Citation
A construct validation of the egocentricity index and the form-dimensional and vista type responses of Exner's comprehensive Rorschach system

Material Information

Title:
A construct validation of the egocentricity index and the form-dimensional and vista type responses of Exner's comprehensive Rorschach system
Creator:
Unger, Michael Andrew
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Anxiety ( jstor )
Discriminants ( jstor )
Psychological assessment ( jstor )
Psychometrics ( jstor )
Questionnaires ( jstor )
Self consciousness ( jstor )
Self esteem ( jstor )
Standard deviation ( jstor )
Subject indexing ( jstor )
Verbalization ( jstor )

Record Information

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:
21058717 ( ALEPH )
16927337 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text






A CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE
EGOCENTRICITY INDEX AND THE
FORM-DIMENSIONAL AND VISTA TYPE
RESPONSES OF EXNER'S COMPREHENSIVE
RORSCHACH SYSTEM
















By

MICHAEL ANDREW UNGER


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


1985


I II





































To my parents with much love
and devotion











ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


A seed is planted. If the soil is fertile and the environment is

optimal for growth, the seed will blossom and flourish and all will bene-

fit from its beauty. In a similar manner, several individuals contri-

buted to the development and fruition of this project in a number of

ways. Dr. Eileen Fennell, as committee chairman, was a constant source

of support, guidance, and understanding. Like a gardener, she was there

whenever needed, yet fully encouraged the independent growth of my ideas

and skills. An idea acts as a seed in any study and Dr. Hugh Davis was

influential on my thinking through his conveyance of his appreciation and

understanding of the Rorschach and human behavior. Dr. Russell Bauer

offered his insights and ideas which were appreciated both on and off of

the field. The contribution of Dr. Randy Carter cannot be underesti-

mated. His ability to communicate the mind-bogging complexities of

statistics in a manner that is comprehensible and readily grasped is

truely appreciated. Dr. Lawrence Siegal was a steadying force and his

ideas contributed much to the methodological procedures. Much thanks are

extended to Dr. Nathan Perry who filled the vacated position of a

committee member at a late date in the project.

The actual running of the experiment would not have been possible

without the help of Dr. Richard Griggs who provided the subject popula-

tion through the psychology department subject pool. My fellow experi-

menters Arthur Brand, Mary Morris, Ernie Bordini, Ann Freund, Julie

Lipovsky, Leslie Fried, Marika Spevck, Linda Abeles, Karen Froming, and

Patricia Leavy provided invaluable assistance. I am deeply indebted


-iii-









to them for their time and devotion. Finally, I would like to thank my

family whose love and devotion, like the sunshine, fueled my spirit and

provided me with strength.


-iv-
















TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . .... iii

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . ix

CHAPTER

I LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . .. 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . 1
The Rorschach Test. . . . . . . . 4
The Form-Dimensional Response: (FD) . . . .. 8
Reflection and Pair Responses: (R) and (2). . . 13
The Shading-Dimensionality Response: (Vista) . . 25
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . 30
Hypotheses . . . . .... . . . . . 33

II METHOD . . . . . . . #. . . . . 36

Subjects . . . . . . . . . . 36
Assessment Instruments . . . . . . . 37
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test . .. 37
The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire . .. 39
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale ........43
The Profile of Mood States.... . . . 45
The Rorschach Inkblot Test. . . . . . 48
Experimental Procedure . . . . . . .. 51
Experimenters . . . . . . . . 51
Setting . . . . . . . .. 51
Original Contact . . . . . ..... 52
Assignment to Groups . . . . ..... 52
Experimental Session. ..... . . . . 53
Interrater Reliability of the Projective
Instruments . . . . . . ... 55
Rorschach Inkblot Test . .. . . . 55
Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test . . . 56
Hypotheses and Analyses . . . . . . ... 57










TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)


CHAPTER Page

III RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Evaluation of Possible Examiner and Test
Order Influences . . . ..... . . . 60
Interrater Reliability . . . . . .. 61
The Rorschach Inkblot Test. .. . . . 61
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test . . 61
Evaluation of the Hypotheses ..... . . . .. 61
The Form-Dimensional Response . . . . . 61
The Vista Response . . . . . . . 67
The Egocentricity Index . . . . 74
Further Exploration of the Egocentricity Index,
Form-Dimensional, and Vista Categories. . .... 84
Correlation Matrix ..... ........ . ... 89
Self-Esteem . . .......... . . . 89
Self-Focus . . . . . . . . ... 89
Point Biserial Correlation . . . . . . .. 91
The Form-Dimensional Response . . ... 91

IV DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . 92

The Form-Dimensional Scoring Category . . . ... .93
The Vista Scoring Category ....... . . . 97
The Egocentricity Index . . . . . . .. 101
Further Examination of the Rorschach Responses . . 105
Evaluation of the Design . . . . . . .. 106
Implications for Future Research . . . . . 109

APPENDIX

INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH. . . .111

REFERENCES. . . . . . ... . . . . . ... 116

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . .. 121


-vi-
















LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

1 Means and Standard Deviations of the
Form-Dimensional Groups. . . . . . . . 63

2 Summary of the Form-Dimensional Group
Classification by the Discriminant Function
Analysis . . . . . . .. . . . . 64

3 Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Form-Dimensional Groups . . . . . ..... 66

4 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Form-Dimensional Groups as the Classificant. . . 68

5 Means and Standard Deviations of the Vista Groups. 70

6 Summary of the Vista Group Classification by the
Discriminant Function Analysis . . . . . 71

7 Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Vista Groups . . . .. . . . . . ... 73

8 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Vista Groups as the Classificant . . . .. .. 75

9 Means and Standard Deviations of the Egocentricity
Index Groups . . . . . . . . . . 78

10 Summary of the Egocentricity Index Groups
Classification by the Discriminant Function
Analysis . . . . .. . . . . . . 79

11 Backward Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Egocentricity Index Groups . . . . . . 81

12 Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the D and SN Scores of the
SFSC and the Anger Subscale. . . . . . .. 82

13 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Egocentricity Index Groups as the Classificant . 85


-vii-










LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)

Table Page

14 Means for each of the Egocentricity Index, Form-
Dimensional and Vista Category Groups. . . . 88

15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between
all Variables. . . . . . . . . 90


-viii-


















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


A CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE
EGOCENTRICITY INDEX AND THE
FORM-DIMENSIONAL AND VISTA TYPE
RESPONSES OF EXNER'S COMPREHENSIVE
RORSCHACH SYSTEM

By

Michael Andrew Unger

August 1985

Chairman: Eileen Fennell

Major Department: Clinical Psychology

The Rorschach Inkblot Test has stimulated great interest, extensive

use, and a considerable amount of research. A number of Rorschach sys-

tems have been developed with respect to administrative procedures, scor-

ing criteria, and the interpretive hypotheses that they generate. The

present study focused on the Comprehensive Rorschach System developed by

Exner. Specifically, three scoring categories (determinants) introduced

by Exner were examined. The validity of these determinants was examined

by evaluating the extent or degree that they individually and/or collec-

tively measure the construct or psychological process that they hypothe-

tically represent.

The three scoring categories that were explored are those that de-

signate the form-dimensional response, the vista response, and the


-ix-










egocentricity index. Each scoring category is hypothesized to reflect a

psychological process or perceptual-cognitive process that is used to

create the response. The form-dimensional response is proposed to re-

flect a nonemotional introspective process. The egocentricity index is

hypothesized to represent a self-focusing process characteristic of ego-

centricity. The vista response is hypothesized to represent a painful

introspective process that is associated with depressive features.

The current study was conducted to further examine the psychological

processes represented by these variables. A nonpatient population of

undergraduate students was used. Four questionnaires were used that were

thought to represent the psychological processes hypothesized to be re-

flected by each variable. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test was

used to assess the tendency to be self or other-centered. The Profile of

Mood States was selected to provide an estimate of affective state. The

Self-Consciousness Scale was used to assess the process of self-focused

attention. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was employed to measure self-

regard.

Discriminant function, stepwise discriminant, backward stepwise

logistical regression, univariate (analysis of variance) and Chi-Square

analyses were utilized. These analyses failed to support a hypothesis of

convergent validity for the vista and form-dimensional responses. Public

self-consciousoness, self-esteem, and the mood state of anger were found

to be significantly related to the egocentricity index. These results

are discussed in terms of implications for future research.















CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction


The Rorschach is a test that has stimulated great interest, exten-

sive use, and a considerable amount of research. First introduced in a

posthumously published monograph (Rorschach, 1921), the Rorschach has

since become an important instrument for the assessment of personality.

The test consists of ten inkblots, and subjects are required to verba-

alize what they perceive them to represent.

Rorschach himself only studied the inkblots for a brief period of

time prior to his premature death. He offered a variety of postulates

concerning the specific features of the test, but did not formulate a

global theory (Rorschach, 1921). This challenge was accepted by Beck,

Beck, Levitt, and Molish (1961), Hertz (1951), Klopfer, Ainsworth,

Klopfer and Holt (1954), Piotrowski (1957), and Rapaport, Gill, and

Schafer (1946), each of whom developed his own Rorschach system. The

five Rorschach systems all focus on the verbalizations of the subjects

whether generated during the free association or the inquiry as their

basic data. These are always interpreted regardless of the system

employed. In addition, all of the systematizers emphasize a global

approach to the interpretation of the test and require that all of the

data be integrated before drawing conclusions. Hypotheses are formulated

and either accepted or rejected on the basis of both the structural and

content components of the protocol.


-1-








-2 -


Many of Rorschach's original postulates form the basis on which the

five Rorschach systems have been developed. However, each system differs

significantly from the others with respect to the administrative proce-

dures, scoring, and the interpretative hypotheses that it generates.

These fundamental differences have made systematic research efforts of

the test difficult. For instance, researchers often fail to indicate

which system they are using and/or use more than one system when

conducting their studies. They also tend to interpret their results

under the assumption that they are valid across all systems regardless of

which systems) was used in conducting the study. This practice

precludes the usefulness of their findings since the responses scored on

the basis of one system do not necessarily coincide with those scored by

the others due to their different scoring criteria. This, in turn,

affects the descriptive statements generated since each of the

systematizers offer interpretive hypotheses based on the scoring

categories that are specific to their system. This implies that many of

the interpretive hypotheses are specific to one particular system and do

not necessarily have an equivalent in the others.

Confusion has also found its way into clinical practice.

Practitioners are often faced with the problem of becoming proficient in

the use of one Rorschach system at the cost of disregarding what might be

worthwhile in another. Those clinicians with a knowledge of more than

one system may choose to disregard intersystem differences and intermix

them. Exner and Exner (1972) conducted a survey and found that

75 percent of those clinicians who score subjects' responses admitted

to intermixing the scores from different systems and/or adding







-3 -


scores derived from personal experiences. Exner (1974) states that while

this methodology has been adapted by the practitioner, it is not a truely

standardized methodology. He has called for a complete standardization

of the Ror. aach, a process that had been impeded because the research

conducted has concerned not one, but several tests which share in common

the same stimulus figures. This, in turn, has precluded the compilation

of adequate reliability and validity data.

Exner (1974) developed a Comprehensive Rorschach System which he

believes will make the test more accessible to the researcher and more

productive to the practitioner by providing a standardized base from

which the test can be used, researched, and fully developed. His system

was designed to incorporate the best aspects of the other systems, to

include developments exclusive of any of the five systems, to have high

reliability and validity, and to provide descriptive information. Like

those before it, the Comprehensive System focuses on procedures, scoring,

interpretation, and research problems and methodologies. It borrows

liberally from the other systems and is intended to provide those who use

it with a common language and methodology.

Exner (1974) required that the Comprehensive Rorschach System have

high validity in response to criticisms against the Rorschach concerning

its validation. Goldfried, Stricker, and Weiner (1971) believe that the

question "Is the Rorschach valid?" should be replaced in favor of the

question "What is the Rorschach valid for?" Blatt (1975) points out that

in clinical practice, the Rorschach has typically been used to make

inferences about certain psychological constructs and Meehl (1959)

recommends a construct validation approach as the appropriate model for








-4 -


conducting research related to the Rorschach if it is to yield clinically

useful information. The current study was conducted in an effort to

further establish the construct validity of certain aspects of the Com-

prehensive Rorschach System. Specifically, three scoring categories

(determinants), introduced by Exner (1974), were examined. The extent or

degree that these determinants individually and/or collectively measure

the psychological construct or process that they hypothetically represent

was evaluated.

The Rorschach Test

The data of the Rorschach is a verbal report from the subject of

what he has seen or imagined when confronted with the ten ambiguous

inkblots (Exner, 1974). Exner (1978) has hypothesized that there are at

least four interrelated processes involved in each verbal response given

by the subject. First, the subject must acknowledge that the task is to

see something other than an inkblot and to categorize the many objects

which the inkblots or its parts might resemble. Second, the subject rank

orders the possible responses that he has detected. This process is

influenced by the individual's concern for perceptual accuracy, needs,

and internal sets. These needs and internal sets may be integral parts

of the individual's personality structure, manifest in the form of his

basic response style, or be more situational and transitory. Third, the

subject must feel or believe that his response will be acceptable. The

last factor hypothesized to influence subject's response is the manner by

which he verbally articulates his answer.

There are few rules and limited structure provided by the Rorschach

test for the individual to use to guide his behavior. He is forced to








-5 -


use his psychological resources and the behaviors which, in his judgment,

will produce the most acceptable response. From these responses,

descriptive statements can be made by the clinician that focus on such

features of the individual as response styles, affectivity, cognitive

operations, motivations, preoccupations, and interpersonal-interenviron-

mental perceptions and response tendencies (Exner, 1974).

To assist in making descriptive statements, each Rorschach system

has a scoring process that converts the individual's verbal responses

into a logical and systematic format so that they can be studied

individually and collectively. This provides the structural data whereas

the verbal responses provide the content data from which hypotheses are

generated. The current study was concerned only with the structural

data.

Rorschach (1921) originally devised a system of symbols and

abbreviations to code each verbal response into a language which

identifies its characteristics and components. His scheme for scoring

consisted of four basic categories: 1) Location (the area of the inkblot

where the response occurred); 2) Determinant(s) (the stimulus features of

the blot that contributed to the formation of the percept); 3) Content

(the content of the response); and 4) Popularity (whether the response is

common to the general population) (Exner, 1974). While all of the

systematizers have maintained this format in their respective systems,

Hertz (1940), Beck (1937), and Exner (1974) have each added a scoring

category designated as "Organizational Activity," to represent the extent

to which the individual has organized various features of the inkblot in

a meaningful way (Exner, 1974).








-6 -


An investigation of each of these scoring categories would surely

have been fruitful for research, but was beyond the scope of this paper.

The current study was concerned solely with the determinant scores of the

Rorschach. The scoring of determinants provides information concerning

the perceptual-cognative process which has produced the response (Exner,

1974). In the Comprehensive System, the many stimulus characteristics of

the inkblots fall into nine determinant scoring categories: 1) form, 2)

movement, 3) color (chromatic), 4) color (achromatic), 5) texture

(shading), 6) general shading, 7) dimensionality (form), 8) dimension-

ality (shading), 9) pairs and reflections (Exner, 1974). There has been

comparatively little research conducted to confirm which psychological

constructs the last three of these nine determinants are hypothesized to

represent. It was therefore decided to further limit the focus of the

current study to these scoring categories.

The determinants which Exner (1974) introduced in his comprehensive

system and which were investigated in this study have historically been

scored as "light-dark" determined responses by other systematizers. The

scoring of these "light-dark" determined responses is an area about which

Rorschach wrote very little and, as a result, each systematizer has

developed his own criteria (Exner, 1974). For example, Beck et al. (1961)

scored the "vista" response as one in which the variations in shading gave

a three-dimensional effect, as of something seen in perspective. His

criteria for content responses scorable as vista were "the distant,

usually landscapes, sometimes aerial views, occasionally astronomical

percepts, the heights in landscapes; architecture, usually as height and

less often as being distant; insularity, usually land in water, but








-7 -


sometimes water surrounded by land; depths, usually water, but also caves;

reflections, usually in water, sometimes in mirrors" (Beck et al., 1961,

pg.109). For a response to be scored as vista, the individual's verbali-

zations were required to refer to distance, height, depth or reflection.

Beck hypothesized that the vista response represented "sensed pain" or the

character trait of inferiority feelings (Beck et al., 1961).

Klopfer, Ainsworth, Klopfer and Holt (1954) used the symbol "FK" to

designate those responses verbalized by an individual where a

three-dimensional or depth impression is combined with definite form

perception, giving perspective to the content. The symbol "Fk" is used

to designate a response where the use of shading gives the impression of

a three-dimensional plane involving definite shape. "K" or "kF" are

scored when the individual uses shading to give a diffuse, unstructured,

but three-dimensional effect to the content of their response. Klopfer

et al. (1954), like Beck et al. (1961), did not always require that the

individual directly refer to the light-dark features (shading) of the

inkblot in his verbal response or during inquiry and believed that it is

the concept, rather than the explicit statement, which gives the clue as

to the use of shading. The Fk score is also used to refer to reflections

and symmetry responses. However, the form determinant, and not Fk, is

scored in those instances where a reflection response is solely based on

the symmetry of the inkblot and there is no evidence that shading was

used to create a three-dimensional effect. The form determinant is also

endorsed when perspective is thought to be linear and the shading is not

used to create a three-dimensional effect. The FK scoring category and

its varients are hypothesized to psychologically represent an attempt by







-8 -


the individual to cope with affection and anxiety by introspective

efforts (Klopfer et al., 1954). In other words, they are interpreted to

represent an attempt by the individual to cope with the anxiety generated

by his needs for security, affection and belongingness by putting his

problem at a distance from himself so that he can view it more dispassion-

ately. Klopfer et al. (1954) believed that the FK type response appeared

to be characteristic of those individuals who are unsuccessful in coping

with their anxiety by more intellectual means and lack the emotional in-

sight needed to cope effectively with their problems.

Exner (1974) has introduced into the Comprehensive Rorschach System

four determinant scoring categories to designate those responses that Beck

et al. (1961) would score as vista and Klopfer et al. (1954) would score

as a FK type response. These determinants will be discussed in the

following passages with respect to their scoring criteria and the research

conducted thus far to determine the psychological processes that they

reflect.

The Form-Dimensional Response: (FD)

Exner (1974) introduced the Form-Dimensional (FD) determinant to

designate those verbal responses to the inkblots which include perspective

or dimensionality based exclusively on form, interpreted by size or in

relation to other blot areas. Although there is no scoring category

compatible to it in the other Rorschach systems, Klopfer et al. (1954)

have included such responses in the FK category (even though no shading is

involved) arid Beck et al. (1961) have scored these responses as vista when

the unarticulated use of shading seems very likely. Form-dimensional

responses have been observed to occur in responses to each of the inkblot







-9 -


cards (Exner, 1974). Although the criteria for scoring FD have not been

finalized, it is scored when the dimensionality or perspective is based on

the size of the blot area used or the relationship between blot areas.

The usefulness of FD as a separate scoring determinant emerged from

a study of sixty Rorschach records obtained from subjects who, during a

period of ninety days following testing, made a suicide attempt, eighteen

of which were successful (Exner, 1974). Examination of these protocols

revealed that on the average, they contained a significantly greater

number of form determined dimensional-perspective responses (X = 3.1) as

compared to a nonpsychiatric group (X = 0.8). Exner also observed that

the FD type of response occurred with considerable frequency in the

records of a variety of subjects whether they were from psychiatric or

nonpsychiatric populations. Using this particular scoring criterion,

243 FD responses were tallied from 250 Rorschach records whereas only 186

vista responses were tallied as scored by the Beck et al. (1961) Rorschach

system (Exner, 1974). The mean number of FD type responses and the

frequency with which it occurs increases consistently with the increase

in a person's age (Exner, 1978). Beginning at age eight, this type of

response has been observed to appear at least once in more than half of

all individuals tested.

It was first believed that the FD response was related to the

depressive features characteristic of suicidal individuals. Further

examination of various Rorschach protocols showed that an outpatient

reference group gave an average of .23 FD type responses and a schizo-

phrenic reference group gave an average of 0.5 FD responses per record.

Nonpatients were found to give 0.92 of these responses per record








-10-


(Exner, 1974). It was reasoned that since outpatients are encouraged to

be introspective during therapy, and depressives, by definition, are

stimulated toward a form of introspection, the FD response may be re-

lated to introspective activity. Exner has offered some tentative re-

search looking at this relationship.

Exner (1974) cites three experiments that were conducted to evaluate

the hypothesis that the FD response is related to an introspective

activity. In the first study, a total of 495 Rorschach records were

collected from four groups of subjects: nonpsychiatric, outpatient

nonpsychotic, inpatient nonschizophrenic, and inpatient schizophrenic.

It was assumed that an introspective person would be more prone to

internalization and less prone toward affective display. Since the "M"

determinant is thought to reflect an internalization process and "C" a

proneness toward affective display, subjects were sorted into three

groups based on the number of these responses. Only two groups, sum M

greater than sum C and sum M less than sum C, were used to compare the

number of FD responses produced. It was found that the sum M greater

than sum C group gave a greater than average number of FD responses.

This provided some support for the notion that FD is related to

internalization. However, it may be the case that FD simply represents a

delay of affect. The question of introspectiveness per se had yet to be

addressed.

The second study was designed to further evaluate the process of

introspectiveness as related to the FD response. Forty subjects were

selected from a "waiting list" of a psychiatric facility and randomly

assigned to four equal groups. They were instructed that they would meet









-11-


in "holding groups" to initiate their treatment plans and goals prior to

being assigned to an individual therapist. During these meetings,

trained observers scored the verbalizations of each subject to determine

if they were directed toward the "self" or others and whether their

statements pertained to past, present, or future. Rorschachs were given

to all subjects prior to their first group meeting. They were then

assigned to either an "upper" or "lower" group based on a median split of

the total number of FD responses given. It was assumed that more intro-

spective subjects would make statements that focused more on themselves

than others. A comparison of the two groups found that the upper FD

group gave significantly more "self" verbalizations during the first

three group sessions. A comparison of the number of statements made

directed towards others was not reported. Although it was predicted

that more introspective individuals would be more concerned with the

present than with the past or future, no differences were found between

groups on these variables. The only clear result of this study was that

high FD individuals made more self-referenced statements than individuals

who gave a fewer number of FD responses. No control group was used to

compare these results to a group of individuals who gave an average

number of FD responses.

It was next decided to test whether the self-oriented responses

given by the "high" FD group were a manifestation of egocentricity rather

than self-examination. To rule out this possibility, subjects were also

administered a Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (Exner, 1973) as an

index for measuring egocentricity. Three subscale scores can be obtained

from this test: 1) the Self-Focus subscale score, 2) the External-World







-12-


Focus subscale score, and 3) a D score representing the difference

between them. Using this latter score to compare groups, it was found

that the high FD group was slightly more oriented toward the external

world than the lower FD group. Exner concluded that this would seem to

eliminate the possibility that the verbalizations of this group were

simply manifestations of egocentricity. No comparison of the groups on

the basis of the self-focus subscale score was reported. The reader is

left wondering if the high FD group endorsed more self-focusing item

stems than the low FD group. No interpretation was offered to account

for the results of the low FD group. Based on the author's criteria, it

would appear that these individuals are more egocentric than the high FD

group. Once again, comparisons to a control group were not reported.

Working from the conclusion that the FD response represents a pro-

cess different from egocentricity, Exner next tested its relationship to

introspection per se. It was decided to study this relationship within

the context of psychotherapy. It was assumed that subjects who are

trained to examine themselves during the early stages of treatment would

be more introspective and give a greater than average number of FD

responses. The Rorschach was administered to fifteen nonpsychotic

patients at the onset of individual psychotherapy, the tenth treatment

session, and termination. The mean number of FD responses given at these

times was .06, with a range of 0 to 4; 3.11, with a range from 0 to 6;

and 1.24, with a range of 0 to 3; respectively. It was believed that

these results provided some evidence that the FD type response is related

to a psychological activity involving self-inspection or examination or

at least self-awareness.








-13-


From these studies, Exner (1974) concluded that if the FD response

is also interpreted as a type of "form" response, as having affect-delay

operations, then the self-examination may be a form of affective-delay

through a type of reasoning which centers on the self, its assets, and

its limitations. It represents a "nonemotional introspective" process.

A number of criticisms can be raised against these studies. As al-

ready mentioned, the high and low FD groups were not compared to a

control group. Therefore, these subjects may not be more or less "intro-

spective" than the general population. A second criticism concerns the

third study. A number of variables other than introspectivenss per se,

such as level of anxiety, may have influenced the number of FD responses

given. The conclusion that the results were due to an introspective pro-

cess cannot be reached unless a more stringent criterion is used to test

this relationship. Introspection can be defined as an examination of

one's own thoughts and feelings (Duval and Wicklund, 1973). None of the

studies cited above directly tested whether subjects who give more FD

responses are more aware of their own thoughts and feelings than the

general population. In addition, none of the studies tested directly

whether an affective component is involved or absent from the FD

response. Therefore, the interpretive conclusions reached by Exner with

regard to this response still seem tentative and more the result of in-

ference than direct empirical testing.

Reflection and Pair Responses: (R) and (2)

The reflection and pair determinants are not scored separately in

any of the other Rorschach systems. Beck et al. (1961) and Klopfer et al.

(1954) each suggested that the reflection type of response be scored







-14-


as a type of light-dark response. Beck et al. (1961) score the reflec-

tion response that uses the light-dark features of the blot as a shading

vista response, and those based solely on the symmetry of the blot as a

form determinant response. Beck et al. assume that the same perceptual-

cognitive process is involved in the reflection type of response as that

involving depth and/or dimensionality. Klopfer et al. (1954) used FK to

designate the reflection response based on blot symmetry and if the midline

of the ink blot is noted as a shading differentiation.

Like the FD responses, the reflection (R) response is based on the

form of the inkblot. Exner designates two scoring categories for the

reflection response. The first, the reflection-form response (rF), is

scored for those responses in which "the symmetry features of the blot

are primary in determining the answer, and form is used nonspecifically,

or ambiguously, as an object being reflected" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). Re-

flection responses scored in this manner always involve content with non-

specific form requirements (i.e., clouds, shadows, rocks). The form-

reflection response (FR) is used to designate those responses where "the

form of the blot is used to identify specific content, which is inter-

preted as reflected because of the symmetry of the blot" (Exner, 1974,

p. 101). The reflection response, whether rF or Fr, is based on the

symmetry of the inkblot. The reflection response which does not use

symmetry and uses the light-dark features of the inkblot is scored

separately as either a vista or as a shading response. The pair (2)

response is based solely on the form properties of the inkblot and is

scored when "the perceived object is reported as two objects because of

the card symmetry" (Exner, 1974, p. 102).








-15-


The rationale for creating two separate scoring categories for re-

flection and pair responses emerged in a study originally designed to

examine narcissism and acting-out behavior (Exner, 1969a). The study was

based on a premise of narcissm expounded by Kohut (1966). Kohut de-

scribes a "narcissistic balance" which provides the impetus toward drive

satisfaction, but which is also tempered by social reality. When this

balance is disrupted, two forms of pathology may occur. The first

involves an excessive preoccupation with the self and the immediate gra-

tification of impulses which occurs in the majority of sexual perversions

and character disorders. The second takes the form of withdrawal which

occurs in many of the depressive reactions and some schizophrenia. The

study thus included three equal groups of homosexuals, sociopaths, and

depressives as their behavior is, in theory, narcissistic. A control

group was also included. All subjects were administered Rorschachs. When

their records were scored by the Beck et al. (1961) method, each group was

found to give a high frequency of vista responses. This was not the case

when a separate scoring category was used to designate reflection

responses. The homosexual and character disorder groups gave signifi-

cantly more reflection responses than the other two groups. The depres-

sive and control groups were not found to differ significantly in

this regard. On the basis of these findings, it was reasoned that the

scoring of the reflection response warranted a separate category for

diagnostic appraisal (Exner, 1969). This logic was also applied to the

pair (2) response which was also recorded on the assumption that they

might represent a more subtle or controlled form of reflection type

response (Exner, 1969). Pair responses occurred in almost all of the








-16-


records. Significant differences were found using t-tests to compare

groups. The homosexuals, as a group, gave more of these responses than

all other groups. The depressives gave fewer pair responses than all

other groups (Exner, 1969).

In light of these findings, Exner (1969) then decided to investigate

the relationship between the reflection and pair responses to the

concept of narcissism. A sample of 1,547 males composed of college

students and industrial workers was administered a 50-item sentence com-

pletion test originally designed by Watson (1965), and subsequently modi-

fied by Exner (1969), to assess the characteristic of narcissism. A

random sample of 750 sentence completion tests were scored and used in

the study. From this population, two groups of forty subjects were

selected to form a high and low narcissistic group. The high narcissistic

group was composed of those subjects who had high self-focus scores and

low external-world scores. The low narcissistic group was comprised of

those subjects who had low self-focus scores and high external-world focus

scores. Whether the difference between the self-focus and external-world

focus scores was significant was not reported. The high and low narcis-

sistic groups were compared using t-tests. The high narcissistic group

was found to average significantly more reflection and pair responses than

the low narcissistic group. No control group was used to determine if the

number of pair and reflection responses given differed significantly from

a "normal" population. Exner (1969) formulated the three following

postulates based on these findings. First, those individuals who are

highly narcissistic will manifest this trait in their perception and

verbalization of reflection or mirror-image type responses on the








-17-


Rorschach. Second, those individuals who are low on the narcissistic

trait will not exhibit reflection type responses and will have a

restricted number of pair responses. Third, persons demonstrating a

reasonable narcissistic balance in their adjustment can be expected to

verbalize a reasonable number of pair responses and few, if any, reflec-

tion responses. Exner further concluded that these findings seem consis-

tent with the psychoanalytic conception of narcissism as "self-love"

(Freud, 1931/1961).

One question left unanswered by this study concerned the depressives.

If depressed individuals are, in theory, narcissistic (Kohut, 1966), why

do they not verbalize as many reflection responses as the homosexual

or sociopathic groups? It was found that the depressive group gave a

significantly greater number of vista responses than any of the other

groups (exclusive of reflection). If this is so, what differentiates the

pair and reflection type responses from the vista response?

Exner reported that because of the complexity of the concept of nar-

cissism, it seemed "more appropriate" to use the concept of "egocentri-

city" or "self-focus" to interpret these data (Exner, 1969). No further

explanation was offered for this change in stance. Exner (1973) subse-

quently replicated the aforementioned study using a nonpsychiatric

population of college students. The sentence completion blank was

revised so as to include only 30 items and a more comprehensive scoring

system. Sixty subjects were selected to form two groups on the basis of

their extremely high or extremely low self-focus scores. Each subject

was subsequently administered the Rorschach. A comparison of the two

groups revealed that the high self-focus group produced nearly twice as








-18-


many pair and reflection responses. A comparison between groups on the D

score (self-focus score minus external-world focus score) was not

reported although this was designated as a criterion for narcissism in

the first study and egocentricity in a previously cited study investiga-

ting the FD response (Exner, 1974). No control group was used to

determine if the frequency of the pair and reflection type responses

differed from a normal population. Nevertheless, these results were

considered by Exner to provide some support for the notion that the

reflection and pair responses represent a self-focusing process.

In one of the few studies that was proposed to study the pair and

reflection response to the process of egocentritity itself, Exner (1974)

administered several psychological tests, including the Rorschach, to 21

candidates applying for a junior engineering position. Prior to their

interview, each candidate was brought into an office which contained a

two-way mirror and candidly filmed for a ten minute interval. Trained

raters scored the film for the amount of time each candidate spent

viewing himself in a mirror. A median split was used to divide subjects

into high and low groups based on their mirror viewing time. Significant

differences were found between the groups on their Rorschach productions.

The subjects in the upper half group gave significantly more reflection

and pair responses than the lower group. It is not clear how egocentri-

city is being defined here or whether it can be said to be represented

here at all.

In a separate paper, Exner also reported on the use of the Self-

Focus Sentence Completion Test to compare high and low mirror viewing

groups (Exner, 1973). The high mirror viewing group was found to score







-19-


significantly higher on the self-focus subscale than the low mirror

viewing group. The relationship between these variables with the number

of reflection and pair responses produced was not reported. Based on

other findings (Exner, 1974), it may be inferred that those subjects

who stared in the mirror for a greater length of time, and gave more

self-focused responses, would give more reflection and pair-type

responses than those individuals who spent little time looking in the

mirror. This is only an inference, and it is surprising that Exner did

not report on this relationship as supporting or contradicting his

hypothesis.

