regression analyses of phase 3 anesthesia
induction data revealed no significant findings regarding
the DPIS parent category of information provision.
Significant findings were obtained however, when the parent
behaviors of distraction, ignoring, reassurance, agitation
and restraint were entered into the models.
Influence of maternal distraction on children's
distress levels. The multiple regression model which
included the variables of age, previous experience, the
approach/withdrawal temperament dimension, maternal use of
distraction and an interaction of approach/withdrawal and
distraction as predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the third phase of anesthesia
induction was significant [F (5, 52)=2.39, p<.05]. Together
these variables achieved a multiple R of .43 accounting for
approximately 19% of the variance. Controlling for the
other variables entered into the equation, maternal
distraction was negatively associated with the number of
distress behaviors displayed by children (F=5.70, p<.02).
Less use of maternal distraction was associated with an
increased number of distress behaviors displayed by


55
children during the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Additionally, the interaction term of approach/withdrawal
and maternal distraction was a significant predictor of
children's distress behaviors (F=5.42, p<.02). As shown in
Figure 3-2, children who tended to withdraw from new
stimuli and whose mothers provided high rates of
distraction demonstrated fewer number of distress behaviors
than did the withdrawing child whose mother provided little
distraction. Average and low rates of maternal distraction
with the child who tended to approach new stimuli were
associated with a lowered number of distress behaviors, as
compared to the approaching child whose mother provided
high levels of distraction. Overall, withdrawing children
who had highly distracting mothers displayed the fewest
number of distress behaviors, while those children who
tended to approach stimuli and who had highly distracting
mothers displayed the highest number of distress behaviors.
Influence of maternal and child variables on heart rate
levels
Maternal ignoring and child temperament. The multiple
regression model which included the variables of age,
previous experience, overall temperament, maternal ignoring
and an interaction of temperament and ignoring variables as
predicting children's heart rate levels during the third
phase of anesthesia induction was significant [F
(5,40)=3.19, p<.02]. Together these variables achieved a


Number of Distress Behaviors
56
Withdrawal Approach
-o- Low Distraction
Hi Distraction
-* Avg Distraction
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater
nal Use of Distraction as Predicting
Number of Distress Behaviors.
Figure 3-2


57
multiple R of .53 accounting for approximately 28% of the
variance. Maternal ignoring, when controlling for the
other variables entered into the equation, was negatively
associated with heart rate levels (F=6.29, p<.02). That
is, more ignoring was associated with lower heart rates.
Additionally, the interaction of maternal ignoring with
child temperament was significant (F=6.58, p<.01). As
shown on Figure 3-3, difficult temperament children whose
mothers showed a high degree of ignoring had lower heart
rates than did those difficult children whose mothers did
not ignore them. Easy temperament children whose mothers
did not ignore them had lower heart rates than those
children with easy temperaments whose mothers who ignored
them at high rates. Overall temperamentally difficult
children whose mothers ignored them at high levels had the
lowest heart rates, while temperamentally easy children
whose parents ignored them at high rates had the highest
heart rates.
Similar findings emerged when the temperament variable
approach/withdrawal was entered into the equation. The
multiple regression equation which included the variables
of age, previous experience, the approach/withdrawal
temperament characteristic, maternal ignoring and the
interaction of approach/withdrawal and ignoring as
predicting children's heart rate levels was significant [F
(5,40)=2.92, p<.02]. Together these variables achieved a


Heart Rate Beats / Minute
58
Difficult Easy
-o- Low Ignoring
Avg Ignoring
Hi Ignoring
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tempera
ment and Maternal Ignoring as Predict
ing Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-3


59
multiple R of .52 accounting for approximately 27% of the
variance. Maternal ignoring, when controlling for the
other variables entered into equation, was negatively
associated with heart rate levels (F=4.14, p<.05). That
is, lowered rates of maternal ignoring were associated with
higher heart rates. Additionally, the interaction of the
approach/withdrawal temperament characteristic and maternal
ignoring was a significant predictor of heart rate levels
(F=4.58, p<.04). Figure 3-4 demonstrates the relationship
between heart rate levels and approach/withdrawal
characteristics at different levels of maternal ignoring.
Withdrawing children whose mothers ignored them at high
rates had lower heart rates than did those withdrawing
children whose mothers did not tend to ignore them. Those
children who tended to approach new stimuli and whose
mothers did not ignore them tended to have lower heart
rates than those withdrawing children whose mothers ignored
them at high rates. Overall, those children who tended to
withdraw from new stimuli and whose mothers tended to
ignore them at high rates had the lowest heart rates, while
those children who tended to approach new stimuli and whose
mothers tended to ignore at high rates had the highest
heart rates.
Maternal reassurance and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which the variables of age,
previous experience, overall temperament, maternal


Heart Rate Beats / Minute
60
Withdrawal Approach
-o- Low Ignoring
-* Avg Ignoring
High Ignoring
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater
nal Ignoring as Predicting Heart Rate
Levels.
Figure 3-4


61
reassurance and the interaction variable of temperament and
reassurance as predicting children's heart rate levels was
significant [F (5,40)^3.16, p<.02]. Together these
variables achieved a multiple R of .53 accounting for
approximately 28% of the variance. When the other
variables in the equation were controlled for, reassurance
was positively associated with heart rate levels (F=4.98,
p<.03). High levels of reassurance were associated with
high heart rate levels. Additionally, the interaction term
of temperament and reassurance significantly predicted
heart rate levels (F=4.36, p<.04). Figure 3-5 graphically
represents the nature of this interaction. Difficult
temperament children whose parents did not provide
reassurance had lower heart rates than did those difficult
children whose parents provided high amounts of
reassurance. Easy temperament children whose parents
provided high amounts of reassurance had lower heart rates
than did those easy children whose parents provided low
amounts of reassurance. Overall, the difficult temperament
child whose mother did not provide reassurance had the
lowest heart rate while the easy temperament child whose
mother provided low amounts of reassurance had the highest
heart rate.
Maternal restraint and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which included the variables of
age, previous experience, overall temperament, maternal


Heart Rate Beats / Minute
62
Difficult Easy
-o- Hi Reassurance
Avg Reassurance
-* Low Reassurance
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tempera
ment and Reassurance as Predicting
Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-5


63
restraint and the interaction variable of overall
temperament and maternal restraint as predicting children's
heart rate levels was significant [F (5,40)=2.53, p<.04].
Together these variables achieved a multiple R of .49
accounting for approximately 24% of the variance. When the
other variables in the equation were controlled for,
maternal restraint was negatively associated with heart
rate levels (F=3.93, p<.05). Mothers who tended not use
restraint during the preoperative visit had children who
had higher heart rates during the final phase of anesthesia
induction. Additionally, the interaction of overall
temperament and maternal restraint significantly predicted
heart rate levels (F=3.93, p<.05) Figure 3-6 represents
the nature of this interaction. Difficult temperament
children whose mothers restrained them at high levels had
lower heart rates than did those temperamentally difficult
children whose parents did not use restraint. In contrast,
easy temperament children whose parents did not tend to be
restraining had lower heart rates than did those easy
temperament children whose parents used restraint at high
levels. Overall, difficult temperament children whose
mothers tended to be highly restraining had the lowest
heart rates, while easy temperament children whose mothers
tended to be highly restraining had the highest heart
rates.


Heart Rate Beats / Minute
64
Difficult Easy
-o- Low Restraint
Avg Restraint
-o- Hi Restraint
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tempera
ment and Maternal Restraint as Pre
dicting Heart Rate Levels
Figure 3-6


65
Maternal agitation and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which included the variables of
age, previous experience, overall temperament, maternal
agitation, and the interaction variable of temperament and
agitation as predicting children's heart rate levels during
the third phase of anesthesia induction was significant [F
(5,40)=2.50, p<.05]. Together these variables achieved a
multiple R of .49 which accounted for approximately 24% of
the variance. When the other variables in the equation
were controlled, maternal agitation was somewhat related to
children's heart rate levels (F=3.80, p<.06). Mothers who
were less agitated had children with higher heart rates
during the third phase of anesthesia induction. Also, the
interaction of temperament and agitation was somewhat
predictive of children's heart rates (F=3.74, p<.06).
Figure 3-7 graphs the interaction. Temperamentally
difficult children with highly agitated mothers tended to
have lower heart rates than did those difficult children
with less agitated mothers. Temperamentally easy children
with highly agitated mothers had higher heart rates than
did those easy children with less agitated mothers.
Overall, temperamentally difficult children whose mothers
were highly agitated had the lowest heart rates, while
temperamentally easy children whose mothers were highly
agitated had the highest heart rates.


Heart Rate Beats / Minute
66
200-1
100-
0
0
-i 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 4 6 8
Difficult Easy
Low Agitation
Avg Agitation
Hi Agitation
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela
tionship Between Children's Tempera
ment and Maternal Agitation as Pre
dicting Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-7


CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This study explored children's adjustment to anesthesia
induction and how this is related to temperament factors.
Additionally, the relationship between maternal
characteristics and on children's behavioral adjustment to
anesthesia induction was investigated.
Temperament involves the style rather than content;
that is, the how rather than the what or why of behavior
(Plomin, 1982) Temperament is to be considered within the
context of the environment. This interactionist approach
necessitates the understanding of an individual's
temperament within the environmental situation within which
the behavior was demonstrated. Additionally, a parent's
response to a child and the parent's accompanying child-
rearing characteristics cannot be assessed without a
simultaneous consideration of the child's temperament and
their influence on the parent.
From this interactionist approach to temperament Thomas
and Chess (1977) has used the concept of "goodness of fit."
The goodness of fit model is a contextual one which
stresses that psychosocial functioning can best be
predicted when one places the individual within a specific
context. Goodness of fit is the extent to which an
67


68
individual's characteristics are congruent with the demands
of the environment. Therefore, those individuals whose
characteristics are not congruent with environmental
demands may have difficulties in adapting in various
situations (Lerner, Lerner, Windle & Hooker, 1985) .
Results from this study were based on data obtained at
two different time points. Child temperament and mother-
child interaction data were collected directly prior to the
pre-operative clinic visit. One to two days later,
observers rated children's behavior during anesthesia
induction and recorded heart rate levels. Therefore, this
study does not assess the direct or interactive impact of
maternal behavior on child behaviors during anesthesia
induction. Instead, it appears that the interaction
between certain child temperament characteristics and
certain maternal characteristics, sampled during the pre
operative assessment period, have implications for
subsequent child behaviors during the anesthesia induction
procedure in which the mother is not present.
Children's Temperament and Behavior
During Anesthesia Induction
In general, very few findings were obtained which would
indicate a direct relationship between child temperament
and their behavior during anesthesia induction. Consistent
with the existing literature, however, (Thomas & Chess,
1977) children's temperamental tendency to withdraw and
show negative emotional responses to new or novel


69
situations was associated with a higher number of distress
behaviors and being rated as less cooperative during the
introductory phase of anesthesia induction as compared to
children who show positive responses to new situations.
It is noteworthy that findings implicating a direct
relationship between temperament and behavior were found
only during the first phase of induction. Thomas and Chess
(1977) suggest that pure temperamental expression is likely
to be apparent only at those times when novel environmental
challenges render coping skills ineffective. The
temperamentally withdrawing child characteristically
demonstrates negative emotional responses to novel or
unfamiliar situations. The introductory phase of
anesthesia induction marked the beginning of such an
unfamiliar situation and it is postulated that a direct
expression of temperament would be found in this phase.
Thus, findings regarding children's negative withdrawal
responses and distress behaviors during the initial stage
of anesthesia induction would tend to support Thomas and
Chess's hypothesis.
Goodness of Fit
The paucity of findings indicating a direct
relationship between children's temperament and behavior
during anesthesia induction supports the necessity for
understanding a child's temperament within the context of
the environment (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas,


70
Chess, Hinde and McCall, 1987) Within each environmental
context there are behavioral demands. These demands may
take various forms (Lerner et al. 1985). First, the
demands may take the form of attitudes, values or
expectations held by others regarding the child's physical
or behavioral characteristics. Second, demands exist as a
consequence of the behavioral attributes of others in the
context with whom children must coordinate their behavioral
attributes for adaptive interactions to exist. And third,
the physical characteristics of a setting constitute
contextual demands (Lerner et al., 1984). Thus, from this
perspective, often termed the interactionist or "goodness
of fit model" (Lerner, 1984; Thomas, Birch, Chess and
Robbins, 1961) it is necessary to take into consideration
not only the child's characteristics but also other
individual's behaviors and the physical characteristics of
the environment.
It was hypothesized that maternal behaviors displayed
during the clinic visit would interact between children's
temperament characteristics and their behavior during
anesthesia induction. Findings from this study in fact,
indicated that maternal behaviors had relevance in
predicting children's reactions to anesthesia induction in
the context their view of children's temperament
characteristics. Some of the results included the findings
that children with a difficult temperament had higher heart


71
rate levels during the third phase of anesthesia induction
when their mothers displayed high rates of reassurance, low
rates of restraint and agitation, or did not ignore them.
For temperamentally easy children, low rates of maternal
reassurance and high rates of restraint, agitation or
ignoring were associated with higher heart rates during the
third phase of anesthesia induction.
These findings regarding difficult temperament children
may be considered counter intuitive. While the difficult
child would be expected to have difficulties in coping in
the medical setting (Thomas and Chess, 1977) previous
research has found the parental use of ignoring or
agitation to be associated with higher rates of child
distress behavior in the medical setting (Bush, Melamed,
Sheras and Greenbaum, 1986).
Maternal Patterns of Behavior
The findings from this study might be conceptualized
within a parental involvement-noninvolvement paradigm.
Here parental involvement would be seen as displaying high
rates of reassurance and low rates of agitation and
ignoring; and parental non-involvement would be defined as
displaying low rates of reassurance and high rates of
agitation and ignoring. For the easy temperament child
better outcomes during anesthesia induction were associated
with more maternal involvement; and for the difficult


72
temperament child better outcomes were associated with less
maternal involvement.
While it would be predicted that children with
components of a difficult temperament would have negative
responses in unfamiliar situations (Thomas and Chess,
1977) this was found to be true only during phase one of
anesthesia induction. No direct relationships between
temperament characteristics and behavior during phase three
of anesthesia
induction
were
found.
Thus,
it becomes
necessary to
consider
other
factors
which
influenced
children's behavior.
As
previously
mentioned one
significant influence may be maternal behavior. Previous
research has examined maternal influences on children's
coping behaviors in the medical setting. Bush et al.
(1986) found that mothers who used high rates of
reassurance and infrequently ignored their children were
likely to have children who showed maladaptive responses
prior to being examined by a physician. Gutstein and
Tarnow (1983) investigated parenting behaviors as
facilitating children's preparation for elective surgery.
Parents of children between the ages of 6-9 who had a more
active style of guiding the child's activities were more
likely to interfere with the child's preparation for
surgery. The Bush et al. (1986) and Gutstein and Tarnow
(1983) studies provide data which indicate that parents do
influence children's behavior in the medical setting and,


73
moreover support a maternal involvement-noninvolvement
hypothesis. Specifically, both maternal reassurance and
infrequent ignoring (Bush et al., 1986) and active
parenting strategies (Gutstein and Tarnow, 1983) could be
conceptualized as maternal "involvement" which was
associated with less adaptive child outcomes. Results from
this study, however, indicated a significant interaction
between temperament and maternal behaviors as predicting
children's behavior during anesthesia induction. That is,
parenting behaviors led to different outcomes depending on
children's temperament. It may therefore be necessary to
examine another possible influencing factor on children's
behavior during anesthesia induction.
Situational Components
Findings from this study were based on data collected
in two different situations. Child temperament and mother-
child interaction data were collected in the outpatient
clinic, while ratings of children's behavior and recordings
of their heart rate levels were collected in the surgical
unit. One salient and important difference between these
two situations is that during the pre-operative visit
mothers were present, while during the anesthesia induction
procedure mothers were absent. Additionally, the clinic
visit contrasted with the anesthesia induction situation to
the extent that mothers were involved or not involved with
their children during the clinic visit. That is, difficult


74
temperament children of involved mothers might have been
expected to have adverse reactions to the induction
situation because of the marked contrast between the two
situations.
Typically, during anesthesia induction children do not
receive much reassurance and they are often restrained by
both nurses and physicians. Findings from this study
indicated that difficult temperament children whose mothers
did not use restraining behaviors, had higher heart rates
during the third phase of anesthesia induction. The
similarity of the preoperative visit and the anesthesia
induction situation would thus be heightened to the extent
that mothers were not involved with their children during
the preoperative visit. That is, mothers who were agitated
and displaying high rates of ignoring and restraint, and
low rates of reassurance may have served to increase the
similarity between the two situations.
Thus, for the difficult temperament child maternal
noninvolvement and maternal restraint behaviors may have
served a useful function as it resulted in increased
similarity between the two situations. In contrast,
temperamentally difficult children with involved mothers,
would have been expected to become more upset when placed
in an unfamiliar stressful situation without their mothers
(Shaw and Routh, 1982) due to the contrasting nature of the
two situations. Easy temperament children of non-involved


75
mothers might not have been adequately prepared for the
anesthesia induction situation. Previous research
(Melamed & Siegel, 1975) has demonstrated that preparing
children for a medical procedure can reduce children's
distress. Additionally, Gutstein and Tarnow (1983) found
that parents can facilitate this preparation. The easy
temperament child might have then benefitted from pre
induction preparation from their mothers. For these easy
temperament children tending to show approach behaviors
towards new situations, one would not predict increased
levels of distress as a function of the contrasting nature
of the two situations and the newness associated with the
anesthesia induction context.
Child Attachment and Maternal Involvement
Some of the findings from this study seemed to be
contradictory. It was found that children who tended to
withdraw from new stimuli and whose mothers provided
distraction at high frequencies, displayed more distress
behaviors during phase 1 of anesthesia induction than did
those withdrawing children whose mother provided
distraction at lower frequencies. In contrast, during
phase 3 of anesthesia induction, those withdrawing children
whose mothers provided low rates of distraction,
demonstrated a higher number of distress behaviors than did
the withdrawing child whose mother distracted at a high
level. These findings may be explained within a maternal


76
involvement-noninvolvement framework, and with an
attachment theory paradigm (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Sroufe, 1979) .
Attachment relationships are thought to have important
effects on psychosocial development (Bowlby, 1969) The
accumulated clinical evidence and research findings
strongly support the hypothesis that qualitative
differences in child-mother attachment relationships are
associated with qualitative differences in antecedent
maternal behaviors and with different behavioral outcomes
in the case of the child (Ainsworth et al. 1978) Sroufe
(1979) writes that individual children elicit different
reactions from the environment. When placed in a
challenging situation children who are secure in their
relationship with their mothers seek more assistance from
their mothers. These mothers in turn maintain a high level
a support towards their children. Ainsworth (1979) also
reports that securely attached children are likely to
become distressed during separation.
This study did not directly examine the nature of
children's attachment to their mothers, however, as in the
attachment literature, child and mother characteristics,
and the associated child behavioral outcomes were
investigated. Previous research has indicated that mother-
child relationship characteristics can be considered a


77
mediating process between a difficult temperament and later
behavior problems (Weber, Levitt & Clark, 1986) .
It may be the case that those temperamentally
withdrawing children whose mothers were involved with them
and provided high amounts of distraction, were likely to
become distressed when separated from their mothers. The
first phase of anesthesia induction was immediately
preceded by a separation of the child from the mother.
With the temperamentally withdrawing child, distress
displayed during the first phase of anesthesia induction
may be thought of as distress related to the change in
situations and as a separation protest. In contrast the
easy temperament child may able to more easily adjust to
the change in situations but be anxious about the
anesthesia induction procedure and display more distress
behaviors during the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Limitations
Despite the intriguing nature of the findings presented
here, there are several limitations of the present study.
One involves parents' provision of child temperament
ratings. Bates (1980) has suggested that parental ratings
of children's temperament may represent "perceptions"
rather than accurate reflections of behavior. From this
perspective one concern would be that a parent's own
characteristics may lead to bias reports of child
temperament characteristics. Doelling (1987) and Sheeber


78
(1987) collected child temperament data provided by both
mothers and teachers. While teacher and parental reports
of child temperament were only moderately correlated,
difference scores between the two reports indicated that
parental ratings had no systematic bias. Doelling (1987)
and Sheeber (1987) conclude that reports of child
temperament are not likely to be a function of parental
perceptions and are unlikely to represent a significant
limitation to the degree that allows meaningful conclusions
to be made regarding child temperament and outcome
measures.
Another limitation concerns the qualification of
children's prior experience with medical or surgical
procedures (so as to control for prior experience to some
degree). While data was collected regarding the number and
type of previous medical procedures, information was not
collected regarding the quality of these experiences.
Melamed, Dearborn and Hermecz (1983) found that the quality
of the child's prior experience was a significant factorin
predicting children's reactions to medical stressors. In
addition to temperament and mother-child interaction
factors, future research will need to address the issue of
the quality of the child's previous medical experiences.
Finally, in the course of this study many statistical
analyses were completed. It is possible that some of these
significant statistical results were spurious. The


79
consistent pattern of the findings, however, argue to some
extent against the possibility of these results reflecting
statistical artifacts.
Conclusions
The findings from this study are based on 60 parent-
child dyads. Important individual differences were
revealed
in
children's
behavioral
and
physiological
responses
to
anesthesia
induction.
Furthermore, the
mothers'
role
as a
mediator
between
temperament
characteristics and children's adjustment in a medical
situation was examined.
Only a limited number of temperament factors and
maternal behaviors were directly related to children's
adjustment to anesthesia induction. Instead, temperament
variables including approach/withdrawal, and the overall
temperament score in interaction with the maternal
behaviors of ignoring, restraint, reassuring, agitation,
and distraction were the best predictors of children's
behavior during anesthesia induction. Both difficult and
easy temperament children displayed a higher number of
distress behaviors and had higher heart rates levels
depending on maternal behavior. The difficult child was
adversely affected by less ignoring, restraint and
agitation, more reassurance and varying amounts of
distraction. The easy child, in contrast was adversely
affected by high rates of ignoring, restraint and


80
agitation, less reassurance and varying amounts of
distraction. These findings support the view that maternal
behaviors cannot be judged as either "good" or "bad."
Rather it appears that a "goodness of fit" or "poorness of
fit" exists between dyads in different situations. In this
study a "goodness of fit" appeared to have existed between
difficult temperament children and non-involved mothers,
and an easy temperament child and an involved mother. A
"poorness of fit" was present when temperamentally
difficult children interacted with involved mothers, and
when easy temperament children interacted with uninvolved
mothers.
Future research will need to make several
methodological improvements. Significant relationships
were found between children's temperament and mother child
interaction sequences 1 to 2 days prior to being admitted
for surgery, as predicting children's behavior during
anesthesia induction. It is postulated that these
relationships would have greater predictive validity if
mother-child interactions were recorded on the day of
surgery on the surgical unit.
The results from this study have various implications
with regard to possible interventions. One such
intervention may involve policy changes regarding parents'
presence in the operating room. At present, parents are
generally not allowed into the operating room unless the


81
child becomes extremely upset and disruptive during the
induction procedure. Hannallah and Rosales (1983) reported
findings regarding parents' presence during anesthesia
induction in children. Those children whose parents were
present during induction were rated as having more positive
mood scores during the pre-induction and induction periods.
Additionally, no major or minor complications or side
effects were attributed to the presence of parents in the
induction area. Interestingly, the parents who were
present with their children during anesthesia induction
were self-selected. It might be beneficial for some
children to have their parents accompany them into the
operating room. Another intervention indicated by the
findings from this study involves the institution of
surgery and anesthesia induction preparation programs for
children. Those children who would seem to especially
benefit from such a program might include the difficult
temperament child with the involved mother and the easy
temperament child with the uninvolved mother. The
difficult child would have the opportunity to become
somewhat familiar with the procedures and personnel present
in the operating room, and thereby possibly avert a
negative withdrawal response; and the easy temperament
child could have some of their anxiety allayed regarding
the induction procedures.


APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTERVIEW FORM
Child's Name Subject No.
Clinic
Date
Hospital No.
Interviewer
Age and sex of siblings
Date of birth
Sex
Race
Accompanying parent
Age
Father: Occupation
Education
Income
Mother: Occupation
Education
Income
Previous Medical Experience
1) Surgery
(reason ,
and date):
2) Other Hospitalizations
3) This clinic
4) Other clinic/outpatient
5) Siblings hospitalized
6) Parent's hospitalized
How do you think your child has reacted to past medical
procedures?
1. Very poorly 2. Moderately poorly 3. Moderately well
4. Very well
How do you think your child will react to this medical
visit?
1. Very poorly 2. Moderately poorly 3. Moderately well
4. Very well
How do you rate your child's anxiety (fear nervousness) at
this moment?
1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Very low
How would your rate your own anxiety (fear nervousness) at
this moment?
1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Very low
How stressful has it been for you to deal with your child's
current health problem--the reason you are here today?
1. High stress 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Low stress
82


APPENDIX B
OPERATING ROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--REVISED
(Lumley & Melamed)
Subject name: Number: Date:
Anesthesiologist: Resident: Rater :
1.Leaving the child's parent to go to the operating room
until the child is to be transferred to the operating room
table.
crying
frowning
screaming
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave bed or doctor (if being walked)
repetitive movements (rocking leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fights
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help.
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.
83


84
Subject number:
2.Transfer to the operating room table until mask or
needle is viewed by child
crying
frowning
screaming, vocalizing
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave the table
repetitive movements (rocking, leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
resists the physiological hook-ups
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fights
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.


85
Subject number:
3.View of the mask or needle until 30 seconds (15 seconds
for I.V.) after induction begins.
crying
frowning
screaming, vocalizing
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave the table
repetitive movements (rocking, leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
turns head away from mask/pulls arm away from needle
pushes away mask/needle
pulls at physiological hook-up wires
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fight
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help.
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.
Cooperation rating by anesthesiologist:
12 3
uncooperation
6 7
cooperation
4
5


APPENDIX C
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: PARENT TEMPERAMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Mood
M
SD
Ranqe
5.06
.89
1. 88-6.63
Distractability
4.54
1.03
1.57-6.38
Persistence
4.18
.85
1.71-6.00
Activity
4.09
. 98
2.25-6.25
Rhythimicity
4.58
. 94
2.50-7.50
Adaptability
5.16
.96
1.75-6.88
Approach/Withdrawal
4.60
1 .13
1.38-6.71
Threshold
3.40
.85
1.38-5.57
Intensity
3.70
1.00
1.88-5.88
Difficult Temperament
4.77
.57
3.43-6.01
86


APPENDIX D
SIGNIFICANT MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS
F P
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction
a. Distress Behaviors
F(5,49) = 2.40, £ <.05, R2 = .20
Source
Age 2.19 .15
Previous Experience .14 .71
Approach/Withdrawal 4.33 .04
Information 1.03 .31
Approach/Withdrawal X Information .21 .65
b. Cooperation Level
F (3,51) = 3.13, £<.03, R2 = .16
Source
Approach/Withdrawal 6.29 .02
Information 3.56 .06
Approach/Withdrawal X Information 2.55 .12
c. Distress Behaviors
F(5,49) = 4.09, £ <.004, R2 = .29
Source
Age 1.78 .19
Previous Experience .37 .54
Approach/Withdrawal .91 .34
Distraction 8.65 .005
Approach/Withdrawal X Distraction 5.88 .02
87


88
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction
a.Distress Behaviors
F (5, 52) = 2.39, £ <.05, R2 = .19
Source
Age
2.07
.16
Previous Experience
4.60
. 04
Approach/Withdrawal
1.71
.20
Distraction
5.70
.02
Approach/Withdrawal X Distraction
5.42
.02
b.Heart Rate Levels
F (5,4 0) = 3.19, £ <.02, R2 = .28
Source
Age
5.11
.03
Previous Experience
1.59
.22
Overall Temperament
. 15
.70
Ignoring
6.29
.02
Temperament X Ignoring
6.58
.01
c.Heart Rate Levels
F (5, 4 0) = 2.92, £ <.02, R2 = .27
Source
Age
4.90
.03
Previous Experience
1.51
.23
Approach/Withdrawal
.11
.74
Ignoring
4.14
.05
Approach/Withdrawal X Ignoring
4.58
.04
d.Heart Rate Levels
F (5,4 0) = 3.14, £ <.02, R2 = .28
Source
Age
3.31
.08
Previous Experience
1.86
.18
Overall Temperament
6.41
.02
Reassurance
4.98
.03
Temperament X Reassurance
4.36
.04
e.Heart Rate Levels
F (5, 4 0) = 2.53, £ <.04, R2 =
Source
Age
Previous Experience
Overall Temperament
Restraint
Temperament X Restraint
7.86
.008
2.70
. 11
.28
. 60
3.93
.05
3.93
.05
.24


89
f. Heart Rate Levels
F(5,40) = 2.50, £ <.05, R = .24
Source
Age
5.23
.03
Previous Experience
2.99
. 12
Overall Temperament
.05
.83
Agitation
3.80
.06
Temperament X Agitation
3.74
.06


REFERENCES
Abeles, L.A. (1984). Mother-Child Interaction in the
Medical Setting: Attachment Effects on Distress,
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1979). Infant-Mother Attachment.
American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.C.
(1978) Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of
the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Allport, G.W. (1937) Personality: A psychological
interpretation. N.Y.cHolt
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior:
Sampling methods. Behavior, 49, 227-267.
Andreassi, J.L. (1980) Psychophysiology. N.Y.:Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Arend, R., Gove, F.L., & Sroufe, L.A. (1979) Continuity of
individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A
predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in
preschoolers. Child Development, 50, 950-959.
Bates, J.E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299-319.
Bates, J.E., Maslin, C.A., & Frankel, K.A. (1985) .
Attachment security, mother-child interaction, and
temperament as predictors of behavior problem ratings at
age three years. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 50, 167-193.
Bowlby, J. (1969) Attachment and loss. Volume I:
attachment. N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc.
Brain, D.J., & McClay, I. (1968) Controlled Study of
mothers and children in Hospitals. British Medical
Journal, 1, 278-280.
90


Full Text
CHILD TEMPERAMENT AND MATERNAL BEHAVIOR:
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DURING ANESTHESIA INDUCTION
By
LINDA A. ABELES
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1987

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. James H. Johnson
and Dr. Barbara Melamed for their direction in the
completion of this dissertation. Their support and
encouragement are greatly appreciated. Drs. Andrew
Bradlyn, Sheila Eyberg, Nancy Norvell and Marjorie White
served with Drs. Johnson and Melamed on my dissertation
committee and I thank them for their time and helpful
comments. The assistance of Mark Lumley in the
implementation and statistical analyses of this study was
invaluable. I would also like to thank Dr. Marc Zola for
his advice regarding the statistical analyses.
There are a great number of people without whom this
dissertation would not have been possible. The
encouragement and support of my parents Jeanette and Norman
Abeles, Betty Lee and Richard Bensen, Hugh Davis, Marilyn
Sokolof, Leslie Cleaver and Karen Bronk Froming are much
appreciated. Finally, I would like to give special thanks
to Peter Lee Bensen, who provided encouragement, support
and advice during the completion of this dissertation.
-li-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
LIST OF TABLES v
LIST OF FIGURES vi
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Temperament 2
Relationship of Parent Variables and
Child Temperament 14
Goodness of Fit 20
Temperament and Hospitalization 22
Predictions 24
II METHODS 27
• Subjects 27
Measures 27
Background Information Interview Form 27
Parent Temperament Questionnaire 28
Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale 29
Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale 32
Heart Rate 32
Procedure 33
III RESULTS 35
Demographic and Questionnaire Measures 35
Reliability of observational measures 39
DPIS intercorrelations 41
ORBRS-R and heart rate intercorrelations..46
Tests of Hypotheses 46
Relationships between temperament,
maternal characteristics, and
children's behavior during anesthesia
induction 48
-iii-

PAGE
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction 49
Direct relationships between children's
temperament and outcome measures 4 9
Direct relationships between maternal
behavior and outcome measures 51
Phase 2 of Anesthesia Induction 52
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction 52
Direct relationships between children's
temperament and outcome measures 52
Relationships between maternal behavior
and outcome measures 54
Influence of maternal and child
variables on heart rate levels 55
IV. DISCUSSION 67
Children's Temperament and Behavior
During Anesthesia Induction 68
Goodness of Fit 69
Maternal Patterns of Behavior 71
Situational Components 73
Child Temperament and
Maternal Involvement 75
Limitations 77
Conclusions 79
APPENDICES
A BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTERVIEW FORM 82
B OPERATING ROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--
REVISED 83
C SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS:
PARENT TEMPERAMENT QUESTIONNAIRE 8 6
D SIGNIFICANT MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS 87
REFERENCES 90
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 96
-iv-