Raychauduri and Mukerji (1971) found that reflection responses

appear very infrequently among adult protocols except for those indivi-

duals with serious sex role confusion, those who are prone to antisocial

behavior, and schizophrenics. They conclude that the reflection response

is a "primitive" form of self-centeredness.

Based on the findings of the above studies, Exner (1974) proposed

that reflection and pair responses are related to an egocentric or self-

focusing process. He then developed an egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R)

to designate self-concern. It was decided to multiply the number of

reflection responses by three because of the relative infrequency with

which it occurs in all populations. For nonpatients this ratio ranges

from 0.25 to 0.40 responses per protocol. A number of studies were sub-

sequently carried out to determine the validity of the egocentricity

index. One such study was based on the assumption that children are very

self-centered, especially during the early developmental years. Exner

and Weiner (1982) found that reflection responses appear in half of the








-20-


protocols of children ages five through eight. The proportion of

Rorschach protocols containing reflections begins to diminish at age

nine. However, fifteen-year olds give a large proportion of these

responses. The pair responses were found to occur in the protocols of

children at every age group. With the exception of the children at the

five year age level, no statistically significant differences for the

mean number of pair responses given were found between age groups. The

3r (2)/R index was found to decline consistently as age increases

(Exner and Weiner, 1982).

Exner, Kuhn, Schumacher and Fishman (1975) examined the relationship

between the egocentricity index and the field dependence-independence

phenomenon or locus of control (I-E) variable. A rod and frame apparatus

was used to measure field dependence and Rotter's I-E scale to measure

locus of control. The subjects were 38 patients and 32 nonpatients.

Rank order correlations were used to test the relationship. A low

positive, but not significant relationship was found between locus of

control and the egocentricity index. The finding was the same for the

relationship between field dependence-independence and the egocentricity

index.

Exner and Weiner (1982) introduced a special Rorschach scoring

category, "Personal" (PER), to designate reference to personal knowledge

or experience in direct relation to a response. "Ordinarily, the

personal pronouns I, me, my, or we will be present in the PER response,

but it is not sufficient to justify the scoring. Rather the verbaliza-

tion to be scored implies a clear justification to the percept" (p. 321).

Exner and Weiner (1982) selected a group of 20 subjects from a pool

of 225 college students based on their responses to the Geough Adjective








-21-


Checklist. This scale is frequently used as an index of self-esteem

although it was not designed to do so. Hence, its validity and relia-

bility are highly suspect (Wylie, 1974). The twenty subjects selected

had endorsed the greatest number of positive adjectives and the fewest

number of negative adjectives. A sample of 20 subjects was selected

from the remaining pool to act as a control group. All were administered

the Rorschach. While the number of PER responses given per group differed

significantly, the groups were not found to differ significantly with

respect to their mean egocentricity index scores.

These findings are of interest for a number of reasons. The PER

response is not unlike the self-focus response of the Self-Focus Sentence

Completion Test developed and used by Exner in his 1969 and 1973 studies.

Both responses contain personal references. In this study, the relation-

ship between the number of PER responses and the egocentricity index was

not compared directly. If the egocentricity index does represent a self-

focusing process, subjects who endorsed the greatest number of positive

adjectives and gave a high number of PER resonses should have had a

significantly higher mean egocentricity index score than the control

group. The fact that they did not calls further attention to the point

made earlier with regard to the absence of control groups in many of

Exner's studies and sheds some doubt on the findings from previous

studies.

This was the first and only study by Exner relating self-esteem to

the egocentricity index. Although no significant relationship was found

between the indices, the questionable validity of the questionnaire used

still leaves this relationship open to further testing. In fact, Exner








-22-


(1978) stated that "although the egocentricity index is essentially

related to a self-focusing process, the issue of self-esteem is also

probably manifest, at least when the index is low" (p. 71). This state-

ment was based on the relatively high frequency of depressed subjects

and suicide prone patients who give a low index. Exner (1978) cautions,

however, that a high egocentricity index should not be interpreted to

indicate a form of "self-glorification." An excessive self-focus may be

related to low self-esteem and serve as a defense against feelings of poor

self-worth. In fact, higher than average egocentricity indices occur in the

Rorschach records of one in every five effective suicide cases.

A number of studies have looked at the relationship between the

egocentricity index (and its constituents) and psychopathology. Exner

(1974) studied three psychiatric groups: 75 inpatient schizophrenics, 74

inpatient depressive reactions, and 31 inpatient character disorders.

Three psychologists or psychiatrists used the Inpatient Multidimensional

Psychiatric Scale and a "significant other" used the Katz Adjustment

Scale-Form R to evaluate subjects pre- and posttreatment. Subjects were

divided into those who had changed significantly and those who did not

change significantly. The findings showed that improved schizophrenics

and character disorders, as a group, gave significantly fewer reflection

responses at posttreatment. In contrast, the depressives gave a greater

number of these responses at posttreatment as compared to pretreatment.

No differences were found for the number of reflection responses given

pre- and posttreatment by the unimproved group. With respect to pairs,

the improved schizophrenics gave significantly fewer of these responses

at posttreatment, the improved depressives gave significantly more, and








-23-


the improved character disorders showed no differences. From these

findings, Exner (1974) postulated that if reflection and pair responses do

represent a form of self-focus or egocentricity, too much or too little

may characterize pathological conditions. Posttreatment improvement is

characterized by a change toward a level of egocentricity similar to that

which is characteristically found in nonpatient records.

Exner, Wylie, and Kline (1977) found that the egocentricity index

changes in patients treated in therapy. Four hundred and thirty volunteer

subjects, ages 20 through 36, were solicited from private practitioners,

clinics and hospitals and assigned to one of seven modes of treatment.

The treatment modalities were 1) a psychoanalytic, uncovering form of

psychotherapy, 2) gestalt individual psychotherapy, 3) a modeling form of

treatment with the major focus on interpersonal patterns, 4) assertive-

ness treatment, 5) systematic desensitization, 6) transactionally oriented

group therapy, and 7) a biofeedback form of intervention. No effort was

made to study therapists or to match subjects for pathology. All subjects

were administered a Rorschach at pretreatment, eight to nine months after

the onset of treatment, sixteen to eighteen months after the onset of

treatment, and 27 to 29 months after the onset of treatment. The

psychological status of each subject was evaluated concurrently with each

testing by a significant other and the patient's therapist. Ratings were

made using Form R of the Katz Adjustment Scale.

The outpatient study was not designed to compare therapy effective-

ness but, rather, to determine what changes would occur in the Rorschach

under different modes of therapy where the patient selected the type of

therapy. A change in the egocentricity index from either too high or too







-24-


low to the "normal range" was found to occur significantly more often for

those outpatients rated as improved than for those rated as not improved

after at least twenty-nine months of therapy. Those subjects who entered

treatment with an egocentricity index in the average (normal) range were

rated by significant others as having a higher success rate than those

subjects who entered treatment with index scores outside that range.

Although one might conclude from this study that a high or low ego-

centricity index score is associated with psychopathology, it should be

noted that a number of patients who fell into the normal range on this

index at the beginning of treatment were seeking therapy for problems in

living. In addition, because there was no effort made to match subjects

on type or degree of pathology, those subjects who exhibited "normal" ego-

centricity indices may not have had problems or difficulties as chronic or

severe as the other two groups.

High egocentricity indices may be associated with normal adjustment

in certain populations. Exner and Murillo (1973, 1977) found that a sub-

stantial number of their subjects who fell into high and low egocentricity

index groups improved in psychotherapy even though they did not change

significantly on this index. Two groups of chronic inpatient

schizophrenics were studied. One group was treated with a modified

version of electroconvulsive therapy with psychotherapy and the second

group was treated with medication and psychotherapy. Of those subjects

who progressed sufficiently to be discharged from hospitalization, those

treated with ECT showed a significant reduction in the mean egocentricity

index from pretreatment, while the drug-treated subjects who were

discharged still showed a comparatively high index. A comparison of the








-25-


discharged ECT and drug-treated groups on ratings of social behavior one

year later yielded a significant difference favoring the ECT group. This

difference was not apparent three years following discharge. It should

be noted that their mean egocentricity indices did not change significant-

ly during this time. The postdischarge success of the drug-treated group

points to an instance where an excessively high egocentricity index does

not appear to be a handicap.

A study by Exner and Murillo (1975) indicates that this might not be

the case with those subjects discharged with below average egocentricity

indices. They found that 16 of 22 nonschizophrenics who relapsed had ego-

centricity indices of less than average at discharge. Of the fifty-five

subjects from this group who did not relapse, only four had egocentricity

indices below the "normal" range. When viewed in conjunction with the

findings of the other studies relating the egocentricity index to psycho-

pathology, it appears that there are no hard and fast rules for defining

this relationship.


The Shading-Dimensionality Response: (Vista)


Rorschach and Oberholzer (1923) observed that individuals sometimes

used the light-dark features of the inkblot to create a percept of

dimensionality. They postulated that this response represented a cautious

affectivity with depressive nuances. Klopfer et al. (1954) was the first

systematizer to formally score this type of response. He also used this

category (Fk), to designate diffuse shading and reflection responses.

Klopfer et al. (1954) thought that the Fk type response represented a type

of introspective process whereby the individual copes with anxiety by








-26-


distancing himself emotionally from his problems in order to view them more

objectively. Beck et al. (1961) also incorporated a formal scoring

category (Vista), into their system to account for responses that use the

shading characteristics of the inkblot to alter the flat perspective into a

three-dimensional percept. Beck included reflection repsonses in this

category. His scoring criteria did not require that the subject articulate

the shading features of the inkblot. Beck et al. (1961) postulated that

this type of response represented a process of self-appraisal that involved

feelings of depression and inferiority.

Exner (1974) adopted the symbols representing vista type responses (V,

VF, and FV), from Beck et al. (1961) to designate those responses involving

depth or dimensionality based on the light-dark features of the blot.

Exner (1974) scored an answer as a pure vista response (V), when the

subject reported "depth or dimensionality based exclusively on the shading

characteristics of the blot, with no form involvement" (p. 92). A

vista-form response (VF) was scored when the subject's answer included a

"primary emphasis on the shading features to represent depth or dimension-

ality" and incorporated "the form features of the blot for clarification

and/or elaboration" (p. 92). The form-vista response (FV) is scored when

the subject "uses form as the primary feature and the shading component is

used to represent depth or dimensionality for purposes of clarification

and/or elaboration" (p. 92).

Exner (1974) found that the vista response occurs with the lowest

means and frequencies of all the determinants for all adult populations

(i.e., inpatients, outpatients and normals). Exner and Weiner (1982) found

that none of the different vista type responses occur in the records of







-27-


six, seven, and nine year old children but do occur with considerable fre-

quency at the age of twelve. The frequency of these repsonses then de-

clines as age increases.

A number of investigations were conducted to determine the psychologi-

cal significance of this type of response. Exner (1974) evaluated the

Rorschach records of sixteen subjects who made suicide gestures within 55

days after testing, only two of which were successful. These subjects were

from a larger pool of 64 subjects diagnosed as suffering from reactive de-

pression, neurotic depression, involutional reaction, or depressive psycho-

sis. None of the subjects had a history of prior suicide attempts. A com-

parison of the group of 16 patients who attempted suicide to the non-

attempting group revealed that those who attempted suicide had significantly

more vista type responses. Both groups were found to give significantly

more vista responses than a randomly selected group of outpatients and

nonpatients. The results suggested that the vista response may be associa-

ted with depressive features and the painful introspective process that is

common to these patients. This interpretation is not unlike that postulated

by Beck et al. (1961).

The vista response was also investigated in a study reviewed earlier

that examined the relationship between the introspective process and the FD

response (Exner, 1974). Subjects were divided into high and low groups

based on a median split of the number of FD responses and placed in waiting

groups. The high FD group was rated as making more self-focusing verbaliza-

tions than the low FD group. It was also found that the high FD group gave

significantly more vista answers (X = 1.41) than the low FD group (X = 0.52).

Eighteen of the twenty high FD Rorschach records contained vista responses,

whereas these responses appeared in only seven of the 20 low FD protocols.








-28-


The high frequency of occurrence of both the vista response and the FD

response was thought to offer support for the hypothesis that the vista

response is an introspective process. There was no mention of the relation-

ship between the number of vista responses given and the number of self-

focusing statements made. It may be that these subjects are more self-

focused than introspective. It may also be asked whether the high occurrence

of vista with FD responses can be accounted for by variables other than an

introspective process per se. The ensuing study was conducted by Exner to

address this issue.

Exner (1974) compared the Rorschach records of 74 inpatients who were

tested at pretreatment and posttreatment. All of the subjects were diagnosed

as suffering from some form of affective disorder. At least one vista re-

sponse appeared in 62 of the 74 Rorschach records at the onset of treatment

(X = 1.61). At posttreatment these responses were found to occur in only 29

of the 74 protocols (X = 0.59). The number of FD responses did not change

significantly from pre- to posttreatment (2.1 VS. 2.3). An explanation for

the results was offered that suggested that while the painful characteristics

of the introspective process diminished, the tendency to introspect remained

high. Exner is implying that the vista response contains an affective com-

ponent, while the FD response does not. Yet, if the introspective process

remains prominent, then the vista response should also remain high. It may

be that this response represents a certain type of introspection. Exner

(1974) suggests that the vista response reflects a painful introspective pro-

cess rather than a more dispassionate view of oneself. There are a number of

studies which provide some support for this hypothesis.








-29-


The Rorschach protocols of those individuals who participated in the out-

patient study described earlier (Exner, Wylie, and Kline, 1977) were evalua-

ted for their vista responses. Subjects participated in one of seven differ-

ent modes of psychotherapy. Rorschachs were administered to all subjects at

four different time intervals during the course of treatment. An examination

of the Rorschach protocols of those subjects treated by dynamic, gestalt, and

group psychotherapy revealed that at the first retest, the frequency of vista

responses nearly doubled. The frequency of these responses at other intervals

was not reported. It was suggested that the increase in the number of vista

responses given by these subjects was due to the fact that the types of

therapy that they entered taught them to introspect and required that they

focus on "negative qualities." The authors suggested that the results re-

affirmed the hypothesis that the vista response reflects a form of emotional

experience associated with self-examination or introspection although no data

were presented on changes in FD or on other measures of self-examination or

introspection.

Exner and Wylie (1977) reported the use of a constellation of eleven

Rorschach variables, eight or more of which appear in a large percentage of

records collected from effected suicide cases within 60 days prior to the

attempt. They examined the Rorschach records of 59 subjects, ages 18 to 57,

that were administered within 60 days of an effected suicide. "A discriminant

functions analysis was calculated to determine whether any one of the eleven

variables in the constellation should be weighted more heavily than the

others" (p. 206). The variable FV + VF + V + FD > 2 was found to correlate

positively and significantly (0.38) with effected suicide. The authors

concluded that the FD response seems to be related to introspection and that







-30-


the vista response is related to a negative and painful internal experience

evolving from self-inspection; the individual does not like what he sees. It

is unclear what the authors mean by painful or negative internal experience

when they describe the vista response. No measure is used to directly assess

whether the vista response contains an affective component or which affect it

represents. Similarly, no study has directly assessed whether the FD response

is void of an affective component. The relationship between the FD and the

vista response to the process of introspection also needs to be assessed more

directly. Finally, if self-esteem is related to the individual's internal

experiences, then one could also speculate that it might contribute to the

variance of the vista response.


Statement Of The Problem



Exner (1974) has proposed three broad scoring categories to designate

those responses that Beck et al. (1961) catagorize as vista type responses

and Klopfer et al. (1954) score as FK. The form-dimensional category was

introduced to designate those responses which include perspective or

dimensionality based exclusively on form, interpreted by size or in relation

to other blot areas. The reflection type response was proposed to denote

those responses where the symmetry and form features of the blot determine the

answer. The pair response was introduced to score those instances where the

object is reported as two objects because of the card symmetry. A vista

scoring category was also introduced to score those responses that used the

light-dark features of the inkblot to create a percept of dimensionality.

The Rorschach determinants reflect the perceptual-cognitive processes

used to create the response (Exner, 1974). Exner has hypothesized which








-31-


psychological processes each of these categories represent and has conducted

and cited a number of studies that test these hypotheses. The FD response has

been proposed to reflect a nonemotional introspective process. The basis for

this hypothesis resulted from observations of the frequency of these responses

given by various patient populations. The studies that were conducted to

explore this hypothesis did so by relating the frequency of FD responses to

indices of affective delay, the tendency to verbalize self-focused

statements, an egocentricity questionnaire, and the psychotherapeutic process.

A number of these studies did not include a control group. None of the studies

tested directly whether an affective component contributed to the variance of

this response or whether subjects who give a greater than average frequency of

these responses are indeed more aware of their own thoughts and feelings.

The egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R) was hypothesized to represent a

self-focusing process characteristic of egocentricity. The pair and reflec-

tion responses were first studied in relation to patient populations that were

thought, in theory, to be narcissistic. They were also studied in relation to

subjects who attained high and low scores on a pen and pencil test of narcis-

sism (Watson, 1965), modified by Exner (1973). Exner decided that the concept

of narcissism was too complex and the data were subsequently interpreted as re-

flecting a self-focusing process or egocentricity. These determinants were

then studied in relation to time spent viewing oneself in a mirror. Although

the author concluded that reflection and pair responses represent a self-

focusing process, they did not adequately demonstrate that this self-focusing

process is at the expense of a concern for, or awareness of, others which the

concept of egocentricity implies. Similarly, it is not clear how self-focus-

ing is defined. One is not sure whether it entails a focus on one's appear-

ance, one's thoughts and feelings, or one's self in relation to others.







-32-


The egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R) has been investigated as represent-

ing a self-focusing process by observing the frequency of its occurrence in

child and patient populations. This relationship has also been explored by

using Locus of Control and Field Dependence-Independence paradigms, and "PER"

responses on the Rorschach. These studies have met with mixed results. The

egocentricity index has also been investigated in relation to self-esteem.

Because of the highly questionable validity of the self-esteem measure used,

further testing still needs to be conducted in this area. A review of the

studies that have explored the relationship between the egocentricity index

and psychopathology have met with mixed results and suggest that no hard and

fast rules apply to this relationship.

The vista response has been hypothesized to represent a painful

introspective process that is associated with depressive features. The person

does not like what he sees. This hypothesis was inferred on the basis of

observation of the frequency of this response in patient populations,

particularly depressives. The relationship of this response to depressive

features, affect, and the introspective process was tested by studying the

frequency of its occurrence in relation to the FD response either separately

or over the course of therapy. However, a number of variables are prevalent

in the therapeutic process other than the introspective process and painful

affect that were not controlled for and may have contributed to the variance

of both the FD and vista response. No study was directly tested whether

subjects who give a higher than average number of these responses are indeed

more aware of their own thoughts and feelings nor has a definition of the

painful or depressive features that the vista response is hypothesized to

represent been offered. Similarly, no direct test was made to determine








-33-


whether an affective variable contributes to the variance of the vista

response. It is not clear how Exner and Weiner (1982) conclude that the

individual who gives a high frequency of vista responses does not like what he

sees. It could then be asked whether the subject's self-esteem influences the

frequency with which this variable occurs.

It is clear that a number of questions remain unanswered concerning the

construct validity of the FD, vista, and the egocentricity index. The current

study was conducted to answer some of these questions in an effort to further

examine the psychological processes represented by these variables. A

non-patient population of subjects was used in order to control for the

influence that pathology may have. Four questionnaires were used that were

thought to represent the psychological processes hypothesized by Exner to be

reflected by each Rorschach variable. A series of stepwise discriminant

analyses were used to assess the relationship between the probability of a

high or low frequency of each of the three Rorschach variables and scores

obtained on the questionnaires.


Hypotheses


One hypothesis of the study was that those individuals who tend to be

more self-centered than other-centered would show a low frequency of form

dimensional and vista responses and a high frequency of egocentricity

index type responses on the Rorschach. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion

Test (Exner, 1973) was used to assess the subject's tendency to be

self-centered or other-centered (see method section).

A second hypothesis of the study was that those individuals with high

depression, anxiety, and anger subscale scores would show a high frequency








-34-


of vista responses but not either the FD or egocentricity index variables.

The Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971) was used to

provide an estimate of the subjects' affective state (see method section). It

was decided to use the anger, depression, and anxiety subscales of the profile

on the basis that these affective states are typically labeled as painful and

dysphoric and are, in theory, characteristic of depressives (Freud, 1957;

Rado, 1927/1956; and Fenichel, 1945).

The Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss, 1975) was

used to assess the individual's tendency to direct attention inward or out-

ward and the process of self-focused attention. Two subscales of this measure

are of particular interest to the current study. The Private Self-Conscious-

ness Subscale is an index of the degree to which an individual is concerned

with attending to his/her inner thoughts and feelings. The Public Self-

Consciousness Subscale measures the extent to which the individual has a

general awareness of himself as a social object that has an effect on others.

It was hypothesized that high scores on both the Public and Private Self-

Consciousness Subscales would be associated with a high frequency of

form-dimensional and vista responses. Both subscales represent a process of

self-focused attention. As such, it was also hypothesized that a high score

on either the private self-consciousness or public self-consciousness subscale

would be predicted to a probability of a high frequency of occurrence of those

responses comprising the egocentricity index.

Exner and Weiner (1982) postulated that the individual who gives a high

frequency of vista responses is introspective and does not like what he sees.

Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess the








-35-



individual's self-regard. A hypothesis of the current study was that scores

on the Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) that indicate low self-esteem

would be associated with a high frequency of the vista type responses on the

Rorschach. The literature on the egocentricity index indicates that low

self-esteem may be represented by either a high or low score on this variable.

Therefore, a final hypothesis of the study was that low self-esteem scores

would be associated with a high frequency of the egocentricity index-type

responses.















CHAPTER II
METHOD

Subjects


One hundred and fifty subjects (60 males and 90 females) from the Uni-

versity of Florida participated in the study. Their ages ranged from eighteen

to thirty-six with a mean age of twenty. They were recruited from a subject

pool comprised of students enrolled in introductory experimental psychology

classes that required hour per hour credit for participation in various

studies.1 The subjects were obtained via psychology classes, but were found

to be majoring in a number of areas: 1) computer related (8); 2) engineering

(14); 3) business related (12); and health related (61). Fifty-five were as

yet undecided. To recruit subjects, a sign-up sheet was posted that read as

follows:

A normative study is being conducted to collect data on Uni-
versity of Florida students for a number of psychological
tests. As a participant of this research project, you will be
asked to complete four questionnaires designed to reflect the
thoughts and feelings that college students have. In addition,
you will be administered the Rorschach Inkblot Test which is a
test that is also designed to assess student's thoughts and
feelings in a less direct manner. The total duration of this
procedure will be two hours.

To ensure confidentiality, each subject who participated in the study was

assigned a specific number. This number, rather than their name or other

identifying information, was used to identify test materials and in the anal-

yses conducted. Only the author and his supervisor had access to the sub-

ject's name.


'Due to time constraints and difficulty obtaining subjects from the subject
pool, fifteen female volunteer occupational therapy students also participa-
ted in the study.


-36-








-37-


Assessment Instruments


The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test

Questionnaire format and scoring

This questionnaire was first developed by Watson (1965) as an operational

criterion of narcissism. Sentence completion responses were scored for three

categories: 1) narcissistic fantasy; 2) real world anchorage; and 3) object

cathexis. Exner (1973) observed that the majority of items used by Dr. Watson

to discriminate high and low narcissistic individuals from a larger popula-

tion contained self-reference statements (i.e., I, me, or my). He subsequent-

ly consulted with Dr. Watson to develop a new sentence completion blank which

he termed the Self-Focused Sentence Completion Test (SFSC), (Exner, 1973).

The present format of the SFSC uses thirty of the original forty-five

sentence stems (see Exner, 1973). The subject is instructed to complete each

sentence so that it expresses a complete thought. Responses are judged on a

"yes-no" basis to meet the scoring criteria of one of four mutually exclusive

categories. The self-focus category (S) designates those responses that

clearly focus on the self with little or no regard for the external world.

The external-world focus category (E) designates those responses which clear-

ly manifest concern for real things or people. The ambivalence response cate-

gory (A) denotes those sentences which clearly contain both self-focused and

external-world focused statements, either of which could be scored separately.

A neutral response category (0) designates those responses which do not meet

any of the above criteria.

Scores are obtained for each of the scales by simply counting the number

of responses judged to be representative of each category. Sample responses

are provided in the manual for scoring. Normative data are provided for male








-38-


(N=622) and female (N=426) college students for each of the scales. In addi-

tion to the scale scores, a "D" score can be obtained by subtracting the total

number of external-world focusing responses from the total number of self-

focusing responses given by a subject. A separate score (SN) can also be cal-

culated to represent the self-focusing statements which are judged to be nega-

tive in content by simply adding the total number of these responses. Norma-

tive data for both the "D" and SN scores are also provided.

For purposes of the current study, the SN score, the self-focus scale,

and the "D" score were used to predict to a probability of frequency of the

Rorschach variables of interest. They were also used as correlates to other

measures.

Reliability studies

High interscorer reliability has been found for Ph.D. clinical psycholo-

gists who were asked to study the scoring criteria and then independently

score twenty records (Exner, 1973). The reliability coefficients obtained

were S=.94, E=.93, A=.92, Sn=.90, Ea=.88.

Validity studies

Exner (1973) reports several studies that have been conducted to investi-

gate the concurrent validity of the SFSC. In one such study, it was found

that a greater than average number of self-focusing responses (S) related

significantly to those psychiatric classifications that are considered to be

excessively self-centered (i.e., homosexuals and psychopaths). A second study

found that an above average number of "S" responses correlated highly with

Rorschach reflection responses. In a third study, trainees who failed to

complete Peace Corps training or who performed inadequately in the service

were found to give an above average number of "S" responses.








-39-


Two additional studies cited by Exner made use of an interview situation

to investigate those individuals who gave a proportionately greater number of

self-focused than exernal-world focused responses (Exner, 1973). These indi-

viduals tended to verbalize more self-focusing statements during their inter-

view. They were also found to spend more time viewing themselves in a mirror

prior to their interview.

Exner (1973) observed that the psychiatric diagnosis of depression was

often associated with those individuals who gave a substantially greater

number of external-world than self-focused type responses. It was also ob-

served that when the self-focus to external-world focus ratio was dispropor-

tionate regardless of the direction, individuals exhibited less effective

and more pathological behaviors. A pre- and posttreatment change from a dis-

proportionate ratio to one which is more balanced has been found for schizo-

phrenics and "acting-out" adolescents who manifest symptom remission and no

apparent relapse (Exner, 1973). These pre- and posttreatment studies suggest

that this form of response style can and does change.

The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire

Questionnaire format and scoring

The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire is a trait measure that was designed

to assess the tendency of a person to direct his or her attention inward or

outward (see Fenigstein, Sheier, and Buss, 1975). This conception of

self-consciousness as a trait is different from the concept of self-awareness

which refers to a state and is the result of either transient situational

variables, chronic dispositions, or both.

A number of procedures were followed in the development and construction

of the Self-Consciousness Scale. First, behaviors that were thought to







-40-


represent the domain of self-consciousness were selected. The following

behavior classification was constructed: "1) preoccupation with past, present,

and future behavior; 2) sensitivity to inner feelings, 3) recognition of one's

positive and negative attributes; 4) introspective behavior, 5) a tendency to

picture or imagine oneself; 6) awareness of one's physical appearance and pre-

sentation; and 7) concern over the appraisal of others" (Fenigstein et al.,

1975, p. 527). Thirty-eight items were selected to sample this domain and the

scale was administered to undergraduate students. A factor analysis yielded

three factors: 1) private self-consciousness, 2) public self-consciousness,

and 3) social anxiety. The first two factors refer to a process of self-

focused attention while the third refers to a reaction to this process. The

scale was then revised to eliminate those items that loaded highly on more

than one factor, those that were endorsed either too frequently or infrequent-

ly, and those that were described by subjects as too ambiguous. A five-point

Likert-type scale was included to rate each item. The revised scale was ad-

ministered to a sample of college students. A factor analysis yielded the

same three factors. All items loaded above 0.40 with their appropriate

factor.

The final version of the scale is composed of three subscales, two of

which appear to be separate aspects of self-consciousness: the social anxiety

subscale, the private self-consciousness subscale, and the public self-

consciousoness subscale. The private self-consciousness subscale items re-

flect the process of attending to one's inner thoughts and feelings. It is

defined by a cognitive, private mulling over about the self. This dimension of

self-consciousness is postulated to be similar to the Jungian concept of

introversion (Jung, 1933), in that the individual is generally oriented toward







-41-


the inner world of ideas and concepts. However, private self-consciousness is

more specific. The focus is on thoughts and reflections that deal solely with

the self. The public self-consciousness subscale is composed of items that

define a general awareness of self as a social object that has an effect on

others. This process is thought to be related to that proposed by Mead (1934)

who argued that consciousness of self comes about when the person becomes

aware of another's perspective after which he can view himself as an object.

The social anxiety subscale is composed of items reflecting discomfort felt in

the presence of others.

The scale is composed of twenty-three items each of which is rated on a

scale of zero (extremely uncharacteristic), to four (extremely characteristic).

This yields low scores for a low level of self-consciousness and high scores

for a high level of self-consciousness. Subscale means and standard devia-

tions are available for male and female undergraduate students. For purposes

of the current study, only the private and public self-consciousness subscale

scores will be used to predict to a probability of frequency of the Rorschach

variables of interest.

Reliability studies

Fenigsteink et al. (1975) reported high test-retest reliability over a

two-week period. The correlation coefficients for the subscales were private

self-consciousness 0.84, public self-consciousness 0.79, social anxiety 0.73,

and 0.80 for the total scale score. Similar findings have also been reported

by Heineman (1979) in a German replication, and Vleeming and Engelse (1981) in

a Dutch replication of the original study conducted by Fenigstein et al. (1975).

Construct validity for the self-consciousness scale has been provided by

Fenigstein et al. (1975), Heineman (1979), and Vleeming and Engelse (1981), in








-42-


their replication of the original study. In each study, a factor analysis

yielded the same three factors and the same correlation pattern between

the subscales. Public self-consciousness correlated moderately with both

private self-consciousness (0.23) and social anxiety (0.21). Both the

German (Heineman, 1979) and Dutch (Vleeming and Engelse, 1981) replica-

tions found that certain items (2, 6, 7, 8, and 22) loaded on factors

other than were intended. It is not sure whether this finding was due to

the translation of the items into a different language.

Discriminant validity for the self-consciousness scale has been pro-

vided by Carver and Glass (1976). These authors correlated the private

and public self-consciousness subscales to variables that were thought to

potentially influence these variables. The subscales were tested in

relation to intelligence, the need for achievement, test anxiety, activity

level, and sociability. The private and public self-consciousness sub-

scales were found to be relatively free from associations with these other

variables.

A number of studies have also been conducted to investigate the

concurrent validity of the self-consciouosness scale. Women who obtained

high scores on the public self-consciousness subscale were found to be

more sensitive to rejection by a peer group, as measured by their

subsequent attraction toward the group and willingness to reaffiliate

with it, than were women who obtained low scores on this subscale

(Fenigstein, 1974). Turner, Carver, Scheier, and Ickes (1978) found

significant correlations between private self-consciousness and the

Guilford Zimmerman Thoughtful-ness Scale and the Pavio Imagery Scale.

They also found that each self-consciousness subscale correlated








-43-


significantly with the self-monitoring scale. Scheier, Fenigstein, and

Buss (1974) divided subjects into high and low groups on the basis of

their private self-consciousness subscale scores. Subjects in the high

group were more aware of their internal affective state and became more

aggressive following provocation by an angry investigator. Buss and

Scheirer (1976) demonstrated that individuals who obtain a high score on

the private self-consciousness subscale make more self-attributions than

individuals who obtain low scores on this scale.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Questionnaire format and scoring

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was developed as a measure

of global self-regard (Rosenberg, 1965). In constructing the scale,

Rosenberg (1965) was guided by the following practical and theoretical

considerations: (1) the ease of administration, 2) economy of time, 3)

unidimensionality (be able to rank people along a continuum), and 4) face

validity. A Guttman scale procedure was used to ensure that the last two

considerations were adequately met. Positive and negative items were

presented alternatively to reduce the effect of a response set (see

Rosenberg, 1965).