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1 Demographic Characteristics 36
2 DPIS Inter-rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients 40
3 ORBRS-R Inter-rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients 42
4 Intercorrelations Among DPIS
Parent Behavior Categories 43
5 Intercorrelations Among DPIS
Child Behavior Categories 45
6 Intercorrelations Among ORBRS-R Ratings .... 47
-v-

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
PAGE
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Use of
Distraction as Predicting Number
of Distress Behaviors 53
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Use of
Distraction as Predicting Number
of Distress Behaviors 56
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationships Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 58
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Tendency Towards Approach/
Withdrawal and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 60
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Ignoring
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 62
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Restraint
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 64
Regression Lines Indicating the
Relationship Between Children's
Temperament and Maternal Agitation
as Predicting Heart Rate Levels 66
-vi-

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
CHILD TEMPERAMENT AND MATERNAL BEHAVIOR:
EFFECTS ON CHILDREN'S BEHAVIOR DURING ANESTHESIA INDUCTION
By
LINDA A. ABELES
December 1987
Chairman: James H. Johnson, Ph.D.
Major Department: Clinical and Health Psychology
This study explored children's adjustment to anesthesia
induction and how this is related to temperament factors.
Additionally, the relationship between maternal
characteristics and children's behavioral adjustment to
anesthesia induction was investigated.
Sixty mother-child dyads were interviewed in the Ear,
Nose, Throat Clinic waiting room at the J. Hillis Miller
Health Center, Gainesville, Florida. Mothers completed the
Parent Temperament Questionnaire regarding their child's
temperament. Mothers and children were then escorted to a
clinic examination room. A videotape recording was made of
the waiting period before the doctor entered the
examination room. Videotapes were subsequently scored
using the Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale. On the day
of surgery an observer met the child and parent in the
—vi i —

pre-operative holding room. The observers used the
Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale-Revised to rate the
number of distress behaviors and level of cooperation
during the anesthesia induction procedure. Children's
heart rate was recorded as soon as the electrodes were
attached.
Only a limited number of temperament factors and
maternal behaviors were directly related to children's
adjustment to anesthesia induction. Instead, temperament
variables including approach/withdrawal, and the overall
temperament score in interaction with the maternal
behaviors of ignoring, restraint, reassuring, agitation and
distraction were the best predictors of children's behavior
during anesthesia induction. Both difficult and easy
temperament children displayed a higher number of distress
behaviors and had higher heart rate levels depending on
maternal behavior. The difficult child was adversely
affected by less ignoring, restraint and agitation, more
reassurance and varying amounts of distraction. In
contrast, the easy child was adversely affected by high
rates of ignoring, restraint and agitation, less
reassurance and varying amounts of distraction. These
findings support the view that maternal behaviors cannot be
judged as either "good" or "bad." Rather it appears that a
"goodness of fit" or "poorness of fit" exists between dyads
in different situations. Implications of these results
-vni-

with regard to possible interventions are discussed.
-lx-

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Every year millions of children undergo medical and
dental procedures (Melamed & Siegel, 1984). In the
hospital a child, who may have previously functioned
adequately may become anxious in response to medical
procedures so that normal coping behaviors are ineffective.
Following a hospital stay, as many as one third of all
children show some evidence of long-term psychological
adjustment problems (Davies, Butler, & Goldstein, 1972) .
For some children, however, the hospital experience can be
viewed in some respects as a positive one and approximately
one quarter of all children are rated as behaviorally
improved after hospitalization (Vernon, Foley & Schulman,
1967). While there is little information regarding factors
that predict coping versus maladaptive behavior in the
medical setting, there is reason to suspect that
temperament characteristics may be of importance as
temperament has been found to be a significant predictor of
behaviors problems (Thomas & Chess, 1977). At present,
however, the relationship of child temperament
characteristics to children's adjustment to a hospital
experience has yet to be researched. This study proposes
to explore children's temperament, its relationship to
1

2
adjustment to a medical experience, and the extent to which
this relationship is influenced by maternal behaviors
exhibited in the medical setting.
Temperament
The concept of temperament dates to medieval times when
it was used to refer to an individual's mental disposition,
as constituted by the combination of the four cardinal
humours (Rutter, 1982) . Today, the general consensus is
that temperament involves style rather than content; that
is the how rather than the what or why of behavior (Plomin,
1982) .
There has been, however, much confusion regarding the
difference between the terms "temperament" and
"personality." While Goldsmith and Campos (1981) state
that there is no clear-cut distinction between temperament
and personality, Allport (1937) has suggested that
temperament includes those stylistic aspects of personality
that are stable and are influenced by heredity. Kagan
(1982) reflects the prevailing view of most temperament
theorists stating that any quality which has persisted for
more than two years is to be considered a temperament
trait. In its current usage temperament is considered a ".
. rubric for a group of related traits and not a trait
itself" (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas, Chess,
Hinde and McCall, 1987 p. 506) . The temperamental rubric
encompasses phenomena such as irritability, activity level

3
and fearfulness. Goldsmith et al. (1987) outlines several
general points of convergence among contemporary approaches
to temperament. One is that temperamental dimensions
reflect behavioral tendencies and may not correspond
directly to discrete behavioral acts. Other points of
convergence include emphases on biological underpinnings,
continuity relative to other aspects of behavior, and
consensus that temperament refers to individual differences
rather than species general differences. Existing research
literature, however, has not always clearly supported these
positions and questions remain regarding both the
constitutional basis and stability of temperament
characteristics.
Temperament research in the United States began in the
1950s with the New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS) by
Thomas, Chess and Birch (Thomas & Chess, 1977) . The goals
of the NYLS included (a) the development of a method for
classifying behavioral individuality in early infancy in
terms of objectively describable and reliably rated
categories of temperament; (b) the study of consistencies
and inconsistencies of these early characteristics in the
course of development; (c) the analysis of the pertinence
of early temperament to later psychological development;
(d) the dynamic of temperament in the mastery of

4
environmental demands and expectations at meeting age
appropriate tasks of development; (e) the identification of
those children who develop behavior disorders, and the
analysis of the etiology and course of these disorders in
terms of a continuously evolving child-environment
interactional process.
The first intensely studied group by Thomas, Chess and
Birch was comprised of 141 children from 85 families.
Sample collection was begun in 1956 when the children were
from 2-3 months of age and completed in 1963. As of 1984,
133 children were still being followed by the researchers.
These children and their parents were of middle- to upper-
middle class background and most of the parents were born
in the United States.
In 1961, a second longitudinal study was initiated by
Thomas, Chess and Birch (1968). This study involved 95
children of working class Puerto Rican parents; of this
sample 86% lived in low-income public housing projects.
This study was begun so as to research a population of
contrasting socio-economic background, as compared to the
original group. Additionally, Thomas, Chess and Birch
began longitudinally researching two samples of deviant
children. One sample included 68 children born prematurely
with low birth weights--approximately 40% of these children
had clinical evidence of neurological impairment at age
five years. This group was followed from birth.
The

5
second group was comprised of 52 children with mildly
retarded intellectual levels but without evidence of motor
dysfunction or body stigmata. This group has been followed
since when they were between 5- and 11-years-old. A
special population of 243 children with congenital rubella
was also studied in a cross-sectional experimental design
at 2- to 4-years of age, and during a follow-up four years
later.
For all of subjects the parents were the primary source
of information on the child's behavior in infancy. As the
child grew older, behavioral data were obtained through
teacher interviews in nursery and elementary school, direct
observations in the school setting and psychometric testing
at ages 3, 6 and 9 and direct interview with each youngster
and parent separately age 16-17 years. Academic
achievement scores were gathered from school records.
Additionally, whenever anyone in contact with the child
suspected that there was a behavioral disturbance, a
complete clinical evaluation was completed.
For each phase of data collection different individuals
assessed each child. Thomas and Chess (1977) report that
the intra- and interscorer reliability was at the 90% level
of agreement.
The nine categories of temperament, their definitions
and the three point scoring scales are as follows:

6
(1) Activity level is defined as the extent to which a
motor component is present when a child is engaged in
bathing, eating, playing, dressing, being handled,
sleeping, reaching, crawling and walking (high, medium,
low) .
(2) Rhythmicity is defined as the predictability and/or
unpredictability in time of any function. It can be
analyzed in relation to the sleep-wake cycle, hunger,
feeding patterns and elimination schedules (regular,
variable, irregular).
(3) Approach or withdrawal is defined as the nature of
the child's response to a new stimulus, whether it is a new
food, toy or person (approach, variable, withdrawal).
(4) Adaptability is defined as the responses to a new
or altered situation over time. In contrast to the
approach-withdrawal dimension, the concern in this case is
the ease which the responses are modified in the desired
directions (adaptive, variable, non-adaptive).
(5) Threshold of responsiveness is defined as the
intensity level of stimulation necessary to evoke an
observable response from the child (high, medium, low).
(6) Intensity of reaction is defined as the energy
level of the response (positive, variable, negative)
(7) Quality of Mood is defined as the amount of
pleasant, joyful, and friendly behavior as contrasted with

7
unpleasant, crying and unfriendly behavior (positive,
variable, negative).
(8) Distractibility is defined as the extent to which
the environmental stimuli changes an ongoing behavior
(distractible, variable, non-distractible).
(9) Attention span and persistence concerns the length
of time an activity is pursued by the child and the
continuation of an activity in the face of obstacles
(persistent, variable, non-persistent) .
Qualitative
and factor
analyses
of these
nine
dimensions
by
Thomas and
Chess (1977) yielded
three
temperament
constellations of
functional
significance
: the
most common pattern, the easy child, was seen in about 40%
of the children. It is characterized by regularity,
positive approach, high adaptability and mild or moderately
intense mood which is mostly positive. An opposite pattern
is seen in the difficult child. This child has been found
to have an irregularity in biological functions, negative
withdrawal responses to new stimuli, non- or slow-
adaptability to change, and intense and negative mood.
This pattern was found in approximately 10% of children.
The third constellation has been termed the slow-to-warm-up
child and was seen in 15% of the sample. These children
were active, withdrawing, low in adaptability, tended to
have a negative mood and a low intensity of reaction level.

8
Thomas, Chess and Birch (1968) found that 70% of
children classified as "difficult" developed behavior
problems, whereas only 18% of those children identified as
"easy" developed such difficulties.
Graham, Rutter and George (1973) attempted to replicate
the findings of the NYLS on a population of children all of
whom who had a mentally ill parent. Subjects were obtained
through an outpatient clinic of a London psychiatric
facility. For an unspecified time period, all parents of
children between the ages of 3.0 and 7.11 years who
attended the clinic were included in this study. After an
initial appointment to explain the purposes of the study,
parents were interviewed both separately and together.
Ratings were made at this time regarding the quality of the
parental marriage and the amount of criticism expressed by
the mother towards the child. Additionally, mothers were
asked to complete a behavior questionnaire, on which a
judgment of "psychiatric abnormality" was made, and a
"temperamental characteristics" interview about the child.
This interview regarding the child's temperament was
divided into three sections. In the first section the
mother was asked to describe the child's behavior over a
wide range of routine situations including behavior at
breakfast and while watching television. During the second
section, the mother was asked for details of the child's
regularity in areas such as sleep patterns, appetite and

9
bowel function. Finally the mother was questioned about
the child's behavior in various non-routine situations.
From this interview each child was rated on seven
categories of behavior: mood, intensity of emotional
expression, activity, regularity, malleability,
fastidiousness, and approach/withdrawal to new people.
Five of these categories including mood, intensity,
activity, regularity and approach/withdrawal directly
corresponded with Thomas, Chess and Birch's (1967) Parent
Temperament Questionnaire. One year later the mother again
completed the behavior questionnaire on her child.
Results indicated that those children judged as
"psychiatrically abnormal" at the first administration of
the behavior questionnaire were more likely to be intense
in their emotional expression than those judged as
psychiatrically normal. One year later, the
psychiatrically abnormal children were found to have been
characterized at the onset of the study as negative in mood
and irregular in their biological functioning than those
children judged as normal.
While these results support the hypothesis that
temperament factors affect children's adjustment, several
important issues are raised concerning this study. The
first concerns the validity of the parental reports of the
behavior and temperament of their children. Bates (1980)
has questioned the validity of parent reports and has

10
suggested that "difficult temperament" is a parental
perception. This may be especially relevant as one of the
children's parents in this study was presumably
psychiatrically ill. Additionally Graham et al. (1973)
assume that temperament is a relatively constant trait.
This has not been totally supported by the literature
(Hooker, Nesselroade, Nesselroade & Lerner, 1987) .
In a study which sought to identify antecedent
characteristics of children that best predicted behavioral
problems in young children, Bates, Maslin and Frankel
(1985) found that a difficult temperament, as perceived by
parents and secondary care givers, predicted behavior
problems as measured by the Preschool Behavior
Questionnaire. Specifically, those children with the
difficult temperament traits of negative emotion,
unadaptability/unsociability and high activity level were
rated by their mothers as higher in anxiety, hostility and
hyperactivity. These results, however, must be interpreted
cautiously as they might be reflective of bias in mothers'
report. Only one temperament dimension--unadaptability--
was found to correlate significantly with one child
behavior problem--anxiety. Furthermore, Bates et al.
(1985) writes that correlations between difficult
temperament, child and mother self-reported anxiety,
defensiveness and social desirability, reflect that anxious
mothers are more likely to have anxious children, and that

11
these children may express their proneness to anxiety via a
difficult temperament.
Weber, Levitt and Clark (1986) investigated temperament
and its affect on children's attachment to their mothers.
Previous research has found that differences in children's
temperament and qualitative differences in children's
attachment are associated with different behavioral
outcomes (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall 1978) .
Temperament and attachment data were collected on 36
mother-child dyads. Temperament was assessed with the
Dimensions of Temperament Survey (DOTS) (Lerner, Palermo,
Spiro & Nesselroade, 1982) The dimensions of the DOTS are
conceptually similar to those identified by Thomas and
Chess (1977) except some of the Thomas and Chess catagories
were combined and the quality of mood dimension was
eliminated. The DOTS dimensions include activity level,
attention span, adaptability, rhythmicity, and reactivity.
Attachment was assessed via the strange situation
(Ainsworth et al., 1978) . The strange situation is divided
into eight 3 minute episodes. The situation begins with
the mother and child alone in a room. A female stranger
enters the room, sits quietly at first, then talks to the
mother and attempts to play with the child. The mother
then leaves the room leaving the child with the stranger.
After 3 minutes, the mother returns and the stranger
leaves. The mother settles her child if necessary and

12
encourages the child to play with toys. The mother exits
again, leaving the child alone. After 3 minutes the
stranger returns. In the final episode the stranger departs
and mother and child are reunited. Based on the strange
situation children were classified as avoidant, resistant
or secure in their attachment relationship to their mother.
The results of this study indicated that child
temperament showed little relation to behavior directed
toward the mother but was related to behavior to the
stranger. The dimension of temperament that showed the
strongest association with strange situation behavior was
adaptability. Children rated as more adaptable experienced
less negative and more positive interactions with the
stranger. Summary ratings of child difficult temperament,
however, correlated with resistant behaviors towards both
the mother and stranger. These results suggest that
children's temperament characteristics do in fact
contribute to their social development.
Although the literature has indicated an association
between temperament and school performance (Carey, Fox &
McDevitt, 1977; Thomas & Chess, 1977), the actual process
variables through which variation in temperament has not
been identified. Paget, Nagle and Martin (1984)
investigated the relationships between child temperament
characteristics and first-grade teacher-student
interactions. Teachers of 105 first grade children

13
completed the Teacher Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas &
Chess, 1977) . This questionnaire is based on the Parent
Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas & Chess, 1977) and
contains seven sub-scales including (a) activity level, (b)
adaptability, (c) approach-withdrawal, (d) sensory
threshold, (e) intensity, (f) distractibility, and (g)
persistence. Shortly after the questionnaires were
completed, videotapes were made of classroom interactions.
For each child a total of 5 hours of observation data was
collected. These videotapes were rated by the Brophy and
Good (1969) observation system. This observation system was
teacher-student interactions rated as falling into one of
three general categories: Response Opportunities, Child-
Initiated Contacts, and Teacher-Initiated Contacts. A
response opportunity occurred when a child publicly
attempted to answer a question posed by the teacher, or
when the child read aloud; child initiated contacts were of
two types: work contacts occurred when a child asked a
teacher for help with work and procedure contacts occurred
when the child asked to engage in an activity such as
sharpening a pencil, or asked what work he or she should
begin to work on; teacher-initiated contacts were also of
two types: work contacts in which the teacher helped a
child with work without being asked, and behavior contacts
which involved questions of discipline or classroom control

14
when the teacher commented on a child's nonacademic
behavior.
Paget, Nagle and Martin (1984) found that children's
temperament characteristics predicted teacher-student
interactions. The findings suggested that the most
adaptable and attentive children were the least likely to
receive contact for their behavior, particularly contact
involving praise. These results were explained in terms of
a reinforcement cycle being in effect. That is, more
praise is given to withdrawn children as they are more
responsive to praise than more extroverted children.
Taken together this selective overview suggests that
children's temperament characteristics influence their
behavior in a variety of environments, and furthermore
temperament characteristics may influence other
individuals' responses.
Relationship of Parent Variables and Child Temperament
One factor affecting the child's psychological
functioning within various environments may be the parent-
child relationship including parent-child interaction
characteristics. Webster-Stratton and Eyberg (1982)
assessed 35 children between the ages of 3 and 5 years-old
and their mothers on variables including child temperament,
child behavior problems and mother-child interaction.
Temperament was assessed by the Colorado Childhood
Temperament Inventory (CCTI) (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). This is

15
a parental rating instrument for children 1 through 6 years
of age. The CCTI was derived from the joint factor
analyses of the Parent Temperament Questionnaire (Thomas et
al., 1968) and Buss and Plomin's (1975) temperament
questionnaire. Mothers also completed the Eyberg Child
Behavior Inventory (ECBI) (Eyberg, 1980) on their children.
This measure surveys a wide variety of parental concerns
regarding child conduct problems. Finally, behavioral
observations were obtained by videotaping each mother-child
dyad for 30 minutes in a play room through a one-way
mirror. The videotapes were then rated using the
Interpersonal Behavior Construct Scale (IBCS) (Kogan &
Gordon, 1975) . Dimensions included on this scale are
positive affect behavior, negative affect behavior, non-
acceptance behavior, dominance, and submissiveness.
Webster-Stratton and Eyberg's (1982) findings suggested
that children with high levels of activity and low
attention span tended to be negative, non-accepting, and
noncompliant in their interactions with their mothers.
Additionally, children described by their mothers as more
social in temperament were judged as non-accepting in their
interactions with their mothers. With regard to the
interaction of the mother-child relationship with child
temperament, mothers of highly active, low attention span
children were observed to be more negative in affect, more
non-accepting and more submissive with their children.

16
Furthermore, mother positive affect was found to be
negatively correlated with child sociability.
Two observational studies examined the relationships of
maternal characteristics and child temperament. Stevenson-
Hinde and Simpson (1982) investigated the relationship
between mother's mood and child temperament. Subjects
included 26 boys and 21 girls from families composed of
both parents and one sibling. Maternal mood was assessed
by a self-report inventory developed by Snaith,
Constantopoulous, Vardne and McGuffin (1982; cited in
Stevenson-Hinde & Simpson, 1982) which provided summary
ratings for depression, anxiety, inward irritability and
outward irritability. Child temperament was assessed
twice, once at 3 1/2 years of age, and again eight months
later by the Temperamental Characteristics Interview. This
structured interview was based on the interview schedule
developed by Garside, Birch, and Scott (1982; cited in
Stevenson-Hinde & Simpson, 1982). Dimensions assessed by
the Temperamental Characteristics Interview included
activity level, shyness, dependency, moodiness, intensity,
malleability, irregularity, assertiveness and attention
span. Stevenson-Hinde and Simpson (1982) found that the
more temperamentally difficult the child (composed of the
dimensions of moodiness, intensity, unmalleability,
irregularity, assertive and decreased attention span) the
more anxious and irritable (inwardly and outwardly) was the

17
mother. The findings of this study state the authors,
raise the broader issue of how mothers influence and are
influenced by children's characteristics.
Hinde, Easton, Meller and Tamplin (1982) studied the
interaction of child temperament with maternal behavior.
Data were collected from 21 girls and 24 boys at 42 (n=45)
and 50 months of age (n=37) . Children's temperament was
assessed with the Temperamental Characteristics Interview
(Garside et al., 1982 cited in Hinde et al., 1982), and
maternal behavior was rated with an observational scale
during an interaction with their children. Dimensions
included on this observational scale included physical
friendliness, verbal friendliness, expression of pleasure,
types of speech, types of questions, types of controls,
non-compliance, hospitality and excitement. Hinde et al.
(1982) found that moody children, especially girls, were
the recipients of maternal hostility and more physical
responses and fewer verbally friendly responses.
In a study of infant temperament, maternal level of
depression and child behavior problems, Wolkind and De
Salis (1982) found that children assessed at 4 months of
age as temperamentally difficult tended to have more
behavior problems than other children when again assessed
at 42 months of age. Additionally, the researchers found
that maternal depression was positively associated with
child behavior problems when the child was in the extreme

18
quartiles of either end of the dimensions of temperament,
i.e., extremely easy or extremely difficult. Wolkind and
De Sallis (1982) explain these somewhat curious results by
stating that perhaps totally different mechanisms operate
for these two groups of children. That is, at the
"difficult" end there may be a group of children who are
objectively difficult. These children could put stress on
a mother and cause her to be depressed. On the opposite
end of the spectrum there exists a group of "easy"
children. It may well be the case that these children are
truly easy, but their mothers may lack the capacity to cope
with any stresses which arise.
In addition to investigating child temperament and the
prediction of behavior problems, other studies have
examined the interaction of child temperament, parental
behavior and child behavior problems. Cameron (1977, 1978)
utilized the data from the NYLS for his research. Parents
were interviewed and completed the Parent Temperament
Questionnaire on their child at various intervals during
the child's life. Near the child's third birthday parents
were also administered a focussed interview which included
such topics as the degree of parent conflict and tension,
the degree of warmth, protectiveness and permissiveness
directed toward the child, and the degree and forms of
discipline used. Cameron (1978) found that first year
temperament scores predicted later child behavior problems.

19
Parental psychopathology was related to behavior problems
in both male and female children; additionally, for male
children, behavior problems were also related to negative
temperament changes over time. Furthermore, these negative
temperament changes were associated with parental
intolerance, inconsistency and conflict (Cameron, 1977).
This study suggests that while child behavior problems may
be related to a difficult temperament, other variables
including parent characteristics may affect children's
behavioral adjustment.
Lee and Bates (1985) examined mother-child interaction
as a possible mediating process between early child
temperament and later behavior problems. Temperament was
assessed on 111 children at the ages of 6, 13, and 24
months old via mother ratings on age appropriate forms of
the Infants Characteristics Questionnaire. Additionally,
each mother-child dyad was observed at home during two 2-3
hour observational periods several
days apart.
These
observational
periods were
coded
by observers,
who
continuously
entered behavior
codes
on electronic
event
recorders. The behavior coding system used for the mother-
child interaction sequences consisted of 65 descriptors of
parent and child behaviors. The major categories of the
codes included affection, maturity demands, communication,
interpersonal control and child trouble behaviors. Child
problem behavior was described in terms of conflict

20
sequence variables. Specifically the sequence variable
consisted of a child trouble behavior, a mother control
response and a child's response to the mother's control
attempt.
Lee and Bates (1985) found that children perceived as
difficult in temperament were more likely to have
conflictual interactions with their mother than
temperamentally easy children. The "difficult" child was
observed to be more negative or resistent in response to
mothers' control attempts and the mothers of such children
were likely to use more intrusive control strategies
including restraint of the child and a demand for maturity.
Lee and Bates conclude that the data presented support the
hypotheses that the quality of mother-child interaction can
be considered a mediating process between a difficult
temperament and later behavior disorders.
Goodness of Fit
Thomas and Chess (1977) state that "temperament is
never considered by itself, but always in its relationship
to, or in interaction with the individual's abilities,
motives, external environmental stresses and opportunities"
(p.l). Thus, temperament is to be considered within the
context of the environment. This interactionist approach
requires that information on an individual's behavior style
be considered within the specific context in which it has
occurred. That is, an individual's temperament cannot be

21
understood without a knowledge of the environmental
situation within which the behavior was demonstrated.
Additionally, a parent's response to a child and the
parents' accompanying child-rearing characteristics cannot
be assessed without a simultaneous consideration of the
child's temperament and their influence on the parent.
From this interactionist approach to temperament,
Thomas and Chess (1977) have used the concept of "goodness
of fit" and "poorness of fit." The "goodness of fit" model
postulates that favorable psychological adjustment and
development will be possible if environmental demands and
expectations are congruent with the individual's
capacities, abilities, motivations and temperament.
Similarly, if environmental demands and expectations are
not congruent with an individual's capacities, abilities,
motivations and temperament, a "poorness of fit" will exist
and unfavorable psychological adjustment and development
will be the results (Lerner, 1984) .
The goodness of fit model is a contextual one which
stresses that psycho-social functioning can best be
predicted when one places the individual within a specific
context. From this mode, neither adaptive psychological
nor social functioning derive directly from either the
individual's characteristics or the demands of the
individual's environment. Goodness of fit is the extent to
which an individual's characteristics are congruent with

22
the demands of the environment. Therefore, those
individuals whose characteristics are not congruent with
the environmental demands may have difficulties in adapting
in that environment (Lerner, Lerner, Windle, & Hooker,
1985) .
Temperament and Hospitalization
Children's responses to new places and procedures are
strongly influenced by their temperament characteristics
(Thomas and Chess, 1977) . One situation which often
includes new or unfamiliar surroundings and procedures is
coming to the hospital, a situation that can be very
stressful for some children (Melamed and Siegel, 1984) .
The stress of hospitalization for a child includes the
distress of unfamiliar surroundings, the actual physical
discomfort of surgery or recovery from illness and the
loneliness precipitated by isolation from peers and school
(Melamed, Robbins & Fernandez, 1982) . Many children suffer
behavior problems during the hospital stay. Not all
children, however, are equally vulnerable to the effects of
the hospital experience. Vernon et al. (1967) investigated
the effects of hospital admissions and anesthesia induction
on children between the ages of 2 and 6-years-old. They
found that when the level of potential stress is low, as
during the admission procedures to the hospital,
differences in the children's responses are "primarily a
matter of personality" (p.173). It is only those children

23
who are unusually sensitive to the situation who become
upset. Most of the children are not upset. Furthermore,
for some children, hospitalization may have a beneficial
effect, as 25% of the children were rated by their mothers
as behaviorally improved after a hospitalization experience
(Vernon et al., 1967).
Thomas and Chess (1977) describe some of the ways
children's temperament may influence their responses to
physical symptoms, the physician and the medical setting.
For example, the child who is brought to a medical setting
is confronted with an unfamiliar place, a number of
unfamiliar persons, unusual sounds and is subjected to a
physical examination and procedures which may be
discomforting and sometimes painful. Thomas and Chess
(1977) write that depending on the child's temperament, the
child may fuss quietly and briefly squirm a bit and then be
immediately cheerful once the procedures are completed. Or
the child may howl loudly from the moment he or she enters
the physicians' office, struggle violently during the
physical examination and inoculation, take up to several
hours to subside, and then start up again with even more
intensity at the next visit. The child with the low
activity level will sit quietly in the waiting room. The
high activity youngsters, by contrast, will fidget, jump
around, try to poke into drawers and closer and make a

24
nuisance of themselves, if they have to wait a long time
before the doctor sees them.
The purpose of this study was to investigate children's
adjustment to a surgical experience and how it is related
to temperament factors. Additionally, the mediational
effect that maternal characteristics have on children's
behavioral adjustment to the surgical experience was
investigated. The literature has indicated the importance
of temperament in influencing children's reactions to
different stressors; however, individual differences in
children's adjustment to a surgical experience as prompted
by temperament factors had yet to be investigated.
Additionally, children's temperament was to be considered
in relationship to the parent and could not be assessed
without the simultaneous consideration of the parent's
response to the child.
Predictions
Predictions regarding children's temperament, their
behavioral adjustment to the surgical experience and the
mediational effect that parent-child interaction had on
children's behaviors in the hospital were as follows:
(1) Children with a "Difficult" temperament make up
would more frequently display the behaviors of "Distress"
and "Exploration" as measured by the Dyadic Prestressor
Interaction Scale during a pre-operative visit to the
clinic, as compared to children with an "Easy" temperament.

25
(2) Children's behavioral adjustment to anesthesia
induction would vary depending on the child's temperament.
That is, difficult temperament children would display more
problematic behaviors and would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as less cooperative during anesthesia
induction than those children with an easy temperament.
(a) Specifically, children who tended to have negative
withdrawal responses to new stimuli and/or non- or slow
adaptability to change would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as displaying more disruptive behaviors
and less cooperative during anesthesia induction as
compared to those children who tended to approach new
stimuli and/or tended to adapt to change.
(3) Children whose parents used distraction,
reassurance, and information provision during the pre¬
operative visit to the clinic would display fewer distress
behaviors and be rated by observers and anesthesiologists
as more cooperative during anesthesia induction as compared
to those children whose parents demonstrated ignoring,
agitation and restraint during the pre-operative visit.
(4) Children's behavioral adjustment to the surgical
experience would be mediated by parent characteristics
assessed during parent-child interaction characteristics.
Those children with a "Difficult" temperament and whose
parents demonstrated agitation, restraint, or ignoring
during the pre-operative clinic visit would have higher

26
heart rate levels and would be rated by observers and
anesthesiologists as displaying more distress behaviors and
less cooperative behavior during anesthesia induction than
children with an "easy" temperament and whose parents
demonstrated distraction, reassurance, or information
provision during the pre-operative clinic visit.

CHAPTER II
METHODS
Subjects
Sixty children between the ages of 4- and 10-years-old
being seen at the Ear, Nose, Throat Outpatient Clinic at
Shands Teaching Hospital, J. Hillis Miller Health Center,
Gainesville, Florida for a scheduled preoperative
evaluation along with their mothers served as subjects.
Shands is a tertiary care hospital, and clinic patients are
usually referred from local pediatricians or general
practitioners. Children included in the study were
admitted for surgery usually one to two days following
their visit to the Ear, Nose, Throat Clinic. All subjects
in this study had elective surgery. Additional
characteristics of the sample will be discussed in some
detail in the Results section.
Measures
Background Information Interview Form (BIIF) (Appendix A)
This questionnaire provided data on factors that may
influence the child and parent's behavior in the medical
situation. Information obtained from this short,
structured interview form included age, sex and race of the
child. Brain and McClay (1968) found age to be an
27

28
influencing factor with regard to the child's response to
medical procedures. The parents also used a four-point
scale to indicate how their child had reacted to previous
medical experiences and how well they expected their child
to react to the hospitalization experience. Research has
demonstrated the importance of taking into consideration
the child's previous experiences (Melamed, Meyer, Gee &
Soule, 1976) . Therefore, the experimental interviewer
ascertained the subjects' previous surgical experience.
Parent Temperament Questionnaire (PTQ)
The PTQ is a 72 item questionnaire developed by Thomas
and Chess (1977). The questions relate to a range of child
behaviors reflective of the nine temperament dimensions
discussed earlier with eight items pertaining to each
dimension. The parent is asked to rate each item on a
seven point scale (l=hardly ever occurs; 7=almost always
occurs) . A mean score ranging from one to seven is
determined for each dimension. Five of these dimensions of
temperament including Mood, Adaptation,
Approach/Withdrawal, Intensity and Biological Rhythmicity
are used to calculate a child's standing on a continuous
scale of difficult-easy temperament.
Difficult temperament children were defined using
Thomas and Chess's (1982) specifications, i.e. negative
mood, slow adaptability to change, tendency to withdraw

29
from new situations, tendencies towards intense
expressiveness and irregularity of biological functions.
Katz-Newman and Johnson (1986) reported that both the
overall temperament score and the individual sub-scale
scores obtained on the Parent Temperament Questionnaire
showed adequate test-retest reliability over a two-week
period. Reliability for the overall score was .78. With
regard to the scales which comprised the "Easy'V'Difficult"
continuum Katz-Newman and Johnson (1986) reported the
following reliability coefficients: adaptability .73,
approach/withdrawal .92, intensity .64, mood .80, and
biological rhythmicity .64. Regarding the validity of the
measure, it can be noted that there is evidence from a
number of studies to indicate significant relationships
between ratings of difficult temperament via this measure
and later behavioral difficulties (Graham, Rutter & George,
1973; Maurer, Cadoret & Cain, 1980; Rutter, Birch, Thomas &
Chess, 1964; Thomas et al., 1968) .
Dyadic Prestressor Interaction Scale (DPIS)
The DPIS was used to rate videotaped mother-child
interactions in the examination room prior to the beginning
of the physical examination. Observers rated the tapes
using the instantaneous scan method (Altmann, 1974) every
five seconds, to determine whether a behavior was occurring
at that moment.