The RSES consists of ten items that are rated on a four-point Likert-

type scale. A scoring procedure designed by Rios-Garcia and Cook (1975)

will be employed as it is less complicated and more easily interpretable

than that proposed by Rosenberg (1965). The scale is scored by sub-

tracting the sum of those items reflecting poor self-regard from those

items reflecting self-satisfaction. A constant of twenty-five is then

added to this score. The higher the score, the lower the self-esteem.








-44-


High self-esteem, as reflected in the RSES items, expresses the feeling

that one is "good enough" or feelings of self-acceptance. He does

not consider himself to be superior to others but, rather, simply believes

that he is a person of worth and he respects himself. A low self-esteem

score implies self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and self-contempt. He

lacks respect for the self that he observes. Normative data are provided

for undergraduate psychology students (Rios-Garcia and Cook, 1975).

Reliability studies

Rios-Garcia and Cook (1975) obtained a test-retest reliability coeffi-

cient of 0.79 for a sample of college students using their scoring

procedure.

Validity studies

A number of studies have been conducted using selected items of the

RSES either alone or in conjunction with items from other scales:

(Beckman 1970; Kaplan and Pokorny 1969, 1970, 1971; Nocks and Bradley

1969). The self-esteem measure that was used in this study contains the

RSES original items.

The RSES was designed to represent a unidimensional scale. However,

an internal factor analysis performed by Kaplan and Porkorny (1969) pro-

duced two uncorrelated factors which accounted for forty percent of the

total variance. Their factor one scores, which they termed self-deroga-

tion, correlated in a similar fashion to those obtained by Rosenberg

(1965) with the total scale. Their second factor was thought to reflect

"a posture of conventional defense of individual worth, a stance which is

comparable with either high or low scores on the self-derogation factor"

(p. 425). This finding has not been replicated.








-45-


The RSES was originally designed to be used with an adolescent popu-

lation. However, a number of studies have used this measure with adult

populations. Silber and Tippett (1965) provided some evidence for the

convergent validity of the RSES using a college population. The RSES was

correlated against three other measures of self-esteem: the Kelly Reper-

tory Test (r=0.67), the Health Self-Image Questionnaire r=0.83, and inter-

viewers' ratings of self-esteem (r=0.56). These convergent validities were

among the highest observed in cross-instrument correlations (Wylie, 1974).

Some construct validity of the measure has been provided in studies con-

cerning the relationship between RSES scores and other variables which

self-esteem is theoretically expected to be related. Rosenberg (1965)

found that among 50 subjects at the National Institute of Mental Health

who were rated by nurses, those with high RSES scores were significantly

more often rated as gloomy and disappointed. They were also rated as

touchy, easily hurt, and not well liked. Kaplan and Pokorny (1969) found

a significant correlation between their self-derogation factor from the

RSES and Rosenberg's Guttman scale of depressive affect. Most of the

other studies were conducted using adolescent populations. Rios-Garcia

and Cook (1975) used their modified version of the RSES to investigate the

relationship between self-acceptance and psychological adjustment and

several measures of defensiveness. Low self-esteem scores correlated

positively with repressive-sensitization, ego control, and trait anxiety,

and negatively with general defensiveness.

The Profile of Mood States

Questionnaire format and scoring

The Profile of Mood States (POMS) is a factor analytically derived

inventory which attempts to measure six identifiable mood or affective








-46-


states (McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971). These include tension-

anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-

inertia, and confusion-bewilderment. The total inventory is composed of

sixty-five adjectives that are rated on a five-point intensity scale (0 =

not at all, 4 extremely). Subjects are asked to endorse each item so

that it describes how they have been feeling during the past week includ-

ing the present day (see McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971).

The POMS can be completed in about five minutes, and it is easily ad-

ministered, scored, and interpreted. To obtain a raw score for each mood

factor, one simply sums the responses (taking into account negative

weights) for the adjectives defining each subscale. Raw scores can then

be plotted on profile sheets that convert them into T-scores. A profile

sheet based on a normative sample of college students is available.

In this study, only the tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, and

anger-hostility subscale T-scores will be used to predict to a frequency

of the Rorschach variables of interest and as correlates to other

measures. The tension-anxiety subscale is composed of nine adjective

scales descriptive of heightened musculoskeletal tension. The adjectives

refer to reports of somatic tension that may not be overtly observable

(tension, on edge), as well as observable psychomotor manifestations

(shaky, restless). They also refer to vague, diffuse anxiety states

(anxious, uneasy). The depression-dejection subscale is composed of

fifteen adjective scales. The subscale score represents the mood of de-

pression accompanied by a sense of personal inadequacy. The items com-

posing this subscale refer to "feelings of personal worthlessness (un-

worthy), futility regarding the struggle to adjust (hopeless, desperate),








-47-


a sense of emotional isolation from others (blue, lonely, helpless,

miserable), sadness (sad, unhappy), and guilt (guilty, sorry for the

things done)" (p. 7). The anger-hostility subscale is composed of twelve

adjective scales. The subscale score represents the mood of anger and

antipathy towards others. The items comprising this scale describe feel-

ings of intense, overt anger (angry, furious), milder feelings of hos-

tility (grouchy, annoyed), and the more sullen and suspicious components

of hostility (resentful, spiteful).

Reliability studies

All six POM factors have been found to be internally consistent. The

authors cite data from two studies that have shown all the reliabilities

to have been highly satisfactory. All the indices of the extent to which

the individual items within the six mood scales measure the same factor

were near 0.90 or above.

Test-retest reliability has been provided by correlations between the

POMS-scores at intake and pretreatment. The median time period was 20

days with a range of 3-110 days. The reliability estimates for this

period ranged from 0.65 for vigor to 0.74 for depression. The test-retest

correlations between intake score and scores following six weeks of psy-

chiatric treatment ranged from 0.43 for vigor and 0.53 for anger. The

obtained stability coefficients are lower than the 0.80 to 0.90 levels

expected of measures of stable personality characteristics. A mood,

however, is a relatively transient state that would not be expected to

reach the levels required of personality traits.

Validity studies

The authors cite six factor analytic replications that were conducted

in the development of the POMS as evidence for the factorial validity of







-48-


the six mood factors. The results of each were highly similar despite

using different populations normalss vs. patients), rating time periods,

and rating scales. In addition, the individual items defining each mood

scale and loading on a particular factor have, upon examination, face or

content validity.

The POMS is supported by several studies that have provided evidence

for predictive and construct validity. Lorr, McNair, Weinstein, Michaux,

and Raskin (1961) used the vigor, tension-anxiety, depression-dejection,

anger-hostility, and fatigue subscales of the POMS to compare psycho-

therapy alone to four other treatment groups. Outpatients showed improve-

ment on all subscales except vigor. A number of other studies have been

conducted that used the POMS to assess or predict treatment outcome: Lorr,

McNair, and Weinstein (1964), Haskell, Pugtch, and McNair (1969), McNair,

Goldstein, Lorr, Cibelli, and Roth (1965), and McNair, Kahn, Droppelman,

and Fisher (1967, 1968). The POMS has also been used to assess affective

states in studies that assess response to emotion-inducing conditions:

Pillard and Fisher (1967), Pillard, Atkinson and Fisher (1967), and

Pillard and Fisher (1970). Some concurrent validity has also been re-

ported for the inventory. For instance, the tension-anxiety subscale has

been found to correlate highly (.80) with the Taylor manifest anxiety

scale.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test

Questionnaire format and scoring

The Rorschach Inkblot Test consists of ten inkblots and subjects are

required to verbalize what they perceive each blot, or its various compo-

nents, to represent (Rorschach, 1921). The subject's responses are re-

corded verbatim. After the subject has responded to the ten different








-49-


inkblots, he is presented with each one a second time so that the examiner

can inquire about what the subject perceived when he gave his response

(see Exner, 1974).

Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System was utilized for scoring re-

sponses in the present study (Exner, 1974). The form-dimensional deter-

minant (FD) designates those verbal responses to the inkblots which in-

clude perspective or dimensionality based exclusively on form, inter-

preted by size or in relation to other blot areas (Exner, 1974). The

reflection response is also based on the form features of the inkblot.

Two scoring categories are used to designate this type of response. The

reflection-form response (rF) is scored for those responses in which "the

symmetry features of the blot are primary in determining the answer, and

form is used nonspecifically, or ambiguously, as an object being reflect-

ed" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). Reflection responses scored in this manner

always involve content with nonspecific form requirements (i.e., clouds,

shadows, rocks). The form-reflection response (Fr) is used to record

those responses where "the form of the blot is used to identify specific

content, which is interpreted as reflected because of the symmetry of the

blot" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). The reflection response, whether rF or Fr,

is based on the symmetry of the inkblot. The pair response (2) is based

solely on the form properties of the inkblot and is scored when "the per-

ceived object is reported as two objects because of the card symmetry"

(Exner, 1974, p. 102). Exner (1974) constructed an egocentricity index

comprised of both the pair and reflection type responses (3r + (2)/R). It

was decided to multiply the number of reflection responses by three

because of the relative infrequency with which it occurs in all popula-

tions. The vista determinant is used to record those responses involving


F







-50-


depth or dimensionality based on the light-dark features of the blot. The

pure vista response (V) is scored when the subject's response involved

"depth or dimensionality based exclusively on the shading characteristics

of the inkblot, with no form involvement" (Exner, 1974, p. 92). The vista-

form response (VF) is scored when the response includes a "primary empha-

sis on the shading features to represent depth or dimensionality" and in-

corporates "the form features of the blot for clarification and/or ela-

boration (Exner, 1974, p. 92). The form-vista response (FV) is scored

when the subject "uses form as the primary feature and the shading

component is used to represent depth or dimensionality for purposes of

clarification and/or elaboration" (Exner, 1974, p. 92). Normative data

for adult nonpatients plus four psychiatric groups are provided for the

egocentricity index, the form-dimensional, and the vista type responses

(Exner, 1978).

Reliability studies

Some studies that examined the test-retest reliability of the ego-

centricity index and the vista response are available. In each of these

studies the vista response has been combined with all of the shading

determinants to form one category (SH). Exner, Leura, Armbruster, and

Viglione (1977) conducted a test-retest study using 100 nonpatient adults

to determine the temporal consistency of the structural data over a three

year period. Correlations for SH and the egocentricity index were r=0.66

and r=0.87, respectively. While it would appear that the egocentricity

index was relatively stable over time, the shading scores seemed to follow

a more transient pattern. Similar findings were also found for 25

volunteer nonpatients retested after one week (Exner and Bryant, 1974).








-51-


The correlation coefficient for SH was 0.51 and 0.91 for the egocentri-

city index. A test-retest study using 25 different nonpatient volunteers

over a 60 day period yielded similar results: SH, r=0.59; egocentricity

index, r=0.85 (Exner, Armbruster, and Leura, 1975).

Validity studies

The studies which have investigated the construct validity of the

egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista type response have been

described previously in the literature review section of this paper.


Experimental Procedure


Experimenters

The author and ten clinical psychology predoctoral graduate students

acted as experimenters. Each experimenter had received a semester of

formal instruction in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of

the Rorschach using Exner's Comprehensive System. Each experimenter had

also been supervised in the administration, scoring and interpretation of

at least ten Rorschach protocols in an outpatient clinic. All

experimenters were blind to the hypotheses of the study except for the

author. It was originally intended that no exmainer would test more than

fifteen subjects and none less than ten. Due to experimenter attrition

and time constraints placed on the use of the subject pool, the author

tested eighty-one subjects while sixty-nine subjects were tested by the

other ten experimenters.

Setting

All subjects were tested in one of five rooms located in the depart-

ment of clinical psychology at Shands Teaching Hospital. Four of the







-52-


rooms were generally used for the purpose of conducting formal

psychological assessments while the fifth was used for conferences. It

was believed that this setting would provide a sense of authenticity. Each

room contained a table that provided ample room for both the examiner and

subject to sit side by side. Precautions were taken to cover all one-way

mirrors by drawing the curtains in those rooms that contained them. This

was done to avoid the possible reactive effects that mirrors have on

self-awareness (Duval and Wicklund, 1973), and the frequency of reflection

type responses given on the Rorschach (Exner, 1973).

Original Contact

Once a subject had signed up to participate in the study, he/she was

contacted by telephone and given directions to the clinic. He or she was

also informed which examiner would greet them. Each examiner had speci-

fied certain hours of the day that they would be available for testing

subjects. These hours were posted on the sign-up sheet. Subjects were

therefore assigned to the examiner whose time slot they had endorsed.

Assignment to Groups

All subjects were tested individually. They were randomly assigned

to one of two groups based on the order of test presentation. Half of the

subjects completed the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the RSES, the

POMS, and the Self-Consciousness Questionnaire prior to having the

Rorschach administered to them. The other half completed these question-

naires following the administration of the Rorschach. Subjects were

divided into these two groups to test for possible ordering effects and

the reactivity of self-focus on the frequency and type of Rorschach

responses given in the subsequent analyses.







-53-


Experimental Session

Upon their arrival in the testing room each subject was seated and

presented with an informed consent form to review and sign (Appendix F).

Once he/she agreed to participate in the study, he/she was then read the

following statement:

You are currently participating in an experiment designed
to collect normative data on University of Florida stu-
dents for a number of psychological tests. Your responses
will not be examined individually but, instead, will be
pooled with other subject data. It is important that you
respond as accurately and honestly as possible to ensure
that the normative information is, in fact, representative
of University of Florida students. The data will also be
used to further validate certain aspects of the Rorschach
Inkblot Test which will also be administered to you. If
you should have any questions at any time during the pro-
cedure, feel free to ask them.

These instructions were given in accordance with a procedure sug-

gested by Wylie (1974) to reduce social desirability and elicit a genuine

response set from the subject on self-report tests by depersonalizing the

situation.

Prior to meeting the subject, each examiner was given a packet by the

author containing all testing materials. The subject was read the pre-

ceding instructions and then administered the tests in the order that they

were presented in the packet. All tests were self-explanatory and self-

administered except the Rorschach. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion

Test depicted the following instructions:

Listed below you will find thirty incomplete sentences.
Please complete each sentence so that it expresses a com-
plete thought. There are no right or wrong answers for
this test.

The instructions of the Self-Consciousness Questionnaire were as follows:

The following statements reflect thoughts that students
have. Next to each statement is a rating scale that







-54-


ranges from "0" (extremely uncharacteristic), to "4" (ex-
tremely characteristic). Please rate each statement by
checking one answer so that it best describes your
thoughts.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale presented the following instructions:

The following statements reflect thoughts that students
have. Next to each statement is a rating scale that
ranges from "1" (strongly agree), to "4" (strongly dis-
agree). Please rate each statement by checking each
answer so that it best describes your thoughts.

The Profile Of Mood States depicted the following instructions:

Below is a list of words that describe feelings people
have. Please read each one carefully. Then fill in one
space under the answer to the right which best describes
how you have been feeling during the past week including
today.

The Rorschach Inkblot Test was administered in accordance with the stan-

dard guidelines of Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System. All examiners

were seated beside the subject. Subjects were read the standard introduc-

tion to the test:

Now we are going to do the inkblot test. Have you ever
heard of it or have you taken it before? If the subject
had not heard about the test, the examiner informed him/
her that it is just a series of inkblots that I'll show
you and I want you to tell me what they look like to you.
(Exner, 1974, p. 30)

The examiner then handed the subject the first Rorschach card and asked

"What might this be?" Each response given by the subject to each card was

recorded verbatim. A prompt for more than one response was given to the

first card only. After the subject had responded to all ten cards, he/she

was required to review all ten cards again so that the examiner could in-

quire about and insure the accurate scoring of the responses given in the

free association. The inquiry was introduced with the following state-

ment:








-55-


Now I want to go back through the cards again. It will not
take very long. I will read what you told me that you saw
and then I want you to help me to see it as you did. In
other words, I want to know where you saw it, and what it
is there that makes it look like that, so that I can see
it just like you did. (Exner, 1974, p. 37)

All questions by the exmainer in the inquiry were those recommended by

Exner (1974): "I'm not sure I see it as you do" (p. 38), "Could you tell

me what makes it look like that to you" (p. 38), and "I'm not sure I know

where you see it" (p. 37).

All questions concerning the Rorschach were answered after the entire

experimental procedure was completed. If they asked what it was being

used for, they were informed:

This is another measure that we are using to find out
about college students' thoughts and feelings. Unlike
other tests, it does this in an indirect way.

After all the questionnaires had been completed and the Rorschach had

been administered, the subject was read a debriefing statement.

There has been no deception in this study. Your answers are
being used to collect normative data and to further validate
certain aspects of the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Thank you
very much for your cooperation and participation.


Interrater Reliability Of The Projective Instruments


Rorschach Inkblot Test


All 150 Rorschach protocols were scored by an expert Rorschach

examiner who was paid four dollars per protocol for his services.2 To

ensure a high consistency of scoring between subjects and to reduce halo



2"Expert" is being defined here as someone who has been instructed and
supervised in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of one
hundred or more Rorschach protocols in accordance with the guidelines
of Exner's Comprehensive System in a clinic or work-related area.








-56-


effects, responses were scored card by card rather than subject by subject

for groups of ten. That is, card I was scored for ten subjects prior to

scoring card II.

Interrater reliability was obtained for the first thirty Rorschach

protocols. The author (an expert Rorschach examiner) served as the

second rater. Reliability data were gathered for every fifth response in

the order scored by the first examiner for three groups of ten subjects.

Each response was scored for 1) location, 2) determinants, 3) content,

and 4) form quality. Form quality was scored on the basis of whether the

response met the criteria of poor form quality (-), or good form quality

(+). The weak and ordinary form quality responses were classified into

these categories. The popularity of a response and the organizational

quality were not scored. Reliability was calculated for an overall

Rorschach response and for each of the aforementioned categories by divid-

ing the number of respective Rorschach responses scored correctly by both

examiners by the total number of responses scored. A percentage score for

interrater agreement was obtained by multiplying this number by one hun-

dred. It was decided that a minimum of eighty percent interscorer agree-

ment would be an acceptable cut-off point to ensure scoring accuracy.

Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test

All 150 Self-Focus Sentence Completion Tests were scored by a clini-

cal psychology graduate student who was trained by the author according to

the test manual for scoring and interpretation (Exner, 1973). He was paid

fifty cents per completion test for his services. Fifteen completion

tests were randomly selected for the purpose of obtaining interscorer re-

liability. The author acted as the second scorer. All responses for a








-57-


test that was selected were scored. Interscorer agreement was calculated

by the same procedure that was employed with the Rorschach.


Hypotheses And Analyses


Exner proposed that the form-dimensional response represents a non-

emotional intropsective process. To test this hypothesis controlling for

other variables, a stepwise discriminant analysis was performed. The form-

dimensional response was dichotomized into a low and high frequency group

based on the mean number of these responses given by the 150 subjects in

the study and acted as the dependent variable. The "D" and self-focus sub-

scale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the private and

public self-consciousness subscale scores, and the anger, depression, and

anxiety subscale scores acted as the independent variables. It was ex-

pected that 1) the different mood subscale scores would not predict to

frequency of this response, 2) a high score on the self-focus subscale and

high scores on the private and public self-consciousness subscales would be

predictive of a high frequency of this response, and 3) the D score would

be predictive of a low frequency of the FD response.

Exner postulated that the egocentricity index reflects a self-

focusing process. To test this hypothesis and to investigate whether self-

esteem is related to the egocentricity index controlling for other vari-

ables, a stepwise discriminant analysis was conducted. The egocentricity

index was dichotomized by the same procedure employed with the FD response

and acted as the dependent variable. The independent variables were the

"D", SN, and self-focusing subscale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Com-

pletion Test; the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores;







-58-


the anger, anxiety and depression subscale scores; and the RSES. It was

predicted that a high D score as well as high scores on the self-focusing

and the private and public self-consciousness subscales would be predicted

to a high frequency of the egocentricity index. No relationship between

the egocentricity index and the different mood subscale scores was ex-

pected to be found. It was expected that both a high score on the RSES

(low self-esteem) and SN subscale would predict to both a high and low

frequency of the egocentricity index.

The vista response is proposed to represent a painful introspective

process that is associated with depressive features and a displeasure for

what one sees. To test this hypothesis controlling for other variables, a

stepwise discriminant analysis was conducted. The vista response was

dichotomized into a high and low frequency group in the manner described

for the FD response and acted as dependent variable. The independent

variables were the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores;

the SN, and the self-focusing subscale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence

Completion Test; the anger, anxiety, and depression subscale scores; and

the RSES. It was expected that high scores on all of these variables would

be predicted to a high frequency of the vista type response. A significant

relationship was not expected to be found between the D score of the SFSC

and the vista response.

In addition to the planned analyses noted earlier, one additional

post hoc analysis was also conducted. "Pathological" groups were created

by dividing subjects into high and low groups based on their scores fall-

ing one standard deviation above and below the means provided for each

questionnarie and subscale. The frequency of occurrence of the egocentri-

city index, the form-dimensional, and vita type responses for these groups








-59-




were compared to the frequency of their occurrence in the "normal" popula-

tion. Comparisons were made using Chi-Square analyses.
















CHAPTER III

RESULTS

Evaluation Of Possible Examiner And Test Order Influences


The author and ten predoctoral clinical psychology graduate students

acted as examiners and administered the Rorschach Inkblot Test. All exam-

iners other than the author were blind to the study. This created the

possibility that the author elicited a different number of the Rorschach

variables of interest as compared to the other examiners. To test for the

possibility of examiner bias, t-tests were performed to compare the ten

examiners pooled together to the author with respect to the frequency of

the egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista type responses elic-

ited. No significant differences were found: egocentricity index (t=0.78,

p <0.44), form-dimensional (t=0.32, k <0.75), and vista (t=1.21, 2 <0.23).

It was also possible that the order of test presentation influenced

the frequency of the Rorschach responses elicited. The study was designed

so that this source of bias could be tested for. Subjects were assigned

to one of two test order groups defined by whether the Rorschach was

administered first or last in the test battery. To compare the test order

groups with respect to each of the Rorschach variables of interest, t-tests

were performed. No significant differences between the two test order

groups were found: vista (t=0.21, p <0.83), form-dimensional (t=0.71, <

0.48), and egocentricity index (t=0.53, k <0.60).


-60-








-61-


Interrater Reliability

The Rorschach Inkblot Test

Interrater reliability was calculated for an overall Rorschach

response and for each of its different constituents. Percent agreement

between the author and the designated scores was used as the index of re-

liability. The interrater reliability percentage scores obtained were

1) overall response (92%), 2) location (98%), 3) determinants (94%), and

form quality (93%). Interscorer agreement for each analysis met the pre-

determined minimum requirement of eighty percent for ensuring accurate

scoring.

The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test

Percent agreement between the author and designated scorer was used

as the index of interrater reliability. An interrater agreement of eighty-

seven percent was found and was considered to be adequate for ensuring

accurate scoring of the test.


Evaluation Of The Hypotheses


The first series of analyses indicated that there were no examiner or

test order biases with respect to the frequency of the Rorschach responses

elicited. They also indicated that the scores obtained from the Self-

Focus Sentence Completion Test and the Rorschach were an accurate repre-

sentation of the subjects' responses. In light of these findings, all

subsequent analyses testing the hypotheses were conducted without con-

trolling for examiner or test-order influences.

The Form-Dimensional Response

Exner proposed that the form-dimensional response (FD) represents a

nonemotional introspective process. To test this hypothesis, a discriminant








-62-


analysis was conducted followed by a stepwise discriminant analysis. For

these analyses, the FD response was dichotomized based on the mean number

of these responses given by the 150 subjects who participated in the

study and acted as the dependent variable. The mean was found to be 0.54

and the subjects were categorized according to whether they did or did

not verbalize this type of response (present n=58, absent n92). The

independent variables for both analyses were the "D" score and

self-focusing subscale score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test,

the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores,3. and the

depression, anger, and anxiety subscale scores. Table 1 presents the

means and standard deviations for each of these variables.

Discriminant function analysis

The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that

there was tremendous overlap between the present and absent form-dimen-

sional categories with respect to the independent variables. The linear

combination of the variables was unable to discriminate between these two

groups (Table 2).

Stepwise discriminant function analysis

The next analysis tested the relationship of each independent vari-

able as it individually related to the FD groups. Testing at the .1

significance level, the assumption of equal covariance matrixes could not

be rejected and Fisher's discriminant analysis was conducted using a



3"Due to a typing error, one item was not included in the private self-
consciousness subscale leaving nine items instead of ten. To correct
for this, a weighted score was added individually to each subscale
score. The weighted score was determined by averaging the nine items
of each subscale. The hypotheses were evaluated using both the
corrected and noncorrected subscale scores. Only the analyses using
the corrected subscale scores are reported as the results obtained
using either subscale score were not significantly different.








-63-


Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of the Form-Dimensional Groups

Form-Dimensional Present


Variable

D Score of the SFSC

Self-Focus Subscale

Private Self-Consciousness

Public Self-Consciousness

Anger Subscale

Depression Subscale

Anxiety Subscale


N

58

58

58

58

58

58

58


Mean

16.48

9.93

26.67

18.81

47.83

46.84

48.98


Standard Deviation

5.57

3.39

4.55

3.61

8.21

6.77

9.23


Form-Dimensional = Absent


D Score of the SFSC

Self-Focus Subscale

Private Self-Consciousness

Public Self-Consciousness

Anger Subscale

Depression Subscale

Anxiety Subscale


15.43

9.47

25.83

19.74

50.25

48.23

50.42


6.02

3.03

5.34

4.88

10.06

8.99

10.22








-64-


Table 2



Summary of the Form-Dimensional Group Classification
by the Discriminant Function Analysis





Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Form-Dimensional Categories


Form-Dimensional Response Present Absent Total

Present 12 46 58
20.69 79.31 100.00

Absent 13 79 92
14.13 85.87 100.00

Total 25 125 150

Percent 16.67 83.33 100.00


Prior Probability 0.39 0.61


Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.85

Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.21

Total Correct Classification = 0.61

Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability =0.52

False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = 0.52

False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were present) = 0.37







-65-


stepwise procedure (Kendall and Stuart, 1977). The results indicated

that none of the independent variables were individually related to the

FD groups at the .1 significance level and none were able to individually

discriminate between the two groups (Table 3).

Analysis of variance

As an alternate way of testing for differences between the two

groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted to compare the form-

dimensional groups with respect to the mean scores of each subscale.

The aforementioned seven independent variables now acted as the dependent

variables and the dichotomized FD response acted as the independent vari-

able. No significant differences were found. F-values for each of the

ANOVAs were 1) the D score of the SFSC (F (1,148)=1.14, p <0.29); 2) the

self-focusing subscale of the SFSC (F (1,148)=0.76, <0.39); 3) the

private self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=1.00, p <0.32); 4) the

public self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=1.56, p <0.21); 5) the

anger subscale (F (1,148)=2.38, p <0.13); 6) the depression subscale (F

(1,148)=1.01, p <0.32); and 7) the anxiety subscale (F (1,148)=0.76, p <

.38).

Chi-square analysis

A series of Chi-Square analyses was performed to test whether the

frequencies observed were different from that which would be predicted by

chance. Three subject populations were created on the basis of their

scores on each of the aforementioned subscales. High and low population

groups were defined by those subjects who scored either one standard de-

viation above or below the subscale means obtained from the study sample.

Those subjects whose scores fell within one standard deviation of the

mean were considered to represent an intermediate group. The Chi-Square








-66-


Table 3



Stepwise Selection of Variables for the Form-Dimensional Groups


Variable

D score of the SFSC


Self-Focus Subscale


Private Self-Consciousness


Public Self-Consciousness


Anger Subscale


Depression Subscale


Anxiety Subscale


F

1.14


0.76


0.99


1.56


2.37


1.01


0.76


Prob
0.29


0.39


0.32


0.21


0.13


0.32


0.38


Tolerance

1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00








-67-


analyses compared the three groups for each subscale to the dichotomized

form-dimensional groups. The analyses did not yield significant results

(Table 4).

The Vista Response

The vista Rorschach response is proposed to represent a painful in-

trospective process that is associated with depressive features and a

displeasure for what one sees. To test this hypothesis, a discriminant

analysis was conducted followed by a stepwise discriminant analysis. For

these analyses, the vista response was dichotomized in the same manner as

the form-dimensional response and acted as the dependent variable. The

mean was found to be 0.48 and the subjects were categorized accordingly

(present n=51, absent n=99). The independent variables for both analyses

were the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores, the "D"

and "SN" scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the self-

focus subscale score of the SFSC, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and

the anxiety, depression, and anger subscale scores. Table 5 presents

the means and standard deviations for each of these variables.

Discriminant function analysis

The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that

there was a great deal of overlap between the present and absent vista

groups with respect to the independent variables. The linear combination

of the independent variables was unable to discriminate between these two

populations (Table 6).

Stepwise discriminant function analysis

The next analysis tested the relationship of each independent vari-

able as it individually related to the vista categories. Testing at the

.1 significance level, the assumption of equal covariance matrixes could







-68-


Table 4

Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Form-Dimensional Groups as the Classificant

Form-Dimensional Groups---Self-Focusing Subscale


High I

Present Frequency 12
Column Percent 50.00

Absent Frequency 12
Column Percent 50.00

x2 = 2.00 p <0.37

Form-Dimensional Groups---Self-Focusing Subscale


itermediate

38
38.00

62
62.00


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 2.63 <0.27

Form-Dimensional Groups---Private


High

12
46.15

14
53.85


Intermediate

41
39.81


Low

5
23.81

16
76.19


62
60.19


Self-Consciousness Subscale

High Intermediate


Present Frequency 8 42
Column Percent 38.10 41.18

Absent Frequency 13 60
Column Percent 61.90 58.82

X2 1.20 k <0.55

Form-Dimensional Groups---Public Self-Consciousness Subscale

High Intermediate

Present Frequency 6 46
Column Percent 23.08 42.59

Absent Frequency 20 62
Column Percent 76.92 57.41

X2 = 3.38 p <0.19


Low

8
29.63

19
70.37






Low

6
37.50

10
62.50


Low

8
30.77

18
69.23







-69-


Table 4-continued


Form-Dimensional Groups---Anxiety Subscale

High

Present Frequency 9
Column Percent 37.50

Absent Frequency 15
Column Percent 62.50

X2 = 0.22 p <0.90

Form-Dimensional Groups---Depression Subscale

High

Present Frequency 4
Column Percent 20.00

Absent Frequency 16
Column Percent 80.00

X2 = 3.67 p <0.16

Form-Dimensional Groups---Anger Subscale

High

Present Frequency 5
Column Percent 27.78

Absent Frequency 13
Column Percent 72.22

X2 = 1.56 p <0.46


Intermediate

41
39.81

62
60.19






Intermediate

51
42.15

70
57.85






Intermediate

49
41.18

70
58.82


Low

8
34.78

15
65.22






Low

3
33.33

6
66.67






Low

4
30.77

9
69.23








-70-


Table 5

Means and Standard Deviations of the Vista Groups

Vista = Present


Variable

D score of the SFSC

Self-Focus Subscale

SN score of the SFSC

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Private Self-Consciousness

Public Self-Consciousness

Anxiety Subscale

Depression Subscale

Anger Subscale


N

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51

51


Mean

16.02

9.43

4.35

17.20

26.61

19.59

50.10

48.12

48.94


Standard Deviation

5.15

2.71

2.63

4.56

4.85

4.30

8.75

8.01

8.39


Vista = Absent


D score of the SFSC

Self-Focus Subscale

SN score of the SFSC

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

Private Self-Consciousness

Public Self-Consciousness

Anxiety Subscale

Depression Subscale

Anger Subscale


15.75

9.76

3.99

17.17

25.92

19.27

49.75

47.47

49.51


6.21

3.40

2.18

4.37

5.16

4.53

10.39

8.34

9.96







-71-


Table 6

Summary of the Vista Groups Classification
by the Discriminant Function Analysis


Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Vista Groups


Vista Present Absent Total

Present 28 23 51
54.90 45.10 100.00

Absent 13 86 99
13.13 86.87 100.00

Total 41 109 150

Percent 27.33 72.67 100.00


Prior Probability 0.34 0.66


Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.87

Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.28

Total Correct Classification = 0.73

Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability =0.55

False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = 0.32

False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were present) = 0.21







-72-


not be rejected and Fisher's discriminant analysis was conducted using a

stepwise procedure. The results indicated that none of the independent

variables were individually related to the vista categories at the .1

significance level and none were able to individually discriminate

between the two populations (Table 7).

Analysis of variance

As an alternate method of testing for differences between the two

groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare the vista

categories with respect to the mean scores of each subscale. The afore-

mentioned nine independent variables now acted as the dependent variables

and the dichotomized vista response acted as the independent variable.

There were no significant differences found between the absent and

present vista groups. The F-values for each of the ANOVAs were the "D"

score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (F (1,148)=0.07,

p <0.79); the public self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=0.17, p <

0.68); the private self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=0.62, P <0.43);

the self-focus subscale (F (1,148)=0.35, <0.55); the "SN" score

of the SFSC (F (1,148)=0.81, p <0.37); the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (F

(1,148)=0.02, <0.97); the anxiety subscale (F (1,148)=0.04, p <0.84;

the depression subscale (F (1,148)=-.21, p <0.65); and the anger subscale

(F (1,148)=0.12, p <0.73).

Chi-square analyses

As was done with the form-dimensional response, a series of Chi-

Square analyses were conducted to test whether the frequencies observed

were different from that which would be predicted by chance. Three








-73-


Table 7

Stepwise Selection of Variables for


D score of the SFSC


Self-Focus Subscale


SN score of the SFSC


Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale


Private Self-Consciousness


Public Self-Consciousness


Anxiety Subscale


Depression Subscale


Anger Subscale


F


0.07


0.35


0.81


0.01


0.62


0.17


0.04


0.21


0.12


the Vista Category


Prob

0.79


0.55


0.37


0.97


0.43


0.68


0.84


0.65


0.73


Tolerance


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00


1.00








-74-


subject groups for each of the independent variables were created in the

manner explained earlier and compared to the vista groups. The analyses

did not yield significant results (Table 8).

The Egocentricity Index

Exner postulated that the egocentricity index reflects a self-focus-

ing process. To test this hypothesis and to determine if self-esteem

and/or an affective state is also related to the egocentricity index, a

discriminant analysis was conducted followed by a backward stepwise lo-

gistical analysis. The egocentricity index was dichotomized in the manner

described for the form-dimensional response and acted as the dependent

variable for these analyses. The mean was found to be 0.39 and the sub-

jects were grouped accordingly (present n=73, absent n=77). The inde-

pendent variables for these analyses were the private and public self-

consciousness subscale scores, the self-focus subscale, the "D" and "SN"

scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the Rosenberg Self-

Esteem Scale, and the anxiety, and depression subscale scores.

Table 9 presents the means and standard deviations for each of the in-

dependent variables entered into the analyses.

Discriminant function analysis

The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that

there was considerable overlap between the present and absent egocentri-

city index populations with respect to the independent variables.

However, the linear combination of these variables was able to discrimi-

nate between these two populations (Table 10).







-75-


Table 8

Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using
the Vista Groups as the Classificant

Vista---Self-Focus Subscale of the SFSC


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 1.39 p. <0.50

Vista---D score of the SFSC


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 1.24 p <0.54

Vista---Private Self-Consciousness


High

6
25.00

18
75.00


High

7
26.92

19
73.08



Subscale

High


Present Frequency 6
Column Percent 28.57

Absent Frequency 15
Column Percent 71.43

X2 = 0.74 p <0.69

Vista---Public Self-Consciousness Subscale

High

Present Frequency 8
Column Percent 30.77

Absent Frequency 18
Column Percent 69.23

X
2 = 0.24 p <0.89


Intermediate

37
37.00

63
63.00


Intermediate

38
36.89

65
63.11






Intermediate

37
36.27

65
63.73






Intermediate

38
35.19

70
64 81


Low

8
30.77

18
69.23


Low

6
28.57

15
71.43


Low

8
29.63

19
70.37






Low

5
31.25

11
68.75








-76-


Table 8-continued


Vista---SN Score of the SFSC


High

Present Frequency 10
Column Percent 45.45

Absent Frequency 12
Column Percent 54.55

X2 = 1.6 <0.45

Vista---Rosenberq Self-Esteem Scale


Intermediate

37
32.46

77
67.54


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 0.11 p <0.95

Vista---Anxiety Subscale


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 2.21 <0.33

Vista---Depression Subscale


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 2.55 <0.28


High

7
36.84

12
63.16


High

10
41.67

14
58.33


High

8
40.00

12
60.00


Intermediate

33
34.02

64
65.98


Intermediate

36
34.95

67
65.04


Intermediate

38
31.40

83
68.60


Low

4
28.57

10
71.43


Low

11
32.35

23
67.65


Low

5
21.74

18
78.26


Low

5
55.56

4
44.44








-77-


Table 8-continued


Vista--Anger Subscale


Frequency
Column Percent

Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 2.8 p <0.25


High

5
27.78

13
73.22


Intermediate

44
36.97

75
63.03


Present


Absent


Low

2
15.38

11
84.62








-78-


D sc

Priva

Publ

Ange2

Anxi<

Depr

Self-

SN sc

Rosei


Table 9

Means and Standard Deviations of the Egocentricity Index Groups

Egocentricity Index=Present

Variable N Mean Standard Devid

ore of the SFSC 73 15.41 5.73

ite Self-Consciousness 73 26.10 4.93

ic Self-Consciousness 73 19.40 3.68

r Subscale 73 48.00 8.26

ety Subscale 73 49.75 9.11

session Subscale 73 47.77 8.04

-Focus Subscale 73 9.32 3.52

core of the SFSC 73 4.48 2.26

berg Self-Esteem Scale 73 17.62 4.08


ition


Egoce,

D score of the SFSC

Private Self-Consciousness

Public Self-Consciousness

Anger Subscale

Anxiety Subscale

Depression Subscale

Self-Focus Subscale

SN score of the SFSC

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale


itricity Index

77

77

77

77


= Absent

16.25

26.21

19.36

50.57

49.97

47.62

9.96

3.77

16.77


5.98

5.20

5.08

10.32

10.54

8.41

2.80

2.37

4.70








-79-


Table 10

Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the Discriminant Function Analysis


Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Egocentricity Index Groups


Egocentricity Index Present Absent Total

Present 57 16 73
78.08 21.92 100.00

Absent 22 55 77
28.57 71.43 100.00

Total 79 71 150

Percent 52.67 47.33 100.00


Prior Probability 0.49 0.51


Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.71

Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.78

Total Correct Classification = 0.75

Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability = 0.50

False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = 0.28

False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were present) = 0.23








-80-


Backward stepwise logistical regression analyses

A second analysis was conducted to test the relationship of each

independent variable as it individually related to the egocentricity

index groups. Testing at the .1 significance level, the assumption of

equal covariance matrixes was rejected and a backward stepwise logistical

regression analysis was performed (Table 11). The results indicated that

the private and public self-consciousness subscales, the Rosenberg

Self-Esteem Scale, the anxiety and depression subscales, the D score of

the SFSC, and the self-focusing subscale were not individually related to

the egocentricity index groups at the 0.05 significance level and were

unable to discriminate between the two populations. Significant results

were obtained for the "SN" score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion

Test and the anger subscale partialing out the effects of all other

independent variables. Individuals in the "present" egocentricity index

group endorsed significantly more negative self-statements as reflected by

their SN scores (X=4.5), than the "absent" egocentricity index group

(X=3.8), (p <0.01). Individuals in the "present" egocentricity index

group endorsed feeling significantly less angry (X=48) than those in the

"absent" egocentricity index group (X=50.6), (p <0.03). Table 12 depicts

the ability of the linear combination of these variables and the D score

of the SFSC to classify subjects into the two egocentricity index groups.

While there was significant separation between the two egocentricity index

populations with respect to these independent variables, there was also

considerable overlap and the separation was not very clear or well

defined.







-81-


Table 11

Backward Stepwise Selection of Variables for
the Egocentricity Index Groups


Variable


Depression Subscale


Public Self-Consciousness Subscale


Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale


Self-Focus Subscale


Private Self-Consciousness Subscale


Tension Subscale


SN score of the SFSC


Anger Subscale


D score of the SFSC


Chi-Square


0.36


0.16


0.38


0.23


0.34


1.39


6.75


4.75


3.11


P Value


0.55


0.69


0.54


0.63


0.56


0.24


0.01


0.03


0.08








-82-


Table 12


Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the D and SN Scores of the
SFSC and the Anger Subscale

Predicted


Absent



Present


Total


Absent

46



33


Present

27



40


Total

73



73


Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.55

Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) =0.63

Total Correct Classification = 0.59

False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = .40

False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were present) = .42


True


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







-83-


Analysis of variance

As an alternate method of testing for differences between the two

groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted to compare the egocen-

tricity index categories with respect to the mean scores of each sub-

scale. The aforementioned nine independent variables now acted as the

dependent variables and the dichotomized egocentricity index acted as the

independent variable. No significant results were found for the D score

of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (F (1,148)=0.76, <0.38), the

private self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=0.02, p <0.89), the public

self-consciousness subscale (F (1,148)=0.01, p <0.96, the anxiety

subscale (F (1,148)=0.02, p <0.89), the depression subscale (F

(1,148)=0.01, k <0.92), the self-focus subscale (F (1,148)=1.56, 2 <.21),

the SN score of the SFSC (F (1,148)=3.54, 2 <.06) and the anger subscale

(F (1,148)=2.83, <0.09).

Chi-square analyses

A series of Chi-Square analyses was conducted to test whether the

frequencies observed were different from that predicted by chance. Three

subject groups for each of the independent variables were created on the

basis of their scores on each of the aforementioned subscales. High and

low population groups were defined by those subjects who scored either

one standard deviation above or below the subscale means obtained from

our sample. Those subjects whose scores fell within one standard devia-

tion of the mean were considered to represent an intermediate group. The

Chi-Square analyses compared the three groups for each subscale to the

egocentricity index categories. The analyses did not yield significant

results for the self-focus subscale, the D score of the Self-Focus Sen-

tence Completion Test, the private self-consciousness subscale, the







-84-


Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the anxiety subscale, the depression sub-

scale, and the anger subscale. A significant relationship was found for

the SN score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test and the public

self-consciousness subscale (Table 13).


Further Exploration of the Egocentricity Index
Form-Dimensional and Vista Categories



Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System includes separate scoring

criteria for designating egocentricity-index, form-dimensional, and vista

type responses. These responses are subsumed predominantly under the

heading of the Fk response in the Klopfer system (Klopfer et al., 1954),

and the vista type response in the Beck Rorschach System (Beck et al.,

1961). A series of one-way ANOVAs and subsequent analyses using Duncan's

Multiple Range Test with a significance level set at 0.05 was therefore

conducted to further explore the psychological constructs represented by

the different combinations of these responses. Eight groups were created

to represent all of the possible combinations of the dichotomized Rorschach

responses and acted as the independent variables for these analyses. The

dependent variables for these analyses were the private and public

self-conscousness subscales, the "D" and "SN" scores of the Self-Focus

Sentence Completion Test, the Self-Focus Subscale of the SFSC, the

Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the anger, depression, and anxiety

subscales. Table 14 presents the means for each of these scores and

subscales. No significant relationships were found between the eight

groups and the independent variables. The F-values for each of the ANOVAs

were as follows: 1) the D score of the SFSC (F (7,138)=0.76, p <0.63);








-85-


Table 13




Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Egocentricity Index Groups as the Classificant



Egocentricity Index---Self-Focus Subscale


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent


High

11
45.83

13
54.17


Intermediate

46
46.00

54
54.00


X2 = 2.09 k <0.35



Egocentricity Index---D score of the SFSC


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent


High

10
38.46

16
61.54


Intermediate

53
51.46

50
48.54


Low

10
47.62

11
52.38


X2 = 1.41 k <0.49



Egocentricity Index---Private Self-Consciousness Subscale


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent


High

10
47.62

11
52.38


Intermediate

49
48.04

53
51.96


X2 = 0.14 p <0.93


Low

16
61.54

10
38.46


Low

14
51.85

13
48.15








-86-


Table 13-continued


Egocentricity Index--Public Self-Consciousness Subscale


High

Present Frequency 8
Column Percent 30.77

Absent Frequency 18
Column Percent 69.23

X2 = 7.33 <0.03

Egocentricity Index---SN score of the SFSC


Intermediate

60
55.56

48
44.44


High


Intermediate


Present Frequency 15 56
Column Percent 68.18 49.12

Absent Frequency 7 58
Column Percent 31.82 50.88

X2 = 9.99 <0.01

Eogocentricity Index--Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

High Intermediate

Present Frequency 13 45
Column Percent 68.42 46.39

Absent Frequency 6 52
Column Percent 31.58 53.61


X2 = 3.45 p <0.18

Egocentricity Index--Anxiety Subscale

High

Present Frequency 11
Column Percent 45.83

Absent Frequency 13
Column Percent 54.17

X2 = 0.46 2 <0.79


Intermediate

52
50.49

51
49.51


Low

5
31.25

11
68.75


Low

2
14.29

12
85.71


Low

15
44.12

19
55.88


Low

10
43.48

13
56.52








-87-


Table 13-continued


Egocentricity Index---Depression Subscale


High

Present Frequency 10
Column Percent 50.00

Absent Frequency 10
Column Percent 50.00

X2 = 0.08 2 <0.96

Egocentricity Index---Anger Subscale


Intermediate

59
48.76

62
51.24


Present Frequency
Column Percent

Absent Frequency
Column Percent

X2 = 3.90 k <0.14


High

6
33.33

12
66.67


Intermediate

58
48.74

61
51.26


Low

4
44.44

5
55.56


Low

9
69.23

4
30.77








-88-


Table 14

Means for each of the Egocentricity Index,
Form-Dimensional and Vista Category Groups


Variable Group 1


Private

Self

D

Public

SN

Anxiety

Anger

Depression

RSES


25.64

7.64

15.00

17.27

4.64

49.18

45.82

47.55

17.64


Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 Group 6 Group 7 Group 8


26.00

9.25

14.69

19.72

3.53

48.94

51.28

48.28

16.75


24.90

9.45

15.70

19.32

4.45

50.71

49.45

47.87

17.87


27.25

10.45

15.75

19.00

3.80

46.95

46.65

45.60

16.15


26.64

10.00

17.14

19.29

4.42

51.29

50.29

47.43

17.86


27.82

8.55

14.36

22.45

5.64

52.73

48.45

51 64

19.55


26.69

11.00

18.15

19.31

3.77

49.46

48.69

47.54

17.54


26.14

10.36

16.64

19.57

3.79

49.50

51.07

46.93

15.00


Note: Private = Private Self-Consciousness Subscale;
of the SFSC; D = D Score Of The SFSC; Public =
Subscale; SN = SN Score Of The SFSC; Anxiety =
Anger = Anger Subscale Of The POMS; Depression
POMS; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale


Group 1 =

Group 2 =

Group 3 =

Group 4 =

Group 5 =

Group 6 =

Group 7 =

Group 8 =


Vista

Vista

Vista

Vista

Vista

Vista

Vista

Vista


Self = Self-Focus Subscale
Public Self-Consciousness
Anxiety Subscale Of The POMS;
= Depression Subscale Of The


Present, Form-Dimensional = Present, Egocentricity Index = Present

Absent, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Absent

Absent, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Present


Absent,

Absent,

Present,

Present,

Present


Form-Dimensional =

Form-Dimensional =

Form-Dimensional =

Form-Dimensional =

Form-Dimensional =


Present, Egocentricity Index = Present

Present, Egocentricity Index = Absent

SAbsent, Egocentricity Index = Present

SPresent, Egocentricity Index = Absent

SAbsent, Egocentricity Index = Absent







-89-


2) the private self-consciousness subscale (F (7,138)=0.61, 2 <0.75); 3)

the public self-consciousness subscale (F (7,138)=1.20, k <0.31); 4) the

self-focus subscale of the SFSC (F (7,138)=1.64, p <0.13); 5) the SN

score of the SFSC (F (7,138)=1.28, p <0.27)1 6) the RSES (F (7,138)=1.33,

p <0.24); 7) the anxiety subscale (F (7,138)=0.50, k <0.84; 8) the

depression subscale (F (7,138)=0.57, p <0.78); and 9) the anger subscale

(F (7,138)= 0.76, p <0.63).


Correlation Matrix


A Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was computed to investi-

gate the relationships among the different questionnaires and subscales

(Table 15). Some of the correlations were of particular interest to the

study and are reported below.

Self-Esteem

A significant relationship was found between the "SN" score of the

Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale

(r=.31, p <.001). These variables were also found to be significantly

related to the following subscales: 1) the anxiety subscale (r=.31, <

.001), (for SN), (r=.23, <.004), (for RSES); 2) the depression subscale

(r=.37, p <.001), (for SN), (r=.32, p <.001), (for RSES); 3) the anger

subscale (r=.20, p <.02) (for SN).

Self-Focus

A relationship was found for the "D" score of the Self-Focus

Sentence Completion Test and the following variables: 1) the private self-

consciousness subscale (r=.15, <.06); 2) the self-focus subscale of the

















1) D


2. Private

3) Public


4) Self

5) SN

6) RSES


7) Anxiety

8) Depression

9. Anger

10) CPrivate I


Table 15
Correlation Matrix

Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between All Variables


2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


.15 -.01


.75*** .38***


.19* .03


.24** .05


-.08


.20* -.01

-.17* -.02


-.12 -.13


.31*** .31*** .37*** .20*


.23** .32*** .14


.70*** .61***


.62*** .16*

.02


Note: N 150; D = The D Score Of The SFSC; Private = The Private Self-Consciousness
Subscale; Public = The Public Self-Consciousness Subscale; Self = Self-Focus
Subscale Of The SFSC; SN = The SN Score of the SFSC; RSES = The Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale; Anxiety = The Anxiety Subscale Of The POMS; Depression = The De-
pression Subscale Of The POMS; Anger = The Anger Subscale Of The POMS; CPrivate =
The Corrected Private Self-Consciousness Subscale.


*p
*p
***p


.05
.01
.001




Full Text
To my parents with much love
and devotion


-61-
Interrater Reliability
The Rorschach Inkblot Test
Interrater reliability was calculated for an overall Rorschach
response and for each of its different constituents. Percent agreement
between the author and the designated scores was used as the index of re
liability. The interrater reliability percentage scores obtained were
1) overall response (92%), 2) location (98%), 3) determinants (94%), and
form quality (93%). Interscorer agreement for each analysis met the pre
determined minimum requirement of eighty percent for ensuring accurate
scoring.
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test
Percent agreement between the author and designated scorer was used
as the index of interrater reliability. An interrater agreement of eighty-
seven percent was found and was considered to be adequate for ensuring
accurate scoring of the test.
Evaluation Of The Hypotheses
The first series of analyses indicated that there were no examiner or
test order biases with respect to the frequency of the Rorschach responses
elicited. They also indicated that the scores obtained from the Self-
Focus Sentence Completion Test and the Rorschach were an accurate repre
sentation of the subjects' responses. In light of these findings, all
subsequent analyses testing the hypotheses were conducted without con
trolling for examiner or test-order influences.
The Form-Dimensional Response
Exner proposed that the form-dimensional response (FD) represents a
nonemotional introspective process. To test this hypothesis, a discriminant


-47-
a sense of emotional isolation from others (blue, lonely, helpless,
miserable), sadness (sad, unhappy), and guilt (guilty, sorry for the
things done)" (p. 7). The anger-hostility subscale is composed of twelve
adjective scales. The subscale score represents the mood of anger and
antipathy towards others. The items comprising this scale describe feel
ings of intense, overt anger (angry, furious), milder feelings of hos
tility (grouchy, annoyed), and the more sullen and suspicious components
of hostility (resentful, spiteful).
Reliability studies
All six POM factors have been found to be internally consistent. The
authors cite data from two studies that have shown all the reliabilities
to have been highly satisfactory. All the indices of the extent to which
the individual items within the six mood scales measure the same factor
were near 0.90 or above.
Test-retest reliability has been provided by correlations between the
POMS-st;ores at intake and pretreatment. The median time period was 20
days with a range of 3-110 days. The reliability estimates for this
period ranged from 0.65 for vigor to 0.74 for depression. The test-retest
correlations between intake score and scores following six weeks of psy
chiatric treatment ranged from 0.43 for vigor and 0.53 for anger. The
obtained stability coefficients are lower than the 0.80 to 0.90 levels
expected of measures of stable personality characteristics. A mood,
however, is a relatively transient state that would not be expected to
reach the levels required of personality traits.
Validity studies
The authors cite six factor analytic replications that were conducted
in the development of the POMS as evidence for the factorial validity of


-98 -
The depressive affective state hypothesized to be represented by
this response was investigated in relation to the mood states of anxiety,
depression, and anger which are characteristic of depressives (Freud,
1917/1957; Fenichel, 1945). The results failed to support the
prediction of a significant linear or nonlinear relationship between
these affective mood states and the frequency of occurrence of the vista
response as measured.
The self-evaluative process hypothesized to be represented by this
scoring category was examined in relation to self-esteem. It was pre
dicted that those subjects who verbalized vista type responses would be
uncomfortable with their depression and have poor self-regard. This pre
diction was not confirmed. A nonsignificant relationship was found be
tween self-esteem and the vista response as measured.
Similar findings to those described were obtained when the two vista
groups were used to predict to scores on the different measures. No sig
nificant relationships were found. The absence or presence of this
response was unable to predict to high or low scores on the measures.
In summary, Exner (1974) hypothesized that the vista response repre
sents a painful introspective process with concommitant depressive fea
tures and a displeasure for what one sees. In testing the construct
validity of the vista response an attempt was made to establish relation
ships with this scoring category and measures that were believed to be
conceptually and empirically related to the psychological processes hypo
thesized to be embodied in this response. A linear combination of these
variables was unable to predict to the presence or absence of the vista
response. The results failed to establish the psychological processes of


-78-
Table 9
Means and Standard Deviations of the Egocentricity Index Groups
Egocentricity Index=Present
Variable
N
Mean
Standard Devi
D score of the SFSC
73
15.41
5.73
Private Self-Consciousness
73
26.10
4.93
Public Self-Consciousness
73
19.40
3.68
Anger Subscale
73
48.00
8.26
Anxiety Subscale
73
49.75
9.11
Depression Subscale
73
47.77
8.04
Self-Focus Subscale
73
9.32
3.52
SN score of the SFSC
73
4.48
2.26
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
73
17.62
4.08
Egocentricity Index
= Absent
D score of the SFSC
77
16.25
5.98
Private Self-Consciousness
77
26.21
5.20
Public Self-Consciousness
77
19.36
5.08
Anger Subscale
77
50.57
10.32
Anxiety Subscale
77
49.97
10.54
Depression Subscale
77
47.62
8.41
Self-Focus Subscale
77
9.96
2.80
SN score of the SFSC
77
3.77
2.37
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
77
16.77
4.70


-99
self-focus, introspection, egocentricity, affective state, or self-esteem
as significantly predictive of the appearance of the vista response. The
finding that egocentricity was not significantly related to the vista
groups provides some support for the discriminant validity of this re
sponse. However, convergent validity for the psychological constructs of
introspection, painful affect, and poor self-regard hypothesized to be
embodied in this response was not provided.
The results of the present study failed to support the hypothesis
that the vista response represents a painful introspective process
colored by a dissatisfaction for what one sees. It could be argued that
the measures used did not adequately reflect the constructs represented
by this variable. If so, the results call for a more stringent defini
tion and a limit to the type of descriptive statements that can be gene
rated from this scoring category. It could also be argued that no signi
ficant relationships were found due to the use of measures that rely
heavily on self-report. Subjects tend to differ with respect to their
ability or willingness to report on their own experiences. Thus, an
individual who verbalizes a vista response may be introspective but not
necessarily as aware of or as capable of reporting on this psychological
process as an individual who is not introspective.
Speculating further, another possible explanation is that those
subjects who verbalize vista type responses tend to exhibit a personality
style or utilize intellectual defense mechanisms (e.g., intellectualiza-
tion and rationalization), to defend against focusing on themselves or
their emotional experience. The formation of the vista response involves
a complex perceptual-cognitive process whereby the subject is required to


-9
cards (Exner, 1974). Although the criteria for scoring FD have not been
finalized, it is scored when the dimensionality or perspective is based on
the size of the blot area used or the relationship between blot areas.
The usefulness of FD as a separate scoring determinant emerged from
a study of sixty Rorschach records obtained from subjects who, during a
period of ninety days following testing, made a suicide attempt, eighteen
of which were successful (Exner, 1974). Examination of these protocols
revealed that on the average, they contained a significantly greater
number of form determined dimensional-perspective responses (X = 3.1) as
compared to a nonpsychiatric group (X = 0.8). Exner also observed that
the FD type of response occurred with considerable frequency in the
records of a variety of subjects whether they were from psychiatric or
nonpsychiatric populations. Using this particular scoring criterion,
243 FD responses were tallied from 250 Rorschach records whereas only 186
vista responses were tallied as scored by the Beck et al. (1961) Rorschach
system (Exner, 1974). The mean number of FD type responses and the
frequency with which it occurs increases consistently with the increase
in a person's age (Exner, 1978). Beginning at age eight, this type of
response has been observed to appear at least once in more than half of
all individuals tested.
It was first believed that the FD response was related to the
depressive features characteristic of suicidal individuals. Further
examination of various Rorschach protocols showed that an outpatient
reference group gave an average of .23 FD type responses and a schizo
phrenic reference group gave an average of 0.5 FD responses per record.
Nonpatients were found to give 0.92 of these responses per record


CHAPTER III
RESULTS
Evaluation Of Possible Examiner And Test Order Influences
The author and ten predoctoral clinical psychology graduate students
acted as examiners and administered the Rorschach Inkblot Test. All exam
iners other than the author were blind to the study. This created the
possibility that the author elicited a different number of the Rorschach
variables of interest as compared to the other examiners. To test for the
possibility of examiner bias, t-tests were performed to compare the ten
examiners pooled together to the author with respect to the frequency of
the egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista type responses elic
ited. No significant differences were found: egocentricity index (t=0.78,
jd <0.44), form-dimensional (t=0.32, j3 <0.75), and vista (t=1.21, £ <0.23).
It was also possible that the order of test presentation influenced
the frequency of the Rorschach responses elicited. The study was designed
so that this source of bias could be tested for. Subjects were assigned
to one of two test order groups defined by whether the Rorschach was
administered first or last in the test battery. To compare the test order
groups with respect to each of the Rorschach variables of interest, t-tests
were performed. No significant differences between the two test order
groups were found: vista (t=0.21, p <0.83), form-dimensional (t=0.71, jd<
0.48), and egocentricity index (t=0.53, £ <0.60).
-60-


-45-
The RSES was originally designed to be used with an adolescent popu
lation. However, a number of studies have used this measure with adult
populations. Silber and Tippett (1965) provided some evidence for the
convergent validity of the RSES using a college population. The RSES was
correlated against three other measures of self-esteem: the Kelly Reper
tory Test (r=0.67), the Health Self-Image Questionnaire r=0.83, and inter
viewers' ratings of self-esteem (r=0.56). These convergent validities were
among the highest observed in cross-instrument correlations (Wylie, 1974).
Some construct validity of the measure has been provided in studies con
cerning the relationship between RSES scores and other variables which
self-esteem is theoretically expected to be related. Rosenberg (1965)
found that among 50 subjects at the National Institute of Mental Health
who were rated by nurses, those with high RSES scores were significantly
more often rated as gloomy and disappointed. They were also rated as
touchy, easily hurt, and not well liked. Kaplan and Pokorny (1969) found
a significant correlation between their self-derogation factor from the
RSES and Rosenberg's Guttman scale of depressive affect. Most of the
other studies were conducted using adolescent populations. Rios-Garcia
and Cook (1975) used their modified version of the RSES to investigate the
relationship between self-acceptance and psychological adjustment and
several measures of defensiveness. Low self-esteem scores correlated
positively with repressive-sensitization, ego control, and trait anxiety,
and negatively with general defensiveness.
The Profile of Mood States
Questionnaire format and scoring
The Profile of Mood States (POMS) is a factor analytically derived
inventory which attempts to measure six identifiable mood or affective


LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Means and Standard Deviations of the
Form-Dimensional Groups 63
2 Summary of the Form-Dimensional Group
Classification by the Discriminant Function
Analysis 64
3 Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Form-Dimensional Groups 66
4 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Form-Dimensional Groups as the Classificant 68
5 Means and Standard Deviations of the Vista Groups. 70
6 Summary of the Vista Group Classification by the
Discriminant Function Analysis 71
7 Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Vista Groups 73
8 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Vista Groups as the Classificant 75
9 Means and Standard Deviations of the Egocentricity
Index Groups 78
10 Summary of the Egocentricity Index Groups
Classification by the Discriminant Function
Analysis 79
11 Backward Stepwise Selection of Variables for the
Egocentricity Index Groups 81
12 Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the D and SN Scores of the
SFSC and the Anger Subscale 82
13 Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Egocentricity Index Groups as the Classificant ... 85
-vii-


-110-
believed that only through such an effort, extensive as it may be, can
the construct validity of the Rorschach truly be investigated.