30
This DPIS was constructed on the basis of related
literature and extensive narrative descriptive clinic
observations (Bush, 1982). The child categories on this
scale were chosen because of their theoretical relevance to
the attachment literature (Bretherton & Ainsworth, 1974)
and because recent studies (Arend, Gove, & Sroufe, 1979;
Sroufe, Fox, & Pancake, 1983) suggest that a continuity of
the quality of early mother-child interactions exists with
regard to older children's competence in problem solving.
The parent categories on the DPIS were selected based on
the empirical literature on parents' child management
styles as they relate to children's fear development and
independence (Bush, Melamed, Sheras & Greenbaum, 1986).
This scale consisted of four classes of functionally
similar child behaviors and six parent behaviors.
Within each class four specific behaviors were defined.
The child categories included attachment, distress,
exploration and social behavior. The parent categories
corresponded to dimensions of parent behavior which
previous research had found to be related to the child's
adjustment in the medical setting. The categories included
information provision, reassurance, ignoring, distraction,
agitation and restraint. Bush et al. (1986) established
the reliability for the DPIS in a stressful medical
situation. Inter-observer reliability for eight of the ten
behavior categories was above .90 with only distress (.77)

31
and restraint (.60) falling outside of this range. The
results of the Abeles (1984) study, which showed that those
parents who demonstrated informing in response to child
attachment had children who were less distressed in the
medical setting, support the importance of looking at
observational data on specific interactions between parents
and their children, as measured by the DPIS, in predicting
children's reactions to medical procedures.
For the purposes of the present investigation, inter¬
rater reliability of the DPIS was assessed by comparing the
ratings made by two independent observers. In order to
estimate the reliability of these ratings, a Pearson
correlation coefficient was calculated for each DPIS
behavior for half (30 subjects) of the sample.
Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale—Revised (ORBRS-R)
(Appendix B)
This scale was developed by Lumley and Melamed (1986)
and was adapted from Meyer and Muravchick's (1977) measure
of the extent of cooperation with anesthesia induction
procedures. It consists of a checklist of disruptive
behaviors and a seven point cooperation scale (l=total
uncooperation/ 7=total cooperation) across the three phases
of anesthesia induction. Phase one consisted of that time
period from the child's separation from the mother and
entry into the operating room until the child was
transferred to the operating room table; phase two included
that time from when the child was transferred to the

32
operating room table until the mask or needle was viewed by
the child; and phase three included that time from when the
child viewed the mask or needle, until complete anesthesia
induction.
At the completion of anesthesia induction,
anesthesiologists were asked to rate children's level of
cooperation on a seven point scale (l=total uncooperation;
7=total cooperation).
In the present study inter-rater reliability of ORBRS-R
was assessed by the ratings made by two independent
observers. In order to estimate the reliability of these
ratings, a Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated
for approximately 20% of the sample.
Heart Rate
Children's heart rate levels were recorded during
phases two and three of anesthesia induction. Heart rate
data were considered relevant to this study, as
accelerations
in
heart
rate
have
been
found
to
be
significantly
associated
with
increased
levels
of
fear
(Andreassi,
1980).
After
the
child
was
placed
on
the
operating room table (phase 2), electrodes were attached to
the child which electronically monitored his or her heart
rate. Observers manually recorded initial heart rate and
changes in heart rate during the anesthesia induction
process. Due to the varied number of recordings during
each phase of anesthesia induction, mean heart rate levels

33
were computed for each phase. This was completed by
averaging the first, middle and final recording within each
phase of anesthesia induction..
Procedure
Subjects were initially approached in the clinic's
general waiting area by one of the experimenters. The
mothers and their children were asked to participate in a
study seeking to investigate how people handle coming to
the hospital. Informed consent was obtained from all
subjects. Approximately 95% of the mothers asked to
participate in this study agreed to do so.
At this time mothers were interviewed using the
structured format provided by the Background Information
Interview Form (BIIF) and completed the Parent Temperament
Questionnaire (PTQ). After this interview, children and
their mothers were sent to laboratory for a venipuncture as
part of the routine preoperative evaluation. After
returning from the laboratory, the child and the parent
were escorted to a clinic examination room where they were
to see a physician for the preoperative examination. A
videotape recording was made of the waiting period before
the doctor entered the examination room. These videotapes
were rated by observers using the Dyadic Prestressor
Interaction Scale (DPIS).
On the day of surgery, an observer met the child and
parent in the preoperative waiting room. After a time

34
period varying from 10 minutes to 1 hour the child was
taken to the operating room by the anesthesiologist. While
the child was in the operating room the mother usually
waited to be called by hospital staff in one of several
waiting rooms. The observer used the Operating Room
Behavior Rating Scale—Revised (ORBRS--R) to rate the
number of distress behaviors and level of cooperation
during the various phases of the anesthesia induction
procedure. Children's heart rate was recorded as soon as
the electrodes were attached. After anesthesia induction
was completed, anesthesiologists were asked to rate the
children's level of cooperation with the induction
procedure.
In order to address the major hypotheses of the study
several approaches to data analyses were taken. Initial
analyses involved computing means and standard deviations
for all measures used in this study. This was followed by
multiple regression analyses designed to examine both the
direct and interaction relationships between temperament,
parenting behaviors, and children's responses to anesthesia
induction as well as the combined effects of temperament
and parent variables.

CHAPTER III
RESULTS
This section will be organized as follows: first,
demographic information will be presented; then preliminary
data on measures will be presented; finally, data regarding
tests of hypotheses will be considered.
Demographic and Questionnaire Measures
Table 3-1 presents the demographic characteristics of
the sample of 60 mother-child dyads used in the data
analyses. As can be seen the sample was reasonably balanced
with respect to both age and sex. More than one half (55%)
of the children had some type of previous surgical
experience involving general anesthesia.
Means and standard deviations for subjects on all
questionnaire measures are presented in Appendix C. On the
Parent Temperament Questionnaire (PTQ) mothers used a seven
point scale to rate their children across nine dimensions
of temperament. As a group, the subjects were rated as
having an overall moderate temperament (M=4.77, SD=.57,
range=3.43-6.01) . With regard to the specific dimensions
of temperament, mothers rated their children as having a
moderately positive mood (M=5.06, SD=.89, range=l.88-6.63)
and moderate levels of adaptability (M=5.16, SD=.96,
range=l.75-6.88) . Mothers also rated their children as
35

36
Table 3-1
Demographic Characteristics
Age - years 4 5
6 7
8
9 10
N
7 11 12 10 8
11 1
Males (N)
Females (N)
Sex
36
24
Experience (N) No Experience
(N)
Previous Surgical
Experience 33 27
Laser of
Papilloma
Removal or Tonsillectomy
Insertion and/or
of Tubes Adenoidectomy Other
(N)
(N)
(N) (N)
Surgical
Procedure
4
27
14
15

37
being about moderate in terms of biological rhythmicity
(M=4.58, SD=.94, range=2.50-7.50), tendency to approach new
stimuli (M=4.60, SD=1.13, range=l.38-6.71) and low to
moderate in intensity of reactions (M=3.70, SD=1.00,
range=l.88-5.88) .
The DPIS was used to rate videotaped mother-child
interactions. A time-date generator was used to
superimpose an elapsed-time digital clock onto the tapes
without obscuring the visibility of subjects. Observers
then used this clock to make instantaneous scan ratings
(Altmann, 1974) of the 10 DPIS categories every 5 seconds.
Every 5 seconds, observers rated whether each of the 10
behavior classes was being engaged in at that moment. The
5-second interval was chosen as it has been used
successfully in previous studies (Bush, Melamed, Sheras, &
Greenbaum, 1986/ Abeles, 1984) and because this interval
minimized the frequency of scorable behaviors occurring but
not being scored due to onset and offset between
scanpoints. It is important to realize that each parent
behavior and each child behavior are rated independently;
therefore collectively, the DPIS behaviors will not sum to
100%.
During the waiting period before the physician entered
the examination room, children were observed engaged in
social behaviors 51.33% of the time (range=0-100) .
Attachment behaviors were the next most frequently

38
occurring at 36.02% of the time (range=l.8-100). Children
engaged in exploration 25.84% of the time (range=0-100) and
exhibited distress 19.11% (range=0-90.6) of the time.
Among the parent behaviors, distraction was the most
frequently occurring at 40.02% of the time (range=0-100).
Information provision was the next most frequently
occurring behavior at 21.08% of the time (range=0-97.30)
followed by reassurance at 14.97% (range=0-100). Mothers
were observed ignoring their children at an average of
13.27% of the time (range=0-75.60). Maternal agitation was
observed 7.68% of the time (range=0-60.00). Restraint was
the least frequently observed behavior occurring at 3.70%
of the time (range=0-33.90). These findings are similar to
those found by Bush et al. (1986) .
Videotaped recordings of the mother-child interactions
ranged in length from 5 to 10 minutes. Correlational
analyses of the relationship of length of recording to
percent of each behavior displayed revealed that a higher
percentage of child attachment behaviors were displayed
when the recording period was shorter (r=-.27, p<.04), and
a higher percentage of maternal ignoring behaviors were
displayed when the recording period was longer (r=.39,
p<.003) . No significant relationships were found between
the other DPIS behaviors and the length of the videotape
recording.

39
On the Operating Room Behavior Rating Scale-Revised
(ORBRS-R) the mean number of distress behaviors displayed
by children during entry into the operating room until
transfer to the operating room table (phase 1) was .66
(range=0-5, SD=1.09) . Cooperation during this phase was
rated at a mean level of 6.05 (l=total uncooperation,
7=total cooperation) (range=l-7, SD=1.42) . From the time
the child was transferred to the operating table until the
child viewed the mask or needle (phase 2) children
exhibited an average of 1.68 distress behaviors (range=0-6,
SD=1.5). The mean level of cooperation during phase 2 was
rated as 6.00 (range=2-7, SD=1.31). In the final phase of
anesthesia induction (phase 3--view of the mask or needle
until complete anesthesia induction) children displayed an
average of 2.22 distress behaviors (range=0-9, SD=2.39) and
were rated as having a mean cooperation level of 5.22
(range=l-7, SD=2.05). Anesthesiologists rated 44 children
as having a mean cooperation level of 5.55 (range=l-7,
SD=2.02) during the complete course of induction.
Reliability of Observational Measures
DPIS. Interobserver reliability of the DPIS was
evaluated by comparing the percentages of behaviors rated
as being present by two independent observers. DPIS
ratings were made by two raters on 50% of the dyads,
Pearson product moment correlations were obtained for the
DPIS and are presented in Table 3-2. A correlation

40
Table 3-2
DPIS Inter-Rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients
Attachment
.94
Distress
. 66
Exploration
.75
Social
. 94
Ignoring
. 98
Reassuring
.52
Distraction
.83
Restraint
.50
Informing
.74
Agitation
.89

41
coefficient was computed for each DPIS category. These
coefficients provided estimates of the reliability of the
DPIS total frequency scores within each DPIS category.
The DPIS was found to have adequate to high reliability
for observational measurement of mother-child interactions.
Good concordance was found for all categories except
distress, reassurance and restraint. Bush et al. (1986)
attributes the low reliability coefficient for restraint to
be due to the observed incidence and short duration of
restraining behaviors during videotaping.
ORBRS-R. Interobserver reliability of the ORBRS-R was
evaluated by comparing the number of distress behaviors and
level of cooperation as rated by two independent observers.
Pearson product moment correlations were obtained for the
ORBRS-R and are presented in Table 3-3. The distress
behavior scores and cooperation ratings showed adequate
interobserver reliability for all phases of anesthesia
induction.
DPIS Intercorrelations
Intercorrelations among parent behaviors. Correlation
coefficients between parent behaviors are presented in
Table 3-4. Parental ignoring was significantly related to
distracting, informing, and agitation. Ignoring is defined
so as to be the only behavior on the DPIS not able to co¬
occur in any one interval with parental reassurance,
distraction, restraint or informing; however, ignoring can

42
Table 3-3
ORBRS-R Inter-Rater Reliability
Pearson Product Coefficients
Phase 1 Distress Behaviors 1.00
Phase 1 Cooperation Level .73
Phase 2 Distress Behaviors .80
Phase 2 Cooperation Level .73
Phase 3 Distress Behaviors .98
Phase 3 Cooperation Level .72

43
Intercorrelations
Table
Among DPIS
3-4
Parent Behavior Categories
Ignore
Reassure
Distract Restrain Inform
Ignore
Reassure
-.05
Distract
-.41*
LT)
O
1
Restrain
-.03
-.01
-.11
Inform
-.37*
-.01
-.46**
o
o
Agitation
.39*
.01
-.24
o
o
* p < .005
** p < .0005

44
co-occur with agitation. Consistent with the operational
definitions of behaviors included on the DPIS, ignoring was
found to be inversely correlated with distraction and
informing, and positively related to parental agitation.
Parental distraction was found to be inversely correlated
with parental informing. This finding is reflective of the
definitions of distraction and informing. Distraction is
defined as engaging in play or conversation which is
unrelated to medicine, and informing is defined as the
parent giving information, exploring and answering
questions which are medically relevant. These findings
are consistent with previous research findings (Bush, et
al. 1986/ Abeles, 1984).
Intercorrelations among child behaviors. Correlation
coefficients between child behaviors are presented in Table
3-5. In general, child behaviors were related to one
another. Social/affiliative behavior was found to be
inversely correlated with attachment, distress and
exploratory behaviors. Child attachment was positively
correlated with distress behavior. These results while not
discrepant with previous findings are somewhat different in
that Bush et al. (1986) report no relationships between
social/affiliative behavior and the other child behavior
categories.

45
Table 3-5
Intercorrelations Among DPIS Child Behavior Categories
Attachment Distress Exploration
Attachment
Distress .33*
Exploration .16 .08
Social -.31** -.59*** -.72***
*p < .01
**p < .05
***p < .0001

46
ORBRS-R and Heart Rate Intercorrelations
Correlation coefficients between child distress
behaviors, ratings of cooperation and heart rate are
presented in Table 3-6. Amount of distress behavior was
related to ratings of cooperation and to children's heart
rate. Children who demonstrated many distress behaviors
were rated as less cooperative by observers and their
anesthesiologists across the three phases of anesthesia
induction. Ratings of cooperation by independent observers
and anesthesiologists were strongly positively correlated
especially in the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Analyses of physiological data indicated a positive
relationship between children's heart rate across phases of
anesthesia induction. Additionally, children who had a
high heart rate during the final phase of induction tended
to display more distress behaviors and were rated as less
cooperative by observers and anesthesiologists.
Tests of Hypotheses
Initial analyses were conducted to examine the
relationships between children's temperament
characteristics and their behavior as assessed by the DPIS
during the pre-operative visit to the clinic. No
significant relationship was found between children's
status on the overall composite measure of easy-difficult
temperament and their distress during the pre-operative
visit. When separate dimensions of temperament were

47
Table 3-6
Intercorrelations Among ORBRS-R Ratings
DST1
COOP1
DST2
COOP2 HR2
DST3
COOP 3
DSTla
COOPlb
-.49*
DST2C
.36*
-.37*
C00P2d
-.32**
.86*
-.53*
HR2e
.24
-.26
.16
-.14
DST3f
.22
-.11
.37*
k
-.31 .11
C00P3g
-.16
.47*
-.39*
.68* -.08
-.75*
HR3h
.09
-.07
.16
-.27 .63*
.42*
-.48
ANES1
-.03
.36**
-.32
â– k
.62 -.14
-.71*
. 87
HR3
-.43
k
^distress behaviors phase 1 **P<-01
^cooperation ratings phase 1 p<.05
^distress behaviors phase 2
dcooperation ratings phase 2
‘rheart rate levels phase 2
^distress behaviors phase 3
^cooperation ratings phase 3
.heart rate levels phase 3
xanesthesiologist ratings

48
considered, contrary to predictions, children's tendency to
approach new stimuli was associated with higher rates of
distress behavior during the clinic visit (r=.27, p<.03)
No significant relationships between any of the other
dimensions of temperament and children's behavior in the
clinic were obtained.
Relationships Between Temperament, Maternal Characteristics
and Children's Behavior During Anesthesia Induction
Multiple regression analyses were completed in order to
examine any main and interaction effects between children's
temperament, maternal specific characteristics as assessed
by the DPIS, and children's behavior during the three
phases of anesthesia induction. Because previous
experience with medical procedures and the age of the child
have been found to be influencing factors with regard to
children's responses' to medical procedures (Melamed,
Meyer, Gee and Soule, 1976/ Brain and McClay, 1968), the
multiple regression analyses also included these variables.
The overall easy-difficult temperament score comprised of
the five sub-scales of temperament, (mood, adaptability,
approach/withdrawal, biological rhythmicity and intensity)
and the individual sub-scale scores of approach/withdrawal
and adaptability were used in these analyses. DPIS
parenting variables were entered separately in each of the
analyses. Results of those analyses yielded a number of

49
significant findings and are presented in the following
sections.
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction
Direct relationships between children's temperament and
outcome measures
Multiple regression analyses of phase 1 data revealed
no significant findings regarding the overall temperament
score or adaptability sub-scale score. Significant
findings, however, were obtained when the
approach/withdrawal temperament dimension was used in the
equation.
Influence of child temperament on children's distress
levels. The multiple regression model which included the
variables of age, previous experience, children's tendency
to approach or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal
information provision, and an interaction of
approach/withdrawal and information provision as predicting
the number of distress behaviors displayed by children upon
entry into the operating room, was significant [F <5,49) =
2.40, p<.05]. Together these variables achieved a multiple
R of .44 accounting for approximately 20% of the variance.
When controlling for the other variables entered into the
equation, children's tendency to approach new stimuli was
negatively associated with the number of distress behaviors
displayed (F=4.33, p<.04). Children who were described by

50
their mothers as withdrawing from new stimuli tended to
display more distress behaviors.
No significant findings were obtained regarding the
interaction of approach withdrawal and maternal information
provision in predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the first phase of anesthesia
induction.
Influence of child temperament upon children's
cooperation levels. The multiple regression model which
included the variables of children's tendency to approach
or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal information
provision and an interaction of approach/withdrawal and
information as predicting children's cooperation levels
during the first phase of anesthesia induction was
significant [F(3,51) = 3.13, p<.03]. Together these
variables achieved a multiple R of .39 which accounted for
approximately 15% of the variance. When controlling for
the other variables entered into the equation, children's
tendency to withdraw from new stimuli was positively
associated with ratings of cooperation (F=6.29, pc.02).
Children who were rated as withdrawing from new stimuli
were rated as less cooperative by observers during the
first phase of anesthesia induction.
No significant findings were obtained regarding the
interaction of approach/withdrawal and information

51
provision as predicting children's cooperation levels
during the first phase of anesthesia induction.
Direct relationships between maternal behaviors and outcome
measures
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
main effect findings regarding maternal ignoring,
reassurance, restraint, information provision or agitation.
Significant findings were obtained, however, when maternal
distraction was used in the equation.
The multiple regression model which included the
variables of age, previous experience, children's tendency
to approach or withdraw from new stimuli, maternal rates of
distraction and the interaction of approach/withdrawal and
distraction as predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the first phase of anesthesia
induction was significant [F (5,49)=4.09, p<.004].
Together these variables achieved a multiple R of .54
accounting for approximately 29% of the variance. When the
other variables in the equation were controlled for,
maternal distraction was positively associated with the
number of distress behaviors [F=8.65. p<.005]. High levels
of maternal distraction were associated with a high number
of distress behaviors during the first phase of anesthesia
induction. Additionally, the interaction of the
temperament characteristic approach/withdrawal and maternal
distraction was a significant predictor of distress

52
behaviors (F=5.88, p<.02). Figure 3-1 demonstrates the
nature of the interaction. Children who tended to withdraw
from new stimuli and whose mothers provided distraction at
low levels displayed fewer distress behaviors during phase
1 of anesthesia induction than did those withdrawing
children whose mothers provided distraction at higher
levels. Children who tended to approach new stimuli,
however, appeared not to be affected by different levels of
parental distraction. Overall, temperamentally withdrawing
children of parents who provided high levels of distraction
displayed the most number of distress behaviors, while
children who tended to approach new stimuli were unaffected
by different levels of parental distraction during phase 1
of anesthesia induction.
Phase 2 of Anesthesia Induction
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
findings regarding temperament or maternal behaviors as
predicting children's distress behavior, cooperation
ratings or heart rate levels during the second phase of
anesthesia induction.
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction
Direct relationships between children's temperament and
outcome measures
Multiple regression analyses revealed no significant
findings regarding the overall temperament score,
approach/withdrawal or adaptability sub-scale scores as

53
Withdrawal Approach
-Q- Hi Distraction
Avg Distraction
-*â–  Low Distraction
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater¬
nal Use of Distraction as Predicting
Number of Distress Behaviors.
Figure 3-1

54
predicting children's distress behaviors, cooperation
ratings or heart rate levels during the third phase of
anesthesia induction.
Relationships between maternal behavior and outcome
measures
Multiple regression analyses of phase 3 anesthesia
induction data revealed no significant findings regarding
the DPIS parent category of information provision.
Significant findings were obtained however, when the parent
behaviors of distraction, ignoring, reassurance, agitation
and restraint were entered into the models.
Influence of maternal distraction on children's
distress levels. The multiple regression model which
included the variables of age, previous experience, the
approach/withdrawal temperament dimension, maternal use of
distraction and an interaction of approach/withdrawal and
distraction as predicting the number of distress behaviors
displayed by children during the third phase of anesthesia
induction was significant [F (5, 52)=2.39, p<.05]. Together
these variables achieved a multiple R of .43 accounting for
approximately 19% of the variance. Controlling for the
other variables entered into the equation, maternal
distraction was negatively associated with the number of
distress behaviors displayed by children (F=5.70, p<.02).
Less use of maternal distraction was associated with an
increased number of distress behaviors displayed by

55
children during the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Additionally, the interaction term of approach/withdrawal
and maternal distraction was a significant predictor of
children's distress behaviors (F=5.42, p<.02). As shown in
Figure 3-2, children who tended to withdraw from new
stimuli and whose mothers provided high rates of
distraction demonstrated fewer number of distress behaviors
than did the withdrawing child whose mother provided little
distraction. Average and low rates of maternal distraction
with the child who tended to approach new stimuli were
associated with a lowered number of distress behaviors, as
compared to the approaching child whose mother provided
high levels of distraction. Overall, withdrawing children
who had highly distracting mothers displayed the fewest
number of distress behaviors, while those children who
tended to approach stimuli and who had highly distracting
mothers displayed the highest number of distress behaviors.
Influence of maternal and child variables on heart rate
levels
Maternal ignoring and child temperament. The multiple
regression model which included the variables of age,
previous experience, overall temperament, maternal ignoring
and an interaction of temperament and ignoring variables as
predicting children's heart rate levels during the third
phase of anesthesia induction was significant [F
(5,40)=3.19, p<.02]. Together these variables achieved a

Number of Distress Behaviors
56
Withdrawal Approach
-s- Low Distraction
Hi Distraction
-*â–  Avg Distraction
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater¬
nal Use of Distraction as Predicting
Number of Distress Behaviors.
Figure 3-2

57
multiple R of .53 accounting for approximately 28% of the
variance. Maternal ignoring, when controlling for the
other variables entered into the equation, was negatively
associated with heart rate levels (F=6.29, p<.02). That
is, more ignoring was associated with lower heart rates.
Additionally, the interaction of maternal ignoring with
child temperament was significant (F=6.58, p<.01). As
shown on Figure 3-3, difficult temperament children whose
mothers showed a high degree of ignoring had lower heart
rates than did those difficult children whose mothers did
not ignore them. Easy temperament children whose mothers
did not ignore them had lower heart rates than those
children with easy temperaments whose mothers who ignored
them at high rates. Overall temperamentally difficult
children whose mothers ignored them at high levels had the
lowest heart rates, while temperamentally easy children
whose parents ignored them at high rates had the highest
heart rates.
Similar findings emerged when the temperament variable
approach/withdrawal was entered into the equation. The
multiple regression equation which included the variables
of age, previous experience, the approach/withdrawal
temperament characteristic, maternal ignoring and the
interaction of approach/withdrawal and ignoring as
predicting children's heart rate levels was significant [F
(5,40)=2.92, p<.02]. Together these variables achieved a

Heart Rate Beats / Minute
58
Difficult Easy
-o- Low Ignoring
Avg Ignoring
Hi Ignoring
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tempera¬
ment and Maternal Ignoring as Predict¬
ing Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-3

59
multiple R of .52 accounting for approximately 27% of the
variance. Maternal ignoring, when controlling for the
other variables entered into equation, was negatively
associated with heart rate levels (F=4.14, p<.05). That
is, lowered rates of maternal ignoring were associated with
higher heart rates. Additionally, the interaction of the
approach/withdrawal temperament characteristic and maternal
ignoring was a significant predictor of heart rate levels
(F=4.58, p<.04). Figure 3-4 demonstrates the relationship
between heart rate levels and approach/withdrawal
characteristics at different levels of maternal ignoring.
Withdrawing children whose mothers ignored them at high
rates had lower heart rates than did those withdrawing
children whose mothers did not tend to ignore them. Those
children who tended to approach new stimuli and whose
mothers did not ignore them tended to have lower heart
rates than those withdrawing children whose mothers ignored
them at high rates. Overall, those children who tended to
withdraw from new stimuli and whose mothers tended to
ignore them at high rates had the lowest heart rates, while
those children who tended to approach new stimuli and whose
mothers tended to ignore at high rates had the highest
heart rates.
Maternal reassurance and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which the variables of age,
previous experience, overall temperament, maternal

Heart Rate Beats / Minute
60
Withdrawal Approach
-o- Low Ignoring
-♦* Avg Ignoring
High Ignoring
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's tendency
Towards Approach/Withdrawal and Mater¬
nal Ignoring as Predicting Heart Rate
Levels.
Figure 3-4

61
reassurance and the interaction variable of temperament and
reassurance as predicting children's heart rate levels was
significant [F (5,40)^3.16, p<.02]. Together these
variables achieved a multiple R of .53 accounting for
approximately 28% of the variance. When the other
variables in the equation were controlled for, reassurance
was positively associated with heart rate levels (F=4.98,
p<.03). High levels of reassurance were associated with
high heart rate levels. Additionally, the interaction term
of temperament and reassurance significantly predicted
heart rate levels (F=4.36, p<.04). Figure 3-5 graphically
represents the nature of this interaction. Difficult
temperament children whose parents did not provide
reassurance had lower heart rates than did those difficult
children whose parents provided high amounts of
reassurance. Easy temperament children whose parents
provided high amounts of reassurance had lower heart rates
than did those easy children whose parents provided low
amounts of reassurance. Overall, the difficult temperament
child whose mother did not provide reassurance had the
lowest heart rate while the easy temperament child whose
mother provided low amounts of reassurance had the highest
heart rate.
Maternal restraint and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which included the variables of
age, previous experience, overall temperament, maternal

Heart Rate Beats / Minute
62
Difficult Easy
-o- Hi Reassurance
Avg Reassurance
-*• Low Reassurance
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tempera¬
ment and Reassurance as Predicting
Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-5

63
restraint and the interaction variable of overall
temperament and maternal restraint as predicting children's
heart rate levels was significant [F (5,40)=2.53, p<.04].
Together these variables achieved a multiple R of .49
accounting for approximately 24% of the variance. When the
other variables in the equation were controlled for,
maternal restraint was negatively associated with heart
rate levels (F=3.93, p<.05). Mothers who tended not use
restraint during the preoperative visit had children who
had higher heart rates during the final phase of anesthesia
induction. Additionally, the interaction of overall
temperament and maternal restraint significantly predicted
heart rate levels (F=3.93, p<.05). Figure 3-6 represents
the nature of this interaction. Difficult temperament
children whose mothers restrained them at high levels had
lower heart rates than did those temperamentally difficult
children whose parents did not use restraint. In contrast,
easy temperament children whose parents did not tend to be
restraining had lower heart rates than did those easy
temperament children whose parents used restraint at high
levels. Overall, difficult temperament children whose
mothers tended to be highly restraining had the lowest
heart rates, while easy temperament children whose mothers
tended to be highly restraining had the highest heart
rates.

Heart Rate Beats / Minute
64
Difficult Easy
-o- Low Restraint
Avg Restraint
-o- Hi Restraint
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tempera¬
ment and Maternal Restraint as Pre¬
dicting Heart Rate Levels
Figure 3-6

65
Maternal agitation and child temperament. The
multiple regression model which included the variables of
age, previous experience, overall temperament, maternal
agitation, and the interaction variable of temperament and
agitation as predicting children's heart rate levels during
the third phase of anesthesia induction was significant [F
(5,40)=2.50, p<.05]. Together these variables achieved a
multiple R of .49 which accounted for approximately 24% of
the variance. When the other variables in the equation
were controlled, maternal agitation was somewhat related to
children's heart rate levels (F=3.80, p<.06). Mothers who
were less agitated had children with higher heart rates
during the third phase of anesthesia induction. Also, the
interaction of temperament and agitation was somewhat
predictive of children's heart rates (F=3.74, p<.06).
Figure 3-7 graphs the interaction. Temperamentally
difficult children with highly agitated mothers tended to
have lower heart rates than did those difficult children
with less agitated mothers. Temperamentally easy children
with highly agitated mothers had higher heart rates than
did those easy children with less agitated mothers.
Overall, temperamentally difficult children whose mothers
were highly agitated had the lowest heart rates, while
temperamentally easy children whose mothers were highly
agitated had the highest heart rates.