-94-
study, neither a linear nor a nonlinear relationship was found between
self-focus and the form-dimensional groups as measured. Exner (1974)
also found that subjects who verbalize a low frequency of this type of
response have a greater tendency to focus on themselves at the expense of
the external world and are more egocentric than those subjects who verba
lize a high frequency. This finding was not replicated in the present
study. Neither a linear nor a nonlinear relationship was found between
egocentricity and the form-dimensional groups as measured. The predic
tion that those subjects who verbalized form-dimensional responses would
be more attentive to their inner thoughts and feelings and more attentive
of themselves as a social object was not confirmed. No relationship was
found between introspection as measured and the form-dimensional groups.
The hypothesized absence of an affective component was investigated
in relation to the mood states of anxiety, anger, and depression as
measured by the subscales of the Profile of Mood States. As predicted,
no relationship was found between these affective mood states and the
frequency of occurrence of the form-dimensional response.
Similar findings to those described above were obtained when the two
form-dimensional groups were used to predict to the scores on the different
measures. No significant relationships were found. The absence or pre
sence of this response was unable to predict to high or low scores on the
questionnaires.
In summary, Exner (1974) hypothesized that the form-dimensional
response represents a nonemotional introspective process. The results of
the present study failed to establish the psychological processes of
self-focus, introspection, egocentricity, or affective state as


-23-
the improved character disorders showed no differences. From these
findings, Exner (1974) postulated that if reflection and pair responses do
represent a form of self-focus or egocentricity, too much or too little
may characterize pathological conditions. Posttreatment improvement is
characterized by a change toward a level of egocentricity similar to that
which is characteristically found in nonpatient records.
Exner, Wylie, and Kline (1977) found that the egocentricity index
changes in patients treated in therapy. Four hundred and thirty volunteer
subjects, ages 20 through 36, were solicited from private practitioners,
clinics and hospitals and assigned to one of seven modes of treatment.
The treatment modalities were 1) a psychoanalytic, uncovering form of
psychotherapy, 2) gestalt individual psychotherapy, 3) a modeling form of
treatment with the major focus on interpersonal patterns, 4) assertive
ness treatment, 5) systematic desensitization, 6) transactionally oriented
group therapy, and 7) a biofeedback form of intervention. No effort was
made to study therapists or to match subjects for pathology. All subjects
were administered a Rorschach at pretreatment, eight to nine months after
the onset of treatment, sixteen to eighteen months after the onset of
treatment, and 27 to 29 months after the onset of treatment. The
psychological status of each subject was evaluated concurrently with each
testing by a significant other and the patient's therapist. Ratings were
made using Form R of the Katz Adjustment Scale.
The outpatient study was not designed to compare therapy effective
ness but, rather, to determine what changes would occur in the Rorschach
under different modes of therapy where the patient selected the type of
therapy. A change in the egocentricity index from either too high or too


-104-
information may be lost by multiplying the number of reflections by
three and dividing this number plus the number of pairs by the total
number of responses. Exner (1973) explored the concept of egocentricity
by dividing subjects into high and low groups on the basis of the self
focus and external-world focus subscale scores on the SFSC. The current
study used the D score which, according to Exner, is the more representa
tive criteria for egocentricity.
Self-focus as defined by an awareness of one's inner thoughts and
feelings also was found not to be related to the pair-reflection index.
However, subjects who obtained either high or low scores on this index
were found to be either highly aware of themselves as social objects and
concerned about other's perception of them, or highly unaware of them
selves as social objects that have an effect on others. This finding is
consistent with the literature that has found high and low index scores
in pathological populations that have interpersonal difficulties of this
kind (e.g., depressive, character disorders, narcissists, and
schizophrenics) .
At first glance, the finding that those subjects who obtain high
scores on the pair-reflection index endorse significantly more negative
self-statements characteristic of low self-esteem than those who obtain
low scores on this index is surprising since depressives tend to score
low on this index (Exner, 1974). However, Exner (1978) thought that high
index scores may also be related to poor self-esteem. In fact, he found
that higher than average egocentricity index scores occur in the
Rorschach records of one in every five effected suicide cases (Exner,
1978)


-96-
it might represent a state rather than trait process and is verbalized in
response to transitional, situational variables. Pretreatment and
posttreatment studies examining this response, however, would suggest
that it represents a more stable trait (Exner, 1974). If it is the case
that the form-dimensional response represents a certain type of
introspective process, clearly, the results of the present study call for
a more stringent definition and a limit to the type of descriptive
statements that can be generated from this response category. However,
the failure to replicate Exner's findings, the failure to find a
significant relationship between additional measures and this response,
and the inability of a linear combination of these variables to predict
to the frequency of this response strongly call into question the
construct represented by this scoring category.
The creation of the form-dimensional response precludes the
verbalization of both shading and color which are thought of as
representing affect. As predicted, the form-dimensional response was not
found to be related to the affective state of the subject. This should
not, however, necessarily be interpreted to mean that the subject is not
experiencing feelings of anger, depression, or anxiety. The subject may
characteristically internalize rather than express his emotional
experiences (Exner, 1974). It is therefore possible that this response
represents cognitive style or a defensive operation (e.g., isolation of
affect) whereby awareness and the experience of negative affect is
defended against. This interpretation would be consistent with that
proposed by Klopfer et at. (1954). When the results of this study are
viewed in conjunction with other findings, it may be speculatively
hypothesized that the form-dimensional response is characteristic of


-105-
The finding that subjects in the absent egocentricity index group
expressed feeling less angry than the present group was unexpected as
affect was not predicted to relate to this scoring category. It may be
that individuals in this group tend to express and externalize their
anger more than those in the present group. This is consistent with the
finding that those subjects who score high on the index have poorer self
esteem and are suicidal as these are often associated with anger express
ed toward the self instead of the outside world. It is not consistent,
however, with the finding that character disorders score high on this
index as these individuals tend to impulsively express their anger. It
should be noted that the anger expressed by the low group is no more than
that expressed by the normal population.
In summary, the results call for a redefinition of the self-focusing
process embodied in the egocentricity index. The concept of self-esteem
as related to this variable also needs to be investigated more thoroughly.
The relationship found between the affect of anger and the index suggests
that the subject's affective state contributes to the variance of this
response. The response should be further investigated using trait rather
than state measures of mood as this was not tested in the present study.
Further Examination of the Rorschach Responses
A post hoc investigation of the three Rorschach scoring categories
was conducted to examine all possible interactions among them. The
different score combinations were used to predict to scores on the mea
sures discussed previously. No interactions were found which supports


-26-
distancing himself emotionally from his problems in order to view them more
objectively. Beck et al. (1961) also incorporated a formal scoring
category (Vista), into their system to account for responses that use the
shading characteristics of the inkblot to alter the flat perspective into a
three-dimensional percept. Beck included reflection repsonses in this
category. His scoring criteria did not require that the subject articulate
the shading features of the inkblot. Beck et al. (1961) postulated that
this type of response represented a process of self-appraisal that involved
feelings of depression and inferiority.
Exner (1974) adopted the symbols representing vista type responses (V,
VF, and FV), from Beck et al. (1961) to designate those responses involving
depth or dimensionality based on the light-dark features of the blot.
Exner (1974) scored an answer as a pure vista response (V), when the
subject reported "depth or dimensionality based exclusively on the shading
characteristics of the blot, with no form involvement" (p. 92). A
vista-form response (VF) was scored when the subject's answer included a
"primary emphasis on the shading features to represent depth or dimension
ality" and incorporated "the form features of the blot for clarification
and/or elaboration" (p. 92). The form-vista response (FV) is scored when
the subject "uses form as the primary feature and the shading component is
used to represent depth or dimensionality for purposes of clarification
and/or elaboration" (p. 92).
Exner (1974) found that the vista response occurs with the lowest
means and frequencies of all the determinants for all adult populations
(i.e., inpatients, outpatients and normals). Exner and Weiner (1982) found
that none of the different vista type responses occur in the records of


-14-
as a type of light-dark response. Beck et al. (1961) score the reflec
tion response that uses the light-dark features of the blot as a shading
vista response, and those based solely on the symmetry of the blot as a
form determinant response. Beck et al. assume that the same perceptual-
cognitive process is involved in the reflection type of response as that
involving depth and/or dimensionality. Klopfer et al. (1954) used FK to
designate the reflection response based on blot symmetry and if the midline
of the ink blot is noted as a shading differentiation.
Like the FD responses, the reflection (R) response is based on the
form of the inkblot. Exner designates two scoring categories for the
reflection response. The first, the reflection-form response (rF), is
scored for those responses in which "the symmetry features of the blot
are primary in determining the answer, and form is used nonspecifically,
or ambiguously, as an object being reflected" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). Re
flection responses scored in this manner always involve content with non
specific form requirements (i.e., clouds, shadows, rocks). The form-
reflection response (FR) is used to designate those responses where "the
form of the blot is used to identify specific content, which is inter
preted as reflected because of the symmetry of the blot" (Exner, 1974,
p. 101). The reflection response, whether rF or Fr, is based on the
symmetry of the inkblot. The reflection response which does not use
symmetry and uses the light-dark features of the inkblot is scored
separately as either a vista or as a shading response. The pair (2)
response is based solely on the form properties of the inkblot and is
scored when "the perceived object is reported as two objects because of
the card symmetry" (Exner, 1974, p. 102)


-30-
the vista response is related to a negative and painful internal experience
evolving from self-inspection; the individual does not like what he sees. It
is unclear what the authors mean by painful or negative internal experience
when they describe the vista response. No measure is used to directly assess
whether the vista response contains an affective component or which affect it
represents. Similarly, no study has directly assessed whether the FD response
is void of an affective component. The relationship between the FD and the
vista response to the process of introspection also needs to be assessed more
directly. Finally, if self-esteem is related to the individual's internal
experiences, then one could also speculate that it might contribute to the
variance of the vista response.
Statement Of The Problem
Exner (1974) has proposed three broad scoring categories to designate
those responses that Beck et al. (1961) catagorize as vista type responses
and Klopfer et al. (1954) score as FK. The form-dimensional category was
introduced to designate those responses which include perspective or
dimensionality based exclusively on form, interpreted by size or in relation
to other blot areas. The reflection type response was proposed to denote
those responses where the symmetry and form features of the blot determine the
answer. The pair response was introduced to score those instances where the
object is reported as two objects because of the card symmetry. A vista
scoring category was also introduced to score those responses that used the
light-dark features of the inkblot to create a percept of dimensionality.
The Rorschach determinants reflect the perceptual-cognitive processes
used to create the response (Exner, 1974). Exner has hypothesized which


-6 -
An investigation of each of these scoring categories would surely
have been fruitful for research, but was beyond the scope of this paper.
The current study was concerned solely with the determinant scores of the
Rorschach. The scoring of determinants provides information concerning
the perceptual-cognative process which has produced the response (Exner,
1974). In the Comprehensive System, the many stimulus characteristics of
the inkblots fall into nine determinant scoring categories: 1) form, 2)
movement, 3) color (chromatic), 4) color (achromatic), 5) texture
(shading), 6) general shading, 7) dimensionality (form), 8) dimension
ality (shading), 9) pairs and reflections (Exner, 1974). There has been
comparatively little research conducted to confirm which psychological
constructs the last three of these nine determinants are hypothesized to
represent. It was therefore decided to further limit the focus of the
current study to these scoring categories.
The determinants which Exner (1974) introduced in his comprehensive
system and which were investigated in this study have historically been
scored as "light-dark" determined responses by other systematizers. The
scoring of these "light-dark" determined responses is an area about which
Rorschach wrote very little and, as a result, each systematizer has
developed his own criteria (Exner, 1974). For example, Beck et al. (1961)
scored the "vista" response as one in which the variations in shading gave
a three-dimensional effect, as of something seen in perspective. His
criteria for content responses scorable as vista were "the distant,
usually landscapes, sometimes aerial views, occasionally astronomical
percepts, the heights in landscapes; architecture, ususally as height and
less often as being distant; insularity, usually land in water, but


-15-
The rationale for creating two separate scoring categories for re
flection and pair responses emerged in a study originally designed to
examine narcissism and acting-out behavior (Exner, 1969a). The study was
based on a premise of narcissm expounded by Kohut (1966). Kohut de
scribes a "narcissistic balance" which provides the impetus toward drive
satisfaction, but which is also tempered by social reality. When this
balance is disrupted, two forms of pathology may occur. The first
involves an excessive preoccupation with the self and the immediate gra
tification of impulses which occurs in the majority of sexual perversions
and character disorders. The second takes the form of withdrawal which
occurs in many of the depressive reactions and some schizophrenias. The
study thus included three equal groups of homosexuals, sociopaths, and
depressives as their behavior is, in theory, narcissistic. A control
group was also included. All subjects were administered Rorschachs. When
their records were scored by the Beck et al. (1961) method, each group was
found to give a high frequency of vista responses. This was not the case
when a separate scoring category was used to designate reflection
responses. The homosexual and character disorder groups gave signifi
cantly more reflection responses than the other two groups. The depres
sive and control groups were not found to differ significantly in
this regard. On the basis of these findings, it was reasoned that the
scoring of the reflection response warranted a separate category for
diagnostic appraisal (Exner, 1969). This logic was also applied to the
pair (2) response which was also recorded on the assumption that they
might represent a more subtle or controlled form of reflection type
response (Exner, 1969). Pair responses occurred in almost all of the


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
A seed is planted. If the soil is fertile and the environment is
optimal for growth, the seed will blossom and flourish and all will bene
fit from its beauty. In a similar manner, several individuals contri
buted to the development and fruition of this project in a number of
ways. Dr. Eileen Fennell, as committee chairman, was a constant source
of support, guidance, and understanding. Like a gardener, she was there
whenever needed, yet fully encouraged the independent growth of my ideas
and skills. An idea acts as a seed in any study and Dr. Hugh Davis was
influential on my thinking through his conveyance of his appreciation and
understanding of the Rorschach and human behavior. Dr. Russell Bauer
offered his insights and ideas which were appreciated both on and off of
the field. The contribution of Dr. Randy Carter cannot be underesti
mated. His ability to communicate the mind-bogging complexities of
statistics in a manner that is comprehensible and readily grasped is
truely appreciated. Dr. Lawrence Siegal was a steadying force and his
ideas contributed much to the methodological procedures. Much thanks are
extended to Dr. Nathan Perry who filled the vacated position of a
committee member at a late date in the project.
The actual running of the experiment would not have been possible
without the help of Dr. Richard Griggs who provided the subject popula
tion through the psychology department subject pool. My fellow experi
menters Arthur Brand, Mary Morris, Ernie Bordini, Ann Freund, Julie
Lipovsky, Leslie Fried, Marika Spevck, Linda Abeles, Karen Froming, and
Patricia Leavy provided invaluable assistance. I am deeply indebted
iii-


-106-
earlier findings using this type of analysis. It also provides some
support for scoring these responses in separate categories.
Evaluation Of The Design
A lack of significant findings can be attributable to the theory
which generated the hypothesis in regard to the constructs or to a
failure of the experiment to adequately test the hypothesis. Research
investigating the Rorschach has tended to use a specific subject poula-
tion as a criterion for the presence of the psychological construct of
interest. It is assumed that the presence of a particular diagnosis co
varies with the presence of the psychological construct of interest. A
problem with this type of approach is that a diagnosis includes other
psychological constructs and covariation may be due to the ability of the
score to measure these other processes. To avoid this confounding influ
ence, a "normal" population of college students was used in the present
study, and measures that were thought to conceptually and empirically
represent the psychological constructs of interest were used to test the
convergent and discriminant validity of the Rorschach scoring categories.
The criterion measures used in this study are open to a moderate degree
of criticism. In particular, like all self-report measures, they are
susceptable to a socially desirable response style. Efforts were made to
control for this by an instructional set recommended by Wylie (1974).
However, no measure was used to test directly whether this variable had
influenced the results. Scores on the public self-consciousness scale
indicate that the majority of subjects were indeed concerned about how
they appear to others but no more so than the general population.
Similarly, subject's level of defensiveness was not measured directly to


-107-
detennine their willingness to self-disclose on the measures. Thus, the
rationale for the lack of significant findings for both the form-dimen
sional and vista responses that was provided earlier in this discussion
is only a tentative hypothesis.
One item was found to be missing from the private self-consciousness
subscale. It could therefore be argued that this construct was not ade
quately assessed. An effort was made to correct for this in the
statistical analyses but it can still be asked whether this construct was
adequately represented. The author discussed this matter with Donald
Buss, one of the developers of the questionnaire, and was assured that
this omission would not adversely affect the findings. The RSES and SN
score of the SFSC were found to have poor convergent validity in the
present study. It is therefore questionable what aspect of, or whether
self-esteem was actually evaluated in this study. Unfortunately, this is
characteristic of the current state of the art with regard to measures of
self-esteem (Wylie, 1974). The question of self-esteem as it relates to
the Rorschach responses investigated in this study, is still unanswered
and needs to be explored further.
As mentioned earlier in this paper, the use of self-report measures
requires that the subject be able to report on their experiences. How
ever, subjects differ in their ability to do this which may have served
to minimize the amount of self-disclosure needed to get significantly
different scores on the measures between subjects. It is also the case
that self-report measures are qualitatively different than self-report
measures. The measures used in this study asked the subjects to rate
themselves on specific criteria whereas the Rorschach required that they


-84-
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, the anxiety subscale, the depression sub
scale, and the anger subscale. A significant relationship was found for
the SN score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test and the public
self-consciousness subscale (Table 13).
Further Exploration of the Egocentricity Index
Form-Dimensional and Vista Categories
Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System includes separate scoring
criteria for designating egocentricity-index, form-dimensional, and vista
type responses. These responses are subsumed predominantly under the
heading of the Fk response in the Klopfer system (Klopfer et al., 1954),
and the vista type response in the Beck Rorschach System (Beck et al.,
1961). A series of one-way ANOVAs and subsequent analyses using Duncan's
Multiple Range Test with a significance level set at 0.05 was therefore
conducted to further explore the psychological constructs represented by
the different combinations of these responses. Eight groups were created
to represent all of the possible combinations of the dichotomized Rorschach
responses and acted as the independent variables for these analyses. The
dependent variables for these analyses were the private and public
self-conscousness subscales, the "D" and "SN" scores of the Self-Focus
Sentence Completion Test, the Self-Focus Subscale of the SFSC, the
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the anger, depression, and anxiety
subscales. Table 14 presents the means for each of these scores and
subscales. No significant relationships were found between the eight
groups and the independent variables. The F-values for each of the ANOVAs
were as follows: 1) the D score of the SFSC (F^ (7,138)=0.76, jd <0.63);


Table 15
Correlation Matrix
Pearson Product Moment Correlations Between All Variables
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1)
D
.15
-.01
.75***
.38***
.02
.19*
.03
.01
.15
2.
Private
.24**
.05
.23**
.04
.13
.17
.02
.99***
3)
Public
.03
.06
.20*
-.01
.07
.02
.24**
4)
Self
-.08
-.17*
-.02
-.12
-.13
.05
5)
SN
.31***
.31***
.37***
.20*
.23**
6)
RSES
.23**
.32***
.14
.04
7)
Anxiety
.70***
.61***
.14
8)
Depression
.62***
.16*
9.
Anger
.02
10) CPrivate
Note: N = 150; D = The D Score Of The SFSC; Private = The Private Self-Consciousness
Subscale; Public = The Public Self-Consciousness Subscale; Self = Self-Focus
Subscale Of The SFSC; SN = The SN Score of the SFSC; RSES = The Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale; Anxiety = The Anxiety Subscale Of The POMS; Depression = The De
pression Subscale Of The POMS; Anger = The Anger Subscale Of The POMS; CPrivate =
The Corrected Private Self-Consciousness Subscale.
*p .05
**p .01
***p .001


-85-
v
Table 13
Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Egocentricity Index Groups as the Classificant
Egocentricity Index Self-Focus Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
Column Percent
11
45.83
46
46.00
16
61.54
Absent
Frequency
Column Percent
13
54.17
54
54.00
10
38.46
X2 = 2.09 £ <0.35
Egocentricity Index D score of the SFSC
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
Column Percent
10
38.46
53
51.46
10
47.62
Absent
Frequency
Column Percent
16
61.54
50
48.54
11
52.38
X2 = 1.41 £ <0.49
Egocentricity Index Private Self-
-Consciousness Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
Column Percent
10
47.62
49
48.04
14
51.85
Absent
Frequency
Column Percent
11
52.38
53
51.96
13
48.15
X2 = 0.14 £ <0.93


-101-
should not be interpreted to mean that individuals who verbalize this
response are not experiencing negative affect or poor self-regard. It
may be the case that if vista represents a defensive operation or
cognitive style it may remain relatively intact on self-report measures
as compared to when presented with the ambiguous and stressful stimuli of
the inkblot. This would account for the lack of relatedness found
between these measures and the vista response in the present study. It
should be noted that the interpretation of the vista response as a
cognitive style or defensive operation is speculative and was not tested
in the present study. However, it is not unlike that posited by Klopfer
et al. (1954).
The Egocentricity Index
Exner proposed that the egocentricity index represents a self-focus
ing process characteristic of egocentricity. In the present study, those
subjects who verbalized this type of response (present group) were com
pared to those who did not (absent group). The two groups were compared
on the basis of private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness,
affective state, self-focus, egocentricity (D score), and self-esteem
(RSES, SN score). A linear combination of these psychological variables
was able to disciminate between the two groups but the discrim ination
was not very clear. While there was a significant improvement in the
percent of subjects correctly classified using the linear combination of
these variables as compared to chance, the false positive and false
negative rates were relatively high. As such, it is unlikely that we
could expect very good discrimination using a new validation sample.


LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
14 Means for each of the Egocentricity Index, Form-
Dimensional and Vista Category Groups 88
15 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between
all Variables 90
-viii-


-2
Many of Rorschach's original postulates form the basis on which the
five Rorschach systems have been developed. However, each system differs
significantly from the others with respect to the administrative proce
dures, scoring, and the interpretative hypotheses that it generates.
These fundamental differences have made systematic research efforts of
the test difficult. For instance, researchers often fail to indicate
which system they are using and/or use more than one system when
conducting their studies. They also tend to interpret their results
under the assumption that they are valid across all systems regardless of
which system(s) was used in conducting the study. This practice
precludes the usefulness of their findings since the responses scored on
the basis of one system do not necessarily coincide with those scored by
the others due to their different scoring criteria. This, in turn,
affects the descriptive statements generated since each of the
systematizers offer interpretive hypotheses based on the scoring
categories that are specific to their system. This implies that many of
the interpretive hypotheses are specific to one particular system and do
not necessarily have an equivalent in the others.
Confusion has also found its way into clinical practice.
Practitioners are often faced with the problem of becoming proficient in
the use of one Rorschach system at the cost of disregarding what might be
worthwhile in another. Those clinicians with a knowledge of more than
one system may choose to disregard intersystem differences and intermix
them. Exner and Exner (1972) conducted a survey and found that
75 percent of those clinicians who score subjects' responses admitted
to intermixing the scores from different systems and/or adding


-27-
six, seven, and nine year old children but do occur with considerable fre
quency at the age of twelve. The frequency of these repsonses then de
clines as age increases.
A number of investigations were conducted to determine the psychologi
cal significance of this type of response. Exner (1974) evaluated the
Rorschach records of sixteen subjects who made suicide gestures within 55
days after testing, only two of which were successful. These subjects were
from a larger pool of 64 subjects diagnosed as suffering from reactive de
pression, neurotic depression, involutional reaction, or depressive psycho
sis. None of the subjects had a history of prior suicide attempts. A com
parison of the group of 16 patients who attempted suicide to the non
attempting group revealed that those who attempted suicide had significantly
more vista type responses. Both groups were found to give significantly
more vista responses than a randomly selected group of outpatients and
nonpatients. The results suggested that the vista response may be associa
ted with depressive features and the painful introspective process that is
common to these patients. This interpretation is not unlike that postulated
by Beck et al. (1961).
The vista response was also investigated in a study reviewed earlier
that examined the relationship between the introspective process and the FD
response (Exner, 1974). Subjects were divided into high and low groups
based on a median split of the number of FD responses and placed in waiting
groups. The high FD group was rated as making more self-focusing verbaliza
tions than the low FD group. It was also found that the high FD group gave
significantly more vista answers (X = 1.41) than the low FD group (X = 0.52).
Eighteen of the twenty high FD Rorschach records contained vista responses,
whereas these responses appeared in only seven of the 20 low FD protocols.


-10-
(Exner, 1974). It was reasoned that since outpatients are encouraged to
be introspective during therapy, and depressives, by definition, are
stimulated toward a form of introspection, the FD response may be re
lated to introspective activity. Exner has offered some tentative re
search looking at this relationship.
Exner (1974) cites three experiments that were conducted to evaluate
the hypothesis that the FD response is related to an introspective
activity. In the first study, a total of 495 Rorschach records were
collected from four groups of subjects: nonpsychiatric, outpatient
nonpsychotic, inpatient nonschizophrenic, and inpatient schizophrenic.
It was assumed that an introspective person would be more prone to
internalization and less prone toward affective display. Since the "M"
determinant is thought to reflect an internalization process and "C" a
proneness toward affective display, subjects were sorted into three
groups based on the number of these responses. Only two groups, sum M
greater than sum C and sum M less than sum C, were used to compare the
number of FD responses produced. It was found that the sum M greater
than sum C group gave a greater than average number of FD responses.
This provided some support for the notion that FD is related to
internalization. However, it may be the case that FD simply represents a
delay of affect. The question of introspectiveness per se had yet to be
addressed.
The second study was designed to further evaluate the process of
introspectiveness as related to the FD response. Forty subjects were
selected from a "waiting list" of a psychiatric facility and randomly
assigned to four equal groups. They were instructed that they would meet


-119-
Kohut, H. Forms and transformations of narcissism. Journal of the
American Psychoanalytic Association, 1966, J4^ 243-277.
Lorr, M., McNair, D.M., and Weinstein, G.J. Early effects of chlordia-
zepoxide (Librium) used with psychotherapy. Journal of Psychiatric
Research, 1964, 257-270.
Lorr, M., McNair, D.M., Weinstein, G.J., Michaux, W.W., and Raskin, A.
Meprobamate and chlorpromazine in psychotherapy. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 1961, A_, 381-389.
McNair, D.M., Goldstein, A.P., Lorr, M., Cibelli, L.A., and Roth, I.
Some effects of chlordiazepoxide and meprobamate with psychiatric
outpatients. Psychopharmacologia, 1965, 1_, 256-265.
McNair, D.M., Kahn, R.J., Droppleman, L.F., and Fisher, S. Compatibility
acquiescence and drug effects. Neuropsychopharmacology, 1967, _5,
536-542.
McNair, D.M., Kahn, R.J., Droppleman, L.F. and Fisher, S. Patient ac
quiescence and drug effects. In Rickels, K. (Ed.) Non-specific
factors in drug therapy. Springfield, Ill.: C.C. Thomas, 1968.
McNair, D.M., Lorr, M., and Droppleman, L.F. Profile of Mood States.
San Diego, California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service,
1971.
Mead, G.H. Mind, Self and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1934.
Meehl, P.E. Structured and projective tests: Some common problems in
validation. Journal of Projective Techniques, 1959, 22_, 268-272.
Nocks, J.J., and Bradley, D.L. Self-esteem in an alcoholic population.
Diseases of the Nervous System, 1969, ^0. 611-617.
Pillard, R.C., Atkinson, K.W., and Fisher, S. The effect of different
preparations on film-induced anxiety. The Psychological Record,
1967, V7, 35-41.
Pillard, R.C., and Fisher, S. Effects of chlordiazepoxide and secobar
bital on film-induced anxiety. Psychopharmacologia, 1967, _12^, 18-
23.
Pillard, R.C., and Fisher, S. Aspects of anxiety in dental clinic
patients. Journal of the American Dental Association, 1970, 80,
1331-1334.


-55-
Now I want to go back through the cards again. It will not
take very long. I will read what you told me that you saw
and then I want you to help me to see it as you did. In
other words, I want to know where you saw it, and what it
is there that makes it look like that, so that I can see
it just like you did. (Exner, 1974, p. 37)
All questions by the exmainer in the inquiry were those recommended by
Exner (1974): "I'm not sure I see it as you do" (p. 38), "Could you tell
me what makes it look like that to you" (p. 38), and "I'm not sure I know
where you see it" (p. 37).
All questions concerning the Rorschach were answered after the entire
experimental procedure was completed. If they asked what it was being
used for, they were informed:
This is another measure that we are using to find out
about college students' thoughts and feelings. Unlike
other tests, it does this in an indirect way.
After all the questionnaires had been completed and the Rorschach had
been administered, the subject was read a debriefing statement.
There has been no deception in this study. Your answers are
being used to collect normative data and to further validate
certain aspects of the Rorschach Inkblot Test. Thank you
very much for your cooperation and participation.
Interrater Reliability Of The Projective Instruments
Rorschach Inkblot Test
All 150 Rorschach protocols were scored by an expert Rorschach
examiner who was paid four dollars per protocol for his services.^ To
ensure a high consistency of scoring between subjects and to reduce halo
^"Expert" is being defined here as someone who has been instructed and
supervised in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of one
hundred or more Rorschach protocols in accordance with the guidelines
of Exner's Comprehensive System in a clinic or work-related area.


-18-
many pair and reflection responses. A comparison between groups on the D
score (self-focus score minus external-world focus score) was not
reported although this was designated as a criterion for narcissism in
the first study and egocentricity in a previously cited study investiga
ting the FD response (Exner, 1974). No control group was used to
determine if the frequency of the pair and reflection type responses
differed from a normal population. Nevertheless, these results were
considered by Exner to provide some support for the notion that the
reflection and pair responses represent a self-focusing process.
In one of the few studies that was proposed to study the pair and
reflection response to the process of egocentritity itself, Exner (1974)
administered several psychological tests, including the Rorschach, to 21
candidates applying for a junior engineering position. Prior to their
interview, each candidate was brought into an office which contained a
two-way mirror and candidly filmed for a ten minute interval. Trained
raters scored the film for the amount of time each candidate spent
viewing himself in a mirror. A median split was used to divide subjects
into high and low groups based on their mirror viewing time. Significant
differences were found between the groups on their Rorschach productions.
The subjects in the upper half group gave significantly more reflection
and pair responses than the lower group. It is not clear how egocentri
city is being defined here or whether it can be said to be represented
here at all.
In a separate paper, Exner also reported on the use of the Self-
Focus Sentence Completion Test to compare high and low mirror viewing
groups (Exner, 1973). The high mirror viewing group was found to score


-5 -
use his psychological resources and the behaviors which, in his judgment,
will produce the most acceptable response. From these responses,
descriptive statements can be made by the clinician that focus on such
features of the individual as response styles, affectivity, cognitive
operations, motivations, preoccupations, and interpersonal-interenviron-
mental perceptions and response tendencies (Exner, 1974).
To assist in making descriptive statements, each Rorschach system
has a scoring process that converts the individual's verbal responses
into a logical and systematic format so that they can be studied
individually and collectively. This provides the structural data whereas
the verbal responses provide the content data from which hypotheses are
generated. The current study was concerned only with the structural
data.
Rorschach (1921) originally devised a system of symbols and
abbreviations to code each verbal response into a language which
identifies its characteristics and components. His scheme for scoring
consisted of four basic categories: 1) Location (the area of the inkblot
where the response occurred); 2) Determinant(s) (the stimulus features of
the blot that contributed to the formation of the percept); 3) Content
(the content of the response); and 4) Popularity (whether the response is
common to the general population) (Exner, 1974). While all of the
systematizers have maintained this format in their respective systems,
Hertz (1940), Beck (1937), and Exner (1974) have each added a scoring
category designated as "Organizational Activity," to represent the extent
to which the individual has organized various features of the inkblot in
a meaningful way (Exner, 1974)


-52-
rooms were generally used for the purpose of conducting formal
psychological assessments while the fifth was used for conferences. It
was believed that this setting would provide a sense of authenticity. Each
room contained a table that provided ample room for both the examiner and
subject to sit side by side. Precautions were taken to cover all one-way
mirrors by drawing the curtains in those rooms that contained them. This
was done to avoid the possible reactive effects that mirrors have on
self-awareness (Duval and Wicklund, 1973), and the frequency of reflection
type responses given on the Rorschach (Exner, 1973).
Original Contact
Once a subject had signed up to participate in the study, he/she was
contacted by telephone and given directions to the clinic. He or she was
also informed which examiner would greet them. Each examiner had speci
fied certain hours of the day that they would be available for testing
subjects. These hours were posted on the sign-up sheet. Subjects were
therefore assigned to the examiner whose time slot they had endorsed.
Assignment to Groups
All subjects were tested individually. They were randomly assigned
to one of two groups based on the order of test presentation. Half of the
subjects completed the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the RSES, the
POMS, and the Self-Consciousness Questionnaire prior to having the
Rorschach administered to them. The other half completed these question
naires following the administration of the Rorschach. Subjects were
divided into these two groups to test for possible ordering effects and
the reactivity of self-focus on the frequency and type of Rorschach
responses given in the subsequent analyses


-37-
Assessment Instruments
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test
Questionnaire format and scoring
This questionnaire was first developed by Watson (1965) as an operational
criterion of narcissism. Sentence completion responses were scored for three
categories: 1) narcissistic fantasy; 2) real world anchorage; and 3) object
cathexis. Exner (1973) observed that the majority of items used by Dr. Watson
to discriminate high and low narcissistic individuals from a larger popula
tion contained self-reference statements (i.e., I, me, or my). He subsequent
ly consulted with Dr. Watson to develop a new sentence completion blank which
he termed the Self-Focused Sentence Completion Test (SFSC), (Exner, 1973).
The present format of the SFSC uses thirty of the original forty-five
sentence stems (see Exner, 1973). The subject is instructed to complete each
sentence so that it expresses a complete thought. Responses are judged on a
"yes-no" basis to meet the scoring criteria of one of four mutually exclusive
categories. The self-focus category (S) designates those responses that
clearly focus on the self with little or no regard for the external world.
The external-world focus category (E) designates those responses which clear
ly manifest concern for real things or people. The ambivalence response cate
gory (A) denotes those sentences which clearly contain both self-focused and
external-world focused statements, either of which could be scored separately.
A neutral response category (0) designates those responses which do not meet
any of the above criteria.
Scores are obtained for each of the scales by simply counting the number
of responses judged to be representative of each category. Sample responses
are provided in the manual for scoring. Normative data are provided for male


-12-
Focus subscale score, and 3) a D score representing the difference
between them. Using this latter score to compare groups, it was found
that the high FD group was slightly more oriented toward the external
world than the lower FD group. Exner concluded that this would seem to
eliminate the possibility that the verbalizations of this group were
simply manifestations of egocentricity. No comparison of the groups on
the basis of the self-focus subscale score was reported. The reader is
left wondering if the high FD group endorsed more self-focusing item
stems than the low FD group. No interpretation was offered to account
for the results of the low FD group. Based on the author's criteria, it
would appear that these individuals are more egocentric than the high FD
group. Once again, comparisons to a control group were not reported.
Working from the conclusion that the FD response represents a pro
cess different from egocentricity, Exner next tested its relationship to
introspection per se. It was decided to study this relationship within
the context of psychotherapy. It was assumed that subjects who are
trained to examine themselves during the early stages of treatment would
be more introspective and give a greater than average number of FD
responses. The Rorschach was administered to fifteen nonpsychotic
patients at the onset of individual psychotherapy, the tenth treatment
session, and termination. The mean number of FD responses given at these
times was .06, with a range of 0 to 4; 3.11, with a range from 0 to 6;
and 1.24, with a range of 0 to 3; respectively. It was believed that
these results provided some evidence that the FD type response is related
to a psychological activity involving self-inspection or examination or
at least self-awareness.