Heart Rate Beats / Minute
66
200-1
100-
0
0
-i 1 1 1 â–  1 1 1
2 4 6 8
Difficult Easy
Low Agitation
Avg Agitation
Hi Agitation
Regression Lines Indicating the Rela¬
tionship Between Children's Tempera¬
ment and Maternal Agitation as Pre¬
dicting Heart Rate Levels.
Figure 3-7

CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
This study explored children's adjustment to anesthesia
induction and how this is related to temperament factors.
Additionally, the relationship between maternal
characteristics and on children's behavioral adjustment to
anesthesia induction was investigated.
Temperament involves the style rather than content;
that is, the how rather than the what or why of behavior
(Plomin, 1982) . Temperament is to be considered within the
context of the environment. This interactionist approach
necessitates the understanding of an individual's
temperament within the environmental situation within which
the behavior was demonstrated. Additionally, a parent's
response to a child and the parent's accompanying child-
rearing characteristics cannot be assessed without a
simultaneous consideration of the child's temperament and
their influence on the parent.
From this interactionist approach to temperament Thomas
and Chess (1977) has used the concept of "goodness of fit."
The goodness of fit model is a contextual one which
stresses that psychosocial functioning can best be
predicted when one places the individual within a specific
context. Goodness of fit is the extent to which an
67

68
individual's characteristics are congruent with the demands
of the environment. Therefore, those individuals whose
characteristics are not congruent with environmental
demands may have difficulties in adapting in various
situations (Lerner, Lerner, Windle & Hooker, 1985) .
Results from this study were based on data obtained at
two different time points. Child temperament and mother-
child interaction data were collected directly prior to the
pre-operative clinic visit. One to two days later,
observers rated children's behavior during anesthesia
induction and recorded heart rate levels. Therefore, this
study does not assess the direct or interactive impact of
maternal behavior on child behaviors during anesthesia
induction. Instead, it appears that the interaction
between certain child temperament characteristics and
certain maternal characteristics, sampled during the pre¬
operative assessment period, have implications for
subsequent child behaviors during the anesthesia induction
procedure in which the mother is not present.
Children's Temperament and Behavior
During Anesthesia Induction
In general, very few findings were obtained which would
indicate a direct relationship between child temperament
and their behavior during anesthesia induction. Consistent
with the existing literature, however, (Thomas & Chess,
1977) children's temperamental tendency to withdraw and
show negative emotional responses to new or novel

69
situations was associated with a higher number of distress
behaviors and being rated as less cooperative during the
introductory phase of anesthesia induction as compared to
children who show positive responses to new situations.
It is noteworthy that findings implicating a direct
relationship between temperament and behavior were found
only during the first phase of induction. Thomas and Chess
(1977) suggest that pure temperamental expression is likely
to be apparent only at those times when novel environmental
challenges render coping skills ineffective. The
temperamentally withdrawing child characteristically
demonstrates negative emotional responses to novel or
unfamiliar situations. The introductory phase of
anesthesia induction marked the beginning of such an
unfamiliar situation and it is postulated that a direct
expression of temperament would be found in this phase.
Thus, findings regarding children's negative withdrawal
responses and distress behaviors during the initial stage
of anesthesia induction would tend to support Thomas and
Chess's hypothesis.
Goodness of Fit
The paucity of findings indicating a direct
relationship between children's temperament and behavior
during anesthesia induction supports the necessity for
understanding a child's temperament within the context of
the environment (Goldsmith, Buss, Plomin, Rothbart, Thomas,

70
Chess, Hinde and McCall, 1987) . Within each environmental
context there are behavioral demands. These demands may
take various forms (Lerner et al. 1985). First, the
demands may take the form of attitudes, values or
expectations held by others regarding the child's physical
or behavioral characteristics. Second, demands exist as a
consequence of the behavioral attributes of others in the
context with whom children must coordinate their behavioral
attributes for adaptive interactions to exist. And third,
the physical characteristics of a setting constitute
contextual demands (Lerner et al., 1984). Thus, from this
perspective, often termed the interactionist or "goodness
of fit model" (Lerner, 1984; Thomas, Birch, Chess and
Robbins, 1961) it is necessary to take into consideration
not only the child's characteristics but also other
individual's behaviors and the physical characteristics of
the environment.
It was hypothesized that maternal behaviors displayed
during the clinic visit would interact between children's
temperament characteristics and their behavior during
anesthesia induction. Findings from this study in fact,
indicated that maternal behaviors had relevance in
predicting children's reactions to anesthesia induction in
the context their view of children's temperament
characteristics. Some of the results included the findings
that children with a difficult temperament had higher heart

71
rate levels during the third phase of anesthesia induction
when their mothers displayed high rates of reassurance, low
rates of restraint and agitation, or did not ignore them.
For temperamentally easy children, low rates of maternal
reassurance and high rates of restraint, agitation or
ignoring were associated with higher heart rates during the
third phase of anesthesia induction.
These findings regarding difficult temperament children
may be considered counter intuitive. While the difficult
child would be expected to have difficulties in coping in
the medical setting (Thomas and Chess, 1977) previous
research has found the parental use of ignoring or
agitation to be associated with higher rates of child
distress behavior in the medical setting (Bush, Melamed,
Sheras and Greenbaum, 1986).
Maternal Patterns of Behavior
The findings from this study might be conceptualized
within a parental involvement-noninvolvement paradigm.
Here parental involvement would be seen as displaying high
rates of reassurance and low rates of agitation and
ignoring; and parental non-involvement would be defined as
displaying low rates of reassurance and high rates of
agitation and ignoring. For the easy temperament child
better outcomes during anesthesia induction were associated
with more maternal involvement; and for the difficult

72
temperament child better outcomes were associated with less
maternal involvement.
While it would be predicted that children with
components of a difficult temperament would have negative
responses in unfamiliar situations (Thomas and Chess,
1977) , this was found to be true only during phase one of
anesthesia induction. No direct relationships between
temperament characteristics and behavior during phase three
of anesthesia
induction
were
found.
Thus,
it becomes
necessary to
consider
other
factors
which
influenced
children's behavior.
As
previously
mentioned one
significant influence may be maternal behavior. Previous
research has examined maternal influences on children's
coping behaviors in the medical setting. Bush et al.
(1986) found that mothers who used high rates of
reassurance and infrequently ignored their children were
likely to have children who showed maladaptive responses
prior to being examined by a physician. Gutstein and
Tarnow (1983) investigated parenting behaviors as
facilitating children's preparation for elective surgery.
Parents of children between the ages of 6-9 who had a more
active style of guiding the child's activities were more
likely to interfere with the child's preparation for
surgery. The Bush et al. (1986) and Gutstein and Tarnow
(1983) studies provide data which indicate that parents do
influence children's behavior in the medical setting and,

73
moreover support a maternal involvement-noninvolvement
hypothesis. Specifically, both maternal reassurance and
infrequent ignoring (Bush et al., 1986) and active
parenting strategies (Gutstein and Tarnow, 1983) could be
conceptualized as maternal "involvement" which was
associated with less adaptive child outcomes. Results from
this study, however, indicated a significant interaction
between temperament and maternal behaviors as predicting
children's behavior during anesthesia induction. That is,
parenting behaviors led to different outcomes depending on
children's temperament. It may therefore be necessary to
examine another possible influencing factor on children's
behavior during anesthesia induction.
Situational Components
Findings from this study were based on data collected
in two different situations. Child temperament and mother-
child interaction data were collected in the outpatient
clinic, while ratings of children's behavior and recordings
of their heart rate levels were collected in the surgical
unit. One salient and important difference between these
two situations is that during the pre-operative visit
mothers were present, while during the anesthesia induction
procedure mothers were absent. Additionally, the clinic
visit contrasted with the anesthesia induction situation to
the extent that mothers were involved or not involved with
their children during the clinic visit. That is, difficult

74
temperament children of involved mothers might have been
expected to have adverse reactions to the induction
situation because of the marked contrast between the two
situations.
Typically, during anesthesia induction children do not
receive much reassurance and they are often restrained by
both nurses and physicians. Findings from this study
indicated that difficult temperament children whose mothers
did not use restraining behaviors, had higher heart rates
during the third phase of anesthesia induction. The
similarity of the preoperative visit and the anesthesia
induction situation would thus be heightened to the extent
that mothers were not involved with their children during
the preoperative visit. That is, mothers who were agitated
and displaying high rates of ignoring and restraint, and
low rates of reassurance may have served to increase the
similarity between the two situations.
Thus, for the difficult temperament child maternal
noninvolvement and maternal restraint behaviors may have
served a useful function as it resulted in increased
similarity between the two situations. In contrast,
temperamentally difficult children with involved mothers,
would have been expected to become more upset when placed
in an unfamiliar stressful situation without their mothers
(Shaw and Routh, 1982) due to the contrasting nature of the
two situations. Easy temperament children of non-involved

75
mothers might not have been adequately prepared for the
anesthesia induction situation. Previous research
(Melamed & Siegel, 1975) has demonstrated that preparing
children for a medical procedure can reduce children's
distress. Additionally, Gutstein and Tarnow (1983) found
that parents can facilitate this preparation. The easy
temperament child might have then benefitted from pre¬
induction preparation from their mothers. For these easy
temperament children tending to show approach behaviors
towards new situations, one would not predict increased
levels of distress as a function of the contrasting nature
of the two situations and the newness associated with the
anesthesia induction context.
Child Attachment and Maternal Involvement
Some of the findings from this study seemed to be
contradictory. It was found that children who tended to
withdraw from new stimuli and whose mothers provided
distraction at high frequencies, displayed more distress
behaviors during phase 1 of anesthesia induction than did
those withdrawing children whose mother provided
distraction at lower frequencies. In contrast, during
phase 3 of anesthesia induction, those withdrawing children
whose mothers provided low rates of distraction,
demonstrated a higher number of distress behaviors than did
the withdrawing child whose mother distracted at a high
level. These findings may be explained within a maternal

76
involvement-noninvolvement framework, and with an
attachment theory paradigm (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, &
Wall, 1978; Sroufe, 1979) .
Attachment relationships are thought to have important
effects on psychosocial development (Bowlby, 1969) . The
accumulated clinical evidence and research findings
strongly support the hypothesis that qualitative
differences in child-mother attachment relationships are
associated with qualitative differences in antecedent
maternal behaviors and with different behavioral outcomes
in the case of the child (Ainsworth et al. 1978) . Sroufe
(1979) writes that individual children elicit different
reactions from the environment. When placed in a
challenging situation children who are secure in their
relationship with their mothers seek more assistance from
their mothers. These mothers in turn maintain a high level
a support towards their children. Ainsworth (1979) also
reports that securely attached children are likely to
become distressed during separation.
This study did not directly examine the nature of
children's attachment to their mothers, however, as in the
attachment literature, child and mother characteristics,
and the associated child behavioral outcomes were
investigated. Previous research has indicated that mother-
child relationship characteristics can be considered a

77
mediating process between a difficult temperament and later
behavior problems (Weber, Levitt & Clark, 1986) .
It may be the case that those temperamentally
withdrawing children whose mothers were involved with them
and provided high amounts of distraction, were likely to
become distressed when separated from their mothers. The
first phase of anesthesia induction was immediately
preceded by a separation of the child from the mother.
With the temperamentally withdrawing child, distress
displayed during the first phase of anesthesia induction
may be thought of as distress related to the change in
situations and as a separation protest. In contrast the
easy temperament child may able to more easily adjust to
the change in situations but be anxious about the
anesthesia induction procedure and display more distress
behaviors during the third phase of anesthesia induction.
Limitations
Despite the intriguing nature of the findings presented
here, there are several limitations of the present study.
One involves parents' provision of child temperament
ratings. Bates (1980) has suggested that parental ratings
of children's temperament may represent "perceptions"
rather than accurate reflections of behavior. From this
perspective one concern would be that a parent's own
characteristics may lead to bias reports of child
temperament characteristics. Doelling (1987) and Sheeber

78
(1987) collected child temperament data provided by both
mothers and teachers. While teacher and parental reports
of child temperament were only moderately correlated,
difference scores between the two reports indicated that
parental ratings had no systematic bias. Doelling (1987)
and Sheeber (1987) conclude that reports of child
temperament are not likely to be a function of parental
perceptions and are unlikely to represent a significant
limitation to the degree that allows meaningful conclusions
to be made regarding child temperament and outcome
measures.
Another limitation concerns the qualification of
children's prior experience with medical or surgical
procedures (so as to control for prior experience to some
degree). While data was collected regarding the number and
type of previous medical procedures, information was not
collected regarding the quality of these experiences.
Melamed, Dearborn and Hermecz (1983) found that the quality
of the child's prior experience was a significant factorin
predicting children's reactions to medical stressors. In
addition to temperament and mother-child interaction
factors, future research will need to address the issue of
the quality of the child's previous medical experiences.
Finally, in the course of this study many statistical
analyses were completed. It is possible that some of these
significant statistical results were spurious. The

79
consistent pattern of the findings, however, argue to some
extent against the possibility of these results reflecting
statistical artifacts.
Conclusions
The findings from this study are based on 60 parent-
child dyads. Important individual differences were
revealed
in
children's
behavioral
and
physiological
responses
to
anesthesia
induction.
Furthermore, the
mothers'
role
as a
mediator
between
temperament
characteristics and children's adjustment in a medical
situation was examined.
Only a limited number of temperament factors and
maternal behaviors were directly related to children's
adjustment to anesthesia induction. Instead, temperament
variables including approach/withdrawal, and the overall
temperament score in interaction with the maternal
behaviors of ignoring, restraint, reassuring, agitation,
and distraction were the best predictors of children's
behavior during anesthesia induction. Both difficult and
easy temperament children displayed a higher number of
distress behaviors and had higher heart rates levels
depending on maternal behavior. The difficult child was
adversely affected by less ignoring, restraint and
agitation, more reassurance and varying amounts of
distraction. The easy child, in contrast was adversely
affected by high rates of ignoring, restraint and

80
agitation, less reassurance and varying amounts of
distraction. These findings support the view that maternal
behaviors cannot be judged as either "good" or "bad."
Rather it appears that a "goodness of fit" or "poorness of
fit" exists between dyads in different situations. In this
study a "goodness of fit" appeared to have existed between
difficult temperament children and non-involved mothers,
and an easy temperament child and an involved mother. A
"poorness of fit" was present when temperamentally
difficult children interacted with involved mothers, and
when easy temperament children interacted with uninvolved
mothers.
Future research will need to make several
methodological improvements. Significant relationships
were found between children's temperament and mother child
interaction sequences 1 to 2 days prior to being admitted
for surgery, as predicting children's behavior during
anesthesia induction. It is postulated that these
relationships would have greater predictive validity if
mother-child interactions were recorded on the day of
surgery on the surgical unit.
The results from this study have various implications
with regard to possible interventions. One such
intervention may involve policy changes regarding parents'
presence in the operating room. At present, parents are
generally not allowed into the operating room unless the

81
child becomes extremely upset and disruptive during the
induction procedure. Hannallah and Rosales (1983) reported
findings regarding parents' presence during anesthesia
induction in children. Those children whose parents were
present during induction were rated as having more positive
mood scores during the pre-induction and induction periods.
Additionally, no major or minor complications or side
effects were attributed to the presence of parents in the
induction area. Interestingly, the parents who were
present with their children during anesthesia induction
were self-selected. It might be beneficial for some
children to have their parents accompany them into the
operating room. Another intervention indicated by the
findings from this study involves the institution of
surgery and anesthesia induction preparation programs for
children. Those children who would seem to especially
benefit from such a program might include the difficult
temperament child with the involved mother and the easy
temperament child with the uninvolved mother. The
difficult child would have the opportunity to become
somewhat familiar with the procedures and personnel present
in the operating room, and thereby possibly avert a
negative withdrawal response; and the easy temperament
child could have some of their anxiety allayed regarding
the induction procedures.

APPENDIX A
BACKGROUND INFORMATION INTERVIEW FORM
Child's Name Subject No.
Clinic
Date
Hospital No.
Interviewer
Age and sex of siblings
Date of birth
Sex
Race
Accompanying parent
Age
Father: Occupation
Education
Income
Mother: Occupation
Education
Income
Previous Medical Experience
1) Surgery
(reason ,
and date):
2) Other Hospitalizations
3) This clinic
4) Other clinic/outpatient
5) Siblings hospitalized
6) Parent's hospitalized
How do you think your child has reacted to past medical
procedures?
1. Very poorly 2. Moderately poorly 3. Moderately well
4. Very well
How do you think your child will react to this medical
visit?
1. Very poorly 2. Moderately poorly 3. Moderately well
4. Very well
How do you rate your child's anxiety (fear nervousness) at
this moment?
1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Very low
How would your rate your own anxiety (fear nervousness) at
this moment?
1. Very high 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Very low
How stressful has it been for you to deal with your child's
current health problem--the reason you are here today?
1. High stress 2. Moderately high 3. Moderately low
4. Low stress
82

APPENDIX B
OPERATING ROOM BEHAVIOR RATING SCALE--REVISED
(Lumley & Melamed)
Subject name: Number: Date:
Anesthesiologist: Resident: Rater :
1.Leaving the child's parent to go to the operating room
until the child is to be transferred to the operating room
table.
crying
frowning
screaming
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave bed or doctor (if being walked)
repetitive movements (rocking leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fights
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help.
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.
83

84
Subject number:
2.Transfer to the operating room table until mask or
needle is viewed by child
crying
frowning
screaming, vocalizing
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave the table
repetitive movements (rocking, leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
resists the physiological hook-ups
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fights
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.

85
Subject number:
3.View of the mask or needle until 30 seconds (15 seconds
for I.V.) after induction begins.
crying
frowning
screaming, vocalizing
calling for parent (or other friend or guardian)
kicking
flinging arms
body tense and stiff
attempts to leave the table
repetitive movements (rocking, leg or arm moving back
and forth, etc.)
does not answer questions or greetings
turns head away from mask/pulls arm away from needle
pushes away mask/needle
pulls at physiological hook-up wires
OPERATING ROOM COOPERATION RATING SCALE
1. TOTAL UNCOOPERATION: much restraint is needed, fight
the staff, much violent movement, tries to escape.
2. protests are loud and disruptive, restraint or force is
used by staff, much motor activity.
3. protests interfere with procedure, staff delays to calm
child, compliance achieved after a short period,
moderate motor activity.
4. protests occasionally, not attending to the requests of
the staff, some body movements.
5. protests a little, slight body movements, little
responsiveness, complies when requested but needs
prompting or help.
6. is quietly responsive, complies with requests, no extra
effort at being cooperative, no protestations.
7. TOTAL COOPERATION: very helpful, acts on own when
requested, no protestations, ideal working conditions.
Cooperation rating by anesthesiologist:
12 3
uncooperation
6 7
cooperation
4
5

APPENDIX C
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: PARENT TEMPERAMENT QUESTIONNAIRE
Mood
M
SD
Ranqe
5.06
.89
1. 88-6.63
Distractability
4.54
1.03
1.57-6.38
Persistence
4.18
.85
1.71-6.00
Activity
4.09
. 98
2.25-6.25
Rhythimicity
4.58
. 94
2.50-7.50
Adaptability
5.16
.96
1.75-6.88
Approach/Withdrawal
4.60
1 .13
1.38-6.71
Threshold
3.40
.85
1.38-5.57
Intensity
3.70
1.00
1.88-5.88
Difficult Temperament
4.77
.57
3.43-6.01
86

APPENDIX D
SIGNIFICANT MULTIPLE REGRESSION MODELS
F P
Phase 1 of Anesthesia Induction
a. Distress Behaviors
F(5,49) = 2.40, £ <.05, R2 = .20
Source
Age 2.19 .15
Previous Experience .14 .71
Approach/Withdrawal 4.33 .04
Information 1.03 .31
Approach/Withdrawal X Information .21 .65
b. Cooperation Level
F (3,51) = 3.13, £<.03, R2 = .16
Source
Approach/Withdrawal 6.29 .02
Information 3.56 .06
Approach/Withdrawal X Information 2.55 .12
c. Distress Behaviors
F(5,49) = 4.09, £ <.004, R2 = .29
Source
Age 1.78 .19
Previous Experience .37 .54
Approach/Withdrawal .91 .34
Distraction 8.65 .005
Approach/Withdrawal X Distraction 5.88 .02
87

88
Phase 3 of Anesthesia Induction
a.Distress Behaviors
F (5, 52) = 2.39, £ <.05, R2 = .19
Source
Age
2.07
.16
Previous Experience
4.60
. 04
Approach/Withdrawal
1.71
.20
Distraction
5.70
.02
Approach/Withdrawal X Distraction
5.42
.02
b.Heart Rate Levels
F (5,4 0) = 3.19, £ <.02, R2 = .28
Source
Age
5.11
.03
Previous Experience
1.59
.22
Overall Temperament
. 15
.70
Ignoring
6.29
.02
Temperament X Ignoring
6.58
.01
c.Heart Rate Levels
F (5, 4 0) = 2.92, £ <.02, R2 = .27
Source
Age
4.90
.03
Previous Experience
1.51
.23
Approach/Withdrawal
.11
.74
Ignoring
4.14
.05
Approach/Withdrawal X Ignoring
4.58
.04
d.Heart Rate Levels
F (5,4 0) = 3.14, £ <.02, R2 = .28
Source
Age
3.31
.08
Previous Experience
1.86
.18
Overall Temperament
6.41
.02
Reassurance
4.98
.03
Temperament X Reassurance
4.36
.04
e.Heart Rate Levels
F (5, 4 0) = 2.53, £ <.04, R2 = .24
Source
Age
7.86
.008
Previous Experience
2.70
. 11
Overall Temperament
.28
. 60
Restraint
3.93
.05
Temperament X Restraint
3.93
.05

89
f. Heart Rate Levels
F(5,40) = 2.50, £ <.05, R¿ = .24
Source
Age
5.23
.03
Previous Experience
2.99
. 12
Overall Temperament
.05
.83
Agitation
3.80
.06
Temperament X Agitation
3.74
.06

REFERENCES
Abeles, L.A. (1984). Mother-Child Interaction in the
Medical Setting: Attachment Effects on Distress,
Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Florida.
Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1979). Infant-Mother Attachment.
American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.
Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., & Wall, S.C.
(1978) . Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of
the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Allport, G.W. (1937) . Personality: A psychological
interpretation. N.Y.cHolt
Altmann, J. (1974). Observational study of behavior:
Sampling methods. Behavior, 49, 227-267.
Andreassi, J.L. (1980) . Psychophysiology. N.Y.:Oxford
University Press, Inc.
Arend, R., Gove, F.L., & Sroufe, L.A. (1979) . Continuity of
individual adaptation from infancy to kindergarten: A
predictive study of ego-resiliency and curiosity in
preschoolers. Child Development, 50, 950-959.
Bates, J.E. (1980). The concept of difficult temperament.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 299-319.
Bates, J.E., Maslin, C.A., & Frankel, K.A. (1985) .
Attachment security, mother-child interaction, and
temperament as predictors of behavior problem ratings at
age three years. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 50, 167-193.
Bowlby, J. (1969) . Attachment and loss. Volume I:
attachment. N.Y.: Basic Books, Inc.
Brain, D.J., & McClay, I. (1968) . Controlled Study of
mothers and children in Hospitals. British Medical
Journal, 1, 278-280.
90

91
Bretherton, I., & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1974). Responses of
one-year-olds to a stranger in a strange situation. In M.
Lewis, & L.A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The origins of fear
(pp.131-164). N.Y.: Wiley.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.C. (1969) . Analyzing classroom
observation: A more powerful alternative (Rep. No.26).
Austin: Research and Development Center for Teacher
Education, University of Texas.
Bush, J.P., Melamed, B.G., Sheras, P.L., & Greenbaum, P.E.
(1986) . Mother-child patterns of coping with anticipatory
medical stress. Health Psychology, _5, 137-157.
Buss, A.H., & Plomin, R. (1975) . A temperamental theory of
personality development. N.Y.: John Wiley and Sons.
Cameron, J.R. (1977). Parental treatment, children's
temperament and the risk of childhood behavioral problems.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 47, 568-576.
Cameron, J.R. (1978). Parental treatment, children's
temperament and the risk of childhood behavioral problems.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 48, 140-147 .
Carey, W.B., Fox, M., & McDevitt, S.C. (1977). Temperament
as a factor in early school adjustment. Pediatrics, 50,
621-624.
Davies, R., Butler, N., & Goldstein, H. (1972). From birth
to seven: The second report of the National Child
Development Study (1958 cohort). London: National
Children's Bureau.
Doelling, J.L. (1987). Predicting the Success of Foster-
Care Placements. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of
Florida.
Eyberg, S.M. (1980). Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 9_, 29.
Goldsmith, H.H., Buss, A.H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M.K.,
Thomas, A., Chess, S., Hinde, R.A., & McCall, R.B. (1987).
Roundtable: What is Temperament? Four Approaches. Child
Development, 58, 505-529.
Goldsmith, H. H., & Campos, J. J. (1981) . Toward a theory
of infant temperament. In R. N. Emde and R. Harmon
(Eds.), Attachment and affiliative systems:
neurobiological and psychobiological aspects. N.Y.:
Plenum.

92
Graham, P., Rutter, M., & George, S. (1973). Temperamental
characteristics and predictors of behavioral disorders in
children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 43, 328-
339.
Gutstein, S.E., & Tarnow, J.D. (1983). Parental
facilitation of children's preparatory play behavior in a
stressful situation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
_U, 181-192.
Hannallah, R.S., & Rosales, J.K. (1983). Experience with
parents presence during anaesthesia induction in children.
Canadian Anaesthesiology Society Journal, 30, 286-289.
Hinde, R.A., Easton, D.F., Meller, R.E., & Tamplin, A.M.
(1982) . Temperamental characteristics of 3-4 year-olds and
mother-child interaction. Temperamental differences in
infants and young children. (pp.66-86) (CIBA Foundation
symposium 89) London: Pitman Books Ltd.
Hooker, K., Nesselroade, D.E., Nesselroade, J.R., & Lerner,
R.M. (1987) . The structure of intraindividual temperament
in the context of mother-child dyads: P-technique factor
analyses of short-term change. Developmental Psychology,
23, 332-346.
Kagan, J. (1982) . The construct of difficult temperament: A
reply to Thomas, Chess and Korn. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
2_8, 21-24.
Katz-Newman, D., & Johnson, J.H. (1986). Note on
reliability of Parent Temperament Questionnaire.
Psychological Reports, 59, 802.
Kogan, K.C., & Gordon, B. M. (1975) . A mother-instruction
program: Documenting change in mother-child interactions.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 5_, 189-200.
Lee, C.L., & Bates, J.E. (1985). Mother-child interaction
at age two years and perceived difficult temperament.
Child Development, 56, 1314-1325.
Lerner, J. (1984). The import of temperament for
psychosocial functioning: Tests of a goodness of fit model.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 177-188.
Lerner, R. M., Lerner, J.V., Windle, M., & Hooker, K,
(1985) . Children and adolescents in their contexts: Tests
of a goodness of fit model. Child Development, 56, 1325-
1341.

93
Lerner, R.M., Palermo, M., Spiro, A. Ill, & Nesselroade,
J.R. (1982) . Assessing the dimensions of temperamental
individuality across the life span: The dimensions of
temperament survey (DOTS Child Development, 53, 149-159.
Lumley, M., & Melamed, B.G. Operating Room Behavior Rating
Scale--Revised. Unpublished manuscript.
Maurer, R., Cadoret, R.J., & Cain, C., (1980). Cluster
analysis of childhood temperament data on adoptees.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 522-534.
Melamed, B.G., Dearborn, M., & Hermecz, D.A. (1983).
Necessary considerations for surgery preparation: Age and
previous experience. Psychosomatic Medicine, 45, 517-525.
Melamed, B.G., Meyer, R., Gee, C., & Soule, L. (1976). The
influence of time and preparation on children's adjustment
to hospitalization. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1,
31-37.
Melamed, B.G., Robbins, R.C., & Fernandez, J. (1982).
Factors to be considered in psychological preparation for
surgery. Advances in Developmental and Behavioral
Pediatrics, 3_, 73-112.
Melamed, B. G., & Siegel, L. J. (1975) . Reduction of
anxiety in children facing hospitalization and surgery by
use of filmed modeling. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 511-521.
Melamed, B.G., & Siegel, L.J. (1984). Children's reactions
to medical stressors: An ecological approach to the study
of anxiety. In A.H. Tuma and J. Maser (Eds.), Anxiety and
the anxiety disorders. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Meyer, E.F., & Muravchick, S. (1977). Anesthesia induction
technique in pediatric patients: A controlled study of
behavioral consequences. Anesthesia and Analgesia Current
Research, 56, 538-542.
Paget, K.D., Nagle, R.J., & Martin, R.P. (1984).
Interrelationships between temperament characteristics and
first-grade teacher-student interactions. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 12, 547-560.
Plomin, R. (1982). Behavioral genetics and temperament. In
Temperamental differences in infants and young children
(pp.155-167). (CIBA Foundation symposium 89) London: Pitman
Books, Ltd.

94
Plomin, R. (1983). Childhood Temperament. In B. B. Lahey
and A. E. Kazdin (Eds.) Advances in Clinical Child
Psychology, 6, 45-92.
Rowe, D.C., & Plomin, R. (1977) . Temperament in early
childhood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 150-156.
Rutter, M. (1982). Temperament: concepts, issues and
problems. Temperamental differences in infants and young
children. (pp.1-19). (CIBA Foundation symposium 89) London:
Pitman Books, Ltd.
Rutter, M., Birch, H.G., Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1964).
Temperamental characteristics in infancy and later
development of behavioral disorders. British Journal of
Psychiatry, 110, 651-661.
Shaw, E.G., Routh, D.K. (1982) . Effect of mother presence
on children's reaction to aversive procedures. Journal of
Pediatric Psychology, 1_, 33-42.
Sheeber, L. (1987) . Child temperament and maternal mental
state. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Florida.
Sroufe, L.A. (1979). The coherence of individual
development: Early care, attachment and subsequent
developmental issues. American Psychologist, 34, 834-841.
Sroufe, L.A. (1985). Attachment classification from the
perspective in infant-caregiver relationships and infant
temperament. Child Development, 56, 1-14.
Sroufe, L.A., Fox, N.E., & Pancake, V.R. (1983). Attachment
and dependency in developmental perspective. Child
Development, 54, 1615-1627.
Stevenson-Hinde, J., & Simpson, A.E. (1982). Temperament
and relationships. Temperamental differences in infants and
young children, (pp.51-65). (CIBA Foundation symposium 89)
London: Pitman Books, Ltd.
Thomas, A., Birch, H., Chess, S., & Robbins, L.C. (1961).
Individuality in responses of children to similar
environmental situations. American Journal of Psychiatry,
117, 798-803.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977) . Temperament and
development. N.Y.: Brunner/Mazel, Inc.
Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1982) . The reality of a difficult
temperament. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 1-20.

95
Thomas, A., Chess, S., & Birch, H.G. (1968). Temperament
and behavior disorders in children. N.Y.: University Press.
Torgersen, A.M. (1982). Influence of genetic factors of
temperament development in early childhood. In
Temperamental differences in infants and young children
(pp.141-154). (CIBA Foundation symposium 89) London:
Pitman Books, Ltd.
Vernon, D.T.A., Foley, J., & Schulman, J. (1967) . Effect on
mother-child separation and birth order on young children's
responses to two potentially stressful experiences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, _5, 162-174.
Weber, R.A., Levitt, M.J., Clark, M.C. (1986). Individual
Variation in Attachment Security and Strange Situation
Behavior: The Role of Maternal and Infant Temperament.
Child Development, 57, 56-65.
Webster-Stratton, C., & Eyberg, S. M. (1982). Child
temperament: Relationship with child behavior problems and
parent-child interaction. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 11, 123-129.
Wolkind, S.N., & DeSalis, W. (1982) Infant temperament,
maternal mental state and child behavior problems. In
Temperamental differences in infants and young children.
(pp. 221-239) . (CIBA Foundation symposium 89) . London:
Pitman Books, Ltd.
Zabin, M.A., & Melamed, B.G. (1980) . Relationship between
parental discipline and children's ability to cope with
stress. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 2, 17-38.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Linda Alisabeth Abeles was born on August 6, 1959, in
Lansing, Michigan. She grew up in East Lansing and
attended Easy Lansing High School. She earned her Bachelor
of Arts at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor in 1981.
In 1982 she moved to Gainesville, Florida, and received her
Master of Science degree in clinical psychology from the
University of Florida. She completed her clinical
internship at Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, Illinois.
Currently, she is living and working in the Atlanta area.
96

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 f<£r\the degree /OTN^octof of Philosophy
M • ^
it \j —
James>
Profes
| H. Johnson, P/r
sor of Clinical
I. D., Chairman
1 and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
, VILA a.
Sheila Eyberg, 'Ph.D.rV
Professor of ClinicaV and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
__ ^ -Cl_
Barbara Melamed, Ph.D.
Professor of Clinical and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
11.0 >■«<-, ' t 11/ ■ Q Q .(■
Nancy Npirvell, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of
Clinical and Health Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Margot/e White, Ph.D
Professor of Nursing

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of
the College of Health Related Professions and to the
Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
December, 1987 Vv\yv,.i j\ v\s\>vv ... A
Dean, College of Health Related Professions
Dean, Graduate School

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
ni ni ni mu ii*i* â– * â– "â– **
3 1262 08554 3048



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 EPK3Y1680_325XIN INGEST_TIME 2012-02-20T22:14:24Z PACKAGE AA00009092_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
Ml Ml III Mill
3 1262 08554 3048



PAGE 1

&+,/' 7(03(5$0(17 $1' 0$7(51$/ %(+$9,25 ())(&76 21 &+,/'5(1n6 %(+$9,25 '85,1* $1(67+(6,$ ,1'8&7,21 %\ /,1'$ $ $%(/(6 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

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

PAGE 3

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3$*( $&.12:/('*(0(176 LL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 Y /,67 2) ),*85(6 YL $%675$&7 YLL &+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 7HPSHUDPHQW 5HODWLRQVKLS RI 3DUHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW *RRGQHVV RI )LW 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG +RVSLWDOL]DWLRQ 3UHGLFWLRQV ,, 0(7+2'6 f 6XEMHFWV 0HDVXUHV %DFNJURXQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ )RUP 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH '\DGLF 3UHVWUHVVRU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 6FDOH 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOH +HDUW 5DWH 3URFHGXUH ,,, 5(68/76 'HPRJUDSKLF DQG 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 0HDVXUHV 5HOLDELOLW\ RI REVHUYDWLRQDO PHDVXUHV '3,6 LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV 25%565 DQG KHDUW UDWH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV 7HVWV RI +\SRWKHVHV 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ LLL

PAGE 4

3$*( 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV ,QIOXHQFH RI PDWHUQDO DQG FKLOG YDULDEOHV RQ KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ,9 ',6&866,21 &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG %HKDYLRU 'XULQJ $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ *RRGQHVV RI )LW 0DWHUQDO 3DWWHUQV RI %HKDYLRU 6LWXDWLRQDO &RPSRQHQWV &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO ,QYROYHPHQW /LPLWDWLRQV &RQFOXVLRQV $33(1',&(6 $ %$&.*5281' ,1)250$7,21 ,17(59,(: )250 % 23(5$7,1* 5220 %(+$9,25 5$7,1* 6&$/( 5(9,6(' & 6$03/( &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 3$5(17 7(03(5$0(17 48(67,211$,5( 6,*1,),&$17 08/7,3/( 5(*5(66,21 02'(/6 5()(5(1&(6 %,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ LY

PAGE 5

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 7$%/( 3$*( 'HPRJUDSKLF &KDUDFWHULVWLFV '3,6 ,QWHUUDWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW &RHIILFLHQWV 25%565 ,QWHUUDWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW &RHIILFLHQWV ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ '3,6 3DUHQW %HKDYLRU &DWHJRULHV ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ '3,6 &KLOG %HKDYLRU &DWHJRULHV ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ 25%565 5DWLQJV Y

PAGE 6

/,67 2) ),*85(6 ),*85( 3$*( 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK :LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUQDO 8VH RI 'LVWUDFWLRQ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ 1XPEHU RI 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK :LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUQDO 8VH RI 'LVWUDFWLRQ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ 1XPEHU RI 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLSV %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO ,JQRULQJ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK :LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUQDO ,JQRULQJ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO ,JQRULQJ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO 5HVWUDLQW DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODWLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO $JLWDWLRQ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV YL