-70-
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations of the Vista Groups
Vista = Present
Variable
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
D score of the SFSC
51
16.02
5.15
Self-Focus Subscale
51
9.43
2.71
SN score of the SFSC
51
4.35
2.63
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
51
17.20
4.56
Private Self-Consciousness
51
26.61
4.85
Public Self-Consciousness
51
19.59
4.30
Anxiety Subscale
51
50.10
8.75
Depression Subscale
51
48.12
8.01
Anger Subscale
51
48.94
8.39
Vista = Absent
D score of the SFSC
99
15.75
6.21
Self-Focus Subscale
99
9.76
3.40
SN score of the SFSC
99
3.99
2.18
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
99
17.17
4.37
Private Self-Consciousness
99
25.92
5.16
Public Self-Consciousness
99
19.27
4.53
Anxiety Subscale
99
49.75
10.39
Depression Subscale
99
47.47
8.34
Anger Subscale
99
49.51
9.96


-74-
subject groups for each of the independent variables were created in the
manner explained earlier and compared to the vista groups. The analyses
did not yield significant results (Table 8).
The Egocentricity Index
Exner postulated that the egocentricity index reflects a self-focus
ing process. To test this hypothesis and to determine if self-esteem
and/or an affective state is also related to the egocentricity index, a
discriminant analysis was conducted followed by a backward stepwise lo
gistical analysis. The egocentricity index was dichotomized in the manner
described for the form-dimensional response and acted as the dependent
variable for these analyses. The mean was found to be 0.39 and the sub
jects were grouped accordingly (present n=73, absent n=77). The inde
pendent variables for these analyses were the private and public self-
consciousness subscale scores, the self-focus subscale, the "D" and "SN"
scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the Rosenberg Self-
Esteem Scale, and the anxiety, and depression subscale scores.
Table 9 presents the means and standard deviations for each of the in
dependent variables entered into the analyses.
Discriminant function analysis
The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that
there was considerable overlap between the present and absent egocentri
city index populations with respect to the independent variables.
However, the linear combination of these variables was able to discrimi
nate between these two populations (Table 10).


-102-
Subsequently, each variable was compared independently to the two
egocentricity groups. Exner (1969) found that subjects who verbalized a
high frequency of egocentricity index type responses have a greater
tendency to focus on themselves at the expense of the external world and
are more egocentric than those subjects who verbalize a low frequency.
This finding was not replicated in the present study. Neither a linear
nor a nonlinear relationship was found between the D score of the SFSC
and the egocentricity index groups. Exner (1973) also found that
subjects with high egocentricity index scores are more self-focused than
subjects with low scores. No relationship was found between self-focus
and the egocentricity groups as measured in the present study. The pre
diction that those subjects in the present group would be more attentive
to their inner thoughts and feelings than those in the absent group was
not confirmed. No relationship was found between private self-conscious
ness and the egocentricity groups as measured. A curvilinear relation
ship was found between public self-consciousness and the egocentricity
index groups. Subjects in both the absent and present groups tended to
be either very aware of themselves in relation to others or very unaware
of their effect on others as a social object.
It was hypothesized that low self-esteem would predict to subjects
in the absent and present egocentricity groups. While no relationship
was found for the RSES, a significant relationship was found between the
SN score and the egocentricity index groups. Those subjects in the
present group endorsed a greater number of negative self-statements than
the absent group.
The mood states of anxiety, anger, and depression as measured by the
Profile of Mood States were used to examine the discriminant validity of


-83-
Analysis of variance
As an alternate method of testing for differences between the two
groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted to compare the egocen-
tricity index categories with respect to the mean scores of each sub
scale. The aforementioned nine independent variables now acted as the
dependent variables and the dichotomized egocentricity index acted as the
independent variable. No significant results were found for the D score
of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (I? (1,148)=0.76, £ <0.38), the
private self-consciousness subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.02, £ <0.89), the public
self-consciousness subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.01, £ <0.96, the anxiety
subscale (JF (1,148)=0.02, £ <0.89), the depression subscale (IT
(1,148)=0.01, £ <0.92), the self-focus subscale (F^ (1,148) = 1.56, £ <.21),
the SN score of the SFSC (F^ (1,148)=3.54, £ <.06) and the anger subscale
(F (1,148)=2.83, £ <0.09).
Chi-square analyses
A series of Chi-Square analyses was conducted to test whether the
frequencies observed were different from that predicted by chance. Three
subject groups for each of the independent variables were created on the
basis of their scores on each of the aforementioned subscales. High and
low population groups were defined by those subjects who scored either
one standard deviation above or below the subscale means obtained from
our sample. Those subjects whose scores fell within one standard devia
tion of the mean were considered to represent an intermediate group. The
Chi-Square analyses compared the three groups for each subscale to the
egocentricity index categories. The analyses did not yield significant
results for the self-focus subscale, the D score of the Self-Focus Sen
tence Completion Test, the private self-consciousness subscale, the


-58-
the anger, anxiety and depression subscale scores; and the RSES. It was
predicted that a high D score as well as high scores on the self-focusing
and the private and public self-consciousness subscales would be predicted
to a high frequency of the egocentricity index. No relationship between
the egocentricity index and the different mood subscale scores was ex
pected to be found. It was expected that both a high score on the RSES
(low self-esteem) and SN subscale would predict to both a high and low
frequency of the egocentricity index.
The vista response is proposed to represent a painful introspective
process that is associated with depressive features and a displeasure for
what one sees. To test this hypothesis controlling for other variables, a
stepwise discriminant analysis was conducted. The vista response was
dichotomized into a high and low frequency group in the manner described
for the FD response and acted as dependent variable. The independent
variables were the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores;
the SN, and the self-focusing subscale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence
Completion Test; the anger, anxiety, and depression subscale scores; and
the RSES. It was expected that high scores on all of these variables would
be predicted to a high frequency of the vista type response. A significant
relationship was not expected to be found between the D score of the SFSC
and the vista response.
In addition to the planned analyses noted earlier, one additional
post hoc analysis was also conducted. "Pathological" groups were created
by dividing subjects into high and low groups based on their scores fall
ing one standard deviation above and below the means provided for each
questionnarie and subscale. The frequency of occurrence of the egocentri
city index, the form-dimensional, and vita type respones for these groups


-71-
Table 6
Summary of the Vista Groups Classification
by the Discriminant Function Analysis
Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Vista Groups
Vista
Present
Absent
Total
Present
28
54.90
23
45.10
51
100.00
Absent
13
13.13
86
86.87
99
100.00
Total
41
109
150
Percent
27.33
72.67
100.00
Prior Probability
0.34
0.66
Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.87
Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.28
Total Correct Classification = 0.73
Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability =
False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) =
False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were presnt) =
0.55
0.32
0.21


-20-
protocols of children ages five through eight. The proportion of
Rorschach protocols containing reflections begins to diminish at age
nine. However, fifteen-year olds give a large proportion of these
responses. The pair responses were found to occur in the protocols of
children at every age group. With the exception of the children at the
five year age level, no statistically significant differences for the
mean number of pair responses given were found between age groups. The
3r + (2)/R index was found to decline consistently as age increases
(Exner and Weiner, 1982).
Exner, Kuhn, Schumacher and Fishman (1975) examined the relationship
between the egocentricity index and the field dependence-independence
phenomenon or locus of control (I-E) variable. A rod and frame apparatus
was used to measure field dependence and Rotter's I-E scale to measure
locus of control. The subjects were 38 patients and 32 nonpatients.
Rank order correlations were used to test the relationship. A low
positive, but not significant relationship was found between locus of
control and the egocentricity index. The finding was the same for the
relationship between field dependence-independence and the egocentricity
index.
Exner and Weiner (1982) introduced a special Rorschach scoring
category, "Personal (PER), to designate reference to personal knowledge
or experience in direct relation to a response. "Ordinarily, the
personal pronouns I, me, my, or we will be present in the PER response,
but it is not sufficient to justify the scoring. Rather the verbaliza
tion to be scored implies a clear justification to the percept" (p. 321).
Exner and Weiner (1982) selected a group of 20 subjects from a pool
of 225 college students based on their responses to the Geough Adjective


-97 -
individuals who tend to be cognitively flexible but affectively con
stricted and who tend to cope with emotional experiences by distancing
themselves from them by intellectual operations, only one of which might
be introspective in nature.
The Vista Scoring Category
Exner proposed that the vista response represents a painful intro
spective process that is associated with depressive features and a dis
pleasure for what one sees. In the present study, those subjects who
verbalized this type of response (present group) were compared to those
who did not (absent group). The two groups were compared on the basis
of private self-consciousness, public self-consciousness, affective
state, self-focus, egocentricity (D score), and self-esteem (RSES and SN
score). A linear combination of these psychological variables was not
significantly related to and was unable to discriminate between or
classify subjects into these groups. While there was an improvement in
the percent of subjects correctly classified using the linear combina
tion of these variables as compared to chance, the improvement in classi
fication was attributable mostly to the prior probability of classifica
tion favoring the absent group and the use of a relatively nonstringent
criteria for testing the equality of the two groups.
The relationship of each variable to the vista groups was subse
quently considered independently. The introspective process hypothesized
to be embodied in this response was investigated in relation to private
and public self-consciousness, self-focus, and egocentricity. Neither a
significant linear nor a nonlinear relationship was found between each of
these variables and the two vista groups as measured.


-11-
in "holding groups" to initiate their treatment plans and goals prior to
being assigned to an individual therapist. During these meetings,
trained observers scored the verbalizations of each subject to determine
if they were directed toward the "self" or others and whether their
statements pertained to past, present, or future. Rorschachs were given
to all subjects prior to their first group meeting. They were then
assigned to either an "upper" or "lower" group based on a median split of
the total number of FD responses given. It was assumed that more intro
spective subjects would make statements that focused more on themselves
than others. A comparison of the two groups found that the upper FD
group gave significantly more "self" verbalizations during the first
three group sessions. A comparison of the number of statements made
directed towards others was not reported. Although it was predicted
that more introspective individuals would be more concerned with the
present than with the past or future, no differences were found between
groups on these variables. The only clear result of this study was that
high FD individuals made more self-referenced statements than individuals
who gave a fewer number of FD responses. No control group was used to
compare these results to a group of individuals who gave an average
number of FD responses.
It was next decided to test whether the self-oriented responses
given by the "high" FD group were a manifestation of egocentricity rather
than self-examination. To rule out this possibility, subjects were also
administered a Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (Exner, 1973) as an
index for measuring egocentricity. Three subscale scores can be obtained
from this test: 1) the Self-Focus subscale score, 2) the External-World


-115-
Signature of Child (7 to 17 yrs. of age)
Date
Signature of Witness
Date


A CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE
EGOCENTRICITY INDEX AND THE
FORM-DIMENSIONAL AND VISTA TYPE
RESPONSES OF EXNER'S COMPREHENSIVE
RORSCHACH SYSTEM
By
MICHAEL ANDREW UNGER
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
1985


-53-
Experimental Session
Upon their arrival in the testing room each subject was seated and
presented with an informed consent form to review and sign (Appendix F).
Once he/she agreed to participate in the study, he/she was then read the
following statement:
You are currently participating in an experiment designed
to collect normative data on University of Florida stu
dents for a number of psychological tests. Your responses
will not be examined individually but, instead, will be
pooled with other subject data. It is important that you
respond as accurately and honestly as possible to ensure
that the normative information is, in fact, representative
of University of Florida students. The data will also be
used to further validate certain aspects of the Rorschach
Inkblot Test which will also be administered to you. If
you should have any questions at any time during the pro
cedure, feel free to ask them.
These instructions were given in accordance with a procedure sug
gested by Wylie (1974) to reduce social desirability and elicit a genuine
response set from the subject on self-report tests by depersonalizing the
situation.
Prior to meeting the subject, each examiner was given a packet by the
author containing all testing materials. The subject was read the pre
ceding instructions and then administered the tests in the order that they
were presented in the packet. All tests were self-explanatory and self-
administered except the Rorschach. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion
Test depicted the following instructions:
Listed below you will find thirty incomplete sentences.
Please complete each sentence so that it expresses a com
plete thought. There are no right or wrong answers for
this test.
The instructions of the Self-Consciousness Questionnaire were as follows:
The following statements reflect thoughts that students
have. Next to each statement is a rating scale that


-67-
analyses compared the three groups for each subscale to the dichotomized
form-dimensional groups. The analyses did not yield significant results
(Table 4).
The Vista Response
The vista Rorschach response is proposed to represent a painful in
trospective process that is associated with depressive features and a
displeasure for what one sees. To test this hypothesis, a discriminant
analysis was conducted followed by a stepwise discriminant analysis. For
these analyses, the vista response was dichotomized in the same manner as
the form-dimensional response and acted as the dependent variable. The
mean was found to be 0.48 and the subjects were categorized accordingly
(present n=51, absent n=99). The independent variables for both analyses
were the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores, the "D"
and SN" scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the self
focus subscale score of the SFSC, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and
the anxiety, depression, and anger subscale scores. Table 5 presents
the means and standard deviations for each of these variables.
Discriminant function analysis
The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that
there was a great deal of overlap between the present and absent vista
groups with respect to the independent variables. The linear combination
of the independent variables was unable to discriminate between these two
populations (Table 6).
Stepwise discriminant function analysis
The next analysis tested the relationship of each independent vari
able as it individually related to the vista categories. Testing at the
1 significance level, the assumption of equal covariance matrixes could


-42-
their replication of the original study. In each study, a factor analysis
yielded the same three factors and the same correlation pattern between
the subscales. Public self-consciousness correlated moderately with both
private self-consciousness (0.23) and social anxiety (0.21). Both the
German (Heineman, 1979) and Dutch (Vleeming and Engelse, 1981) replica
tions found that certain items (2, 6, 7, 8, and 22) loaded on factors
other than were intended. It is not sure whether this finding was due to
the translation of the items into a different language.
Discriminant validity for the self-consciousness scale has been pro
vided by Carver and Glass (1976). These authors correlated the private
and public self-consciousness subscales to variables that were thought to
potentially influence these variables. The subscales were tested in
relation to intelligence, the need for achievement, test anxiety, activity
level, and sociability. The private and public self-consciousness sub
scales were found to be relatively free from associations with these other
variables.
A number of studies have also been conducted to investigate the
concurrent validity of the self-consciouosness scale. Women who obtained
high scores on the public self-consciousness subscale were found to be
more sensitive to rejection by a peer group, as measured by their
subsequent attraction toward the group and willingness to reaffiliate
with it, than were women who obtained low scores on this subscale
(Fenigstein, 1974). Turner, Carver, Scheier, and Ickes (1978) found
significant correlations between private self-consciousness and the
Guilford Zimmerman Thoughtful-ness Scale and the Pavio Imagery Scale.
They also found that each self-consciousness subscale correlated


-89-
2) the private self-consciousness subscale (F^ (7,138)=0.61, p <0.75); 3)
the public self-consciousness subscale (I[ (7,138)=1.20, p <0.31); 4) the
self-focus subscale of the SFSC (F^ (7,138)=1.64, p <0.13); 5) the SN
score of the SFSC (F (7,138)=1.28, p <0.27); 6) the RSES (F (7,138)=1.33,
p <0.24); 7) the anxiety subscale (F^ (7,138)=0.50, p <0.84; 8) the
depression subscale (F^ (7,138)=0.57, p <0.78); and 9) the anger subscale
(F (7,138)= 0.76, p <0.63).
Correlation Matrix
A Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was computed to investi
gate the relationships among the different questionnaires and subscales
(Table 15). Some of the correlations were of particular interest to the
study and are reported below.
Self-Esteem
A significant relationship was found between the "SN" score of the
Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(jr=.31, p <.001). These variables were also found to be significantly
related to the following subscales: 1) the anxiety subscale (r=.31, p <
.001), (for SN), (r=.23, p <.004), (for RSES); 2) the depression subscale
(r=.37, p <.001), (for SN), (r=.32, p <.001), (for RSES); 3) the anger
subscale (r=.20, p <.02) (for SN).
Self-Focus
A relationship was found for the "D" score of the Self-Focus
Sentence Completion Test and the following variables: 1) the private self-
consciousness subscale (r=.15, p <.06); 2) the self-focus subscale of the


-22-
(1978) stated that "although the egocentricity index is essentially
related to a self-focusing process, the issue of self-esteem is also
probably manifest, at least when the index is low" (p. 71). This state
ment was based on the relatively high frequency of depressed subjects
and suicide prone patients who give a low index. Exner (1978) cautions,
however, that a high egocentricity index should not be interpreted to
indicate a form of "self-glorification." An excessive self-focus may be
related to low self-esteem and serve as a defense against feelings of poor
self-worth. In fact, higher than average egocentricity indices occur in the
Rorschach records of one in every five effective suicide cases.
A number of studies have looked at the relationship between the
egocentricity index (and its constituents) and psychopathology. Exner
(1974) studied three psychiatric groups: 75 inpatient schizophrenics, 74
inpatient depressive reactions, and 31 inpatient character disorders.
Three psychologists or psychiatrists used the Inpatient Multidimensional
Psychiatric Scale and a "significant other" used the Katz Adjustment
Scale-Form R to evaluate subjects pre- and posttreatment. Subjects were
divided into those who had changed significantly and those who did not
change significantly. The findings showed that improved schizophrenics
and character disorders, as a group, gave significantly fewer reflection
responses at posttreatment. In contrast, the depressives gave a greater
number of these responses at posttreatment as compared to pretreatment.
No differences were found for the number of reflection responses given
pre- and posttreatment by the unimproved group. With respect to pairs,
the improved schizophrenics gave significantly fewer of these responses
at posttreatment, the improved depressives gave significantly more, and


-112-
4. PROCEDURES FOR THIS RESEARCH
As a participant of this research project, you will be asked to complete
four questionnaires designed to reflect thoughts and feelings that
college students have. In addition, you will also be administered the
Rorschach Inkblot Test which is a test that is also designed to assess
students' thoughts and feelings in a less direct manner. The total
duration of this procedure will be two hours.
5. POTENTIAL RISKS OR DISCOMFORTS
There are no known risks associated with the procedure and measures
employed in the present study.


APPENDIX
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH
J. HILLIS MILLER HEALTH CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA 32610
You are being asked to volunteer as a participant in a research study.
This form is designed to provide you with information about this study and
to answer any of your questions.
1.TITLE OF RESEARCH STUDY
A Normative Study of Several Self-Report Personality Measures Among
College Graduate and Undergraduate Students
2.PROJECT DIRECTOR
Name: Michael Unger, M.A.
Telephone Number: 392-4551
3.THE PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH
The purpose of the research is to collect data on University of Florida
students on a number of psychological tests. These tests are widely
used and are well researched. They are designed to examine the way
college students think and feel. This data will then be compared to
certain scoring categories on the Rorschach Inkblot test to help further
examine the validity of this instrument.
-111-


-82-
Table 12
Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the D and SN Scores of the
SFSC and the Anger Subscale
Predicted
Absent
Absent 46
True
Present
33
Present Total
27 73
40 73
Total
79
67
146
Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.55
Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.63
Total Correct Classification = 0.59
False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = .40
False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were present) = .42


-103-
the egocentricity index. No relationship between the egocentricity index
and the different mood subscale scores was expected to be found. This
prediction was confirmed for the mood states of depression and anxiety.
However, a significant relationship was found between the mood state of
anger and the egocentricity index groups. Subjects in the absent group
endorsed feeling angrier than those subjects in the present group.
Anger, egocentricity (D score), and self-esteem (SN score), were
found to be the best predictor variables for classifying subjects into
the two egocentricity groups and for differentiating between them.
However, a linear combination of these variables was able to correctly
classify only sixty percent of the subjects. Thus, the relationship is a
weak one and using these variables to assign subjects to the two
egocentricity groups would probably not result in a high percent of
correct classifications using a new subject sample.
In testing the construct validity of the egocentricity index,
efforts were made to replicate Exner's earlier findings by using the sub
scale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (Exner, 1969,
1973). The present study did not find a significant relationship between
either self-focus or egocentricity and the pair-reflection index. There
are a number of possible explanations for these findings. First, Exner
employed t-tests whereas more sophisticated analyses that controlled for
the intercorrelations among variables were used in the current study. It
is possible that Exner's results were due to the finding of a spurious
significant relationship. It should also be noted that Exner did not
develop the formula for the pair-reflection index at the time that these
studies were conducted. The pair and reflection responses were investi
gated separately. The results of the present study suggest that some


-50-
depth or dimensionality based on the light-dark features of the blot. The
pure vista response (V) is scored when the subject's response involved
"depth or dimensionality based exclusively on the shading characteristics
of the inkblot, with no form involvement" (Exner, 1974, p. 92). The vista-
form response (VF) is scored when the response includes a "primary empha
sis on the shading features to represent depth or dimensionality" and in
corporates "the form features of the blot for clarification and/or ela
boration (Exner, 1974, p. 92). The form-vista response (FV) is scored
when the subject "uses form as the primary feature and the shading
component is used to represent depth or dimensionality for purposes of
clarification and/or elaboration" (Exner, 1974, p. 92). Normative data
for adult nonpatients plus four psychiatric groups are provided for the
egocentricity index, the form-dimensional, and the vista type responses
(Exner, 1978).
Reliability studies
Some studies that examined the test-retest reliability of the ego
centricity index and the vista response are available. In each of these
studies the vista response has been combined with all of the shading
determinants to form one category (SH). Exner, Leura, Armbruster, and
Viglione (1977) conducted a test-retest study using 100 nonpatient adults
to determine the temporal consistency of the structural data over a three
year period. Correlations for SH and the egocentricity index were r=0.66
and r=0.87, respectively. While it would appear that the egocentricity
index was relatively stable over time, the shading scores seemed to follow
a more transient pattern. Similar findings were also found for 25
volunteer nonpatients retested after one week (Exner and Bryant, 1974).


-43-
significantly with the self-monitoring scale. Scheier, Fenigstein, and
Buss (1974) divided subjects into high and low groups on the basis of
their private self-consciousness subscale scores. Subjects in the high
group were more aware of their internal affective state and became more
aggressive following provocation by an angry investigator. Buss and
Scheirer (1976) demonstrated that individuals who obtain a high score on
the private self-consciousness subscale make more self-attributions than
individuals who obtain low scores on this scale.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Questionnaire format and scoring
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) was developed as a measure
of global self-regard (Rosenberg, 1965). In constructing the scale,
Rosenberg (1965) was guided by the following practical and theoretical
considerations: (1) the ease of administration, 2) economy of time, 3)
unidimensionality (be able to rank people along a continuum), and 4) face
validity. A Guttman scale procedure was used to ensure that the last two
considerations were adequately met. Positive and negative items were
presented alternatively to reduce the effect of a response set (see
Rosenberg, 1965).
The RSES consists of ten items that are rated on a four-point Likert-
type scale. A scoring procedure designed by Rios-Garcia and Cook (1975)
will be employed as it is less complicated and more easily interpretable
than that proposed by Rosenberg (1965). The scale is scored by sub
tracting the sum of those items reflecting poor self-regard from those
items reflecting self-satisfaction. A constant of twenty-five is then
added to this score. The higher the score, the lower the self-esteem.


-31-
psycho logical processes each of these categories represent and has conducted
and cited a number of studies that test these hypotheses. The FD response has
been proposed to reflect a nonemotional introspective process. The basis for
this hypothesis resulted from observations of the frequency of these responses
given by various patient populations. The studies that were conducted to
explore this hypothesis did so by relating the frequency of FD responses to
indices of affective delay, the tendency to verbalize self-focused
statements, an egocentricity questionnaire, and the psychotherapeutic process.
A number of these studies did not include a control group. None of the studies
tested directly whether an affective component contributed to the variance of
this response or whether subjects who give a greater than average frequency of
these responses are indeed more aware of their own thoughts and feelings.
The egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R) was hypothesized to represent a
self-focusing process characteristic of egocentricity. The pair and reflec
tion responses were first studied in relation to patient populations that were
thought, in theory, to be narcissistic. They were also studied in relation to
subjects who attained high and low scores on a pen and pencil test of narcis
sism (Watson, 1965), modified by Exner (1973). Exner decided that the concept
of narcissism was too complex and the data were subsequently interpreted as re
flecting a self-focusing process or egocentricity. These determinants were
then studied in relation to time spent viewing oneself in a mirror. Although
the author concluded that reflection and pair responses represent a self-
focusing process, they did not adequately demonstrate that this self-focusing
process is at the expense of a concern for, or awareness of, others which the
concept of egocentricity implies. Similarly, it is not clear how self-focus
ing is defined. One is not sure whether it entails a focus on one's appear
ance, one's thoughts and feelings, or one's self in relation to others.


-19-
significantly higher on the self-focus subscale than the low mirror
viewing group. The relationship between these variables with the number
of reflection and pair responses produced was not reported. Based on
other findings (Exner, 1974), it may be inferred that those subjects
who stared in the mirror for a greater length of time, and gave more
self-focused responses, would give more reflection and pair-type
responses than those individuals who spent little time looking in the
mirror. This is only an inference, and it is surprising that Exner did
not report on this relationship as supporting or contradicting his
hypothesis.
Raychauduri and Mukerji (1971) found that reflection responses
appear very infrequently among adult protocols except for those indivi
duals with serious sex role confusion, those who are prone to antisocial
behavior, and schizophrenics. They conclude that the reflection response
is a "primitive" form of self-centeredness.
Based on the findings of the above studies, Exner (1974) proposed
that reflection and pair responses are related to an egocentric or self-
focusing process. He then developed an egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R)
to designate self-concern. It was decided to multiply the number of
reflection responses by three because of the relative infrequency with
which it occurs in all populations. For nonpatients this ratio ranges
from 0.25 to 0.40 responses per protocol. A number of studies were sub
sequently carried out to determine the validity of the egocentricity
index. One such study was based on the assumption that children are very
self-centered, especially during the early developmental years. Exner
and Weiner (1982) found that reflection responses appear in half of the


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
A CONSTRUCT VALIDATION OF THE
EGOCENTRICITY INDEX AND THE
FORM-DIMENSIONAL AND VISTA TYPE
RESPONSES OF EXNER'S COMPREHENSIVE
RORSCHACH SYSTEM
By
Michael Andrew Unger
August 1985
Chairman: Eileen Fennell
Major Department: Clinical Psychology
The Rorschach Inkblot Test has stimulated great interest, extensive
use, and a considerable amount of research. A number of Rorschach sys
tems have been developed with respect to administrative procedures, scor
ing criteria, and the interpretive hypotheses that they generate. The
present study focused on the Comprehensive Rorschach System developed by
Exner. Specifically, three scoring categories (determinants) introduced
by Exner were examined. The validity of these determinants was examined
by evaluating the extent or degree that they individually and/or collec
tively measure the construct or psychological process that they hypothe
tically represent.
The three scoring categories that were explored are those that de
signate the form-dimensional response, the vista response, and the
-ix-


-120-
Piotrowski, Z. Perceptanalysis. New York: Macmillan Company, 1957.
Rado, S. The Problem of Melancholia. In Rado, S. Collected Papers,
Volume I. New York: Grue and Stratton, 1956. (originally 1927).
Rapaport, D., Gill, M., and Schafer, R. Diagnostic Psychological Test
ing Volume 2. Chicago: Yearbook Publishers, 1946.
Raychaudhuri, M., and Mukerji, K. Homosexual-narcissistic "reflections"
in the Rorschach: An examination of Exner's diagnostic Rorschach
signs. Rorschachiana Japnica, 1971, 12, 119-126.
Rios-Garcia, L.R., and Cook, P.E. Self-derogation and defense style in
college students. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39,
273-281.
Rorschach, H. Psychodiagnostics. Bern: Bircher, 1921.
Rorschach, H., and Oberholzer, E. The application of the form interpre
tation test. Zeitschrift fur die Gesamte Neurologie und Psychia-
trie, 82, 1923.
Rosenberg, M. Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton, New
Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1965.
Schier, M.S., Fenigstein, A., and Buss, A.H. Self-awareness and physical
aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1974, 10
264-273.
Schulman, I. The relation between perception of movement on the
Rorschach Test and levels of conceptualization. Unpublished doc
toral dissertation, New York University, 1953.
Silber, E., and Tippett, J.S. Self-esteem: Clinical assessment and mea
surement validation. Psychological Reports, 1965, _16y 1,017-1,071.
Turner, R.G., Carver, C.S., Scheier, M.F., and Ickes, W. Correlates of
self-consciousness. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1978, 42,
285-289.
Vleeming, R.G., and Engelse, J.A. Assessment of private and public self-
consciousness: A Dutch replication. Journal of Personality Assess
ment, 1981, 41, 385-389.
Watson, A. Objects and Objectivity: A study in the relationship between
narcissism and intellectual subjectivity. Unpublished doctoral dis
sertation, University of Chicago, 1965.
Wylie, R. The present status of self-theory. In Borgatta, E.F. and
Lambert, W.W. (Eds.) Handbook of personality theory and research.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1974.


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3 1262 08554 4129


-4
conducting research related to the Rorschach if it is to yield clinically
useful information. The current study was conducted in an effort to
further establish the construct validity of certain aspects of the Com
prehensive Rorschach System. Specifically, three scoring categories
(determinants), introduced by Exner (1974), were examined. The extent or
degree that these determinants individually and/or collectively measure
the psychological construct or process that they hypothetically represent
was evaluated.
The Rorschach Test
The data of the Rorschach is a verbal report from the subject of
what he has seen or imagined when confronted with the ten ambiguous
inkblots (Exner, 1974). Exner (1978) has hypothesized that there are at
least four interrelated processes involved in each verbal response given
by the subject. First, the subject must acknowledge that the task is to
see something other than an inkblot and to categorize the many objects
which the inkblots or its parts might resemble. Second, the subject rank
orders the possible responses that he has detected. This process is
influenced by the individual's concern for perceptual accuracy, needs,
and internal sets. These needs and internal sets may be integral parts
of the individual's personality structure, manifest in the form of his
basic response style, or be more situational and transitory. Third, the
subject must feel or believe that his response will be acceptable. The
last factor hypothesized to influence subject's response is the manner by
which he verbally articulates his answer.
There are few rules and limited structure provided by the Rorschach
test for the individual to use to guide his behavior. He is forced to


CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The Rorschach is a test that has stimulated great interest, exten
sive use, and a considerable amount of research. First introduced in a
posthumously published monograph (Rorschach, 1921), the Rorschach has
since become an important instrument for the assessment of personality.
The test consists of ten inkblots, and subjects are required to verba-
alize what they perceive them to represent.
Rorschach himself only studied the inkblots for a brief period of
time prior to his premature death. He offered a variety of postulates
concerning the specific features of the test, but did not formulate a
global theory (Rorschach, 1921). This challenge was accepted by Beck,
Beck, Levitt, and Molish (1961), Hertz (1951), Klopfer, Ainsworth,
Klopfer and Holt (1954), Piotrowski (1957), and Rapaport, Gill, and
Schafer (1946), each of whom developed his own Rorschach system. The
five Rorschach systems all focus on the verbalizations of the subjects
whether generated during the free association or the inquiry as their
basic data. These are always interpreted regardless of the system
employed. In addition, all of the systematizers emphasize a global
approach to the interpretation of the test and require that all of the
data be integrated before drawing conclusions. Hypotheses are formulated
and either accepted or rejected on the basis of both the structural and
content components of the protocol.
-1-


-33-
whether an affective variable contributes to the variance of the vista
response. It is not clear how Exner and Weiner (1982) conclude that the
individual who gives a high frequency of vista responses does not like what he
sees. It could then be asked whether the subject's self-esteem influences the
frequency with which this variable occurs.
It is clear that a number of questions remain unanswered concerning the
construct validity of the FD, vista, and the egocentricity index. The current
study was conducted to answer some of these questions in an effort to further
examine the psychological processes represented by these variables. A
non-patient population of subjects was used in order to control for the
influence that pathology may have. Four questionnaires were used that were
thought to represent the psychological processes hypothesized by Exner to be
reflected by each Rorschach variable. A series of stepwise discriminant
analyses were used to assess the relationship between the probability of a
high or low frequency of each of the three Rorschach variables and scores
obtained on the questionnaires.
Hypotheses
One hypothesis of the study was that those individuals who tend to be
more self-centered than other-centered would show a low frequency of form
dimensional and vista responses and a high frequency of egocentricity
index type responses on the Rorschach. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion
Test (Exner, 1973) was used to assess the subject's tendency to be
self-centered or other-centered (see method section).
A second hypothesis of the study was that those individuals with high
depression, anxiety, and anger subscale scores would show a high frequency


TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
CHAPTER Page
III RESULTS 60
Evaluation of Possible Examiner and Test
Order Influences .............. 60
Interrater Reliability 61
The Rorschach Inkblot Test 61
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test 61
Evaluation of the Hypotheses 61
The Form-Dimensional Response 61
The Vista Response 67
The Egocentricity Index ..... 74
Further Exploration of the Egocentricity Index,
Form-Dimensional, and Vista Categories 84
Correlation Matrix 89
Self-Esteem 89
Self-Focus 89
Point Biserial Correlation 91
The Form-Dimensional Response 91
IV DISCUSSION 92
The Form-Dimensional Scoring Category 93
The Vista Scoring Category 97
The Egocentricity Index 101
Further Examination of the Rorschach Responses . . 105
Evaluation of the Design 106
Implications for Future Research 109
APPENDIX
INFORMED CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH 111
REFERENCES 116
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 121
-vi-


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Michael Unger was born and raised in Oceanside, New York. He
attended Oceanside High School and graduated from George Washington
University in Washington, D.C., with a Bachelor of Arts degree in
psychology. Michael obtained his Master of Arts degree from the
University of Florida in 1982. He is presently a graduate student at the
University of Florida, where he is pursuing his doctorate in clinical
psychology. As part of his predoctoral requirements, Michael is current
ly completing his internship at the Texas Research Institute of Mental
Sciences.
-121-


-77-
Table 8-continued
Vista Anger Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
Column Percent
5
27.78
44
36.97
2
15.38
Absent
Frequency
Column Percent
13
73.22
75
63.03
11
84.62
X2 = 2.8 £ <0.25


-66-
Table 3
Stepwise Selection of Variables for the Form-Dimensional Groups
Variable F
D score of the SFSC 1.14
Self-Focus Subscale 0.76
Private Self-Consciousness 0.99
Public Self-Consciousness 1.56
Anger Subscale 2.37
Depression Subscale 1.01
Anxiety Subscale 0.76
Prob 0.29
0.39
0.32
0.21
0.13
0.32
0.38
Tolerance
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


-62-
analysis was conducted followed by a stepwise discriminant analysis. For
these analyses/ the FD response was dichotomized based on the mean number
of these responses given by the 150 subjects who participated in the
study and acted as the dependent variable. The mean was found to be 0.54
and the subjects were categorized according to whether they did or did
not verbalize this type of response (present n=58, absent n=92). The
independent variables for both analyses were the "D" score and
self-focusing subscale score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test,
the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores,^' and the
depression, anger, and anxiety subscale scores. Table 1 presents the
means and standard deviations for each of these variables.
Discriminant function analysis
The results of the discriminant function analysis indicated that
there was tremendous overlap between the present and absent form-dimen
sional categories with respect to the independent variables. The linear
combination of the variables was unable to discriminate between these two
groups (Table 2).
Stepwise discriminant function analysis
The next analysis tested the relationship of each independent vari
able as it individually related to the FD groups. Testing at the .1
significance level, the assumption of equal covariance matrixes could not
be rejected and Fisher's discriminant analysis was conducted using a
^Due to a typing error, one item was not included in the private self-
consciousness subscale leaving nine items instead of ten. To correct
for this, a weighted score was added individually to each subscale
score. The weighted score was determined by averaging the nine items
of each subscale. The hypotheses were evaluated using both the
corrected and noncorrected subscale scores. Only the analyses using
the corrected subscale scores are reported as the results obtained
using either subscale score were not significantly different.