PAGE 7

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ &+,/' 7(03(5$0(17 $1' 0$7(51$/ %(+$9,25 ())(&76 21 &+,/'5(1n6 %(+$9,25 '85,1* $1(67+(6,$ ,1'8&7,21 %\ /,1'$ $ $%(/(6 'HFHPEHU &KDLUPDQ -DPHV + -RKQVRQ 3K' 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KLV VWXG\ H[SORUHG FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DQG KRZ WKLV LV UHODWHG WR WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG 6L[W\ PRWKHUFKLOG G\DGV ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG LQ WKH (DU 1RVH 7KURDW &OLQLF ZDLWLQJ URRP DW WKH +LOOLV 0LOOHU +HDOWK &HQWHU *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD 0RWKHUV FRPSOHWHG WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH UHJDUGLQJ WKHLU FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW 0RWKHUV DQG FKLOGUHQ ZHUH WKHQ HVFRUWHG WR D FOLQLF H[DPLQDWLRQ URRP $ YLGHRWDSH UHFRUGLQJ ZDV PDGH RI WKH ZDLWLQJ SHULRG EHIRUH WKH GRFWRU HQWHUHG WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ URRP 9LGHRWDSHV ZHUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ VFRUHG XVLQJ WKH '\DGLF 3UHVWUHVVRU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 6FDOH 2Q WKH GD\ RI VXUJHU\ DQ REVHUYHU PHW WKH FKLOG DQG SDUHQW LQ WKH f§YL L f§

PAGE 8

SUHRSHUDWLYH KROGLQJ URRP 7KH REVHUYHUV XVHG WKH 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOH5HYLVHG WR UDWH WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG OHYHO RI FRRSHUDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH &KLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH ZDV UHFRUGHG DV VRRQ DV WKH HOHFWURGHV ZHUH DWWDFKHG 2QO\ D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV DQG PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV ZHUH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ,QVWHDG WHPSHUDPHQW YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG WKH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH LQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV RI LJQRULQJ UHVWUDLQW UHDVVXULQJ DJLWDWLRQ DQG GLVWUDFWLRQ ZHUH WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRUV RI FKLOGUHQn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

PAGE 9

ZLWK UHJDUG WR SRVVLEOH LQWHUYHQWLRQV DUH GLVFXVVHG O[

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 (YHU\ \HDU PLOOLRQV RI FKLOGUHQ XQGHUJR PHGLFDO DQG GHQWDO SURFHGXUHV 0HODPHG t 6LHJHO f ,Q WKH KRVSLWDO D FKLOG ZKR PD\ KDYH SUHYLRXVO\ IXQFWLRQHG DGHTXDWHO\ PD\ EHFRPH DQ[LRXV LQ UHVSRQVH WR PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV VR WKDW QRUPDO FRSLQJ EHKDYLRUV DUH LQHIIHFWLYH )ROORZLQJ D KRVSLWDO VWD\ DV PDQ\ DV RQH WKLUG RI DOO FKLOGUHQ VKRZ VRPH HYLGHQFH RI ORQJWHUP SV\FKRORJLFDO DGMXVWPHQW SUREOHPV 'DYLHV %XWOHU t *ROGVWHLQ f )RU VRPH FKLOGUHQ KRZHYHU WKH KRVSLWDO H[SHULHQFH FDQ EH YLHZHG LQ VRPH UHVSHFWV DV D SRVLWLYH RQH DQG DSSUR[LPDWHO\ RQH TXDUWHU RI DOO FKLOGUHQ DUH UDWHG DV EHKDYLRUDOO\ LPSURYHG DIWHU KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ 9HUQRQ )ROH\ t 6FKXOPDQ f :KLOH WKHUH LV OLWWOH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ IDFWRUV WKDW SUHGLFW FRSLQJ YHUVXV PDODGDSWLYH EHKDYLRU LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ WKHUH LV UHDVRQ WR VXVSHFW WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ EH RI LPSRUWDQFH DV WHPSHUDPHQW KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR EH D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI EHKDYLRUV SUREOHPV 7KRPDV t &KHVV f $W SUHVHQW KRZHYHU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV WR FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR D KRVSLWDO H[SHULHQFH KDV \HW WR EH UHVHDUFKHG 7KLV VWXG\ SURSRVHV WR H[SORUH FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR

PAGE 11

DGMXVWPHQW WR D PHGLFDO H[SHULHQFH DQG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV H[KLELWHG LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ 7HPSHUDPHQW 7KH FRQFHSW RI WHPSHUDPHQW GDWHV WR PHGLHYDO WLPHV ZKHQ LW ZDV XVHG WR UHIHU WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV PHQWDO GLVSRVLWLRQ DV FRQVWLWXWHG E\ WKH FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH IRXU FDUGLQDO KXPRXUV 5XWWHU f 7RGD\ WKH JHQHUDO FRQVHQVXV LV WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW LQYROYHV VW\OH UDWKHU WKDQ FRQWHQW WKDW LV WKH KRZ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH ZKDW RU ZK\ RI EHKDYLRU 3ORPLQ f 7KHUH KDV EHHQ KRZHYHU PXFK FRQIXVLRQ UHJDUGLQJ WKH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WHUPV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ :KLOH *ROGVPLWK DQG &DPSRV f VWDWH WKDW WKHUH LV QR FOHDUFXW GLVWLQFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ $OOSRUW f KDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW LQFOXGHV WKRVH VW\OLVWLF DVSHFWV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WKDW DUH VWDEOH DQG DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ KHUHGLW\ .DJDQ f UHIOHFWV WKH SUHYDLOLQJ YLHZ RI PRVW WHPSHUDPHQW WKHRULVWV VWDWLQJ WKDW DQ\ TXDOLW\ ZKLFK KDV SHUVLVWHG IRU PRUH WKDQ WZR \HDUV LV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG D WHPSHUDPHQW WUDLW ,Q LWV FXUUHQW XVDJH WHPSHUDPHQW LV FRQVLGHUHG D UXEULF IRU D JURXS RI UHODWHG WUDLWV DQG QRW D WUDLW LWVHOI *ROGVPLWK %XVV 3ORPLQ 5RWKEDUW 7KRPDV &KHVV +LQGH DQG 0F&DOO S f 7KH WHPSHUDPHQWDO UXEULF HQFRPSDVVHV SKHQRPHQD VXFK DV LUULWDELOLW\ DFWLYLW\ OHYHO

PAGE 12

DQG IHDUIXOQHVV *ROGVPLWK HW DO f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
PAGE 13

HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DW PHHWLQJ DJH DSSURSULDWH WDVNV RI GHYHORSPHQW Hf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f 7KLV VWXG\ LQYROYHG FKLOGUHQ RI ZRUNLQJ FODVV 3XHUWR 5LFDQ SDUHQWV RI WKLV VDPSOH b OLYHG LQ ORZLQFRPH SXEOLF KRXVLQJ SURMHFWV 7KLV VWXG\ ZDV EHJXQ VR DV WR UHVHDUFK D SRSXODWLRQ RI FRQWUDVWLQJ VRFLRHFRQRPLF EDFNJURXQG DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH RULJLQDO JURXS $GGLWLRQDOO\ 7KRPDV &KHVV DQG %LUFK EHJDQ ORQJLWXGLQDOO\ UHVHDUFKLQJ WZR VDPSOHV RI GHYLDQW FKLOGUHQ 2QH VDPSOH LQFOXGHG FKLOGUHQ ERUQ SUHPDWXUHO\ ZLWK ORZ ELUWK ZHLJKWVDSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKHVH FKLOGUHQ KDG FOLQLFDO HYLGHQFH RI QHXURORJLFDO LPSDLUPHQW DW DJH ILYH \HDUV 7KLV JURXS ZDV IROORZHG IURP ELUWK 7KH

PAGE 14

VHFRQG JURXS ZDV FRPSULVHG RI FKLOGUHQ ZLWK PLOGO\ UHWDUGHG LQWHOOHFWXDO OHYHOV EXW ZLWKRXW HYLGHQFH RI PRWRU G\VIXQFWLRQ RU ERG\ VWLJPDWD 7KLV JURXS KDV EHHQ IROORZHG VLQFH ZKHQ WKH\ ZHUH EHWZHHQ DQG \HDUVROG $ VSHFLDO SRSXODWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQ ZLWK FRQJHQLWDO UXEHOOD ZDV DOVR VWXGLHG LQ D FURVVVHFWLRQDO H[SHULPHQWDO GHVLJQ DW WR \HDUV RI DJH DQG GXULQJ D IROORZXS IRXU \HDUV ODWHU )RU DOO RI VXEMHFWV WKH SDUHQWV ZHUH WKH SULPDU\ VRXUFH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ WKH FKLOGn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f UHSRUW WKDW WKH LQWUD DQG LQWHUVFRUHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV DW WKH b OHYHO RI DJUHHPHQW 7KH QLQH FDWHJRULHV RI WHPSHUDPHQW WKHLU GHILQLWLRQV DQG WKH WKUHH SRLQW VFRULQJ VFDOHV DUH DV IROORZV

PAGE 15

f $FWLYLW\ OHYHO LV GHILQHG DV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK D PRWRU FRPSRQHQW LV SUHVHQW ZKHQ D FKLOG LV HQJDJHG LQ EDWKLQJ HDWLQJ SOD\LQJ GUHVVLQJ EHLQJ KDQGOHG VOHHSLQJ UHDFKLQJ FUDZOLQJ DQG ZDONLQJ KLJK PHGLXP ORZf f 5K\WKPLFLW\ LV GHILQHG DV WKH SUHGLFWDELOLW\ DQGRU XQSUHGLFWDELOLW\ LQ WLPH RI DQ\ IXQFWLRQ ,W FDQ EH DQDO\]HG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH VOHHSZDNH F\FOH KXQJHU IHHGLQJ SDWWHUQV DQG HOLPLQDWLRQ VFKHGXOHV UHJXODU YDULDEOH LUUHJXODUf f $SSURDFK RU ZLWKGUDZDO LV GHILQHG DV WKH QDWXUH RI WKH FKLOGnV UHVSRQVH WR D QHZ VWLPXOXV ZKHWKHU LW LV D QHZ IRRG WR\ RU SHUVRQ DSSURDFK YDULDEOH ZLWKGUDZDOf f $GDSWDELOLW\ LV GHILQHG DV WKH UHVSRQVHV WR D QHZ RU DOWHUHG VLWXDWLRQ RYHU WLPH ,Q FRQWUDVW WR WKH DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO GLPHQVLRQ WKH FRQFHUQ LQ WKLV FDVH LV WKH HDVH ZKLFK WKH UHVSRQVHV DUH PRGLILHG LQ WKH GHVLUHG GLUHFWLRQV DGDSWLYH YDULDEOH QRQDGDSWLYHf f 7KUHVKROG RI UHVSRQVLYHQHVV LV GHILQHG DV WKH LQWHQVLW\ OHYHO RI VWLPXODWLRQ QHFHVVDU\ WR HYRNH DQ REVHUYDEOH UHVSRQVH IURP WKH FKLOG KLJK PHGLXP ORZf f ,QWHQVLW\ RI UHDFWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV WKH HQHUJ\ OHYHO RI WKH UHVSRQVH SRVLWLYH YDULDEOH QHJDWLYHf f 4XDOLW\ RI 0RRG LV GHILQHG DV WKH DPRXQW RI SOHDVDQW MR\IXO DQG IULHQGO\ EHKDYLRU DV FRQWUDVWHG ZLWK

PAGE 16

XQSOHDVDQW FU\LQJ DQG XQIULHQGO\ EHKDYLRU SRVLWLYH YDULDEOH QHJDWLYHf f 'LVWUDFWLELOLW\ LV GHILQHG DV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXOL FKDQJHV DQ RQJRLQJ EHKDYLRU GLVWUDFWLEOH YDULDEOH QRQGLVWUDFWLEOHf f $WWHQWLRQ VSDQ DQG SHUVLVWHQFH FRQFHUQV WKH OHQJWK RI WLPH DQ DFWLYLW\ LV SXUVXHG E\ WKH FKLOG DQG WKH FRQWLQXDWLRQ RI DQ DFWLYLW\ LQ WKH IDFH RI REVWDFOHV SHUVLVWHQW YDULDEOH QRQSHUVLVWHQWf 4XDOLWDWLYH DQG IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI WKHVH QLQH GLPHQVLRQV E\ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f \LHOGHG WKUHH WHPSHUDPHQW FRQVWHOODWLRQV RI IXQFWLRQDO VLJQLILFDQFH WKH PRVW FRPPRQ SDWWHUQ WKH HDV\ FKLOG ZDV VHHQ LQ DERXW b RI WKH FKLOGUHQ ,W LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ UHJXODULW\ SRVLWLYH DSSURDFK KLJK DGDSWDELOLW\ DQG PLOG RU PRGHUDWHO\ LQWHQVH PRRG ZKLFK LV PRVWO\ SRVLWLYH $Q RSSRVLWH SDWWHUQ LV VHHQ LQ WKH GLIILFXOW FKLOG 7KLV FKLOG KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR KDYH DQ LUUHJXODULW\ LQ ELRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQV QHJDWLYH ZLWKGUDZDO UHVSRQVHV WR QHZ VWLPXOL QRQ RU VORZ DGDSWDELOLW\ WR FKDQJH DQG LQWHQVH DQG QHJDWLYH PRRG 7KLV SDWWHUQ ZDV IRXQG LQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI FKLOGUHQ 7KH WKLUG FRQVWHOODWLRQ KDV EHHQ WHUPHG WKH VORZWRZDUPXS FKLOG DQG ZDV VHHQ LQ b RI WKH VDPSOH 7KHVH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DFWLYH ZLWKGUDZLQJ ORZ LQ DGDSWDELOLW\ WHQGHG WR KDYH D QHJDWLYH PRRG DQG D ORZ LQWHQVLW\ RI UHDFWLRQ OHYHO

PAGE 17

7KRPDV &KHVV DQG %LUFK f IRXQG WKDW b RI FKLOGUHQ FODVVLILHG DV GLIILFXOW GHYHORSHG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV ZKHUHDV RQO\ b RI WKRVH FKLOGUHQ LGHQWLILHG DV HDV\ GHYHORSHG VXFK GLIILFXOWLHV *UDKDP 5XWWHU DQG *HRUJH f DWWHPSWHG WR UHSOLFDWH WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH 1
PAGE 18

ERZHO IXQFWLRQ )LQDOO\ WKH PRWKHU ZDV TXHVWLRQHG DERXW WKH FKLOGnV EHKDYLRU LQ YDULRXV QRQURXWLQH VLWXDWLRQV )URP WKLV LQWHUYLHZ HDFK FKLOG ZDV UDWHG RQ VHYHQ FDWHJRULHV RI EHKDYLRU PRRG LQWHQVLW\ RI HPRWLRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ DFWLYLW\ UHJXODULW\ PDOOHDELOLW\ IDVWLGLRXVQHVV DQG DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO WR QHZ SHRSOH )LYH RI WKHVH FDWHJRULHV LQFOXGLQJ PRRG LQWHQVLW\ DFWLYLW\ UHJXODULW\ DQG DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO GLUHFWO\ FRUUHVSRQGHG ZLWK 7KRPDV &KHVV DQG %LUFKnV f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nV DGMXVWPHQW VHYHUDO LPSRUWDQW LVVXHV DUH UDLVHG FRQFHUQLQJ WKLV VWXG\ 7KH ILUVW FRQFHUQV WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH SDUHQWDO UHSRUWV RI WKH EHKDYLRU DQG WHPSHUDPHQW RI WKHLU FKLOGUHQ %DWHV f KDV TXHVWLRQHG WKH YDOLGLW\ RI SDUHQW UHSRUWV DQG KDV

PAGE 19

VXJJHVWHG WKDW GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW LV D SDUHQWDO SHUFHSWLRQ 7KLV PD\ EH HVSHFLDOO\ UHOHYDQW DV RQH RI WKH FKLOGUHQnV SDUHQWV LQ WKLV VWXG\ ZDV SUHVXPDEO\ SV\FKLDWULFDOO\ LOO $GGLWLRQDOO\ *UDKDP HW DO f DVVXPH WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW LV D UHODWLYHO\ FRQVWDQW WUDLW 7KLV KDV QRW EHHQ WRWDOO\ VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH OLWHUDWXUH +RRNHU 1HVVHOURDGH 1HVVHOURDGH t /HUQHU f ,Q D VWXG\ ZKLFK VRXJKW WR LGHQWLI\ DQWHFHGHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI FKLOGUHQ WKDW EHVW SUHGLFWHG EHKDYLRUDO SUREOHPV LQ \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ %DWHV 0DVOLQ DQG )UDQNHO f IRXQG WKDW D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DV SHUFHLYHG E\ SDUHQWV DQG VHFRQGDU\ FDUH JLYHUV SUHGLFWHG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH 3UHVFKRRO %HKDYLRU 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK WKH GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW WUDLWV RI QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQ XQDGDSWDELOLW\XQVRFLDELOLW\ DQG KLJK DFWLYLW\ OHYHO ZHUH UDWHG E\ WKHLU PRWKHUV DV KLJKHU LQ DQ[LHW\ KRVWLOLW\ DQG K\SHUDFWLYLW\ 7KHVH UHVXOWV KRZHYHU PXVW EH LQWHUSUHWHG FDXWLRXVO\ DV WKH\ PLJKW EH UHIOHFWLYH RI ELDV LQ PRWKHUVn UHSRUW 2QO\ RQH WHPSHUDPHQW GLPHQVLRQXQDGDSWDELOLW\ ZDV IRXQG WR FRUUHODWH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK RQH FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPDQ[LHW\ )XUWKHUPRUH %DWHV HW DO f ZULWHV WKDW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG DQG PRWKHU VHOIUHSRUWHG DQ[LHW\ GHIHQVLYHQHVV DQG VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ UHIOHFW WKDW DQ[LRXV PRWKHUV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH DQ[LRXV FKLOGUHQ DQG WKDW

PAGE 20

WKHVH FKLOGUHQ PD\ H[SUHVV WKHLU SURQHQHVV WR DQ[LHW\ YLD D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW :HEHU /HYLWW DQG &ODUN f LQYHVWLJDWHG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG LWV DIIHFW RQ FKLOGUHQnV DWWDFKPHQW WR WKHLU PRWKHUV 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV IRXQG WKDW GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FKLOGUHQnV DWWDFKPHQW DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GLIIHUHQW EHKDYLRUDO RXWFRPHV $LQVZRUWK %OHKDU :DWHUV DQG :DOO f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG DWWDFKPHQW GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG RQ PRWKHUFKLOG G\DGV 7HPSHUDPHQW ZDV DVVHVVHG ZLWK WKH 'LPHQVLRQV RI 7HPSHUDPHQW 6XUYH\ '276f /HUQHU 3DOHUPR 6SLUR t 1HVVHOURDGH f 7KH GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH '276 DUH FRQFHSWXDOO\ VLPLODU WR WKRVH LGHQWLILHG E\ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f H[FHSW VRPH RI WKH 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV FDWDJRULHV ZHUH FRPELQHG DQG WKH TXDOLW\ RI PRRG GLPHQVLRQ ZDV HOLPLQDWHG 7KH '276 GLPHQVLRQV LQFOXGH DFWLYLW\ OHYHO DWWHQWLRQ VSDQ DGDSWDELOLW\ UK\WKPLFLW\ DQG UHDFWLYLW\ $WWDFKPHQW ZDV DVVHVVHG YLD WKH VWUDQJH VLWXDWLRQ $LQVZRUWK HW DO f 7KH VWUDQJH VLWXDWLRQ LV GLYLGHG LQWR HLJKW PLQXWH HSLVRGHV 7KH VLWXDWLRQ EHJLQV ZLWK WKH PRWKHU DQG FKLOG DORQH LQ D URRP $ IHPDOH VWUDQJHU HQWHUV WKH URRP VLWV TXLHWO\ DW ILUVW WKHQ WDONV WR WKH PRWKHU DQG DWWHPSWV WR SOD\ ZLWK WKH FKLOG 7KH PRWKHU WKHQ OHDYHV WKH URRP OHDYLQJ WKH FKLOG ZLWK WKH VWUDQJHU $IWHU PLQXWHV WKH PRWKHU UHWXUQV DQG WKH VWUDQJHU OHDYHV 7KH PRWKHU VHWWOHV KHU FKLOG LI QHFHVVDU\ DQG

PAGE 21

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nV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV GR LQ IDFW FRQWULEXWH WR WKHLU VRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW $OWKRXJK WKH OLWHUDWXUH KDV LQGLFDWHG DQ DVVRFLDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG VFKRRO SHUIRUPDQFH &DUH\ )R[ t 0F'HYLWW 7KRPDV t &KHVV f WKH DFWXDO SURFHVV YDULDEOHV WKURXJK ZKLFK YDULDWLRQ LQ WHPSHUDPHQW KDV QRW EHHQ LGHQWLILHG 3DJHW 1DJOH DQG 0DUWLQ f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG ILUVWJUDGH WHDFKHUVWXGHQW LQWHUDFWLRQV 7HDFKHUV RI ILUVW JUDGH FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 22

FRPSOHWHG WKH 7HDFKHU 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KRPDV t &KHVV f 7KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH LV EDVHG RQ WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KRPDV t &KHVV f DQG FRQWDLQV VHYHQ VXEVFDOHV LQFOXGLQJ Df DFWLYLW\ OHYHO Ef DGDSWDELOLW\ Ff DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO Gf VHQVRU\ WKUHVKROG Hf LQWHQVLW\ If GLVWUDFWLELOLW\ DQG Jf SHUVLVWHQFH 6KRUWO\ DIWHU WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG YLGHRWDSHV ZHUH PDGH RI FODVVURRP LQWHUDFWLRQV )RU HDFK FKLOG D WRWDO RI KRXUV RI REVHUYDWLRQ GDWD ZDV FROOHFWHG 7KHVH YLGHRWDSHV ZHUH UDWHG E\ WKH %URSK\ DQG *RRG f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

PAGE 23

ZKHQ WKH WHDFKHU FRPPHQWHG RQ D FKLOGnV QRQDFDGHPLF EHKDYLRU 3DJHW 1DJOH DQG 0DUWLQ f IRXQG WKDW FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV SUHGLFWHG WHDFKHUVWXGHQW LQWHUDFWLRQV 7KH ILQGLQJV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH PRVW DGDSWDEOH DQG DWWHQWLYH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH WKH OHDVW OLNHO\ WR UHFHLYH FRQWDFW IRU WKHLU EHKDYLRU SDUWLFXODUO\ FRQWDFW LQYROYLQJ SUDLVH 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH H[SODLQHG LQ WHUPV RI D UHLQIRUFHPHQW F\FOH EHLQJ LQ HIIHFW 7KDW LV PRUH SUDLVH LV JLYHQ WR ZLWKGUDZQ FKLOGUHQ DV WKH\ DUH PRUH UHVSRQVLYH WR SUDLVH WKDQ PRUH H[WURYHUWHG FKLOGUHQ 7DNHQ WRJHWKHU WKLV VHOHFWLYH RYHUYLHZ VXJJHVWV WKDW FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQIOXHQFH WKHLU EHKDYLRU LQ D YDULHW\ RI HQYLURQPHQWV DQG IXUWKHUPRUH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ LQIOXHQFH RWKHU LQGLYLGXDOVn UHVSRQVHV 5HODWLRQVKLS RI 3DUHQW 9DULDEOHV DQG &KLOG 7HPSHUDPHQW 2QH IDFWRU DIIHFWLQJ WKH FKLOGnV SV\FKRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQLQJ ZLWKLQ YDULRXV HQYLURQPHQWV PD\ EH WKH SDUHQW FKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS LQFOXGLQJ SDUHQWFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV :HEVWHU6WUDWWRQ DQG (\EHUJ f DVVHVVHG FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG \HDUVROG DQG WKHLU PRWKHUV RQ YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV DQG PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ 7HPSHUDPHQW ZDV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH &RORUDGR &KLOGKRRG 7HPSHUDPHQW ,QYHQWRU\ &&7,f 5RZH t 3ORPLQ f 7KLV LV

PAGE 24

D SDUHQWDO UDWLQJ LQVWUXPHQW IRU FKLOGUHQ WKURXJK \HDUV RI DJH 7KH &&7, ZDV GHULYHG IURP WKH MRLQW IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KRPDV HW DO f DQG %XVV DQG 3ORPLQnV f WHPSHUDPHQW TXHVWLRQQDLUH 0RWKHUV DOVR FRPSOHWHG WKH (\EHUJ &KLOG %HKDYLRU ,QYHQWRU\ (&%,f (\EHUJ f RQ WKHLU FKLOGUHQ 7KLV PHDVXUH VXUYH\V D ZLGH YDULHW\ RI SDUHQWDO FRQFHUQV UHJDUGLQJ FKLOG FRQGXFW SUREOHPV )LQDOO\ EHKDYLRUDO REVHUYDWLRQV ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ YLGHRWDSLQJ HDFK PRWKHUFKLOG G\DG IRU PLQXWHV LQ D SOD\ URRP WKURXJK D RQHZD\ PLUURU 7KH YLGHRWDSHV ZHUH WKHQ UDWHG XVLQJ WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO %HKDYLRU &RQVWUXFW 6FDOH ,%&6f .RJDQ t *RUGRQ f 'LPHQVLRQV LQFOXGHG RQ WKLV VFDOH DUH SRVLWLYH DIIHFW EHKDYLRU QHJDWLYH DIIHFW EHKDYLRU QRQ DFFHSWDQFH EHKDYLRU GRPLQDQFH DQG VXEPLVVLYHQHVV :HEVWHU6WUDWWRQ DQG (\EHUJnV f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

PAGE 25

)XUWKHUPRUH PRWKHU SRVLWLYH DIIHFW ZDV IRXQG WR EH QHJDWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK FKLOG VRFLDELOLW\ 7ZR REVHUYDWLRQDO VWXGLHV H[DPLQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 6WHYHQVRQ +LQGH DQG 6LPSVRQ f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PRWKHUnV PRRG DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 6XEMHFWV LQFOXGHG ER\V DQG JLUOV IURP IDPLOLHV FRPSRVHG RI ERWK SDUHQWV DQG RQH VLEOLQJ 0DWHUQDO PRRG ZDV DVVHVVHG E\ D VHOIUHSRUW LQYHQWRU\ GHYHORSHG E\ 6QDLWK &RQVWDQWRSRXORXV 9DUGQH DQG 0F*XIILQ FLWHG LQ 6WHYHQVRQ+LQGH t 6LPSVRQ f ZKLFK SURYLGHG VXPPDU\ UDWLQJV IRU GHSUHVVLRQ DQ[LHW\ LQZDUG LUULWDELOLW\ DQG RXWZDUG LUULWDELOLW\ &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV DVVHVVHG WZLFH RQFH DW \HDUV RI DJH DQG DJDLQ HLJKW PRQWKV ODWHU E\ WKH 7HPSHUDPHQWDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV ,QWHUYLHZ 7KLV VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH LQWHUYLHZ VFKHGXOH GHYHORSHG E\ *DUVLGH %LUFK DQG 6FRWW FLWHG LQ 6WHYHQVRQ+LQGH t 6LPSVRQ f 'LPHQVLRQV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH 7HPSHUDPHQWDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV ,QWHUYLHZ LQFOXGHG DFWLYLW\ OHYHO VK\QHVV GHSHQGHQF\ PRRGLQHVV LQWHQVLW\ PDOOHDELOLW\ LUUHJXODULW\ DVVHUWLYHQHVV DQG DWWHQWLRQ VSDQ 6WHYHQVRQ+LQGH DQG 6LPSVRQ f IRXQG WKDW WKH PRUH WHPSHUDPHQWDOO\ GLIILFXOW WKH FKLOG FRPSRVHG RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI PRRGLQHVV LQWHQVLW\ XQPDOOHDELOLW\ LUUHJXODULW\ DVVHUWLYH DQG GHFUHDVHG DWWHQWLRQ VSDQf WKH PRUH DQ[LRXV DQG LUULWDEOH LQZDUGO\ DQG RXWZDUGO\f ZDV WKH

PAGE 26

PRWKHU 7KH ILQGLQJV RI WKLV VWXG\ VWDWH WKH DXWKRUV UDLVH WKH EURDGHU LVVXH RI KRZ PRWKHUV LQIOXHQFH DQG DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ FKLOGUHQnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV +LQGH (DVWRQ 0HOOHU DQG 7DPSOLQ f VWXGLHG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW ZLWK PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU 'DWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG IURP JLUOV DQG ER\V DW Q f DQG PRQWKV RI DJH Q f &KLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV DVVHVVHG ZLWK WKH 7HPSHUDPHQWDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV ,QWHUYLHZ *DUVLGH HW DO FLWHG LQ +LQGH HW DO f DQG PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU ZDV UDWHG ZLWK DQ REVHUYDWLRQDO VFDOH GXULQJ DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKHLU FKLOGUHQ 'LPHQVLRQV LQFOXGHG RQ WKLV REVHUYDWLRQDO VFDOH LQFOXGHG SK\VLFDO IULHQGOLQHVV YHUEDO IULHQGOLQHVV H[SUHVVLRQ RI SOHDVXUH W\SHV RI VSHHFK W\SHV RI TXHVWLRQV W\SHV RI FRQWUROV QRQFRPSOLDQFH KRVSLWDOLW\ DQG H[FLWHPHQW +LQGH HW DO f IRXQG WKDW PRRG\ FKLOGUHQ HVSHFLDOO\ JLUOV ZHUH WKH UHFLSLHQWV RI PDWHUQDO KRVWLOLW\ DQG PRUH SK\VLFDO UHVSRQVHV DQG IHZHU YHUEDOO\ IULHQGO\ UHVSRQVHV ,Q D VWXG\ RI LQIDQW WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO OHYHO RI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV :RONLQG DQG 'H 6DOLV f IRXQG WKDW FKLOGUHQ DVVHVVHG DW PRQWKV RI DJH DV WHPSHUDPHQWDOO\ GLIILFXOW WHQGHG WR KDYH PRUH EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV WKDQ RWKHU FKLOGUHQ ZKHQ DJDLQ DVVHVVHG DW PRQWKV RI DJH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH UHVHDUFKHUV IRXQG WKDW PDWHUQDO GHSUHVVLRQ ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV ZKHQ WKH FKLOG ZDV LQ WKH H[WUHPH

PAGE 27

TXDUWLOHV RI HLWKHU HQG RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW LH H[WUHPHO\ HDV\ RU H[WUHPHO\ GLIILFXOW :RONLQG DQG 'H 6DOOLV f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f XWLOL]HG WKH GDWD IURP WKH 1
PAGE 28

3DUHQWDO SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ ZDV UHODWHG WR EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV LQ ERWK PDOH DQG IHPDOH FKLOGUHQ DGGLWLRQDOO\ IRU PDOH FKLOGUHQ EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV ZHUH DOVR UHODWHG WR QHJDWLYH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDQJHV RYHU WLPH )XUWKHUPRUH WKHVH QHJDWLYH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDQJHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SDUHQWDO LQWROHUDQFH LQFRQVLVWHQF\ DQG FRQIOLFW &DPHURQ f 7KLV VWXG\ VXJJHVWV WKDW ZKLOH FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV PD\ EH UHODWHG WR D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ SDUHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ DIIHFW FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW /HH DQG %DWHV f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

PAGE 29

VHTXHQFH YDULDEOHV 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKH VHTXHQFH YDULDEOH FRQVLVWHG RI D FKLOG WURXEOH EHKDYLRU D PRWKHU FRQWURO UHVSRQVH DQG D FKLOGnV UHVSRQVH WR WKH PRWKHUnV FRQWURO DWWHPSW /HH DQG %DWHV f IRXQG WKDW FKLOGUHQ SHUFHLYHG DV GLIILFXOW LQ WHPSHUDPHQW ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH FRQIOLFWXDO LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK WKHLU PRWKHU WKDQ WHPSHUDPHQWDOO\ HDV\ FKLOGUHQ 7KH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZDV REVHUYHG WR EH PRUH QHJDWLYH RU UHVLVWHQW LQ UHVSRQVH WR PRWKHUVn FRQWURO DWWHPSWV DQG WKH PRWKHUV RI VXFK FKLOGUHQ ZHUH OLNHO\ WR XVH PRUH LQWUXVLYH FRQWURO VWUDWHJLHV LQFOXGLQJ UHVWUDLQW RI WKH FKLOG DQG D GHPDQG IRU PDWXULW\ /HH DQG %DWHV FRQFOXGH WKDW WKH GDWD SUHVHQWHG VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVHV WKDW WKH TXDOLW\ RI PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ FDQ EH FRQVLGHUHG D PHGLDWLQJ SURFHVV EHWZHHQ D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DQG ODWHU EHKDYLRU GLVRUGHUV *RRGQHVV RI )LW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f VWDWH WKDW WHPSHUDPHQW LV QHYHU FRQVLGHUHG E\ LWVHOI EXW DOZD\V LQ LWV UHODWLRQVKLS WR RU LQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV DELOLWLHV PRWLYHV H[WHUQDO HQYLURQPHQWDO VWUHVVHV DQG RSSRUWXQLWLHV SOf 7KXV WHPSHUDPHQW LV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV LQWHUDFWLRQLVW DSSURDFK UHTXLUHV WKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ RQ DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV EHKDYLRU VW\OH EH FRQVLGHUHG ZLWKLQ WKH VSHFLILF FRQWH[W LQ ZKLFK LW KDV RFFXUUHG 7KDW LV DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV WHPSHUDPHQW FDQQRW EH

PAGE 30

XQGHUVWRRG ZLWKRXW D NQRZOHGJH RI WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WKH EHKDYLRU ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ D SDUHQWnV UHVSRQVH WR D FKLOG DQG WKH SDUHQWVn DFFRPSDQ\LQJ FKLOGUHDULQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FDQQRW EH DVVHVVHG ZLWKRXW D VLPXOWDQHRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKHLU LQIOXHQFH RQ WKH SDUHQW )URP WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQLVW DSSURDFK WR WHPSHUDPHQW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f KDYH XVHG WKH FRQFHSW RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW DQG SRRUQHVV RI ILW 7KH JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO SRVWXODWHV WKDW IDYRUDEOH SV\FKRORJLFDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO EH SRVVLEOH LI HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DUH FRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV FDSDFLWLHV DELOLWLHV PRWLYDWLRQV DQG WHPSHUDPHQW 6LPLODUO\ LI HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV DQG H[SHFWDWLRQV DUH QRW FRQJUXHQW ZLWK DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FDSDFLWLHV DELOLWLHV PRWLYDWLRQV DQG WHPSHUDPHQW D SRRUQHVV RI ILW ZLOO H[LVW DQG XQIDYRUDEOH SV\FKRORJLFDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQW ZLOO EH WKH UHVXOWV /HUQHU f 7KH JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO LV D FRQWH[WXDO RQH ZKLFK VWUHVVHV WKDW SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQLQJ FDQ EHVW EH SUHGLFWHG ZKHQ RQH SODFHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZLWKLQ D VSHFLILF FRQWH[W )URP WKLV PRGH QHLWKHU DGDSWLYH SV\FKRORJLFDO QRU VRFLDO IXQFWLRQLQJ GHULYH GLUHFWO\ IURP HLWKHU WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RU WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV HQYLURQPHQW *RRGQHVV RI ILW LV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH FRQJUXHQW ZLWK

PAGE 31

WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KHUHIRUH WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKRVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH QRW FRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV PD\ KDYH GLIILFXOWLHV LQ DGDSWLQJ LQ WKDW HQYLURQPHQW /HUQHU /HUQHU :LQGOH t +RRNHU f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG +RVSLWDOL]DWLRQ &KLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV WR QHZ SODFHV DQG SURFHGXUHV DUH VWURQJO\ LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHLU WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f 2QH VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK RIWHQ LQFOXGHV QHZ RU XQIDPLOLDU VXUURXQGLQJV DQG SURFHGXUHV LV FRPLQJ WR WKH KRVSLWDO D VLWXDWLRQ WKDW FDQ EH YHU\ VWUHVVIXO IRU VRPH FKLOGUHQ 0HODPHG DQG 6LHJHO f 7KH VWUHVV RI KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ IRU D FKLOG LQFOXGHV WKH GLVWUHVV RI XQIDPLOLDU VXUURXQGLQJV WKH DFWXDO SK\VLFDO GLVFRPIRUW RI VXUJHU\ RU UHFRYHU\ IURP LOOQHVV DQG WKH ORQHOLQHVV SUHFLSLWDWHG E\ LVRODWLRQ IURP SHHUV DQG VFKRRO 0HODPHG 5REELQV t )HUQDQGH] f 0DQ\ FKLOGUHQ VXIIHU EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV GXULQJ WKH KRVSLWDO VWD\ 1RW DOO FKLOGUHQ KRZHYHU DUH HTXDOO\ YXOQHUDEOH WR WKH HIIHFWV RI WKH KRVSLWDO H[SHULHQFH 9HUQRQ HW DO f LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH HIIHFWV RI KRVSLWDO DGPLVVLRQV DQG DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ RQ FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI DQG \HDUVROG 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW ZKHQ WKH OHYHO RI SRWHQWLDO VWUHVV LV ORZ DV GXULQJ WKH DGPLVVLRQ SURFHGXUHV WR WKH KRVSLWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV DUH SULPDULO\ D PDWWHU RI SHUVRQDOLW\ Sf ,W LV RQO\ WKRVH FKLOGUHQ

PAGE 32

ZKR DUH XQXVXDOO\ VHQVLWLYH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ ZKR EHFRPH XSVHW 0RVW RI WKH FKLOGUHQ DUH QRW XSVHW )XUWKHUPRUH IRU VRPH FKLOGUHQ KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ PD\ KDYH D EHQHILFLDO HIIHFW DV b RI WKH FKLOGUHQ ZHUH UDWHG E\ WKHLU PRWKHUV DV EHKDYLRUDOO\ LPSURYHG DIWHU D KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ H[SHULHQFH 9HUQRQ HW DO f 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f GHVFULEH VRPH RI WKH ZD\V FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WR SK\VLFDO V\PSWRPV WKH SK\VLFLDQ DQG WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ )RU H[DPSOH WKH FKLOG ZKR LV EURXJKW WR D PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ LV FRQIURQWHG ZLWK DQ XQIDPLOLDU SODFH D QXPEHU RI XQIDPLOLDU SHUVRQV XQXVXDO VRXQGV DQG LV VXEMHFWHG WR D SK\VLFDO H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG SURFHGXUHV ZKLFK PD\ EH GLVFRPIRUWLQJ DQG VRPHWLPHV SDLQIXO 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f ZULWH WKDW GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW WKH FKLOG PD\ IXVV TXLHWO\ DQG EULHIO\ VTXLUP D ELW DQG WKHQ EH LPPHGLDWHO\ FKHHUIXO RQFH WKH SURFHGXUHV DUH FRPSOHWHG 2U WKH FKLOG PD\ KRZO ORXGO\ IURP WKH PRPHQW KH RU VKH HQWHUV WKH SK\VLFLDQVn RIILFH VWUXJJOH YLROHQWO\ GXULQJ WKH SK\VLFDO H[DPLQDWLRQ DQG LQRFXODWLRQ WDNH XS WR VHYHUDO KRXUV WR VXEVLGH DQG WKHQ VWDUW XS DJDLQ ZLWK HYHQ PRUH LQWHQVLW\ DW WKH QH[W YLVLW 7KH FKLOG ZLWK WKH ORZ DFWLYLW\ OHYHO ZLOO VLW TXLHWO\ LQ WKH ZDLWLQJ URRP 7KH KLJK DFWLYLW\ \RXQJVWHUV E\ FRQWUDVW ZLOO ILGJHW MXPS DURXQG WU\ WR SRNH LQWR GUDZHUV DQG FORVHU DQG PDNH D

PAGE 33

QXLVDQFH RI WKHPVHOYHV LI WKH\ KDYH WR ZDLW D ORQJ WLPH EHIRUH WKH GRFWRU VHHV WKHP 7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV VWXG\ ZDV WR LQYHVWLJDWH FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR D VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH DQG KRZ LW LV UHODWHG WR WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH PHGLDWLRQDO HIIHFW WKDW PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV KDYH RQ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR WKH VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG 7KH OLWHUDWXUH KDV LQGLFDWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WHPSHUDPHQW LQ LQIOXHQFLQJ FKLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQV WR GLIIHUHQW VWUHVVRUV KRZHYHU LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR D VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH DV SURPSWHG E\ WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV KDG \HW WR EH LQYHVWLJDWHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH SDUHQW DQG FRXOG QRW EH DVVHVVHG ZLWKRXW WKH VLPXOWDQHRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH SDUHQWnV UHVSRQVH WR WKH FKLOG 3UHGLFWLRQV 3UHGLFWLRQV UHJDUGLQJ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW WKHLU EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR WKH VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH DQG WKH PHGLDWLRQDO HIIHFW WKDW SDUHQWFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ KDG RQ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUV LQ WKH KRVSLWDO ZHUH DV IROORZV f &KLOGUHQ ZLWK D 'LIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW PDNH XS ZRXOG PRUH IUHTXHQWO\ GLVSOD\ WKH EHKDYLRUV RI 'LVWUHVV DQG ([SORUDWLRQ DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH '\DGLF 3UHVWUHVVRU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 6FDOH GXULQJ D SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW WR WKH FOLQLF DV FRPSDUHG WR FKLOGUHQ ZLWK DQ (DV\ WHPSHUDPHQW

PAGE 34

f &KLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZRXOG YDU\ GHSHQGLQJ RQ WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW 7KDW LV GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ ZRXOG GLVSOD\ PRUH SUREOHPDWLF EHKDYLRUV DQG ZRXOG EH UDWHG E\ REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV DV OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ WKDQ WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK DQ HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW Df 6SHFLILFDOO\ FKLOGUHQ ZKR WHQGHG WR KDYH QHJDWLYH ZLWKGUDZDO UHVSRQVHV WR QHZ VWLPXOL DQGRU QRQ RU VORZ DGDSWDELOLW\ WR FKDQJH ZRXOG EH UDWHG E\ REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV DV GLVSOD\LQJ PRUH GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRUV DQG OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DV FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKR WHQGHG WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL DQGRU WHQGHG WR DGDSW WR FKDQJH f &KLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV XVHG GLVWUDFWLRQ UHDVVXUDQFH DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ GXULQJ WKH SUHn RSHUDWLYH YLVLW WR WKH FOLQLF ZRXOG GLVSOD\ IHZHU GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG EH UDWHG E\ REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV DV PRUH FRRSHUDWLYH GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DV FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV GHPRQVWUDWHG LJQRULQJ DJLWDWLRQ DQG UHVWUDLQW GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW f &KLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR WKH VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH ZRXOG EH PHGLDWHG E\ SDUHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DVVHVVHG GXULQJ SDUHQWFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 7KRVH FKLOGUHQ ZLWK D 'LIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DQG ZKRVH SDUHQWV GHPRQVWUDWHG DJLWDWLRQ UHVWUDLQW RU LJQRULQJ GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH FOLQLF YLVLW ZRXOG KDYH KLJKHU

PAGE 35

KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV DQG ZRXOG EH UDWHG E\ REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV DV GLVSOD\LQJ PRUH GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ WKDQ FKLOGUHQ ZLWK DQ HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG ZKRVH SDUHQWV GHPRQVWUDWHG GLVWUDFWLRQ UHDVVXUDQFH RU LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH FOLQLF YLVLW

PAGE 36

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f $SSHQGL[ $f 7KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH SURYLGHG GDWD RQ IDFWRUV WKDW PD\ LQIOXHQFH WKH FKLOG DQG SDUHQWnV EHKDYLRU LQ WKH PHGLFDO VLWXDWLRQ ,QIRUPDWLRQ REWDLQHG IURP WKLV VKRUW VWUXFWXUHG LQWHUYLHZ IRUP LQFOXGHG DJH VH[ DQG UDFH RI WKH FKLOG %UDLQ DQG 0F&OD\ f IRXQG DJH WR EH DQ

PAGE 37

LQIOXHQFLQJ IDFWRU ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH FKLOGnV UHVSRQVH WR PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV 7KH SDUHQWV DOVR XVHG D IRXUSRLQW VFDOH WR LQGLFDWH KRZ WKHLU FKLOG KDG UHDFWHG WR SUHYLRXV PHGLFDO H[SHULHQFHV DQG KRZ ZHOO WKH\ H[SHFWHG WKHLU FKLOG WR UHDFW WR WKH KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ H[SHULHQFH 5HVHDUFK KDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI WDNLQJ LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ WKH FKLOGnV SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFHV 0HODPHG 0H\HU *HH t 6RXOH f 7KHUHIRUH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO LQWHUYLHZHU DVFHUWDLQHG WKH VXEMHFWVn SUHYLRXV VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 374f 7KH 374 LV D LWHP TXHVWLRQQDLUH GHYHORSHG E\ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f 7KH TXHVWLRQV UHODWH WR D UDQJH RI FKLOG EHKDYLRUV UHIOHFWLYH RI WKH QLQH WHPSHUDPHQW GLPHQVLRQV GLVFXVVHG HDUOLHU ZLWK HLJKW LWHPV SHUWDLQLQJ WR HDFK GLPHQVLRQ 7KH SDUHQW LV DVNHG WR UDWH HDFK LWHP RQ D VHYHQ SRLQW VFDOH O KDUGO\ HYHU RFFXUV DOPRVW DOZD\V RFFXUVf $ PHDQ VFRUH UDQJLQJ IURP RQH WR VHYHQ LV GHWHUPLQHG IRU HDFK GLPHQVLRQ )LYH RI WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW LQFOXGLQJ 0RRG $GDSWDWLRQ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ,QWHQVLW\ DQG %LRORJLFDO 5K\WKPLFLW\ DUH XVHG WR FDOFXODWH D FKLOGnV VWDQGLQJ RQ D FRQWLQXRXV VFDOH RI GLIILFXOWHDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW 'LIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ ZHUH GHILQHG XVLQJ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVVnV f VSHFLILFDWLRQV LH QHJDWLYH PRRG VORZ DGDSWDELOLW\ WR FKDQJH WHQGHQF\ WR ZLWKGUDZ

PAGE 38

IURP QHZ VLWXDWLRQV WHQGHQFLHV WRZDUGV LQWHQVH H[SUHVVLYHQHVV DQG LUUHJXODULW\ RI ELRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQV .DW]1HZPDQ DQG -RKQVRQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW ERWK WKH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH DQG WKH LQGLYLGXDO VXEVFDOH VFRUHV REWDLQHG RQ WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH VKRZHG DGHTXDWH WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ RYHU D WZRZHHN SHULRG 5HOLDELOLW\ IRU WKH RYHUDOO VFRUH ZDV :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH VFDOHV ZKLFK FRPSULVHG WKH (DV\n9n'LIILFXOW FRQWLQXXP .DW]1HZPDQ DQG -RKQVRQ f UHSRUWHG WKH IROORZLQJ UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV DGDSWDELOLW\ DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO LQWHQVLW\ PRRG DQG ELRORJLFDO UK\WKPLFLW\ 5HJDUGLQJ WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH PHDVXUH LW FDQ EH QRWHG WKDW WKHUH LV HYLGHQFH IURP D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV WR LQGLFDWH VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV RI GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW YLD WKLV PHDVXUH DQG ODWHU EHKDYLRUDO GLIILFXOWLHV *UDKDP 5XWWHU t *HRUJH 0DXUHU &DGRUHW t &DLQ 5XWWHU %LUFK 7KRPDV t &KHVV 7KRPDV HW DO f '\DGLF 3UHVWUHVVRU ,QWHUDFWLRQ 6FDOH '3,6f 7KH '3,6 ZDV XVHG WR UDWH YLGHRWDSHG PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV LQ WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ URRP SULRU WR WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH SK\VLFDO H[DPLQDWLRQ 2EVHUYHUV UDWHG WKH WDSHV XVLQJ WKH LQVWDQWDQHRXV VFDQ PHWKRG $OWPDQQ f HYHU\ ILYH VHFRQGV WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU D EHKDYLRU ZDV RFFXUULQJ DW WKDW PRPHQW

PAGE 39

7KLV '3,6 ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI UHODWHG OLWHUDWXUH DQG H[WHQVLYH QDUUDWLYH GHVFULSWLYH FOLQLF REVHUYDWLRQV %XVK f 7KH FKLOG FDWHJRULHV RQ WKLV VFDOH ZHUH FKRVHQ EHFDXVH RI WKHLU WKHRUHWLFDO UHOHYDQFH WR WKH DWWDFKPHQW OLWHUDWXUH %UHWKHUWRQ t $LQVZRUWK f DQG EHFDXVH UHFHQW VWXGLHV $UHQG *RYH t 6URXIH 6URXIH )R[ t 3DQFDNH f VXJJHVW WKDW D FRQWLQXLW\ RI WKH TXDOLW\ RI HDUO\ PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV H[LVWV ZLWK UHJDUG WR ROGHU FKLOGUHQnV FRPSHWHQFH LQ SUREOHP VROYLQJ 7KH SDUHQW FDWHJRULHV RQ WKH '3,6 ZHUH VHOHFWHG EDVHG RQ WKH HPSLULFDO OLWHUDWXUH RQ SDUHQWVn FKLOG PDQDJHPHQW VW\OHV DV WKH\ UHODWH WR FKLOGUHQnV IHDU GHYHORSPHQW DQG LQGHSHQGHQFH %XVK 0HODPHG 6KHUDV t *UHHQEDXP f 7KLV VFDOH FRQVLVWHG RI IRXU FODVVHV RI IXQFWLRQDOO\ VLPLODU FKLOG EHKDYLRUV DQG VL[ SDUHQW EHKDYLRUV :LWKLQ HDFK FODVV IRXU VSHFLILF EHKDYLRUV ZHUH GHILQHG 7KH FKLOG FDWHJRULHV LQFOXGHG DWWDFKPHQW GLVWUHVV H[SORUDWLRQ DQG VRFLDO EHKDYLRU 7KH SDUHQW FDWHJRULHV FRUUHVSRQGHG WR GLPHQVLRQV RI SDUHQW EHKDYLRU ZKLFK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDG IRXQG WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH FKLOGnV DGMXVWPHQW LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ 7KH FDWHJRULHV LQFOXGHG LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ UHDVVXUDQFH LJQRULQJ GLVWUDFWLRQ DJLWDWLRQ DQG UHVWUDLQW %XVK HW DO f HVWDEOLVKHG WKH UHOLDELOLW\ IRU WKH '3,6 LQ D VWUHVVIXO PHGLFDO VLWXDWLRQ ,QWHUREVHUYHU UHOLDELOLW\ IRU HLJKW RI WKH WHQ EHKDYLRU FDWHJRULHV ZDV DERYH ZLWK RQO\ GLVWUHVV f

PAGE 40

DQG UHVWUDLQW f IDOOLQJ RXWVLGH RI WKLV UDQJH 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH $EHOHV f VWXG\ ZKLFK VKRZHG WKDW WKRVH SDUHQWV ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG LQIRUPLQJ LQ UHVSRQVH WR FKLOG DWWDFKPHQW KDG FKLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH OHVV GLVWUHVVHG LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ VXSSRUW WKH LPSRUWDQFH RI ORRNLQJ DW REVHUYDWLRQDO GDWD RQ VSHFLILF LQWHUDFWLRQV EHWZHHQ SDUHQWV DQG WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH '3,6 LQ SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQV WR PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV )RU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKH SUHVHQW LQYHVWLJDWLRQ LQWHUn UDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH '3,6 ZDV DVVHVVHG E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ WZR LQGHSHQGHQW REVHUYHUV ,Q RUGHU WR HVWLPDWH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKHVH UDWLQJV D 3HDUVRQ FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQW ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU HDFK '3,6 EHKDYLRU IRU KDOI VXEMHFWVf RI WKH VDPSOH 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOHf§5HYLVHG 25%565f $SSHQGL[ %f 7KLV VFDOH ZDV GHYHORSHG E\ /XPOH\ DQG 0HODPHG f DQG ZDV DGDSWHG IURP 0H\HU DQG 0XUDYFKLFNnV f PHDVXUH RI WKH H[WHQW RI FRRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUHV ,W FRQVLVWV RI D FKHFNOLVW RI GLVUXSWLYH EHKDYLRUV DQG D VHYHQ SRLQW FRRSHUDWLRQ VFDOH O WRWDO XQFRRSHUDWLRQ WRWDO FRRSHUDWLRQf DFURVV WKH WKUHH SKDVHV RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 3KDVH RQH FRQVLVWHG RI WKDW WLPH SHULRG IURP WKH FKLOGnV VHSDUDWLRQ IURP WKH PRWKHU DQG HQWU\ LQWR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP XQWLO WKH FKLOG ZDV WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH SKDVH WZR LQFOXGHG WKDW WLPH IURP ZKHQ WKH FKLOG ZDV WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH

PAGE 41

RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH XQWLO WKH PDVN RU QHHGOH ZDV YLHZHG E\ WKH FKLOG DQG SKDVH WKUHH LQFOXGHG WKDW WLPH IURP ZKHQ WKH FKLOG YLHZHG WKH PDVN RU QHHGOH XQWLO FRPSOHWH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $W WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH FKLOGUHQnV OHYHO RI FRRSHUDWLRQ RQ D VHYHQ SRLQW VFDOH O WRWDO XQFRRSHUDWLRQ WRWDO FRRSHUDWLRQf ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ RI 25%565 ZDV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH UDWLQJV PDGH E\ WZR LQGHSHQGHQW REVHUYHUV ,Q RUGHU WR HVWLPDWH WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKHVH UDWLQJV D 3HDUVRQ FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQW ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH VDPSOH +HDUW 5DWH &KLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ZHUH UHFRUGHG GXULQJ SKDVHV WZR DQG WKUHH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ +HDUW UDWH GDWD ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG UHOHYDQW WR WKLV VWXG\ DV DFFHOHUDWLRQV LQ KHDUW UDWH KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK LQFUHDVHG OHYHOV RI IHDU $QGUHDVVL f $IWHU WKH FKLOG ZDV SODFHG RQ WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH SKDVH f HOHFWURGHV ZHUH DWWDFKHG WR WKH FKLOG ZKLFK HOHFWURQLFDOO\ PRQLWRUHG KLV RU KHU KHDUW UDWH 2EVHUYHUV PDQXDOO\ UHFRUGHG LQLWLDO KHDUW UDWH DQG FKDQJHV LQ KHDUW UDWH GXULQJ WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHVV 'XH WR WKH YDULHG QXPEHU RI UHFRUGLQJV GXULQJ HDFK SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ PHDQ KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV

PAGE 42

ZHUH FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK SKDVH 7KLV ZDV FRPSOHWHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ WKH ILUVW PLGGOH DQG ILQDO UHFRUGLQJ ZLWKLQ HDFK SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 3URFHGXUH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQLWLDOO\ DSSURDFKHG LQ WKH FOLQLFnV JHQHUDO ZDLWLQJ DUHD E\ RQH RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHUV 7KH PRWKHUV DQG WKHLU FKLOGUHQ ZHUH DVNHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ D VWXG\ VHHNLQJ WR LQYHVWLJDWH KRZ SHRSOH KDQGOH FRPLQJ WR WKH KRVSLWDO ,QIRUPHG FRQVHQW ZDV REWDLQHG IURP DOO VXEMHFWV $SSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH PRWKHUV DVNHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKLV VWXG\ DJUHHG WR GR VR $W WKLV WLPH PRWKHUV ZHUH LQWHUYLHZHG XVLQJ WKH VWUXFWXUHG IRUPDW SURYLGHG E\ WKH %DFNJURXQG ,QIRUPDWLRQ ,QWHUYLHZ )RUP %,,)f DQG FRPSOHWHG WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 374f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f 2Q WKH GD\ RI VXUJHU\ DQ REVHUYHU PHW WKH FKLOG DQG SDUHQW LQ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH ZDLWLQJ URRP $IWHU D WLPH

PAGE 43

SHULRG YDU\LQJ IURP PLQXWHV WR KRXU WKH FKLOG ZDV WDNHQ WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP E\ WKH DQHVWKHVLRORJLVW :KLOH WKH FKLOG ZDV LQ WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WKH PRWKHU XVXDOO\ ZDLWHG WR EH FDOOHG E\ KRVSLWDO VWDII LQ RQH RI VHYHUDO ZDLWLQJ URRPV 7KH REVHUYHU XVHG WKH 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOHf§5HYLVHG 25%565f WR UDWH WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG OHYHO RI FRRSHUDWLRQ GXULQJ WKH YDULRXV SKDVHV RI WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH &KLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH ZDV UHFRUGHG DV VRRQ DV WKH HOHFWURGHV ZHUH DWWDFKHG $IWHU DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV FRPSOHWHG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV ZHUH DVNHG WR UDWH WKH FKLOGUHQnV OHYHO RI FRRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH ,Q RUGHU WR DGGUHVV WKH PDMRU K\SRWKHVHV RI WKH VWXG\ VHYHUDO DSSURDFKHV WR GDWD DQDO\VHV ZHUH WDNHQ ,QLWLDO DQDO\VHV LQYROYHG FRPSXWLQJ PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU DOO PHDVXUHV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ 7KLV ZDV IROORZHG E\ PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV GHVLJQHG WR H[DPLQH ERWK WKH GLUHFW DQG LQWHUDFWLRQ UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW SDUHQWLQJ EHKDYLRUV DQG FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DV ZHOO DV WKH FRPELQHG HIIHFWV RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG SDUHQW YDULDEOHV

PAGE 44

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 7KLV VHFWLRQ ZLOO EH RUJDQL]HG DV IROORZV ILUVW GHPRJUDSKLF LQIRUPDWLRQ ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG WKHQ SUHOLPLQDU\ GDWD RQ PHDVXUHV ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG ILQDOO\ GDWD UHJDUGLQJ WHVWV RI K\SRWKHVHV ZLOO EH FRQVLGHUHG 'HPRJUDSKLF DQG 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 0HDVXUHV 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH GHPRJUDSKLF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH VDPSOH RI PRWKHUFKLOG G\DGV XVHG LQ WKH GDWD DQDO\VHV $V FDQ EH VHHQ WKH VDPSOH ZDV UHDVRQDEO\ EDODQFHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR ERWK DJH DQG VH[ 0RUH WKDQ RQH KDOI bf RI WKH FKLOGUHQ KDG VRPH W\SH RI SUHYLRXV VXUJLFDO H[SHULHQFH LQYROYLQJ JHQHUDO DQHVWKHVLD 0HDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU VXEMHFWV RQ DOO TXHVWLRQQDLUH PHDVXUHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ $SSHQGL[ & 2Q WKH 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 374f PRWKHUV XVHG D VHYHQ SRLQW VFDOH WR UDWH WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DFURVV QLQH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW $V D JURXS WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH UDWHG DV KDYLQJ DQ RYHUDOO PRGHUDWH WHPSHUDPHQW 0 6' UDQJH f :LWK UHJDUG WR WKH VSHFLILF GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW PRWKHUV UDWHG WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DV KDYLQJ D PRGHUDWHO\ SRVLWLYH PRRG 0 6' UDQJH Of DQG PRGHUDWH OHYHOV RI DGDSWDELOLW\ 0 6' UDQJH Of 0RWKHUV DOVR UDWHG WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DV

PAGE 45

7DEOH 'HPRJUDSKLF &KDUDFWHULVWLFV $JH \HDUV 1 0DOHV 1f )HPDOHV 1f 6H[ ([SHULHQFH 1f 1R ([SHULHQFH 1f 3UHYLRXV 6XUJLFDO ([SHULHQFH /DVHU RI 3DSLOORPD 5HPRYDO RU 7RQVLOOHFWRP\ ,QVHUWLRQ DQGRU RI 7XEHV $GHQRLGHFWRP\ 2WKHU 1f 1f 1f 1f 6XUJLFDO 3URFHGXUH

PAGE 46

EHLQJ DERXW PRGHUDWH LQ WHUPV RI ELRORJLFDO UK\WKPLFLW\ 0 6' UDQJH f WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL 0 6' UDQJH Of DQG ORZ WR PRGHUDWH LQ LQWHQVLW\ RI UHDFWLRQV 0 6' UDQJH Of 7KH '3,6 ZDV XVHG WR UDWH YLGHRWDSHG PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV $ WLPHGDWH JHQHUDWRU ZDV XVHG WR VXSHULPSRVH DQ HODSVHGWLPH GLJLWDO FORFN RQWR WKH WDSHV ZLWKRXW REVFXULQJ WKH YLVLELOLW\ RI VXEMHFWV 2EVHUYHUV WKHQ XVHG WKLV FORFN WR PDNH LQVWDQWDQHRXV VFDQ UDWLQJV $OWPDQQ f RI WKH '3,6 FDWHJRULHV HYHU\ VHFRQGV (YHU\ VHFRQGV REVHUYHUV UDWHG ZKHWKHU HDFK RI WKH EHKDYLRU FODVVHV ZDV EHLQJ HQJDJHG LQ DW WKDW PRPHQW 7KH VHFRQG LQWHUYDO ZDV FKRVHQ DV LW KDV EHHQ XVHG VXFFHVVIXOO\ LQ SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV %XVK 0HODPHG 6KHUDV t *UHHQEDXP $EHOHV f DQG EHFDXVH WKLV LQWHUYDO PLQLPL]HG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI VFRUDEOH EHKDYLRUV RFFXUULQJ EXW QRW EHLQJ VFRUHG GXH WR RQVHW DQG RIIVHW EHWZHHQ VFDQSRLQWV ,W LV LPSRUWDQW WR UHDOL]H WKDW HDFK SDUHQW EHKDYLRU DQG HDFK FKLOG EHKDYLRU DUH UDWHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ WKHUHIRUH FROOHFWLYHO\ WKH '3,6 EHKDYLRUV ZLOO QRW VXP WR b 'XULQJ WKH ZDLWLQJ SHULRG EHIRUH WKH SK\VLFLDQ HQWHUHG WKH H[DPLQDWLRQ URRP FKLOGUHQ ZHUH REVHUYHG HQJDJHG LQ VRFLDO EHKDYLRUV b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f $WWDFKPHQW EHKDYLRUV ZHUH WKH QH[W PRVW IUHTXHQWO\

PAGE 47

RFFXUULQJ DW b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH Of &KLOGUHQ HQJDJHG LQ H[SORUDWLRQ b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f DQG H[KLELWHG GLVWUHVV b UDQJH f RI WKH WLPH $PRQJ WKH SDUHQW EHKDYLRUV GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ RFFXUULQJ DW b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f ,QIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ ZDV WKH QH[W PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ RFFXUULQJ EHKDYLRU DW b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f IROORZHG E\ UHDVVXUDQFH DW b UDQJH f 0RWKHUV ZHUH REVHUYHG LJQRULQJ WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DW DQ DYHUDJH RI b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f 0DWHUQDO DJLWDWLRQ ZDV REVHUYHG b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f 5HVWUDLQW ZDV WKH OHDVW IUHTXHQWO\ REVHUYHG EHKDYLRU RFFXUULQJ DW b RI WKH WLPH UDQJH f 7KHVH ILQGLQJV DUH VLPLODU WR WKRVH IRXQG E\ %XVK HW DO f 9LGHRWDSHG UHFRUGLQJV RI WKH PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV UDQJHG LQ OHQJWK IURP WR PLQXWHV &RUUHODWLRQDO DQDO\VHV RI WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI OHQJWK RI UHFRUGLQJ WR SHUFHQW RI HDFK EHKDYLRU GLVSOD\HG UHYHDOHG WKDW D KLJKHU SHUFHQWDJH RI FKLOG DWWDFKPHQW EHKDYLRUV ZHUH GLVSOD\HG ZKHQ WKH UHFRUGLQJ SHULRG ZDV VKRUWHU U Sf DQG D KLJKHU SHUFHQWDJH RI PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ EHKDYLRUV ZHUH GLVSOD\HG ZKHQ WKH UHFRUGLQJ SHULRG ZDV ORQJHU U Sf 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH RWKHU '3,6 EHKDYLRUV DQG WKH OHQJWK RI WKH YLGHRWDSH UHFRUGLQJ

PAGE 48

2Q WKH 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOH5HYLVHG 25%565f WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ HQWU\ LQWR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP XQWLO WUDQVIHU WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH SKDVH f ZDV UDQJH 6' f &RRSHUDWLRQ GXULQJ WKLV SKDVH ZDV UDWHG DW D PHDQ OHYHO RI O WRWDO XQFRRSHUDWLRQ WRWDO FRRSHUDWLRQf UDQJH O 6' f )URP WKH WLPH WKH FKLOG ZDV WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ WDEOH XQWLO WKH FKLOG YLHZHG WKH PDVN RU QHHGOH SKDVH f FKLOGUHQ H[KLELWHG DQ DYHUDJH RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV UDQJH 6' f 7KH PHDQ OHYHO RI FRRSHUDWLRQ GXULQJ SKDVH ZDV UDWHG DV UDQJH 6' f ,Q WKH ILQDO SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SKDVH YLHZ RI WKH PDVN RU QHHGOH XQWLO FRPSOHWH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQf FKLOGUHQ GLVSOD\HG DQ DYHUDJH RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV UDQJH 6' f DQG ZHUH UDWHG DV KDYLQJ D PHDQ FRRSHUDWLRQ OHYHO RI UDQJH O 6' f $QHVWKHVLRORJLVWV UDWHG FKLOGUHQ DV KDYLQJ D PHDQ FRRSHUDWLRQ OHYHO RI UDQJH O 6' f GXULQJ WKH FRPSOHWH FRXUVH RI LQGXFWLRQ 5HOLDELOLW\ RI 2EVHUYDWLRQDO 0HDVXUHV '3,6 ,QWHUREVHUYHU UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH '3,6 ZDV HYDOXDWHG E\ FRPSDULQJ WKH SHUFHQWDJHV RI EHKDYLRUV UDWHG DV EHLQJ SUHVHQW E\ WZR LQGHSHQGHQW REVHUYHUV '3,6 UDWLQJV ZHUH PDGH E\ WZR UDWHUV RQ b RI WKH G\DGV 3HDUVRQ SURGXFW PRPHQW FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH REWDLQHG IRU WKH '3,6 DQG DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH $ FRUUHODWLRQ