-73-
Table 7
Stepwise Selection of Variables for the Vista Category
D score of the SFSC
Self-Focus Subscale
SN score of the SFSC
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Private Self-Consciousness
Public Self-Consciousness
Anxiety Subscale
Depression Subscale
Anger Subscale
F
0.07
0.35
0.81
0.01
0.62
0.17
0.04
0.21
0.12
Prob 0.79
0.55
0.37
0.97
0.43
0.68
0.84
0.65
0.73
Tolerance
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00


-117-
Exner, J.E. The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. Volume 2: Recent
Research and Advanced Interpretation. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1978.
Exner, J.E., Armbruster, G.L., and Leura, A.V. Temporal consistency
among nonpatients over a sixty-day interval. Workshops Study No.
218 (unpublished), Rorschach Workshops, 1975.
Exner, J.E., and Bryant, E. A study of temporal consistency over a seven
day period. Workshops study No. 205 (unpublished) Rorschach Work
shops, 1974.
Exner, J.E., and Exner, D.E. How clinicians use the Rorschach. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 1972, 36^, 403-408.
Exner, J.E., Kuhn, B., Schumacher, J., and Fishman, R. The relation of
field dependence and locus of control to the Rorschach index of
egocentricity. Workshops Study No. 189 (unpublished), Rorschach
Workshops, 1975.
Exner, J.E., Leura, A.V., Armbruster, G.L., and Viglione, D. A focal
study of temporal consistency. Workshops Study No. 253 (unpub
lished), Rorschach Workshops, 1977.
Exner, J.E., and Murillo, L.G. Effectiveness of regressive ECT with
process schizophrenics. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1973,
34, 44-48.
Exner, J.E., and Murillo, L.G. Early prediction of posthospitalization
relapse. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 1975, _12^, 231-237.
Exner, J.E., and Murillo, L.G. A long-term follow-up of schizophrenics
treated with regressive ECT. Diseases of the Nervous System, 1977,
38, 162-168.
Exner, J.E., and Weiner, I.B. The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System.
Volume 3. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1982.
Exner, J.E., and Wylie, J.R. Some Rorsachach data concerning suicide.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 1977, 4_1_, 339-348.
Exner, J.E., Wylie, J.R., and Kline, J.R. A long-term study of treatment
effect as manifest in Rorschach performance. Workshops Study No.
240 (unpublished), Rorschach Workshops, 1977.
Fenichel, 0. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. New York: Norton,
1945.


-68-
Table 4
Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using the
Form-Dimensional Groups as the Classificant
Form-Dimensional Groups Self-Focusing Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
Column Percent
12
50.00
38
38.00
8
30.77
Absent
Frequency
Column Percent
12
50.00
62
62.00
18
69.23
X2 = 2.00 £
<0.37
Form-Dimensional Groups Self-Focusing Subscale
Hiqh
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
12
41
5
Column Percent
46.15
39.81
23.81
Absent
Frequency
14
62
16
Column Percent
53.85
60.19
76.19
X2 = 2.63
£
<0.27
Form-Dimensional Groups
-Private
Self-Consciousness Subscale
Hiqh
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
8
42
8
Column Percent
38.10
41.18
29.63
Absent
Frequency
13
60
19
Column Percent
61.90
58.82
70.37
X
N>
II
-A

o
£
<0.55
Form-Dimensional Groups
-Public
Self-Consciousness Subscale
Hiqh
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
6
46
6
Column Percent
23.08
42.59
37.50
Absent
Frequency
20
62
10
Column Percent
76.92
57.41
62.50
x2 = 3.38 £ <0.19


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.
Randy Career
Associate Professor of Statistics
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.
August 1985
Qx~j) 2. &
Dean, College of Health Related
Professions
Dean, Graduate School


-3
scores derived from personal experiences. Exner (1974) states that while
this methodology has been adapted by the practitioner, it is not a truely
standardized methodology. He has called for a complete standardization
of the Ror nach, a process that had been impeded because the research
conducted has concerned not one, but several tests which share in common
the same stimulus figures. This, in turn, has precluded the compilation
of adequate reliability and validity data.
Exner (1974) developed a Comprehensive Rorschach System which he
believes will make the test more accessible to the researcher and more
productive to the practitioner by providing a standardized base from
which the test can be used, researched, and fully developed. His system
was designed to incorporate the best aspects of the other systems, to
include developments exclusive of any of the five systems, to have high
reliability and validity, and to provide descriptive information. Like
those before it, the Comprehensive System focuses on procedures, scoring,
interpretation, and research problems and methodologies. It borrows
liberally from the other systems and is intended to provide those who use
it with a common language and methodology.
Exner (1974) required that the Comprehensive Rorschach System have
high validity in response to criticisms against the Rorschach concerning
its validation. Goldfried, Strieker, and Weiner (1971) believe that the
question "Is the Rorschach valid?" should be replaced in favor of the
question "What is the Rorschach valid for?" Blatt (1975) points out that
in clinical practice, the Rorschach has typically been used to make
inferences about certain psychological constructs and Meehl (1959)
recommends a construct validation approach as the appropriate model for


-16-
records. Significant differences were found using t-tests to compare
groups. The homosexuals, as a group, gave more of these responses than
all other groups. The depressives gave fewer pair responses than all
other groups (Exner, 1969).
In light of these findings, Exner (1969) then decided to investigate
the relationship between the reflection and pair responses to the
concept of narcissism. A sample of 1,547 males composed of college
students and industrial workers was administered a 50-item sentence com
pletion test originally designed by Watson (1965), and subsequently modi
fied by Exner (1969), to assess the characteristic of narcissism. A
random sample of 750 sentence completion tests were scored and used in
the study. From this population, two groups of forty subjects were
selected to form a high and low narcissistic group. The high narcissistic
group was composed of those subjects who had high self-focus scores and
low external-world scores. The low narcissistic group was comprised of
those subjects who had low self-focus scores and high external-world focus
scores. Whether the difference between the self-focus and external-world
focus scores was significant was not reported. The high and low narcis
sistic groups were compared using t-tests. The high narcissistic group
was found to average significantly more reflection and pair responses than
the low narcissistic group. No control group was used to determine if the
number of pair and reflection responses given differed significantly from
a "normal" population. Exner (1969) formulated the three following
postulates based on these findings. First, those individuals who are
highly narcissistic will manifest this trait in their perception and
verbalization of reflection or mirror-image type responses on the


-49-
inkblots, he is presented with each one a second time so that the examiner
can inquire about what the subject perceived when he gave his response
(see Exner, 1974).
Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System was utilized for scoring re
sponses in the present study (Exner, 1974). The form-dimensional deter
minant (FD) designates those verbal responses to the inkblots which in
clude perspective or dimensionality based exclusively on form, inter
preted by size or in relation to other blot areas (Exner, 1974). The
reflection response is also based on the form features of the inkblot.
Two scoring categories are used to designate this type of response. The
reflection-form response (rF) is scored for those responses in which "the
symmetry features of the blot are primary in determining the answer, and
form is used nonspecifically, or ambiguously, as an object being reflect
ed" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). Reflection responses scored in this manner
always involve content with nonspecific form requirements (i.e., clouds,
shadows, rocks). The form-reflection response (Fr) is used to record
those responses where "the form of the blot is used to identify specific
content, which is interpreted as reflected because of the symmetry of the
blot" (Exner, 1974, p. 101). The reflection response, whether rF or Fr,
is based on the symmetry of the inkblot. The pair response (2) is based
solely on the form properties of the inkblot and is scored when "the per
ceived object is reported as two objects because of the card symmetry"
(Exner, 1974, p. 102). Exner (1974) constructed an egocentricity index
comprised of both the pair and reflection type responses (3r + (2)/R). It
was decided to multiply the number of reflection responses by three
because of the relative infrequency with which it occurs in all popula
tions The vista determinant is used to record those responses involving


-65-
stepwise procedure (Kendall and Stuart, 1977). The results indicated
that none of the independent variables were individually related to the
FD groups at the .1 significance level and none were able to individually
discriminate between the two groups (Table 3).
Analysis of variance
As an alternate way of testing for differences between the two
groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs was conducted to compare the form
dimensional groups with respect to the mean scores of each subscale.
The aforementioned seven independent variables now acted as the dependent
variables and the dichotomized FD response acted as the independent vari
able. No significant differences were found. F-values for each of the
ANOVAs were 1) the D score of the SFSC (F^ (1,148) = 1.14, jd <0.29); 2) the
self-focusing subscale of the SFSC (1? (1,148)=0.76, jd <0.39); 3) the
private self-consciousness subscale (IT (1,148)=1.00, £ <0.32); 4) the
public self-consciousness subscale (F^ (1,148)=1.56, £ <0.21); 5) the
anger subscale (F^ (1,148)=2.38, £ <0.13); 6) the depression subscale (JF
(1,148) = 1.01, jo <0.32); and 7) the anxiety subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.76, jd <
.38).
Chi-square analysis
A series of Chi-Square analyses was performed to test whether the
frequencies observed were different from that which would be predicted by
chance. Three subject populations were created on the basis of their
scores on each of the aforementioned subscales. High and low population
groups were defined by those subjects who scored either one standard de
viation above or below the subscale means obtained from the study sample.
Those subjects whose scores fell within one standard deviation of the
mean were considered to represent an intermediate group. The Chi-Square


-7
sometimes water surrounded by land; depths, usually water, but also caves;
reflections, usually in water, sometimes in mirrors" (Beck et al., 1961,
pg.109). For a response to be scored as vista, the individual's verbali
zations were required to refer to distance, height, depth or reflection.
Beck hypothesized that the vista response represented "sensed pain" or the
character trait of inferiority feelings (Beck et al., 1961).
Klopfer, Ainsworth, Klopfer and Holt (1954) used the symbol "FK" to
designate those responses verbalized by an individual where a
three-dimensional or depth impression is combined with definite form
perception, giving perspective to the content. The symbol "Fk" is used
to designate a response where the use of shading gives the impression of
a three-dimensional plane involving definite shape. "K" or "kF" are
scored when the individual uses shading to give a diffuse, unstructured,
but three-dimensional effect to the content of their response. Klopfer
et al. (1954), like Beck et al. (1961), did not always require that the
individual directly refer to the light-dark features (shading) of the
inkblot in his verbal response or during inquiry and believed that it is
the concept, rather than the explicit statement, which gives the clue as
to the use of shading. The Fk score is also used to refer to reflections
and symmetry responses. However, the form determinant, and not Fk, is
scored in those instances where a reflection response is solely based on
the symmetry of the inkblot and there is no evidence that shading was
used to create a three-dimensional effect. The form determinant is also
endorsed when perspective is thought to be linear and the shading is not
used to create a three-dimensional effect. The FK scoring category and
its varients are hypothesized to psychologically represent an attempt by


-100-
util ize the Rorschach stimuli in a creative manner. Although it was not
tested in the present study, the positive relationship found between
vista and the form-dimensional response (Exner, 1974) suggests that
vista may also relate to an individual's level of intelligence, abstract
thought process, or creativeness. Intelligence is often thought to be
positively related to the process of introspection. Individuals with a
high level of intelligence are believed to be more cognitively oriented
and aware of their inner thoughts and feelings. This would offer support
for the hypothesis that vista represents an introspective process unless
intelligence is here being used in the context of a particular cognitive
style or as a defensive operation. Exner (1974) found a high frequency
of both vista and form-dimensional responses in the Rorschach records of
suicidal individuals. Using a population of subjects suffering from
affective disorders, Exner (1974) found that the vista response decreased
from pre- to posttreatment but the frequency of the form-dimensional
response remained the same. Unlike the form-dimensional response, vista
involves the use of shading. If it can be reasoned that both
form-dimensional and vista represent an intellectual cognitive style or
defensive operation used by affectively constricted individuals to cope
with stress, then the presence of vista may indicate that this defense
is not effective and the subject is experiencing or being overwhelmed by
negative affect. It is therefore being suggested here that the vista
reponse represents a type of cognitive style or an intellectual defensive
operation that may or may not involve an intro spective process but which
is not functioning effectively. The fact that no relationship was found
between either affective state or self-esteem and the vista response


-81-
Table 11
Backward Stepwise Selection of Variables for
the Egocentricity Index Groups
Variable Chi-Square P Value
Depression Subscale 0.36 0.55
Public Self-Consciousness Subscale 0.16 0.69
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 0.38 0.54
Self-Focus Subscale 0.23 0.63
Private Self-Consciousness Subscale 0.34 0.56
Tension Subscale 1.39 0.24
SN score of the SFSC 6.75 0.01
Anger Subscale 4.75 0.03
D score of the SFSC 3.11 0.08


REFERENCES
Backman, J.G. Youth in Transition. Volume 2. The Impact of Family
Background and Intelligence on Tenth-Grade Boys. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research,
1970.
Beck, S.J. Introduction to the Rorschach Method: A Manual of Person
ality Study. American Orthopsychiatric Association Monographs,
1937, No. 1.
Beck, S.J. Rorschach's Test. I: Basic Processes. New York: Grue and
Stratton, 1944.
Beck, S.J., Beck, A.G., Levitt, E.E., and Molish, H.B. Rorschach's Test.
I: Basic Processes (3rd edition). New York: Grue and Stratton,
1961.
Blatt, S.J. The validity of projective techniques and their research and
clinical contribution. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1975, 39,
327-343.
Buss, D.M., and Sheirer, M.F. Self-consciousness, self-awareness, and
self-attribution. Journal of Research in Personality, 1976, 10,
463-468.
Carver, C.S., and Glass, D.C. The Self-Consciousness Scale: A discrimi
nant validity study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 1976, 40,
169-172.
Dana, R.H. Six constructs to define Rorschach M. Journal of Projective
Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1968, 32^, 132-145.
Duval, S., and Wicklund, R.A. A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness. New
York: Academic Press, 1973.
Exner, J.E. The Rorschach Systems. New York: Grue and Stratton, 1969.A
Exner, J.E. Rorschach responses as an index of narcissism. Journal of
Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 1969,B 33, 324-
338.
Exner, J.E. The self-focus sentence completion: A study of egocentri-
city. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1973, 37, 437-455.
Exner, J.E. The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. New York: Wiley,
1974.
-116-


-51-
The correlation coefficient for SH was 0.51 and 0.91 for the egocentri-
city index. A test-retest study using 25 different nonpatient volunteers
over a 60 day period yielded similar results: SH, r=0.59; egocentricity
index, r=0.85 (Exner, Armbruster, and Leura, 1975).
Validity studies
The studies which have investigated the construct validity of the
egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista type response have been
described previously in the literature review section of this paper.
Experimental Procedure
Experimenters
The author and ten clinical psychology predoctoral graduate students
acted as experimenters. Each experimenter had received a semester of
formal instruction in the administration, scoring, and interpretation of
the Rorschach using Exner's Comprehensive System. Each experimenter had
also been supervised in the administration, scoring and interpretation of
at least ten Rorschach protocols in an outpatient clinic. All
experimenters were blind to the hypotheses of the study except for the
author. It was originally intended that no exmainer would test more than
fifteen subjects and none less than ten. Due to experimenter attrition
and time constraints placed on the use of the subject pool, the author
tested eighty-one subjects while sixty-nine subjects were tested by the
other ten experimenters.
Setting
All subjects were tested in one of five rooms located in the depart
ment of clinical psychology at Shands Teaching Hospital. Four of the


-41-
the inner world of ideas and concepts. However, private self-consciousness is
more specific. The focus is on thoughts and reflections that deal solely with
the self. The public self-consciousness subscale is composed of items that
define a general awareness of self as a social object that has an effect on
others. This process is thought to be related to that proposed by Mead (1934)
who argued that consciousness of self comes about when the person becomes
aware of another's perspective after which he can view himself as an object.
The social anxiety subscale is composed of items reflecting discomfort felt in
the presence of others.
The scale is composed of twenty-three items each of which is rated on a
scale of zero (extremely uncharacteristic), to four (extremely characteristic).
This yields low scores for a low level of self-consciousness and high scores
for a high level of self-consciousness. Subscale means and standard devia
tions are available for male and female undergraduate students. For purposes
of the current study, only the private and public self-consciousness subscale
scores will be used to predict to a probability of frequency of the Rorschach
variables of interest.
Reliability studies
Fenigsteinj^ et al. (1975) reported high test-retest reliability over a
two-week period. The correlation coefficients for the subscales were£ private
self-consciousness 0.84, public self-consciousness 0.79, social anxiety 0.73,
and 0.80 for the total scale score. Similar findings have also been reported
by Heineman (1979) in a German replication, and Vleeming and Engelse (1981) in
a Dutch replication of the original study conducted by Fenigstein et al. (1975).
Construct validity for the self-consciousness scale has been provided by
Fenigstein et al. (1975), Heineman (1979), and Vleeming and Engelse (1981), in


-59-
were compared to the frequency of their occurrence in the "normal" popula
tion. Comparisons were made using Chi-Square analyses.


-91-
SFSC (£=.75, £ <.001); and 3) the "SN" score of the SFSC (£=.39, £ <
.001). The self-focus subscale was found to be inversely related to the
RSES (£=-.17, £ <.03). The public self-consciousness subscale was found
to relate significantly to the private self-consciousness subscale (£=.24,
£ <.003) and the RSES (£=.20, £ <.01). The private self-consciousness
subscale was found to be significantly related to the uncorrected private
self-consciousness subscale (£=.997, £ <.0001), the SN score of the SFSC
(£=.23, £ <.005) and the depression subscale (£=.77, £ <.04).
Point Biserial Correlation
The Form-Dimensional Response
A point biserial correlation procedure was employed to test for a
relationship between the form-dimensional response and the self-esteem
measures. This method compares continuous to discontinuous variables. No
significant relationship was found for either the SN score of the SFSC
(r^=.000), or the RSES (r^=.000), with respect to the form-dimensional
groups.


-17-
Rorschach. Second, those individuals who are low on the narcissistic
trait will not exhibit reflection type responses and will have a
restricted number of pair responses. Third, persons demonstrating a
reasonable narcissistic balance in their adjustment can be expected to
verbalize a reasonable number of pair responses and few, if any, reflec
tion responses. Exner further concluded that these findings seem consis
tent with the psychoanalytic conception of narcissism as "self-love"
(Freud, 1931/1961).
One question left unanswered by this study concerned the depressives.
If depressed individuals are, in theory, narcissistic (Kohut, 1966), why
do they not verbalize as many reflection responses as the homosexual
or sociopathic groups? It was found that the depressive group gave a
significantly greater number of vista responses than any of the other
groups (exclusive of reflection). If this is so, what differentiates the
pair and reflection type responses from the vista response?
Exner reported that because of the complexity of the concept of nar
cissism, it seemed "more appropriate" to use the concept of "egocentri-
city" or "self-focus" to interpret these data (Exner, 1969). No further
explanation was offered for this change in stance. Exner (1973) subse
quently replicated the aforementioned study using a nonpsychiatric
population of college students. The sentence completion blank was
revised so as to include only 30 items and a more comprehensive scoring
system. Sixty subjects were selected to form two groups on the basis of
their extremely high or extremely low self-focus scores. Each subject
was subsequently administered the Rorschach. A comparison of the two
groups revealed that the high self-focus group produced nearly twice as


-46-
states (McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971). These include tension-
anxiety, depression-dejection, anger-hostility, vigor-activity, fatigue-
inertia, and confusion-bewilderment. The total inventory is composed of
sixty-five adjectives that are rated on a five-point intensity scale (0 =
not at all, 4 = extremely). Subjects are asked to endorse each item so
that it describes how they have been feeling during the past week includ
ing the present day (see McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971).
The POMS can be completed in about five minutes, and it is easily ad
ministered, scored, and interpretd. To obtain a raw score for each mood
factor, one simply sums the responses (taking into account negative
weights) for the adjectives defining each subscale. Raw scores can then
be plotted on profile sheets that convert them into T-scores. A profile
sheet based on a normative sample of college students is available.
In this study, only the tension-anxiety, depression-dejection, and
anger-hostility subscale T-scores will be used to predict to a frequency
of the Rorschach variables of interest and as correlates to other
measures. The tension-anxiety subscale is composed of nine adjective
scales descriptive of heightened musculoskeletal tension. The adjectives
refer to reports of somatic tension that may not be overtly observable
(tension, on edge), as well as observable psychomotor manifestations
(shaky, restless). They also refer to vague, diffuse anxiety states
(anxious, uneasy). The depression-dejection subscale is composed of
fifteen adjective scales. The subscale score represents the mood of de
pression accompanied by a sense of personal inadequacy. The items com
posing this subscale refer to "feelings of personal worthlessness (un
worthy) futility regarding the struggle to adjust (hopeless, desperate),


-93-
The Form-Dimensional Scoring Category
Exner proposed that the form-dimensional response represents a non-
emotional introspective process. In the present study, those subjects
who verbalized this type of response (present group) were compared to
those who did not (absent group). The two groups were compared on the
basis of the tendency to attend to inner thoughts and feelings (private
self-consciousness); the awareness of oneself as a social object (public
self-consciousness); affective state (anger, anxiety, and depression);
the tendency to focus on oneself (self-focus subscale); and the tendency
to focus on oneself with little or no regard for the external world (D
score). A linear combination of these psychological variables was
neither significantly related nor able to discriminate between or classi
fy subjects into these two groups. While there was an improvement in the
percent of subjects correctly classified using the linear combination of
these variables as compared to chance, the improvement in classification
was attributable mostly to the prior probability of classification favor
ing the absent group.
Each variable was subsequently considered independently in relation
to the two form-dimensional groups. The introspective process hypothe
sized to be embodied in this response was investigated in relation to
measures designed to assess one's tendency to attend and be aware of
inner thoughts and feelings, the tendency to be aware of oneself as a
social object, the tendency to focus on oneself, and the tendency to
focus on oneself at the expense of the external world. Exner (1974)
found that subjects who verbalize a high frequency of form-dimensional
responses are more self-focused than those who do not. In the present


-38-
(N=622) and female (N=426) college students for each of the scales. In addi
tion to the scale scores, a "D" score can be obtained by subtracting the total
number of external-world focusing responses from the total number of self-
focusing responses given by a subject. A separate score (SN) can also be cal
culated to represent the self-focusing statements which are judged to be nega
tive in content by simply adding the total number of these responses. Norma
tive data for both the "D" and SN scores are also provided.
For purposes of the current study, the SN score, the self-focus scale,
and the "D" score were used to predict to a probability of frequency of the
Rorschach variables of interest. They were also used as correlates to other
measures.
Reliability studies
High interscorer reliability has been found for Ph.D. clinical psycholo
gists who were asked to study the scoring criteria and then independently
score twenty records (Exner, 1973). The reliability coefficients obtained
were S=.94, E=.93, A=.92, Sn=.90, Ea=.88.
Validity studies
Exner (1973) reports several studies that have been conducted to investi
gate the concurrent validity of the SFSC. In one such study, it was found
that a greater than average number of self-focusing responses (S) related
significantly to those psychiatric classifications that are considered to be
excessively self-centered (i.e., homosexuals and psychopaths). A second study
found that an above average number of "S" responses correlated highly with
Rorschach reflection responses. In a third study, trainees who failed to
complete Peace Corps training or who performed inadequately in the service
were found to give an above average number of "S" responses.


-76-
Table 8-continued
Vista SN Score of the SFSC
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
10
37
4
Column Percent
45.45
32.46
28.57
Absent
Frequency
12
77
10
Column Percent
54.55
67.54
71.43
X2 = 1.6 £
<0.45
Vista
-Rosenberq Self-Esteem Scale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
7
33
11
Column Percent
36.84
34.02
32.35
Absent
Frequency
12
64
23
Column Percent
63.16
65.98
67.65
X
O
II
o

<0.95
Vista
-Anxiety Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
10
36
5
Column Percent
41.67
34.95
21.74
Absent
Frequency
14
67
18
Column Percent
58.33
65.04
78.26
X2 = 2.21 £
<0.33
Vista
-Depression Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
8
38
5
Column Percent
40.00
31.40
55.56
Absent
Frequency
12
83
4
Column Percent
60.00
68.60
44.44
X2 = 2.55 £ <0.28


-39-
Two additional studies cited by Exner made use of an interview situation
to investigate those individuals who gave a proportionately greater number of
self-focused than exernal-world focused responses (Exner, 1973). These indi
viduals tended to verbalize more self-focusing statements during their inter
view. They were also found to spend more time viewing themselves in a mirror
prior to their interview.
Exner (1973) observed that the psychiatric diagnosis of depression was
often associated with those individuals who gave a substantially greater
number of external-world than self-focused type responses. It was also ob
served that when the self-focus to external-world focus ratio was dispropor
tionate regardless of the direction, individuals exhibited less effective
and more pathological behaviors. A pre- and posttreatment change from a dis
proportionate ratio to one which is more balanced has been found for schizo
phrenics and "acting-out" adolescents who manifest symptom remission and no
apparent relapse (Exner, 1973). These pre- and posttreatment studies suggest
that this form of response style can and does change.
The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire
Questionnaire format and scoring
The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire is a trait measure that was designed
to assess the tendency of a person to direct his or her attention inward or
outward (see Fenigstein, Sheier, and Buss, 1975). This conception of
self-consciousness as a trait is different from the concept of self-awareness
which refers to a state and is the result of either transient situational
variables, chronic dispositions, or both.
A number of procedures were followed in the development and construction
of the Self-Consciousness Scale. First, behaviors that were thought to


-54-
ranges from "0" (extremely uncharacteristic), to "4" (ex
tremely characteristic). Please rate each statement by
checking one answer so that it best describes your
thoughts.
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale presented the following instructions:
The following statements reflect thoughts that students
have. Next to each statement is a rating scale that
ranges from "1" (strongly agree), to "4" (strongly dis
agree). Please rate each statement by checking each
answer so that it best describes your thoughts.
The Profile Of Mood States depicted the following instructions:
Below is a list of words that describe feelings people
have. Please read each one carefully. Then fill in one
space under the answer to the right which best describes
how you have been feeling during the past week including
today.
The Rorschach Inkblot Test was administered in accordance with the stan
dard guidelines of Exner's Comprehensive Rorschach System. All examiners
were seated beside the subject. Subjects were read the standard introduc
tion to the test:
Now we are going to do the inkblot test. Have you ever
heard of it or have you taken it before? If the subject
had not heard about the test, the examiner informed him/
her that it is just a series of inkblots that I'll show
you and I want you to tell me what they look like to you.
(Exner, 1974, p. 30)
The examiner then handed the subject the first Rorschach card and asked
"What might this be?" Each response given by the subject to each card was
recorded verbatim. A prompt for more than one response was given to the
first card only. After the subject had responded to all ten cards, he/she
was required to review all ten cards again so that the examiner could in
quire about and insure the accurate scoring of the responses given in the
free association. The inquiry was introduced with the following state
ment:


-44-
High self-esteem, as reflected in the RSES items, expresses the feeling
that one is "good enough" or feelings of self-acceptance. He does
not consider himself to be superior to others but, rather, simply believes
that he is a person of worth and he respects himself. A low self-esteem
score implies self-rejection, self-dissatisfaction, and self-contempt. He
lacks respect for the self that he observes. Normative data are provided
for undergraduate psychology students (Rios-Garcia and Cook, 1975).
Reliability studies
Rios-Garcia and Cook (1975) obtained a test-retest reliability coeffi
cient of 0.79 for a sample of college students using their scoring
procedure.
Validity studies
A number of studies have been conducted using selected items of the
RSES either alone or in conjunction with items from other scales:
(Beckman 1970; Kaplan and Pokorny 1969, 1970, 1971; Nocks and Bradley
1969). The self-esteem measure that was used in this study contains the
RSES original items.
The RSES was designed to represent a unidimensional scale. However,
an internal factor analysis performed by Kaplan and Porkorny (1969) pro
duced two uncorrelated factors which accounted for forty percent of the
total variance. Their factor one scores, which they termed self-deroga
tion, correlated in a similar fashion to those obtained by Rosenberg
(1965) with the total scale. Their second factor was thought to reflect
"a posture of conventional defense of individual worth, a stance which is
compatable with either high or low scores on the self-derogation factor"
(p. 425). This finding has not been replicated.