PAGE 49

7DEOH '3,6 ,QWHU5DWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW &RHIILFLHQWV $WWDFKPHQW 'LVWUHVV ([SORUDWLRQ 6RFLDO ,JQRULQJ 5HDVVXULQJ 'LVWUDFWLRQ 5HVWUDLQW ,QIRUPLQJ $JLWDWLRQ

PAGE 50

FRHIILFLHQW ZDV FRPSXWHG IRU HDFK '3,6 FDWHJRU\ 7KHVH FRHIILFLHQWV SURYLGHG HVWLPDWHV RI WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH '3,6 WRWDO IUHTXHQF\ VFRUHV ZLWKLQ HDFK '3,6 FDWHJRU\ 7KH '3,6 ZDV IRXQG WR KDYH DGHTXDWH WR KLJK UHOLDELOLW\ IRU REVHUYDWLRQDO PHDVXUHPHQW RI PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV *RRG FRQFRUGDQFH ZDV IRXQG IRU DOO FDWHJRULHV H[FHSW GLVWUHVV UHDVVXUDQFH DQG UHVWUDLQW %XVK HW DO f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n RFFXU LQ DQ\ RQH LQWHUYDO ZLWK SDUHQWDO UHDVVXUDQFH GLVWUDFWLRQ UHVWUDLQW RU LQIRUPLQJ KRZHYHU LJQRULQJ FDQ

PAGE 51

7DEOH 25%565 ,QWHU5DWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW &RHIILFLHQWV 3KDVH 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV 3KDVH &RRSHUDWLRQ /HYHO 3KDVH 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV 3KDVH &RRSHUDWLRQ /HYHO 3KDVH 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV 3KDVH &RRSHUDWLRQ /HYHO

PAGE 52

,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV 7DEOH $PRQJ '3,6 3DUHQW %HKDYLRU &DWHJRULHV ,JQRUH 5HDVVXUH 'LVWUDFW 5HVWUDLQ ,QIRUP ,JQRUH 5HDVVXUH 'LVWUDFW r /7f 2 5HVWUDLQ ,QIRUP r rr R R $JLWDWLRQ r R R r S rr S

PAGE 53

FRRFFXU ZLWK DJLWDWLRQ &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH RSHUDWLRQDO GHILQLWLRQV RI EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGHG RQ WKH '3,6 LJQRULQJ ZDV IRXQG WR EH LQYHUVHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG LQIRUPLQJ DQG SRVLWLYHO\ UHODWHG WR SDUHQWDO DJLWDWLRQ 3DUHQWDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV IRXQG WR EH LQYHUVHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK SDUHQWDO LQIRUPLQJ 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV UHIOHFWLYH RI WKH GHILQLWLRQV RI GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG LQIRUPLQJ 'LVWUDFWLRQ LV GHILQHG DV HQJDJLQJ LQ SOD\ RU FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZKLFK LV XQUHODWHG WR PHGLFLQH DQG LQIRUPLQJ LV GHILQHG DV WKH SDUHQW JLYLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ H[SORULQJ DQG DQVZHULQJ TXHVWLRQV ZKLFK DUH PHGLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW 7KHVH ILQGLQJV DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV %XVK HW DO $EHOHV f ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DPRQJ FKLOG EHKDYLRUV &RUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV EHWZHHQ FKLOG EHKDYLRUV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH ,Q JHQHUDO FKLOG EHKDYLRUV ZHUH UHODWHG WR RQH DQRWKHU 6RFLDODIILOLDWLYH EHKDYLRU ZDV IRXQG WR EH LQYHUVHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK DWWDFKPHQW GLVWUHVV DQG H[SORUDWRU\ EHKDYLRUV &KLOG DWWDFKPHQW ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRU 7KHVH UHVXOWV ZKLOH QRW GLVFUHSDQW ZLWK SUHYLRXV ILQGLQJV DUH VRPHZKDW GLIIHUHQW LQ WKDW %XVK HW DO f UHSRUW QR UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ VRFLDODIILOLDWLYH EHKDYLRU DQG WKH RWKHU FKLOG EHKDYLRU FDWHJRULHV

PAGE 54

7DEOH ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ '3,6 &KLOG %HKDYLRU &DWHJRULHV $WWDFKPHQW 'LVWUHVV ([SORUDWLRQ $WWDFKPHQW 'LVWUHVV r ([SORUDWLRQ 6RFLDO rr rrr rrr rS rrS rrrS

PAGE 55

25%565 DQG +HDUW 5DWH ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV &RUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV EHWZHHQ FKLOG GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV UDWLQJV RI FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG KHDUW UDWH DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH $PRXQW RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRU ZDV UHODWHG WR UDWLQJV RI FRRSHUDWLRQ DQG WR FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH &KLOGUHQ ZKR GHPRQVWUDWHG PDQ\ GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV ZHUH UDWHG DV OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH E\ REVHUYHUV DQG WKHLU DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV DFURVV WKH WKUHH SKDVHV RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 5DWLQJV RI FRRSHUDWLRQ E\ LQGHSHQGHQW REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV ZHUH VWURQJO\ SRVLWLYHO\ FRUUHODWHG HVSHFLDOO\ LQ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $QDO\VHV RI SK\VLRORJLFDO GDWD LQGLFDWHG D SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH DFURVV SKDVHV RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG D KLJK KHDUW UDWH GXULQJ WKH ILQDO SKDVH RI LQGXFWLRQ WHQGHG WR GLVSOD\ PRUH GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG ZHUH UDWHG DV OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH E\ REVHUYHUV DQG DQHVWKHVLRORJLVWV 7HVWV RI +\SRWKHVHV ,QLWLDO DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WKHLU EHKDYLRU DV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH '3,6 GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW WR WKH FOLQLF 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV VWDWXV RQ WKH RYHUDOO FRPSRVLWH PHDVXUH RI HDV\GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKHLU GLVWUHVV GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW :KHQ VHSDUDWH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW ZHUH

PAGE 56

7DEOH ,QWHUFRUUHODWLRQV $PRQJ 25%565 5DWLQJV '67 &223 '67 &223 +5 '67 &223 '67OD &223OE r '67& r r &3G rr r r +5H '67I r N &3J r r r r +5K r r $1(6 rr ‘N r +5 N AGLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV SKDVH rr3 AFRRSHUDWLRQ UDWLQJV SKDVH S AGLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV SKDVH GFRRSHUDWLRQ UDWLQJV SKDVH fUKHDUW UDWH OHYHOV SKDVH AGLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV SKDVH AFRRSHUDWLRQ UDWLQJV SKDVH KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV SKDVH [DQHVWKHVLRORJLVW UDWLQJV

PAGE 57

FRQVLGHUHG FRQWUDU\ WR SUHGLFWLRQV FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU UDWHV RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ WKH FOLQLF YLVLW U Sf 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU LQ WKH FOLQLF ZHUH REWDLQHG 5HODWLRQVKLSV %HWZHHQ 7HPSHUDPHQW 0DWHUQDO &KDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG &KLOGUHQnV %HKDYLRU 'XULQJ $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG LQ RUGHU WR H[DPLQH DQ\ PDLQ DQG LQWHUDFWLRQ HIIHFWV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO VSHFLILF FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH '3,6 DQG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ WKH WKUHH SKDVHV RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ %HFDXVH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV DQG WKH DJH RI WKH FKLOG KDYH EHHQ IRXQG WR EH LQIOXHQFLQJ IDFWRUV ZLWK UHJDUG WR FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHVn WR PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV 0HODPHG 0H\HU *HH DQG 6RXOH %UDLQ DQG 0F&OD\ f WKH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV DOVR LQFOXGHG WKHVH YDULDEOHV 7KH RYHUDOO HDV\GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH FRPSULVHG RI WKH ILYH VXEVFDOHV RI WHPSHUDPHQW PRRG DGDSWDELOLW\ DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO ELRORJLFDO UK\WKPLFLW\ DQG LQWHQVLW\f DQG WKH LQGLYLGXDO VXEVFDOH VFRUHV RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG DGDSWDELOLW\ ZHUH XVHG LQ WKHVH DQDO\VHV '3,6 SDUHQWLQJ YDULDEOHV ZHUH HQWHUHG VHSDUDWHO\ LQ HDFK RI WKH DQDO\VHV 5HVXOWV RI WKRVH DQDO\VHV \LHOGHG D QXPEHU RI

PAGE 58

VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV DQG DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ VHFWLRQV 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV RI SKDVH GDWD UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ WKH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH RU DGDSWDELOLW\ VXEVFDOH VFRUH 6LJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV KRZHYHU ZHUH REWDLQHG ZKHQ WKH DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO WHPSHUDPHQW GLPHQVLRQ ZDV XVHG LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ ,QIOXHQFH RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW RQ FKLOGUHQnV GLVWUHVV OHYHOV 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK RU ZLWKGUDZ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL PDWHUQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ DQG DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ XSRQ HQWU\ LQWR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG ) Sf &KLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH GHVFULEHG E\

PAGE 59

WKHLU PRWKHUV DV ZLWKGUDZLQJ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL WHQGHG WR GLVSOD\ PRUH GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV 1R VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV ZHUH REWDLQHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFK ZLWKGUDZDO DQG PDWHUQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ LQ SUHGLFWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ,QIOXHQFH RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW XSRQ FKLOGUHQnV FRRSHUDWLRQ OHYHOV 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK RU ZLWKGUDZ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL PDWHUQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ DQG DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV FRRSHUDWLRQ OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >)f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI ZKLFK DFFRXQWHG IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR ZLWKGUDZ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK UDWLQJV RI FRRSHUDWLRQ ) SF f &KLOGUHQ ZKR ZHUH UDWHG DV ZLWKGUDZLQJ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL ZHUH UDWHG DV OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH E\ REVHUYHUV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 1R VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV ZHUH REWDLQHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 60

SURYLVLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV FRRSHUDWLRQ OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW PDLQ HIIHFW ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ UHDVVXUDQFH UHVWUDLQW LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ RU DJLWDWLRQ 6LJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV ZHUH REWDLQHG KRZHYHU ZKHQ PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV XVHG LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH FKLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ WR DSSURDFK RU ZLWKGUDZ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL PDWHUQDO UDWHV RI GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG GLVWUDFWLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ ZHUH FRQWUROOHG IRU PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV >) S@ +LJK OHYHOV RI PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D KLJK QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI GLVWUHVV

PAGE 61

EHKDYLRUV ) Sf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nV GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRU FRRSHUDWLRQ UDWLQJV RU KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH VHFRQG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ 'LUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ WKH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO RU DGDSWDELOLW\ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DV

PAGE 62

:LWKGUDZDO $SSURDFK 4 +L 'LVWUDFWLRQ $YJ 'LVWUDFWLRQ r /RZ 'LVWUDFWLRQ 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUn QDO 8VH RI 'LVWUDFWLRQ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ 1XPEHU RI 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV )LJXUH

PAGE 63

SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV FRRSHUDWLRQ UDWLQJV RU KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 5HODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV 0XOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV RI SKDVH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ GDWD UHYHDOHG QR VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ WKH '3,6 SDUHQW FDWHJRU\ RI LQIRUPDWLRQ SURYLVLRQ 6LJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV ZHUH REWDLQHG KRZHYHU ZKHQ WKH SDUHQW EHKDYLRUV RI GLVWUDFWLRQ LJQRULQJ UHDVVXUDQFH DJLWDWLRQ DQG UHVWUDLQW ZHUH HQWHUHG LQWR WKH PRGHOV ,QIOXHQFH RI PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ RQ FKLOGUHQnV GLVWUHVV OHYHOV 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH WKH DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO WHPSHUDPHQW GLPHQVLRQ PDWHUQDO XVH RI GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG GLVWUDFWLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH &RQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\ FKLOGUHQ ) Sf /HVV XVH RI PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQ LQFUHDVHG QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG E\

PAGE 64

FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP RI DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG PDWHUQDO GLVWUDFWLRQ ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI FKLOGUHQnV GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV ) Sf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nV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D

PAGE 65

1XPEHU RI 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV :LWKGUDZDO $SSURDFK R /RZ 'LVWUDFWLRQ +L 'LVWUDFWLRQ r‘ $YJ 'LVWUDFWLRQ 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUn QDO 8VH RI 'LVWUDFWLRQ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ 1XPEHU RI 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV )LJXUH

PAGE 66

PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH 0DWHUQDO LJQRULQJ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH HTXDWLRQ ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf 7KDW LV PRUH LJQRULQJ ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK ORZHU KHDUW UDWHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ ZLWK FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW ZDV VLJQLILFDQW ) Sf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nV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D

PAGE 67

+HDUW 5DWH %HDWV 0LQXWH 'LIILFXOW (DV\ R /RZ ,JQRULQJ $YJ ,JQRULQJ +L ,JQRULQJ 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDn PHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO ,JQRULQJ DV 3UHGLFWn LQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )LJXUH

PAGE 68

PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH 0DWHUQDO LJQRULQJ ZKHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR HTXDWLRQ ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf 7KDW LV ORZHUHG UDWHV RI PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU KHDUW UDWHV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WKH DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLF DQG PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWRU RI KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf )LJXUH GHPRQVWUDWHV WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV DQG DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DW GLIIHUHQW OHYHOV RI PDWHUQDO LJQRULQJ :LWKGUDZLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH PRWKHUV LJQRUHG WKHP DW KLJK UDWHV KDG ORZHU KHDUW UDWHV WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZLWKGUDZLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH PRWKHUV GLG QRW WHQG WR LJQRUH WKHP 7KRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKR WHQGHG WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL DQG ZKRVH PRWKHUV GLG QRW LJQRUH WKHP WHQGHG WR KDYH ORZHU KHDUW UDWHV WKDQ WKRVH ZLWKGUDZLQJ FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH PRWKHUV LJQRUHG WKHP DW KLJK UDWHV 2YHUDOO WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKR WHQGHG WR ZLWKGUDZ IURP QHZ VWLPXOL DQG ZKRVH PRWKHUV WHQGHG WR LJQRUH WKHP DW KLJK UDWHV KDG WKH ORZHVW KHDUW UDWHV ZKLOH WKRVH FKLOGUHQ ZKR WHQGHG WR DSSURDFK QHZ VWLPXOL DQG ZKRVH PRWKHUV WHQGHG WR LJQRUH DW KLJK UDWHV KDG WKH KLJKHVW KHDUW UDWHV 0DWHUQDO UHDVVXUDQFH DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO

PAGE 69

+HDUW 5DWH %HDWV 0LQXWH :LWKGUDZDO $SSURDFK R /RZ ,JQRULQJ Ar $YJ ,JQRULQJ +LJK ,JQRULQJ 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV WHQGHQF\ 7RZDUGV $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO DQG 0DWHUn QDO ,JQRULQJ DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )LJXUH

PAGE 70

UHDVVXUDQFH DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ YDULDEOH RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG UHDVVXUDQFH DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) fA S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ ZHUH FRQWUROOHG IRU UHDVVXUDQFH ZDV SRVLWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf +LJK OHYHOV RI UHDVVXUDQFH ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJK KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WHUP RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG UHDVVXUDQFH VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWHG KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf )LJXUH JUDSKLFDOO\ UHSUHVHQWV WKH QDWXUH RI WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ 'LIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV GLG QRW SURYLGH UHDVVXUDQFH KDG ORZHU KHDUW UDWHV WKDQ GLG WKRVH GLIILFXOW FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV SURYLGHG KLJK DPRXQWV RI UHDVVXUDQFH (DV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV SURYLGHG KLJK DPRXQWV RI UHDVVXUDQFH KDG ORZHU KHDUW UDWHV WKDQ GLG WKRVH HDV\ FKLOGUHQ ZKRVH SDUHQWV SURYLGHG ORZ DPRXQWV RI UHDVVXUDQFH 2YHUDOO WKH GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG ZKRVH PRWKHU GLG QRW SURYLGH UHDVVXUDQFH KDG WKH ORZHVW KHDUW UDWH ZKLOH WKH HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG ZKRVH PRWKHU SURYLGHG ORZ DPRXQWV RI UHDVVXUDQFH KDG WKH KLJKHVW KHDUW UDWH 0DWHUQDO UHVWUDLQW DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO

PAGE 71

+HDUW 5DWH %HDWV 0LQXWH 'LIILFXOW (DV\ R +L 5HDVVXUDQFH $YJ 5HDVVXUDQFH rf /RZ 5HDVVXUDQFH 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDn PHQW DQG 5HDVVXUDQFH DV 3UHGLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )LJXUH

PAGE 72

UHVWUDLQW DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ YDULDEOH RI RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PDWHUQDO UHVWUDLQW DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI DFFRXQWLQJ IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ ZHUH FRQWUROOHG IRU PDWHUQDO UHVWUDLQW ZDV QHJDWLYHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf 0RWKHUV ZKR WHQGHG QRW XVH UHVWUDLQW GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW KDG FKLOGUHQ ZKR KDG KLJKHU KHDUW UDWHV GXULQJ WKH ILQDO SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PDWHUQDO UHVWUDLQW VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWHG KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf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

PAGE 73

+HDUW 5DWH %HDWV 0LQXWH 'LIILFXOW (DV\ R /RZ 5HVWUDLQW $YJ 5HVWUDLQW R +L 5HVWUDLQW 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDn PHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO 5HVWUDLQW DV 3UHn GLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )LJXUH

PAGE 74

0DWHUQDO DJLWDWLRQ DQG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 7KH PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ PRGHO ZKLFK LQFOXGHG WKH YDULDEOHV RI DJH SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO DJLWDWLRQ DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ YDULDEOH RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG DJLWDWLRQ DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV VLJQLILFDQW >) f S@ 7RJHWKHU WKHVH YDULDEOHV DFKLHYHG D PXOWLSOH 5 RI ZKLFK DFFRXQWHG IRU DSSUR[LPDWHO\ b RI WKH YDULDQFH :KHQ WKH RWKHU YDULDEOHV LQ WKH HTXDWLRQ ZHUH FRQWUROOHG PDWHUQDO DJLWDWLRQ ZDV VRPHZKDW UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ) Sf 0RWKHUV ZKR ZHUH OHVV DJLWDWHG KDG FKLOGUHQ ZLWK KLJKHU KHDUW UDWHV GXULQJ WKH WKLUG SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ $OVR WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ RI WHPSHUDPHQW DQG DJLWDWLRQ ZDV VRPHZKDW SUHGLFWLYH RI FKLOGUHQnV KHDUW UDWHV ) Sf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

PAGE 75

+HDUW 5DWH %HDWV 0LQXWH L ‘ 'LIILFXOW (DV\ /RZ $JLWDWLRQ $YJ $JLWDWLRQ +L $JLWDWLRQ 5HJUHVVLRQ /LQHV ,QGLFDWLQJ WKH 5HODn WLRQVKLS %HWZHHQ &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDn PHQW DQG 0DWHUQDO $JLWDWLRQ DV 3UHn GLFWLQJ +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )LJXUH

PAGE 76

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 7KLV VWXG\ H[SORUHG FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DQG KRZ WKLV LV UHODWHG WR WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG RQ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG 7HPSHUDPHQW LQYROYHV WKH VW\OH UDWKHU WKDQ FRQWHQW WKDW LV WKH KRZ UDWKHU WKDQ WKH ZKDW RU ZK\ RI EHKDYLRU 3ORPLQ f 7HPSHUDPHQW LV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KLV LQWHUDFWLRQLVW DSSURDFK QHFHVVLWDWHV WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV WHPSHUDPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQ ZLWKLQ ZKLFK WKH EHKDYLRU ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG $GGLWLRQDOO\ D SDUHQWnV UHVSRQVH WR D FKLOG DQG WKH SDUHQWnV DFFRPSDQ\LQJ FKLOG UHDULQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FDQQRW EH DVVHVVHG ZLWKRXW D VLPXOWDQHRXV FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI WKH FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKHLU LQIOXHQFH RQ WKH SDUHQW )URP WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQLVW DSSURDFK WR WHPSHUDPHQW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f KDV XVHG WKH FRQFHSW RI JRRGQHVV RI ILW 7KH JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO LV D FRQWH[WXDO RQH ZKLFK VWUHVVHV WKDW SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQLQJ FDQ EHVW EH SUHGLFWHG ZKHQ RQH SODFHV WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZLWKLQ D VSHFLILF FRQWH[W *RRGQHVV RI ILW LV WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK DQ

PAGE 77

LQGLYLGXDOnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH FRQJUXHQW ZLWK WKH GHPDQGV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KHUHIRUH WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKRVH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DUH QRW FRQJUXHQW ZLWK HQYLURQPHQWDO GHPDQGV PD\ KDYH GLIILFXOWLHV LQ DGDSWLQJ LQ YDULRXV VLWXDWLRQV /HUQHU /HUQHU :LQGOH t +RRNHU f 5HVXOWV IURP WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH EDVHG RQ GDWD REWDLQHG DW WZR GLIIHUHQW WLPH SRLQWV &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PRWKHU FKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG GLUHFWO\ SULRU WR WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH FOLQLF YLVLW 2QH WR WZR GD\V ODWHU REVHUYHUV UDWHG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DQG UHFRUGHG KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV 7KHUHIRUH WKLV VWXG\ GRHV QRW DVVHVV WKH GLUHFW RU LQWHUDFWLYH LPSDFW RI PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU RQ FKLOG EHKDYLRUV GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ,QVWHDG LW DSSHDUV WKDW WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ FHUWDLQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FHUWDLQ PDWHUQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VDPSOHG GXULQJ WKH SUHn RSHUDWLYH DVVHVVPHQW SHULRG KDYH LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU VXEVHTXHQW FKLOG EHKDYLRUV GXULQJ WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH LQ ZKLFK WKH PRWKHU LV QRW SUHVHQW &KLOGUHQnV 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG %HKDYLRU 'XULQJ $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ ,Q JHQHUDO YHU\ IHZ ILQGLQJV ZHUH REWDLQHG ZKLFK ZRXOG LQGLFDWH D GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKHLU EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ &RQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH H[LVWLQJ OLWHUDWXUH KRZHYHU 7KRPDV t &KHVV f FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQWDO WHQGHQF\ WR ZLWKGUDZ DQG VKRZ QHJDWLYH HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVHV WR QHZ RU QRYHO

PAGE 78

VLWXDWLRQV ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D KLJKHU QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG EHLQJ UDWHG DV OHVV FRRSHUDWLYH GXULQJ WKH LQWURGXFWRU\ SKDVH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ DV FRPSDUHG WR FKLOGUHQ ZKR VKRZ SRVLWLYH UHVSRQVHV WR QHZ VLWXDWLRQV ,W LV QRWHZRUWK\ WKDW ILQGLQJV LPSOLFDWLQJ D GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU ZHUH IRXQG RQO\ GXULQJ WKH ILUVW SKDVH RI LQGXFWLRQ 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f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nV QHJDWLYH ZLWKGUDZDO UHVSRQVHV DQG GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV GXULQJ WKH LQLWLDO VWDJH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZRXOG WHQG WR VXSSRUW 7KRPDV DQG &KHVVnV K\SRWKHVLV *RRGQHVV RI )LW 7KH SDXFLW\ RI ILQGLQJV LQGLFDWLQJ D GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ VXSSRUWV WKH QHFHVVLW\ IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ D FKLOGnV WHPSHUDPHQW ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW *ROGVPLWK %XVV 3ORPLQ 5RWKEDUW 7KRPDV

PAGE 79

&KHVV +LQGH DQG 0F&DOO f :LWKLQ HDFK HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQWH[W WKHUH DUH EHKDYLRUDO GHPDQGV 7KHVH GHPDQGV PD\ WDNH YDULRXV IRUPV /HUQHU HW DO f )LUVW WKH GHPDQGV PD\ WDNH WKH IRUP RI DWWLWXGHV YDOXHV RU H[SHFWDWLRQV KHOG E\ RWKHUV UHJDUGLQJ WKH FKLOGnV SK\VLFDO RU EHKDYLRUDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 6HFRQG GHPDQGV H[LVW DV D FRQVHTXHQFH RI WKH EHKDYLRUDO DWWULEXWHV RI RWKHUV LQ WKH FRQWH[W ZLWK ZKRP FKLOGUHQ PXVW FRRUGLQDWH WKHLU EHKDYLRUDO DWWULEXWHV IRU DGDSWLYH LQWHUDFWLRQV WR H[LVW $QG WKLUG WKH SK\VLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI D VHWWLQJ FRQVWLWXWH FRQWH[WXDO GHPDQGV /HUQHU HW DO f 7KXV IURP WKLV SHUVSHFWLYH RIWHQ WHUPHG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQLVW RU JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO /HUQHU 7KRPDV %LUFK &KHVV DQG 5REELQV f LW LV QHFHVVDU\ WR WDNH LQWR FRQVLGHUDWLRQ QRW RQO\ WKH FKLOGnV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV EXW DOVR RWKHU LQGLYLGXDOnV EHKDYLRUV DQG WKH SK\VLFDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW ,W ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV GLVSOD\HG GXULQJ WKH FOLQLF YLVLW ZRXOG LQWHUDFW EHWZHHQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WKHLU EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ )LQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ LQ IDFW LQGLFDWHG WKDW PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV KDG UHOHYDQFH LQ SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQV WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ LQ WKH FRQWH[W WKHLU YLHZ RI FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 6RPH RI WKH UHVXOWV LQFOXGHG WKH ILQGLQJV WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW KDG KLJKHU KHDUW

PAGE 80

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f SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV IRXQG WKH SDUHQWDO XVH RI LJQRULQJ RU DJLWDWLRQ WR EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJKHU UDWHV RI FKLOG GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRU LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ %XVK 0HODPHG 6KHUDV DQG *UHHQEDXP f 0DWHUQDO 3DWWHUQV RI %HKDYLRU 7KH ILQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ PLJKW EH FRQFHSWXDOL]HG ZLWKLQ D SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQWQRQLQYROYHPHQW SDUDGLJP +HUH SDUHQWDO LQYROYHPHQW ZRXOG EH VHHQ DV GLVSOD\LQJ KLJK UDWHV RI UHDVVXUDQFH DQG ORZ UDWHV RI DJLWDWLRQ DQG LJQRULQJ DQG SDUHQWDO QRQLQYROYHPHQW ZRXOG EH GHILQHG DV GLVSOD\LQJ ORZ UDWHV RI UHDVVXUDQFH DQG KLJK UDWHV RI DJLWDWLRQ DQG LJQRULQJ )RU WKH HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG EHWWHU RXWFRPHV GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK PRUH PDWHUQDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG IRU WKH GLIILFXOW

PAGE 81

WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG EHWWHU RXWFRPHV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK OHVV PDWHUQDO LQYROYHPHQW :KLOH LW ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG WKDW FKLOGUHQ ZLWK FRPSRQHQWV RI D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW ZRXOG KDYH QHJDWLYH UHVSRQVHV LQ XQIDPLOLDU VLWXDWLRQV 7KRPDV DQG &KHVV f WKLV ZDV IRXQG WR EH WUXH RQO\ GXULQJ SKDVH RQH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 1R GLUHFW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG EHKDYLRU GXULQJ SKDVH WKUHH RI DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ZHUH IRXQG 7KXV LW EHFRPHV QHFHVVDU\ WR FRQVLGHU RWKHU IDFWRUV ZKLFK LQIOXHQFHG FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU $V SUHYLRXVO\ PHQWLRQHG RQH VLJQLILFDQW LQIOXHQFH PD\ EH PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV H[DPLQHG PDWHUQDO LQIOXHQFHV RQ FKLOGUHQnV FRSLQJ EHKDYLRUV LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ %XVK HW DO f IRXQG WKDW PRWKHUV ZKR XVHG KLJK UDWHV RI UHDVVXUDQFH DQG LQIUHTXHQWO\ LJQRUHG WKHLU FKLOGUHQ ZHUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH FKLOGUHQ ZKR VKRZHG PDODGDSWLYH UHVSRQVHV SULRU WR EHLQJ H[DPLQHG E\ D SK\VLFLDQ *XWVWHLQ DQG 7DUQRZ f LQYHVWLJDWHG SDUHQWLQJ EHKDYLRUV DV IDFLOLWDWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU HOHFWLYH VXUJHU\ 3DUHQWV RI FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ WKH DJHV RI ZKR KDG D PRUH DFWLYH VW\OH RI JXLGLQJ WKH FKLOGnV DFWLYLWLHV ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR LQWHUIHUH ZLWK WKH FKLOGnV SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU VXUJHU\ 7KH %XVK HW DO f DQG *XWVWHLQ DQG 7DUQRZ f VWXGLHV SURYLGH GDWD ZKLFK LQGLFDWH WKDW SDUHQWV GR LQIOXHQFH FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU LQ WKH PHGLFDO VHWWLQJ DQG

PAGE 82

PRUHRYHU VXSSRUW D PDWHUQDO LQYROYHPHQWQRQLQYROYHPHQW K\SRWKHVLV 6SHFLILFDOO\ ERWK PDWHUQDO UHDVVXUDQFH DQG LQIUHTXHQW LJQRULQJ %XVK HW DO f DQG DFWLYH SDUHQWLQJ VWUDWHJLHV *XWVWHLQ DQG 7DUQRZ f FRXOG EH FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV PDWHUQDO LQYROYHPHQW ZKLFK ZDV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK OHVV DGDSWLYH FKLOG RXWFRPHV 5HVXOWV IURP WKLV VWXG\ KRZHYHU LQGLFDWHG D VLJQLILFDQW LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 7KDW LV SDUHQWLQJ EHKDYLRUV OHG WR GLIIHUHQW RXWFRPHV GHSHQGLQJ RQ FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW ,W PD\ WKHUHIRUH EH QHFHVVDU\ WR H[DPLQH DQRWKHU SRVVLEOH LQIOXHQFLQJ IDFWRU RQ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ 6LWXDWLRQDO &RPSRQHQWV )LQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ ZHUH EDVHG RQ GDWD FROOHFWHG LQ WZR GLIIHUHQW VLWXDWLRQV &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PRWKHU FKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ GDWD ZHUH FROOHFWHG LQ WKH RXWSDWLHQW FOLQLF ZKLOH UDWLQJV RI FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU DQG UHFRUGLQJV RI WKHLU KHDUW UDWH OHYHOV ZHUH FROOHFWHG LQ WKH VXUJLFDO XQLW 2QH VDOLHQW DQG LPSRUWDQW GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR VLWXDWLRQV LV WKDW GXULQJ WKH SUHRSHUDWLYH YLVLW PRWKHUV ZHUH SUHVHQW ZKLOH GXULQJ WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH PRWKHUV ZHUH DEVHQW $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH FOLQLF YLVLW FRQWUDVWHG ZLWK WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ VLWXDWLRQ WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW PRWKHUV ZHUH LQYROYHG RU QRW LQYROYHG ZLWK WKHLU FKLOGUHQ GXULQJ WKH FOLQLF YLVLW 7KDW LV GLIILFXOW

PAGE 83

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f GXH WR WKH FRQWUDVWLQJ QDWXUH RI WKH WZR VLWXDWLRQV (DV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ RI QRQLQYROYHG

PAGE 84

PRWKHUV PLJKW QRW KDYH EHHQ DGHTXDWHO\ SUHSDUHG IRU WKH DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ VLWXDWLRQ 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK 0HODPHG t 6LHJHO f KDV GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW SUHSDULQJ FKLOGUHQ IRU D PHGLFDO SURFHGXUH FDQ UHGXFH FKLOGUHQnV GLVWUHVV $GGLWLRQDOO\ *XWVWHLQ DQG 7DUQRZ f IRXQG WKDW SDUHQWV FDQ IDFLOLWDWH WKLV SUHSDUDWLRQ 7KH HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOG PLJKW KDYH WKHQ EHQHILWWHG IURP SUHn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

PAGE 85

LQYROYHPHQWQRQLQYROYHPHQW IUDPHZRUN DQG ZLWK DQ DWWDFKPHQW WKHRU\ SDUDGLJP $LQVZRUWK %OHKDU :DWHUV t :DOO 6URXIH f $WWDFKPHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH WKRXJKW WR KDYH LPSRUWDQW HIIHFWV RQ SV\FKRVRFLDO GHYHORSPHQW %RZOE\ f 7KH DFFXPXODWHG FOLQLFDO HYLGHQFH DQG UHVHDUFK ILQGLQJV VWURQJO\ VXSSRUW WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ FKLOGPRWKHU DWWDFKPHQW UHODWLRQVKLSV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK TXDOLWDWLYH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ DQWHFHGHQW PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV DQG ZLWK GLIIHUHQW EHKDYLRUDO RXWFRPHV LQ WKH FDVH RI WKH FKLOG $LQVZRUWK HW DO f 6URXIH f ZULWHV WKDW LQGLYLGXDO FKLOGUHQ HOLFLW GLIIHUHQW UHDFWLRQV IURP WKH HQYLURQPHQW :KHQ SODFHG LQ D FKDOOHQJLQJ VLWXDWLRQ FKLOGUHQ ZKR DUH VHFXUH LQ WKHLU UHODWLRQVKLS ZLWK WKHLU PRWKHUV VHHN PRUH DVVLVWDQFH IURP WKHLU PRWKHUV 7KHVH PRWKHUV LQ WXUQ PDLQWDLQ D KLJK OHYHO D VXSSRUW WRZDUGV WKHLU FKLOGUHQ $LQVZRUWK f DOVR UHSRUWV WKDW VHFXUHO\ DWWDFKHG FKLOGUHQ DUH OLNHO\ WR EHFRPH GLVWUHVVHG GXULQJ VHSDUDWLRQ 7KLV VWXG\ GLG QRW GLUHFWO\ H[DPLQH WKH QDWXUH RI FKLOGUHQnV DWWDFKPHQW WR WKHLU PRWKHUV KRZHYHU DV LQ WKH DWWDFKPHQW OLWHUDWXUH FKLOG DQG PRWKHU FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG WKH DVVRFLDWHG FKLOG EHKDYLRUDO RXWFRPHV ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG 3UHYLRXV UHVHDUFK KDV LQGLFDWHG WKDW PRWKHU FKLOG UHODWLRQVKLS FKDUDFWHULVWLFV FDQ EH FRQVLGHUHG D

PAGE 86

PHGLDWLQJ SURFHVV EHWZHHQ D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW DQG ODWHU EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV :HEHU /HYLWW t &ODUN f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n SURYLVLRQ RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW UDWLQJV %DWHV f KDV VXJJHVWHG WKDW SDUHQWDO UDWLQJV RI FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW PD\ UHSUHVHQW SHUFHSWLRQV UDWKHU WKDQ DFFXUDWH UHIOHFWLRQV RI EHKDYLRU )URP WKLV SHUVSHFWLYH RQH FRQFHUQ ZRXOG EH WKDW D SDUHQWnV RZQ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV PD\ OHDG WR ELDV UHSRUWV RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV 'RHOOLQJ f DQG 6KHHEHU

PAGE 87

f FROOHFWHG FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW GDWD SURYLGHG E\ ERWK PRWKHUV DQG WHDFKHUV :KLOH WHDFKHU DQG SDUHQWDO UHSRUWV RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW ZHUH RQO\ PRGHUDWHO\ FRUUHODWHG GLIIHUHQFH VFRUHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR UHSRUWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW SDUHQWDO UDWLQJV KDG QR V\VWHPDWLF ELDV 'RHOOLQJ f DQG 6KHHEHU f FRQFOXGH WKDW UHSRUWV RI FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DUH QRW OLNHO\ WR EH D IXQFWLRQ RI SDUHQWDO SHUFHSWLRQV DQG DUH XQOLNHO\ WR UHSUHVHQW D VLJQLILFDQW OLPLWDWLRQ WR WKH GHJUHH WKDW DOORZV PHDQLQJIXO FRQFOXVLRQV WR EH PDGH UHJDUGLQJ FKLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG RXWFRPH PHDVXUHV $QRWKHU OLPLWDWLRQ FRQFHUQV WKH TXDOLILFDWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQnV SULRU H[SHULHQFH ZLWK PHGLFDO RU VXUJLFDO SURFHGXUHV VR DV WR FRQWURO IRU SULRU H[SHULHQFH WR VRPH GHJUHHf :KLOH GDWD ZDV FROOHFWHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH QXPEHU DQG W\SH RI SUHYLRXV PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV QRW FROOHFWHG UHJDUGLQJ WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKHVH H[SHULHQFHV 0HODPHG 'HDUERUQ DQG +HUPHF] f IRXQG WKDW WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH FKLOGnV SULRU H[SHULHQFH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW IDFWRULQ SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQV WR PHGLFDO VWUHVVRUV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ IDFWRUV IXWXUH UHVHDUFK ZLOO QHHG WR DGGUHVV WKH LVVXH RI WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH FKLOGnV SUHYLRXV PHGLFDO H[SHULHQFHV )LQDOO\ LQ WKH FRXUVH RI WKLV VWXG\ PDQ\ VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRPSOHWHG ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW VRPH RI WKHVH VLJQLILFDQW VWDWLVWLFDO UHVXOWV ZHUH VSXULRXV 7KH

PAGE 88

FRQVLVWHQW SDWWHUQ RI WKH ILQGLQJV KRZHYHU DUJXH WR VRPH H[WHQW DJDLQVW WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI WKHVH UHVXOWV UHIOHFWLQJ VWDWLVWLFDO DUWLIDFWV &RQFOXVLRQV 7KH ILQGLQJV IURP WKLV VWXG\ DUH EDVHG RQ SDUHQW FKLOG G\DGV ,PSRUWDQW LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH UHYHDOHG LQ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRUDO DQG SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ )XUWKHUPRUH WKH PRWKHUVn UROH DV D PHGLDWRU EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW LQ D PHGLFDO VLWXDWLRQ ZDV H[DPLQHG 2QO\ D OLPLWHG QXPEHU RI WHPSHUDPHQW IDFWRUV DQG PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV ZHUH GLUHFWO\ UHODWHG WR FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ,QVWHDG WHPSHUDPHQW YDULDEOHV LQFOXGLQJ DSSURDFKZLWKGUDZDO DQG WKH RYHUDOO WHPSHUDPHQW VFRUH LQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK WKH PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRUV RI LJQRULQJ UHVWUDLQW UHDVVXULQJ DJLWDWLRQ DQG GLVWUDFWLRQ ZHUH WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRUV RI FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ %RWK GLIILFXOW DQG HDV\ WHPSHUDPHQW FKLOGUHQ GLVSOD\HG D KLJKHU QXPEHU RI GLVWUHVV EHKDYLRUV DQG KDG KLJKHU KHDUW UDWHV OHYHOV GHSHQGLQJ RQ PDWHUQDO EHKDYLRU 7KH GLIILFXOW FKLOG ZDV DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWHG E\ OHVV LJQRULQJ UHVWUDLQW DQG DJLWDWLRQ PRUH UHDVVXUDQFH DQG YDU\LQJ DPRXQWV RI GLVWUDFWLRQ 7KH HDV\ FKLOG LQ FRQWUDVW ZDV DGYHUVHO\ DIIHFWHG E\ KLJK UDWHV RI LJQRULQJ UHVWUDLQW DQG

PAGE 89

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nV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PRWKHU FKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ VHTXHQFHV WR GD\V SULRU WR EHLQJ DGPLWWHG IRU VXUJHU\ DV SUHGLFWLQJ FKLOGUHQnV EHKDYLRU GXULQJ DQHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ ,W LV SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKHVH UHODWLRQVKLSV ZRXOG KDYH JUHDWHU SUHGLFWLYH YDOLGLW\ LI PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH UHFRUGHG RQ WKH GD\ RI VXUJHU\ RQ WKH VXUJLFDO XQLW 7KH UHVXOWV IURP WKLV VWXG\ KDYH YDULRXV LPSOLFDWLRQV ZLWK UHJDUG WR SRVVLEOH LQWHUYHQWLRQV 2QH VXFK LQWHUYHQWLRQ PD\ LQYROYH SROLF\ FKDQJHV UHJDUGLQJ SDUHQWVn SUHVHQFH LQ WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP $W SUHVHQW SDUHQWV DUH JHQHUDOO\ QRW DOORZHG LQWR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP XQOHVV WKH

PAGE 90

FKLOG EHFRPHV H[WUHPHO\ XSVHW DQG GLVUXSWLYH GXULQJ WKH LQGXFWLRQ SURFHGXUH +DQQDOODK DQG 5RVDOHV f UHSRUWHG ILQGLQJV UHJDUGLQJ SDUHQWVn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

PAGE 91

$33(1',; $ %$&.*5281' ,1)250$7,21 ,17(59,(: )250 &KLOGnV 1DPH 6XEMHFW 1R &OLQLF 'DWH +RVSLWDO 1R ,QWHUYLHZHU $JH DQG VH[ RI VLEOLQJV 'DWH RI ELUWK 6H[ 5DFH $FFRPSDQ\LQJ SDUHQW $JH )DWKHU 2FFXSDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQ ,QFRPH 0RWKHU 2FFXSDWLRQ (GXFDWLRQ ,QFRPH 3UHYLRXV 0HGLFDO ([SHULHQFH f 6XUJHU\ UHDVRQ DQG GDWHf f 2WKHU +RVSLWDOL]DWLRQV f 7KLV FOLQLF f 2WKHU FOLQLFRXWSDWLHQW f 6LEOLQJV KRVSLWDOL]HG f 3DUHQWnV KRVSLWDOL]HG +RZ GR \RX WKLQN \RXU FKLOG KDV UHDFWHG WR SDVW PHGLFDO SURFHGXUHV" 9HU\ SRRUO\ 0RGHUDWHO\ SRRUO\ 0RGHUDWHO\ ZHOO 9HU\ ZHOO +RZ GR \RX WKLQN \RXU FKLOG ZLOO UHDFW WR WKLV PHGLFDO YLVLW" 9HU\ SRRUO\ 0RGHUDWHO\ SRRUO\ 0RGHUDWHO\ ZHOO 9HU\ ZHOO +RZ GR \RX UDWH \RXU FKLOGnV DQ[LHW\ IHDU QHUYRXVQHVVf DW WKLV PRPHQW" 9HU\ KLJK 0RGHUDWHO\ KLJK 0RGHUDWHO\ ORZ 9HU\ ORZ +RZ ZRXOG \RXU UDWH \RXU RZQ DQ[LHW\ IHDU QHUYRXVQHVVf DW WKLV PRPHQW" 9HU\ KLJK 0RGHUDWHO\ KLJK 0RGHUDWHO\ ORZ 9HU\ ORZ +RZ VWUHVVIXO KDV LW EHHQ IRU \RX WR GHDO ZLWK \RXU FKLOGnV FXUUHQW KHDOWK SUREOHPWKH UHDVRQ \RX DUH KHUH WRGD\" +LJK VWUHVV 0RGHUDWHO\ KLJK 0RGHUDWHO\ ORZ /RZ VWUHVV

PAGE 92

$33(1',; % 23(5$7,1* 5220 %(+$9,25 5$7,1* 6&$/(5(9,6(' /XPOH\ t 0HODPHGf 6XEMHFW QDPH 1XPEHU 'DWH $QHVWKHVLRORJLVW 5HVLGHQW 5DWHU /HDYLQJ WKH FKLOGnV SDUHQW WR JR WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP XQWLO WKH FKLOG LV WR EH WUDQVIHUUHG WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH FU\LQJ IURZQLQJ VFUHDPLQJ FDOOLQJ IRU SDUHQW RU RWKHU IULHQG RU JXDUGLDQf NLFNLQJ IOLQJLQJ DUPV ERG\ WHQVH DQG VWLII DWWHPSWV WR OHDYH EHG RU GRFWRU LI EHLQJ ZDONHGf UHSHWLWLYH PRYHPHQWV URFNLQJ OHJ RU DUP PRYLQJ EDFN DQG IRUWK HWFf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

PAGE 93

6XEMHFW QXPEHU 7UDQVIHU WR WKH RSHUDWLQJ URRP WDEOH XQWLO PDVN RU QHHGOH LV YLHZHG E\ FKLOG FU\LQJ IURZQLQJ VFUHDPLQJ YRFDOL]LQJ FDOOLQJ IRU SDUHQW RU RWKHU IULHQG RU JXDUGLDQf NLFNLQJ IOLQJLQJ DUPV ERG\ WHQVH DQG VWLII DWWHPSWV WR OHDYH WKH WDEOH UHSHWLWLYH PRYHPHQWV URFNLQJ OHJ RU DUP PRYLQJ EDFN DQG IRUWK HWFf GRHV QRW DQVZHU TXHVWLRQV RU JUHHWLQJV UHVLVWV WKH SK\VLRORJLFDO KRRNXSV 23(5$7,1* 5220 &223(5$7,21 5$7,1* 6&$/( 727$/ 81&223(5$7,21 PXFK UHVWUDLQW LV QHHGHG ILJKWV WKH VWDII PXFK YLROHQW PRYHPHQW WULHV WR HVFDSH SURWHVWV DUH ORXG DQG GLVUXSWLYH UHVWUDLQW RU IRUFH LV XVHG E\ VWDII PXFK PRWRU DFWLYLW\ SURWHVWV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK SURFHGXUH VWDII GHOD\V WR FDOP FKLOG FRPSOLDQFH DFKLHYHG DIWHU D VKRUW SHULRG PRGHUDWH PRWRU DFWLYLW\ SURWHVWV RFFDVLRQDOO\ QRW DWWHQGLQJ WR WKH UHTXHVWV RI WKH VWDII VRPH ERG\ PRYHPHQWV SURWHVWV D OLWWOH VOLJKW ERG\ PRYHPHQWV OLWWOH UHVSRQVLYHQHVV FRPSOLHV ZKHQ UHTXHVWHG EXW QHHGV SURPSWLQJ RU KHOS LV TXLHWO\ UHVSRQVLYH FRPSOLHV ZLWK UHTXHVWV QR H[WUD HIIRUW DW EHLQJ FRRSHUDWLYH QR SURWHVWDWLRQV 727$/ &223(5$7,21 YHU\ KHOSIXO DFWV RQ RZQ ZKHQ UHTXHVWHG QR SURWHVWDWLRQV LGHDO ZRUNLQJ FRQGLWLRQV

PAGE 94

6XEMHFW QXPEHU 9LHZ RI WKH PDVN RU QHHGOH XQWLO VHFRQGV VHFRQGV IRU ,9f DIWHU LQGXFWLRQ EHJLQV FU\LQJ IURZQLQJ VFUHDPLQJ YRFDOL]LQJ FDOOLQJ IRU SDUHQW RU RWKHU IULHQG RU JXDUGLDQf NLFNLQJ IOLQJLQJ DUPV ERG\ WHQVH DQG VWLII DWWHPSWV WR OHDYH WKH WDEOH UHSHWLWLYH PRYHPHQWV URFNLQJ OHJ RU DUP PRYLQJ EDFN DQG IRUWK HWFf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

PAGE 95

$33(1',; & 6$03/( &+$5$&7(5,67,&6 3$5(17 7(03(5$0(17 48(67,211$,5( 0RRG 0 6' 5DQTH 'LVWUDFWDELOLW\ 3HUVLVWHQFH $FWLYLW\ 5K\WKLPLFLW\ $GDSWDELOLW\ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO 7KUHVKROG ,QWHQVLW\ 'LIILFXOW 7HPSHUDPHQW

PAGE 96

$33(1',; 6,*1,),&$17 08/7,3/( 5(*5(66,21 02'(/6 ) 3 3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ D 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV )f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ,QIRUPDWLRQ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ; ,QIRUPDWLRQ E &RRSHUDWLRQ /HYHO ) f e 5 6RXUFH $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ,QIRUPDWLRQ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ; ,QIRUPDWLRQ F 'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV )f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO 'LVWUDFWLRQ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ; 'LVWUDFWLRQ

PAGE 97

3KDVH RI $QHVWKHVLD ,QGXFWLRQ D'LVWUHVV %HKDYLRUV ) f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO 'LVWUDFWLRQ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ; 'LVWUDFWLRQ E+HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV ) f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH 2YHUDOO 7HPSHUDPHQW ,JQRULQJ 7HPSHUDPHQW ; ,JQRULQJ F+HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV ) f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ,JQRULQJ $SSURDFK:LWKGUDZDO ; ,JQRULQJ G+HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV ) f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH 2YHUDOO 7HPSHUDPHQW 5HDVVXUDQFH 7HPSHUDPHQW ; 5HDVVXUDQFH H+HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV ) f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH 2YHUDOO 7HPSHUDPHQW 5HVWUDLQW 7HPSHUDPHQW ; 5HVWUDLQW

PAGE 98

I +HDUW 5DWH /HYHOV )f e 5 6RXUFH $JH 3UHYLRXV ([SHULHQFH 2YHUDOO 7HPSHUDPHQW $JLWDWLRQ 7HPSHUDPHQW ; $JLWDWLRQ

PAGE 99

5()(5(1&(6 $EHOHV /$ f 0RWKHU&KLOG ,QWHUDFWLRQ LQ WKH 0HGLFDO 6HWWLQJ $WWDFKPHQW (IIHFWV RQ 'LVWUHVV 8QSXEOLVKHG 0DVWHUnV 7KHVLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD $LQVZRUWK 0'6 f ,QIDQW0RWKHU $WWDFKPHQW $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW $LQVZRUWK 0'6 %OHKDU 0& :DWHUV ( t :DOO 6& f 3DWWHUQV RI DWWDFKPHQW $ SV\FKRORJLFDO VWXG\ RI WKH VWUDQJH VLWXDWLRQ +LOOVGDOH 1(UOEDXP $OOSRUW *: f 3HUVRQDOLW\ $ SV\FKRORJLFDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ 1
PAGE 100

%UHWKHUWRQ t $LQVZRUWK 0'6 f 5HVSRQVHV RI RQH\HDUROGV WR D VWUDQJHU LQ D VWUDQJH VLWXDWLRQ ,Q 0 /HZLV t /$ 5RVHQEOXP (GVf 7KH RULJLQV RI IHDU SSf 1< :LOH\ %URSK\ -( t *RRG 7& f $QDO\]LQJ FODVVURRP REVHUYDWLRQ $ PRUH SRZHUIXO DOWHUQDWLYH 5HS 1Rf $XVWLQ 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW &HQWHU IRU 7HDFKHU (GXFDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV %XVK -3 0HODPHG %* 6KHUDV 3/ t *UHHQEDXP 3( f 0RWKHUFKLOG SDWWHUQV RI FRSLQJ ZLWK DQWLFLSDWRU\ PHGLFDO VWUHVV +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ B %XVV $+ t 3ORPLQ 5 f $ WHPSHUDPHQWDO WKHRU\ RI SHUVRQDOLW\ GHYHORSPHQW 1< -RKQ :LOH\ DQG 6RQV &DPHURQ -5 f 3DUHQWDO WUHDWPHQW FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKH ULVN RI FKLOGKRRG EHKDYLRUDO SUREOHPV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2UWKRSV\FKLDWU\ &DPHURQ -5 f 3DUHQWDO WUHDWPHQW FKLOGUHQnV WHPSHUDPHQW DQG WKH ULVN RI FKLOGKRRG EHKDYLRUDO SUREOHPV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2UWKRSV\FKLDWU\ &DUH\ :% )R[ 0 t 0F'HYLWW 6& f 7HPSHUDPHQW DV D IDFWRU LQ HDUO\ VFKRRO DGMXVWPHQW 3HGLDWULFV 'DYLHV 5 %XWOHU 1 t *ROGVWHLQ + f )URP ELUWK WR VHYHQ 7KH VHFRQG UHSRUW RI WKH 1DWLRQDO &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW 6WXG\ FRKRUWf /RQGRQ 1DWLRQDO &KLOGUHQnV %XUHDX 'RHOOLQJ -/ f 3UHGLFWLQJ WKH 6XFFHVV RI )RVWHU &DUH 3ODFHPHQWV 8QSXEOLVKHG 0DVWHUnV 7KHVLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD (\EHUJ 60 f (\EHUJ &KLOG %HKDYLRU ,QYHQWRU\ -RXUQDO RI &OLQLFDO &KLOG 3V\FKRORJ\ B *ROGVPLWK ++ %XVV $+ 3ORPLQ 5 5RWKEDUW 0. 7KRPDV $ &KHVV 6 +LQGH 5$ t 0F&DOO 5% f 5RXQGWDEOH :KDW LV 7HPSHUDPHQW" )RXU $SSURDFKHV &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW *ROGVPLWK + + t &DPSRV f 7RZDUG D WKHRU\ RI LQIDQW WHPSHUDPHQW ,Q 5 1 (PGH DQG 5 +DUPRQ (GVf $WWDFKPHQW DQG DIILOLDWLYH V\VWHPV QHXURELRORJLFDO DQG SV\FKRELRORJLFDO DVSHFWV 1< 3OHQXP

PAGE 101

*UDKDP 3 5XWWHU 0 t *HRUJH 6 f 7HPSHUDPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG SUHGLFWRUV RI EHKDYLRUDO GLVRUGHUV LQ FKLOGUHQ $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2UWKRSV\FKLDWU\ *XWVWHLQ 6( t 7DUQRZ -' f 3DUHQWDO IDFLOLWDWLRQ RI FKLOGUHQnV SUHSDUDWRU\ SOD\ EHKDYLRU LQ D VWUHVVIXO VLWXDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI $EQRUPDO &KLOG 3V\FKRORJ\ +DQQDOODK 56 t 5RVDOHV -. f ([SHULHQFH ZLWK SDUHQWV SUHVHQFH GXULQJ DQDHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ LQ FKLOGUHQ &DQDGLDQ $QDHVWKHVLRORJ\ 6RFLHW\ -RXUQDO +LQGH 5$ (DVWRQ ') 0HOOHU 5( t 7DPSOLQ $0 f 7HPSHUDPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI \HDUROGV DQG PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SSf &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG +RRNHU 1HVVHOURDGH '( 1HVVHOURDGH -5 t /HUQHU 50 f 7KH VWUXFWXUH RI LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO WHPSHUDPHQW LQ WKH FRQWH[W RI PRWKHUFKLOG G\DGV 3WHFKQLTXH IDFWRU DQDO\VHV RI VKRUWWHUP FKDQJH 'HYHORSPHQWDO 3V\FKRORJ\ .DJDQ f 7KH FRQVWUXFW RI GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW $ UHSO\ WR 7KRPDV &KHVV DQG .RUQ 0HUULOO3DOPHU 4XDUWHUO\ B .DW]1HZPDQ t -RKQVRQ -+ f 1RWH RQ UHOLDELOLW\ RI 3DUHQW 7HPSHUDPHQW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HSRUWV .RJDQ .& t *RUGRQ % 0 f $ PRWKHULQVWUXFWLRQ SURJUDP 'RFXPHQWLQJ FKDQJH LQ PRWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQV &KLOG 3V\FKLDWU\ DQG +XPDQ 'HYHORSPHQW B /HH &/ t %DWHV -( f 0RWKHUFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ DW DJH WZR \HDUV DQG SHUFHLYHG GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW /HUQHU f 7KH LPSRUW RI WHPSHUDPHQW IRU SV\FKRVRFLDO IXQFWLRQLQJ 7HVWV RI D JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO 0HUULOO3DOPHU 4XDUWHUO\ /HUQHU 5 0 /HUQHU -9 :LQGOH 0 t +RRNHU f &KLOGUHQ DQG DGROHVFHQWV LQ WKHLU FRQWH[WV 7HVWV RI D JRRGQHVV RI ILW PRGHO &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW

PAGE 102

/HUQHU 50 3DOHUPR 0 6SLUR $ ,OO t 1HVVHOURDGH -5 f $VVHVVLQJ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQWDO LQGLYLGXDOLW\ DFURVV WKH OLIH VSDQ 7KH GLPHQVLRQV RI WHPSHUDPHQW VXUYH\ '276 &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW /XPOH\ 0 t 0HODPHG %* 2SHUDWLQJ 5RRP %HKDYLRU 5DWLQJ 6FDOH5HYLVHG 8QSXEOLVKHG PDQXVFULSW 0DXUHU 5 &DGRUHW 5t &DLQ & f &OXVWHU DQDO\VLV RI FKLOGKRRG WHPSHUDPHQW GDWD RQ DGRSWHHV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 2UWKRSV\FKLDWU\ 0HODPHG %* 'HDUERUQ 0 t +HUPHF] '$ f 1HFHVVDU\ FRQVLGHUDWLRQV IRU VXUJHU\ SUHSDUDWLRQ $JH DQG SUHYLRXV H[SHULHQFH 3V\FKRVRPDWLF 0HGLFLQH 0HODPHG %* 0H\HU 5 *HH & t 6RXOH / f 7KH LQIOXHQFH RI WLPH DQG SUHSDUDWLRQ RQ FKLOGUHQnV DGMXVWPHQW WR KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 3HGLDWULF 3V\FKRORJ\ 0HODPHG %* 5REELQV 5& t )HUQDQGH] f )DFWRUV WR EH FRQVLGHUHG LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO SUHSDUDWLRQ IRU VXUJHU\ $GYDQFHV LQ 'HYHORSPHQWDO DQG %HKDYLRUDO 3HGLDWULFV B 0HODPHG % t 6LHJHO / f 5HGXFWLRQ RI DQ[LHW\ LQ FKLOGUHQ IDFLQJ KRVSLWDOL]DWLRQ DQG VXUJHU\ E\ XVH RI ILOPHG PRGHOLQJ -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 0HODPHG %* t 6LHJHO /f &KLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQV WR PHGLFDO VWUHVVRUV $Q HFRORJLFDO DSSURDFK WR WKH VWXG\ RI DQ[LHW\ ,Q $+ 7XPD DQG 0DVHU (GVf $Q[LHW\ DQG WKH DQ[LHW\ GLVRUGHUV +LOOVGDOH 1(UOEDXP 0H\HU () t 0XUDYFKLFN 6 f $QHVWKHVLD LQGXFWLRQ WHFKQLTXH LQ SHGLDWULF SDWLHQWV $ FRQWUROOHG VWXG\ RI EHKDYLRUDO FRQVHTXHQFHV $QHVWKHVLD DQG $QDOJHVLD &XUUHQW 5HVHDUFK 3DJHW .' 1DJOH 5t 0DUWLQ 53 f ,QWHUUHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WHPSHUDPHQW FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG ILUVWJUDGH WHDFKHUVWXGHQW LQWHUDFWLRQV -RXUQDO RI $EQRUPDO &KLOG 3V\FKRORJ\ 3ORPLQ 5 f %HKDYLRUDO JHQHWLFV DQG WHPSHUDPHQW ,Q 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SSf &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG

PAGE 103

3ORPLQ 5 f &KLOGKRRG 7HPSHUDPHQW ,Q % % /DKH\ DQG $ ( .D]GLQ (GVf $GYDQFHV LQ &OLQLFDO &KLOG 3V\FKRORJ\ 5RZH '& t 3ORPLQ 5 f 7HPSHUDPHQW LQ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ $VVHVVPHQW 5XWWHU 0 f 7HPSHUDPHQW FRQFHSWV LVVXHV DQG SUREOHPV 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SSf &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG 5XWWHU 0 %LUFK +* 7KRPDV $ t &KHVV 6 f 7HPSHUDPHQWDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV LQ LQIDQF\ DQG ODWHU GHYHORSPHQW RI EHKDYLRUDO GLVRUGHUV %ULWLVK -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKLDWU\ 6KDZ (* 5RXWK '. f (IIHFW RI PRWKHU SUHVHQFH RQ FKLOGUHQnV UHDFWLRQ WR DYHUVLYH SURFHGXUHV -RXUQDO RI 3HGLDWULF 3V\FKRORJ\ B 6KHHEHU / f &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW DQG PDWHUQDO PHQWDO VWDWH 8QSXEOLVKHG 0DVWHUnV 7KHVLV 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6URXIH /$ f 7KH FRKHUHQFH RI LQGLYLGXDO GHYHORSPHQW (DUO\ FDUH DWWDFKPHQW DQG VXEVHTXHQW GHYHORSPHQWDO LVVXHV $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRORJLVW 6URXIH /$ f $WWDFKPHQW FODVVLILFDWLRQ IURP WKH SHUVSHFWLYH LQ LQIDQWFDUHJLYHU UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG LQIDQW WHPSHUDPHQW &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW 6URXIH /$ )R[ 1( t 3DQFDNH 95 f $WWDFKPHQW DQG GHSHQGHQF\ LQ GHYHORSPHQWDO SHUVSHFWLYH &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW 6WHYHQVRQ+LQGH t 6LPSVRQ $( f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SSf &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG 7KRPDV $ %LUFK + &KHVV 6 t 5REELQV /& f ,QGLYLGXDOLW\ LQ UHVSRQVHV RI FKLOGUHQ WR VLPLODU HQYLURQPHQWDO VLWXDWLRQV $PHULFDQ -RXUQDO RI 3V\FKLDWU\ 7KRPDV $ t &KHVV 6 f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG GHYHORSPHQW 1< %UXQQHU0D]HO ,QF 7KRPDV $ t &KHVV 6 f 7KH UHDOLW\ RI D GLIILFXOW WHPSHUDPHQW 0HUULOO3DOPHU 4XDUWHUO\

PAGE 104

7KRPDV $ &KHVV 6 t %LUFK +* f 7HPSHUDPHQW DQG EHKDYLRU GLVRUGHUV LQ FKLOGUHQ 1< 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV 7RUJHUVHQ $0 f ,QIOXHQFH RI JHQHWLF IDFWRUV RI WHPSHUDPHQW GHYHORSPHQW LQ HDUO\ FKLOGKRRG ,Q 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SSf &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG 9HUQRQ '7$ )ROH\ t 6FKXOPDQ f (IIHFW RQ PRWKHUFKLOG VHSDUDWLRQ DQG ELUWK RUGHU RQ \RXQJ FKLOGUHQnV UHVSRQVHV WR WZR SRWHQWLDOO\ VWUHVVIXO H[SHULHQFHV -RXUQDO RI 3HUVRQDOLW\ DQG 6RFLDO 3V\FKRORJ\ B :HEHU 5$ /HYLWW 0&ODUN 0& f ,QGLYLGXDO 9DULDWLRQ LQ $WWDFKPHQW 6HFXULW\ DQG 6WUDQJH 6LWXDWLRQ %HKDYLRU 7KH 5ROH RI 0DWHUQDO DQG ,QIDQW 7HPSHUDPHQW &KLOG 'HYHORSPHQW :HEVWHU6WUDWWRQ & t (\EHUJ 6 0 f &KLOG WHPSHUDPHQW 5HODWLRQVKLS ZLWK FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV DQG SDUHQWFKLOG LQWHUDFWLRQ -RXUQDO RI &OLQLFDO &KLOG 3V\FKRORJ\ :RONLQG 61 t 'H6DOLV : f ,QIDQW WHPSHUDPHQW PDWHUQDO PHQWDO VWDWH DQG FKLOG EHKDYLRU SUREOHPV ,Q 7HPSHUDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV LQ LQIDQWV DQG \RXQJ FKLOGUHQ SS f &,%$ )RXQGDWLRQ V\PSRVLXP f /RQGRQ 3LWPDQ %RRNV /WG =DELQ 0$ t 0HODPHG %* f 5HODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ SDUHQWDO GLVFLSOLQH DQG FKLOGUHQnV DELOLW\ WR FRSH ZLWK VWUHVV -RXUQDO RI %HKDYLRUDO $VVHVVPHQW

PAGE 105

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ /LQGD $OLVDEHWK $EHOHV ZDV ERUQ RQ $XJXVW LQ /DQVLQJ 0LFKLJDQ 6KH JUHZ XS LQ (DVW /DQVLQJ DQG DWWHQGHG (DV\ /DQVLQJ +LJK 6FKRRO 6KH HDUQHG KHU %DFKHORU RI $UWV DW WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0LFKLJDQ DW $QQ $UERU LQ ,Q VKH PRYHG WR *DLQHVYLOOH )ORULGD DQG UHFHLYHG KHU 0DVWHU RI 6FLHQFH GHJUHH LQ FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6KH FRPSOHWHG KHU FOLQLFDO LQWHUQVKLS DW 0LFKDHO 5HHVH +RVSLWDO LQ &KLFDJR ,OOLQRLV &XUUHQWO\ VKH LV OLYLQJ DQG ZRUNLQJ LQ WKH $WODQWD DUHD

PAGE 106

, FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IeU?WKH GHJUHH 271ARFWRI RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0 f A LW f§ -DPHV! 3URIHV + -RKQVRQ 3U VRU RI &OLQLFDO L &KDLUPDQ DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 6KHLOD (\EHUJ n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‘m n W ‘ 4 4 ‘ 1DQF\ 1RYHOO 3K' $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI &OLQLFDO DQG +HDOWK 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 0DUJRWH :KLWH 3K' 3URIHVVRU RI 1XUVLQJ

PAGE 107

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO DQG ZDV DFFHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 'HFHPEHU 9Y?YYL M? Y?V?!YY $ 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 108

81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ 0O 0O ,,, 0LOO