-25-
discharged ECT and drug-treated groups on ratings of social behavior one
year later yielded a significant difference favoring the ECT group. This
difference was not apparent three years following discharge. It should
be noted that their mean egocentricity indices did not change significant
ly during this time. The postdischarge success of the drug-treated group
points to an instance where an excessively high egocentricity index does
not appear to be a handicap.
A study by Exner and Murillo (1975) indicates that this might not be
the case with those subjects discharged with below average egocentricity
indices. They found that 16 of 22 nonschizophrenics who relapsed had ego
centricity indices of less than average at discharge. Of the fifty-five
subjects from this group who did not relapse, only four had egocentricity
indices below the "normal" range. When viewed in conjunction with the
findings of the other studies relating the egocentricity index to psycho
pathology, it appears that there are no hard and fast rules for defining
this relationship.
The Shading-Dimensionality Response: (Vista)
Rorschach and Oberholzer (1923) observed that individuals sometimes
used the light-dark features of the inkblot to create a percept of
dimensionality. They postulated that this reponse represented a cautious
affectivity with depressive nuances. Klopfer et al. (1954) was the first
systematizer to formally score this type of response. He also used this
category (Fk), to designate diffuse shading and reflection responses.
Klopfer et al. (1954) thought that the Fk type response represented a type
of introspective process whereby the individual copes with anxiety by


-13-
From these studies, Exner (1974) concluded that if the FD response
is also interpreted as a type of "form" response, as having affect-delay
operations, then the self-examination may be a form of affective-delay
through a type of reasoning which centers on the self, its assets, and
its limitations. It represents a "nonemotional introspective" process.
A number of criticisms can be raised against these studies. As al
ready mentioned, the high and low FD groups were not compared to a
control group. Therefore, these subjects may not be more or less "intro
spective" than the general population. A second criticism concerns the
third study. A number of variables other than introspectivenss per se,
such as level of anxiety, may have influenced the number of FD responses
given. The conclusion that the results were due to an introspective pro
cess cannot be reached unless a more stringent criterion is used to test
this relationship. Introspection can be defined as an examination of
one's own thoughts and feelings (Duval and Wicklund, 1973). None of the
studies cited above directly tested whether subjects who give more FD
responses are more aware of their own thoughts and feelings than the
general population. In addition, none of the studies tested directly
whether an affective component is involved or absent from the FD
response. Therefore, the interpretive conclusions reached by Exner with
regard to this response still seem tentative and more the result of in
ference than direct empirical testing.
Reflection and Pair Responses; (R) and (2)
The reflection and pair determinants are not scored separately in
any of the other Rorschach systems. Beck et al. (1961) and Klopfer et al.
(1954) each suggested that the reflection type of response be scored


-114-
8. GENERAL CONDITIONS
I understand that I will /will not X receive money for my
participation in this study. If I am compensated, I will receive_
I understand that I will /will not X be charged additional ex
penses for my participation in this study. If I am charged additional
expenses these will consist of
I understnad that I am free to withdraw my/my child's consent and discon
tinue participation in this research project at any time without this
decision affecting my/my child's medical care.
In the event of my/my child's sustaining a physical injury which is proxi-
mately caused by this experiment, no professional
medical *care received at the J. Hillis Miller Health Center
exclusive of hospital expenses will be provided me without charge. This
exclusion of hospital expenses does not apply to patients at the Veterans
Administration Medical Center (VAMC) who sustain physical injury during
participation in VAMC-approved studies. It is understood that no form of
compensation exists other than those described above.
All data obtained from this research will remain confidential. The Uni
versity of Florida will protect the confidentiality of this document and
your records from this research to the extent provided by law.
9. SIGNATURES
I have fully explained to
the nature and purpose of the above-described procedure and the benefits
and risks that are involved in its performance. I have answered and will
answer all questions to the best of my ability. I may be contacted at
telephone number .
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
I have been fully informed of the above-described procedure with its
possible benefits and risks and I have received a copy of this descrip
tion. I have given permission of my/my child's participation in this
study.
Signature of Patient or Subject or
Relative or Parent or Guadian (specify)
Date


-95-
significantly predictive of the frequency of occurrence of the form
dimensional response. The lack of relationship between egocentricity and
affective state with the form-dimensional groups provides some support
for the discriminant validity of this response. However, the lack of
relationship between self-focus, private and public self-consciousness
with the two form-dimensional groups failed to provide convergent valid
ity for the psychological construct of introspection as measured.
There are a number of possible explanations for these findings. The
present study was conducted to replicate Exner's findings and to investi
gate more directly the psychological constructs emobdied in this
response. The failure to replicate these results may be due to the more
sophisticated analyses used in the present study. The present study also
included other measures which have been conceptually related to the con
cept of introspection or its characteristic features. The nonsignificant
relationship found between these measures and the form-dimensional re
sponse raises some questions about the construct validity of this re
sponse. The creation of this type of response requires a certain degree
of sophistication and creativity. It may be the case that this type of
response is more reflective of a subject's level of intelligence, abstract
thought processes, or ability to form images. Tentative support for this
hypothesis is provided by a study cited earlier (Exner, 1974), that
related the form-dimensional to the human movement response which is
thought to reflect these processes (Dana, 1968). This was not tested in
the present study. It may also be the case that the form-dimensional
response represents a type of introspective process that is defined by
criteria different than that used in the present study. For instance


CHAPTER II
METHOD
Subjects
One hundred and fifty subjects (60 males and 90 females) from the Uni
versity of Florida participated in the study. Their ages ranged from eighteen
to thirty-six with a mean age of twenty. They were recruited from a subject
pool comprised of students enrolled in introductory experimental psychology
classes that required hour per hour credit for participation in various
studies.1 The subjects were obtained via psychology classes, but were found
to be majoring in a number of areas: 1) computer related (8); 2) engineering
(14)j 3) business related (12); and health related (61). Fifty-five were as
yet undecided. To recruit subjects, a sign-up sheet was posted that read as
follows:
A normative study is being conducted to collect data on Uni
versity of Florida students for a number of psychological
tests. As a participant of this research project, you will be
asked to complete four questionnaires designed to reflect the
thoughts and feelings that college students have. In addition,
you will be administered the Rorschach Inkblot Test which is a
test that is also designed to assess student's thoughts and
feelings in a less direct manner. The total duration of this
procedure will be two hours.
To ensure confidentiality, each subject who participated in the study was
assigned a specific number. This number, rather than their name or other
identifying information, was used to identify test materials and in the anal
yses conducted. Only the author and his supervisor had access to the sub
ject's name.
^Due to time constraints and difficulty obtaining subjects from the subject
pool, fifteen female volunteer occupational therapy students also participa
ted in the study.
-36-


to them for their time and devotion. Finally, I would like to thank my
family whose love and devotion, like the sunshine, fueled my spirit and
provided me with strength.
-iv-


-8
the individual to cope with affection and anxiety by introspective
efforts (Klopfer et al., 1954). In other words, they are interpreted to
represent an attempt by the individual to cope with the anxiety generated
by his needs for security, affection and belongingness by putting his
problem at a distance from himself so that he can view it more dispassion
ately. Klopfer et al. (1954) believed that the FK type response appeared
to be characteristic of those individuals who are unsuccessful in coping
with their anxiety by more intellectual means and lack the emotional in
sight needed to cope effectively with their problems.
Exner (1974) has introduced into the Comprehensive Rorschach System
four determinant scoring categories to designate those responses that Beck
et al. (1961) would score as vista and Klopfer et al. (1954) would score
as a FK type response. These determinants will be discussed in the
following passages with respect to thoir scoring criteria and the research
conducted thus far to determine the psychological processes that they
reflect.
The Form-Dimensional Response; (FD)
Exner (1974) introduced the Form-Dimensional (FD) determinant to
designate those verbal responses to the inkblots which include perspective
or dimensionality based exclusively on form, interpreted by size or in
relation to other blot areas. Although there is no scoring category
compatible to it in the other Rorschach systems, Klopfer et al. (1954)
have included such responses in the FK category (even though no shading is
involved) and Beck et al. (1961) have scored these responses as vista when
the unarticulated use of shading seems very likely. Form-dimensional
responses have been observed to occur in responses to each of the inkblot


-48-
the six mood factors. The results of each were highly similar despite
using different populations (normals vs. patients), rating time periods,
and rating scales. In addition, the individual items defining each mood
scale and loading on a particular factor have, upon examination, face or
content validity.
The POMS is supported by several studies that have provided evidence
for predictive and construct validity. Lorr, McNair, Weinstein, Michaux,
and Raskin (1961) used the vigor, tension-anxiety, depression-dejection,
anger-hostility, and fatigue subscales of the POMS to compare psycho
therapy alone to four other treatment groups. Outpatients showed improve
ment on all subscales except vigor. A number of other studies have been
conducted that used the POMS to assess or predict treatment outcome: Lorr,
McNair, and Weinstein (1964), Haskell, Pugtch, and McNair (1969), McNair,
Goldstein, Lorr, Cibelli, and Roth (1965), and McNair, Kahn, Droppelman,
and Fisher (1967, 1968). The POMS has also been used to assess affective
states in studies that assess response to emotion-inducing conditions:
Pillard and Fisher (1967), Pillard, Atkinson and Fisher (1967), and
Pillard and Fisher (1970). Some concurrent validity has also been re
ported for the inventory. For instance, the tension-anxiety subscale has
been found to correlate highly (.80) with the Taylor manifest anxiety
scale.
The Rorschach Inkblot Test
Questionnaire format and scoring
The Rorschach Inkblot Test consists of ten inkblots and subjects are
required to verbalize what they perceive each blot, or its various compo
nents, to represent (Rorschach, 1921). The subject's responses are re
corded verbatim. After the subject has responded to the ten different


-88-
Table 14
Means for each of the Egocentricity Index,
Form-Dimensional and Vista Category Groups
Variable
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group 7
Group :
Private
25.64
26.00
24.90
27.25
26.64
27.82
26.69
26.14
Self
7.64
9.25
9.45
10.45
10.00
8.55
11.00
10.36
D
15.00
14.69
15.70
15.75
17.14
14.36
18.15
16.64
Public
17.27
19.72
19.32
19.00
19.29
22.45
19.31
19.57
SN
4.64
3.53
4.45
3.80
4.42
5.64
3.77
3.79
Anxiety
49.18
48.94
50.71
46.95
51.29
52.73
49.46
49.50
Anger
45.82
51.28
49.45
46.65
50.29
48.45
48.69
51.07
Depression
47.55
48.28
47.87
45.60
47.43
51.64
47.54
46.93
RSES
17.64
16.75
17.87
16.15
17.86
19.55
17.54
15.00
Note: Private = Private Self-Consciousness Subscale; Self = Self-Focus Subscale
of the SFSC; D = D Score Of The SFSC; Public = Public Self-Consciousness
Subscale; SN = SN Score Of The SFSC; Anxiety = Anxiety Subscale Of The POMS;
Anger = Anger Subscale Of The POMS; Depression = Depression Subscale Of The
POMS; RSES = Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
Group 1 = Vista = Present, Form-Dimensional = Present, Egocentricity Index = Present
Group 2 = Vista = Absent, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Absent
Group 3 = Vista = Absent, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Present
Group 4 = Vista = Absent, Form-Dimensional = Present, Egocentricity Index = Present
Group 5 = Vista = Absent, Form-Dimensional = Present, Egocentricity Index = Absent
Group 6 = Vista = Present, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Present
Group 7 = Vista = Present, Form-Dimensional = Present, Egocentricity Index = Absent
Group 8 = Vista = Present, Form-Dimensional = Absent, Egocentricity Index = Absent


-40-
represent the domain of self-consciousness were selected. The following
behavior classification was constructed: "1) preoccupation with past, present,
and future behavior; 2) sensitivity to inner feelings, 3) recognition of one's
positive and negative attributes; 4) introspective behavior, 5) a tendency to
picture or imagine oneself; 6) awareness of one's physical appearance and pre
sentation; and 7) concern over the appraisal of others" (Fenigstein et al.,
1975, p. 527). Thirty-eight items were selected to sample this domain and the
scale was administered to undergraduate students. A factor analysis yielded
three factors: 1) private self-consciousness, 2) public self-consciousness,
and 3) social anxiety. The first two factors refer to a process of self-
focused attention while the third refers to a reaction to this process. The
scale was then revised to eliminate those items that loaded highly on more
than one factor, those that were endorsed either too frequently or infrequent
ly, and those that were described by subjects as too ambiguous. A five-point
Likert-type scale was included to rate each item. The revised scale was ad
ministered to a sample of college students. A factor analysis yielded the
same three factors. All items loaded above 0.40 with their appropriate
factor.
The final version of the scale is composed of three subscales, two of
which appear to be separate aspects of self-consciousness: the social anxiety
subscale, the private self-consciousness subscale, and the public self-
consciousoness subscale. The private self-consciousness subscale items re
flect the process of attending to one's inner thoughts and feelings. It is
defined by a cognitive, private mulling over about the self. This dimension of
self-consciousness is postulated to be similar to the Jungian concept of
introversion (Jung, 1933), in that the individual is generally oriented toward


-79-
Table 10
Summary of the Egocentricity Index Group
Classification by the Discriminant Function Analysis
Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Egocentricity Index Groups
Egocentricity Index
Present
Absent
Total
Present
57
78.08
16
21.92
73
100.00
Absent
22
28.57
55
71.43
77
100.00
Total
79
71
150
Percent
52.67
47.33
100.00
Prior Probability
0.49
0.51
Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.71
Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.78
Total Correct Classification = 0.75
Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability = 0.50
False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = 0.28
False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were presnt) = 0.23


-34-
of vista responses but not either the FD or egocentricity index variables.
The Profile of Mood States (McNair, Lorr, and Droppleman, 1971) was used to
provide an estimate of the subjects' affective state (see method section). It
was decided to use the anger, depression, and anxiety subscales of the profile
on the basis that these affective states are typically labeled as painful and
dysphoric and are, in theory, characteristic of depressives (Freud, 1957;
Rado, 1927/1956; and Fenichel, 1945).
The Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss, 1975) was
used to assess the individual's tendency to direct attention inward or out
ward and the process of self-focused attention. Two subscales of this measure
are of particular interest to the current study. The Private Self-Conscious
ness Subscale is an index of the degree to which an individual is concerned
with attending to his/her inner thoughts and feelings. The Public Self-
Consciousness Subscale measures the extent to which the individual has a
general awareness of himself as a social object that has an effect on others.
It was hypothesized that high scores on both the Public and Private Self-
Consciousness Subscales would be associated with a high frequency of
form-dimensional and vista responses. Both subscales represent a process of
self-focused attention. As such, it was also hypothesized that a high score
on either the private self-consciousness or public self-consciousness subscale
would be predicted to a probability of a high frequency of occurrence of those
responses comprising the egocentricity index.
Exner and Weiner (1982) postulated that the individual who gives a high
frequency of vista responses is introspective and does not like what he sees.
Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965) was used to assess the


-87-
Table 13-continued
Egocentricity Index Depression Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
10
59
4
Column Percent
50.00
48.76
44.44
Absent
Frequency
10
62
5
Column Percent
50.00
51.24
55.56
X2 = 0.08 £ <0.96
Egocentricity Index Anger Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
6
58
9
Column Percent
33.33
48.74
69.23
Absent
Frequency
12
61
4
Column Percent
66.67
51.26
30.77
X2 = 3.90 £ <0.14


-109-
the individual variables to predict to the frequency of these responses
calls into question the construct validity of the responses and the de
sign used to test them.
Implications for Future Research
Clinicians tend to use a configurational approach to the interpre
tation of the structural data of the Rorschach. The meaningfulness of a
particular class of responses is not simply determined by its presence
or absence, but by its presence or absence in relation to the presence or
absence of other classes of responses. To date, the great mass of re
search investigating the Rorschach has focused on examining minor seg
ments of the protocols in relation to discrete facets of personality or
specific behaviors. Exner hs adapted this approach in investigating the
psychological constructs represented by each Rorschach scoring category.
This design was also followed in the present study in an effort to
replicate Exner's earlier findings. The lack of significant findings
call for a configurational approach. In this regard, a two-step design
could be employed. First, a factor analysis procedure would be
conducted to determine the intercorrelations among all the Rorschach
variables. Questionnaires that were thought to be conceptually and
empirically related to the psychological constructs of interest could
then be compared to the different factors found. Future studies would
also involve a large sample of both psychiatric and nonpsychiatric
subjects, the selection of alternative measures that are behavioral,
projective, and self-report in format, and the inclusion of measures of
social desirability, level of intelligence, and defensive style. It is


-24-
low to the "normal range" was found to occur significantly more often for
those outpatients rated as improved than for those rated as not improved
after at least twenty-nine months of therapy. Those subjects who entered
treatment with an egocentricity index in the average (normal) range were
rated by significant others as having a higher success rate than those
subjects who entered treatment with index scores outside that range.
Although one might conclude from this study that a high or low ego
centricity index score is associated with psychopathology, it should be
noted that a number of patients who fell into the normal range on this
index at the beginning of treatment were seeking therapy for problems in
living. In addition, because there was no effort made to match subjects
on type or degree of pathology, those subjects who exhibited "normal" ego
centricity indices may not have had problems or difficulties as chronic or
severe as the other two groups.
High egocentricity indices may be associated with normal adjustment
in certain populations. Exner and Murillo (1973, 1977) found that a sub
stantial number of their subjects who fell into high and low egocentricity
index groups improved in psychotherapy even though they did not change
significantly on this index. Two groups of chronic inpatient
schizophrenics were studied. One group was treated with a modified
version of electroconvulsive therapy with psychotherapy and the second
group was treated with medication and psychotherapy. Of those subjects
who progressed sufficiently to be discharged from hospitalization, those
treated with ECT showed a significant reduction in the mean egocentricity
index from pretreatment, while the drug-treated subjects who were
discharged still showed a comparatively high index. A comparison of the


-113-
6. POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO YOU OR TO OTHERS
As a student, you will have the opportunity to observe and
participate in psychological assessment procedures. You
will also receive two course credits for your two hour parti
cipation in the study.
7. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT OR PROCEDURES, IF APPLICABLE


-57-
test that was selected were scored. Interscorer agreement was calculated
by the same procedure that was employed with the Rorschach.
Hypotheses And Analyses
Exner proposed that the form-dimensional response represents a non-
emotional intropsective process. To test this hypothesis controlling for
other variables, a stepwise discriminant analysis was performed. The form
dimensional response was dichotomized into a low and high frequency group
based on the mean number of these responses given by the 150 subjects in
the study and acted as the dependent variable. The "D" and self-focus sub
scale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test, the private and
public self-consciousness subscale scores, and the anger, depression, and
anxiety subscale scores acted as the independent variables. It was ex
pected that 1) the different mood subscale scores would not predict to
frequency of this response, 2) a high score on the self-focus subscale and
high scores on the private and public self-consciousness subscales would be
predictive of a high frequency of this response, and 3) the D score would
be predictive of a low frequency of the FD response.
Exner postulated that the egocentricity index reflects a self-
focusing process. To test this hypothesis and to investigate whether self
esteem is related to the egocentricity index controlling for other vari
ables, a stepwise discriminant analysis was conducted. The egocentricity
index was dichotomized by the same procedure employed with the FD response
and acted as the dependent variable. The independent variables were the
"D", SN, and self-focusing subscale scores of the Self-Focus Sentence Com
pletion Test; the private and public self-consciousness subscale scores;


-28-
The high frequency of occurrence of both the vista response and the FD
response was thought to offer support for the hypothesis that the vista
response is an introspective process. There was no mention of the relation
ship between the number of vista responses given and the number of self-
focusing statements made. It may be that these subjects are more self-
focused than introspective. It may also be asked whether the high occurrence
of vista with FD responses can be accounted for by variables other than an
introspective process per se. The ensuing study was conducted by Exner to
address this issue.
Exner (1974) compared the Rorschach records of 74 inpatients who were
tested at pretreatment and posttreatment. All of the subjects were diagnosed
as suffering from some form of affective disorder. At least one vista re
sponse appeared in 62 of the 74 Rorschach records at the onset of treatment
(X = 1.61). At posttreatment these responses were found to occur in only 29
of the 74 protocols (X = 0.59). The number of FD responses did not change
significantly from pre- to posttreatment (2.1 VS. 2.3). An explanation for
the results was offered that suggested that while the painful characteristics
of the introspective process diminished, the tendency to introspect remained
high. Exner is implying that the vista response contains an affective com
ponent, while the FD response does not. Yet, if the introspective process
remains prominent, then the vista response should also remain high. It may
be that this response represents a certain type of introspection. Exner
(1974) suggests that the vista response reflects a painful introspective pro
cess rather than a more dispassionate view of oneself. There are a number of
studies which provide some support for this hypothesis.



PAGE 1

$ &216758&7 9$/,'$7,21 2) 7+( (*2&(175,&,7< ,1'(; $1' 7+( )250',0(16,21$/ $1' 9,67$ 7<3( 5(63216(6 2) (;1(5n6 &2035(+(16,9( 5256&+$&+ 6<67(0 %\ 0,&+$(/ $1'5(: 81*(5 $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( 6&+22/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

7R P\ SDUHQWV ZLWK PXFK ORYH DQG GHYRWLRQ

PAGE 3

$&.12:/('*(0(176 $ VHHG LV SODQWHG ,I WKH VRLO LV IHUWLOH DQG WKH HQYLURQPHQW LV RSWLPDO IRU JURZWK WKH VHHG ZLOO EORVVRP DQG IORXULVK DQG DOO ZLOO EHQHn ILW IURP LWV EHDXW\ ,Q D VLPLODU PDQQHU VHYHUDO LQGLYLGXDOV FRQWULn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n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n WLRQ WKURXJK WKH SV\FKRORJ\ GHSDUWPHQW VXEMHFW SRRO 0\ IHOORZ H[SHULn PHQWHUV $UWKXU %UDQG 0DU\ 0RUULV (UQLH %RUGLQL $QQ )UHXQG -XOLH /LSRYVN\ /HVOLH )ULHG 0DULND 6SHYFN /LQGD $EHOHV .DUHQ )URPLQJ DQG 3DWULFLD /HDY\ SURYLGHG LQYDOXDEOH DVVLVWDQFH DP GHHSO\ LQGHEWHG f§LLL

PAGE 4

WR WKHP IRU WKHLU WLPH DQG GHYRWLRQ )LQDOO\ ZRXOG OLNH WR WKDQN P\ IDPLO\ ZKRVH ORYH DQG GHYRWLRQ OLNH WKH VXQVKLQH IXHOHG P\ VSLULW DQG SURYLGHG PH ZLWK VWUHQJWK LY

PAGE 5

7$%/( 2) &217(176 3DJH $&.12:/('*(0(176 LLL /,67 2) 7$%/(6 YLL $%675$&7 L[ &+$37(5 /,7(5$785( 5(9,(: ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK 7HVW 7KH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 5HVSRQVH )'f 5HIOHFWLRQ DQG 3DLU 5HVSRQVHV 5f DQG f 7KH 6KDGLQJ'LPHQVLRQDOLW\ 5HVSRQVH 9LVWDf 6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 3UREOHP +\SRWKHVHV ,, 0(7+2' 6XEMHFWV $VVHVVPHQW ,QVWUXPHQWV 7KH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW 7KH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW ([SHULPHQWDO 3URFHGXUH ([SHULPHQWHUV 6HWWLQJ 2ULJLQDO &RQWDFW $VVLJQPHQW WR *URXSV ([SHULPHQWDO 6HVVLRQ ,QWHUUDWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ RI WKH 3URMHFWLYH ,QVWUXPHQWV 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW +\SRWKHVHV DQG $QDO\VHV Y

PAGE 6

7$%/( 2) &217(176 &RQWLQXHGf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

PAGE 7

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

PAGE 8

/,67 2) 7$%/(6 &RQWLQXHGf 7DEOH 3DJH 0HDQV IRU HDFK RI WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ )RUP 'LPHQVLRQDO DQG 9LVWD &DWHJRU\ *URXSV 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW 0RPHQW &RUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ DOO 9DULDEOHV YLLL

PAGE 9

$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\ $ &216758&7 9$/,'$7,21 2) 7+( (*2&(175,&,7< ,1'(; $1' 7+( )250',0(16,21$/ $1' 9,67$ 7<3( 5(63216(6 2) (;1(5n6 &2035(+(16,9( 5256&+$&+ 6<67(0 %\ 0LFKDHO $QGUHZ 8QJHU $XJXVW &KDLUPDQ (LOHHQ )HQQHOO 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW KDV VWLPXODWHG JUHDW LQWHUHVW H[WHQVLYH XVH DQG D FRQVLGHUDEOH DPRXQW RI UHVHDUFK $ QXPEHU RI 5RUVFKDFK V\Vn WHPV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG ZLWK UHVSHFW WR DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SURFHGXUHV VFRUn LQJ FULWHULD DQG WKH LQWHUSUHWLYH K\SRWKHVHV WKDW WKH\ JHQHUDWH 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP GHYHORSHG E\ ([QHU 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKUHH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV GHWHUPLQDQWVf LQWURGXFHG E\ ([QHU ZHUH H[DPLQHG 7KH YDOLGLW\ RI WKHVH GHWHUPLQDQWV ZDV H[DPLQHG E\ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH H[WHQW RU GHJUHH WKDW WKH\ LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQGRU FROOHFn WLYHO\ PHDVXUH WKH FRQVWUXFW RU SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVV WKDW WKH\ K\SRWKHn WLFDOO\ UHSUHVHQW 7KH WKUHH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV WKDW ZHUH H[SORUHG DUH WKRVH WKDW GHn VLJQDWH WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DQG WKH L[

PAGE 10

HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ (DFK VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHIOHFW D SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVV RU SHUFHSWXDOFRJQLWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV XVHG WR FUHDWH WKH UHVSRQVH 7KH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH LV SURSRVHG WR UHn IOHFW D QRQHPRWLRQDO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV 7KH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHSUHVHQW D VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI HJRn FHQWULFLW\ 7KH YLVWD UHVSRQVH LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHSUHVHQW D SDLQIXO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR IXUWKHU H[DPLQH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKHVH YDULDEOHV $ QRQSDWLHQW SRSXODWLRQ RI XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV ZDV XVHG )RXU TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ZHUH XVHG WKDW ZHUH WKRXJKW WR UHSUHVHQW WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH UHn IOHFWHG E\ HDFK YDULDEOH 7KH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV WKH WHQGHQF\ WR EH VHOI RU RWKHUFHQWHUHG 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV ZDV VHOHFWHG WR SURYLGH DQ HVWLPDWH RI DIIHFWLYH VWDWH 7KH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6FDOH ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV WKH SURFHVV RI VHOIIRFXVHG DWWHQWLRQ 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH ZDV HPSOR\HG WR PHDVXUH VHOI UHJDUG 'LVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW EDFNZDUG VWHSZLVH ORJLVWLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ XQLYDULDWH DQDO\VLV RI YDULDQFHf DQG &KL6TXDUH DQDO\VHV ZHUH XWLOL]HG 7KHVH DQDO\VHV IDLOHG WR VXSSRUW D K\SRWKHVLV RI FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ IRU WKH YLVWD DQG IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVHV 3XEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVRQHVV VHOIHVWHHP DQG WKH PRRG VWDWH RI DQJHU ZHUH IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 7KHVH UHVXOWV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ WHUPV RI LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU IXWXUH UHVHDUFK [

PAGE 11

&+$37(5 /,7(5$785( 5(9,(: ,QWURGXFWLRQ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK LV D WHVW WKDW KDV VWLPXODWHG JUHDW LQWHUHVW H[WHQn VLYH XVH DQG D FRQVLGHUDEOH DPRXQW RI UHVHDUFK )LUVW LQWURGXFHG LQ D SRVWKXPRXVO\ SXEOLVKHG PRQRJUDSK 5RUVFKDFK f WKH 5RUVFKDFK KDV VLQFH EHFRPH DQ LPSRUWDQW LQVWUXPHQW IRU WKH DVVHVVPHQW RI SHUVRQDOLW\ 7KH WHVW FRQVLVWV RI WHQ LQNEORWV DQG VXEMHFWV DUH UHTXLUHG WR YHUED DOL]H ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYH WKHP WR UHSUHVHQW 5RUVFKDFK KLPVHOI RQO\ VWXGLHG WKH LQNEORWV IRU D EULHI SHULRG RI WLPH SULRU WR KLV SUHPDWXUH GHDWK +H RIIHUHG D YDULHW\ RI SRVWXODWHV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH VSHFLILF IHDWXUHV RI WKH WHVW EXW GLG QRW IRUPXODWH D JOREDO WKHRU\ 5RUVFKDFK f 7KLV FKDOOHQJH ZDV DFFHSWHG E\ %HFN %HFN /HYLWW DQG 0ROLVK f +HUW] f .ORSIHU $LQVZRUWK .ORSIHU DQG +ROW f 3LRWURZVNL f DQG 5DSDSRUW *LOO DQG 6FKDIHU f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

PAGE 12

0DQ\ RI 5RUVFKDFKnV RULJLQDO SRVWXODWHV IRUP WKH EDVLV RQ ZKLFK WKH ILYH 5RUVFKDFK V\VWHPV KDYH EHHQ GHYHORSHG +RZHYHU HDFK V\VWHP GLIIHUV VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH RWKHUV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLYH SURFHn GXUHV VFRULQJ DQG WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLYH K\SRWKHVHV WKDW LW JHQHUDWHV 7KHVH IXQGDPHQWDO GLIIHUHQFHV KDYH PDGH V\VWHPDWLF UHVHDUFK HIIRUWV RI WKH WHVW GLIILFXOW )RU LQVWDQFH UHVHDUFKHUV RIWHQ IDLO WR LQGLFDWH ZKLFK V\VWHP WKH\ DUH XVLQJ DQGRU XVH PRUH WKDQ RQH V\VWHP ZKHQ FRQGXFWLQJ WKHLU VWXGLHV 7KH\ DOVR WHQG WR LQWHUSUHW WKHLU UHVXOWV XQGHU WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH\ DUH YDOLG DFURVV DOO V\VWHPV UHJDUGOHVV RI ZKLFK V\VWHPVf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f FRQGXFWHG D VXUYH\ DQG IRXQG WKDW SHUFHQW RI WKRVH FOLQLFLDQV ZKR VFRUH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV DGPLWWHG WR LQWHUPL[LQJ WKH VFRUHV IURP GLIIHUHQW V\VWHPV DQGRU DGGLQJ

PAGE 13

VFRUHV GHULYHG IURP SHUVRQDO H[SHULHQFHV ([QHU f VWDWHV WKDW ZKLOH WKLV PHWKRGRORJ\ KDV EHHQ DGDSWHG E\ WKH SUDFWLWLRQHU LW LV QRW D WUXHO\ VWDQGDUGL]HG PHWKRGRORJ\ +H KDV FDOOHG IRU D FRPSOHWH VWDQGDUGL]DWLRQ RI WKH 5RU QDFK D SURFHVV WKDW KDG EHHQ LPSHGHG EHFDXVH WKH UHVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG KDV FRQFHUQHG QRW RQH EXW VHYHUDO WHVWV ZKLFK VKDUH LQ FRPPRQ WKH VDPH VWLPXOXV ILJXUHV 7KLV LQ WXUQ KDV SUHFOXGHG WKH FRPSLODWLRQ RI DGHTXDWH UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ GDWD ([QHU f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f UHTXLUHG WKDW WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP KDYH KLJK YDOLGLW\ LQ UHVSRQVH WR FULWLFLVPV DJDLQVW WKH 5RUVFKDFK FRQFHUQLQJ LWV YDOLGDWLRQ *ROGIULHG 6WULHNHU DQG :HLQHU f EHOLHYH WKDW WKH TXHVWLRQ ,V WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDOLG" VKRXOG EH UHSODFHG LQ IDYRU RI WKH TXHVWLRQ :KDW LV WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDOLG IRU" %ODWW f SRLQWV RXW WKDW LQ FOLQLFDO SUDFWLFH WKH 5RUVFKDFK KDV W\SLFDOO\ EHHQ XVHG WR PDNH LQIHUHQFHV DERXW FHUWDLQ SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV DQG 0HHKO f UHFRPPHQGV D FRQVWUXFW YDOLGDWLRQ DSSURDFK DV WKH DSSURSULDWH PRGHO IRU

PAGE 14

FRQGXFWLQJ UHVHDUFK UHODWHG WR WKH 5RUVFKDFK LI LW LV WR \LHOG FOLQLFDOO\ XVHIXO LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ DQ HIIRUW WR IXUWKHU HVWDEOLVK WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI FHUWDLQ DVSHFWV RI WKH &RPn SUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP 6SHFLILFDOO\ WKUHH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV GHWHUPLQDQWVf LQWURGXFHG E\ ([QHU f ZHUH H[DPLQHG 7KH H[WHQW RU GHJUHH WKDW WKHVH GHWHUPLQDQWV LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQGRU FROOHFWLYHO\ PHDVXUH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFW RU SURFHVV WKDW WKH\ K\SRWKHWLFDOO\ UHSUHVHQW ZDV HYDOXDWHG 7KH 5RUVFKDFK 7HVW 7KH GDWD RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK LV D YHUEDO UHSRUW IURP WKH VXEMHFW RI ZKDW KH KDV VHHQ RU LPDJLQHG ZKHQ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WKH WHQ DPELJXRXV LQNEORWV ([QHU f ([QHU f KDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKHUH DUH DW OHDVW IRXU LQWHUUHODWHG SURFHVVHV LQYROYHG LQ HDFK YHUEDO UHVSRQVH JLYHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFW )LUVW WKH VXEMHFW PXVW DFNQRZOHGJH WKDW WKH WDVN LV WR VHH VRPHWKLQJ RWKHU WKDQ DQ LQNEORW DQG WR FDWHJRUL]H WKH PDQ\ REMHFWV ZKLFK WKH LQNEORWV RU LWV SDUWV PLJKW UHVHPEOH 6HFRQG WKH VXEMHFW UDQN RUGHUV WKH SRVVLEOH UHVSRQVHV WKDW KH KDV GHWHFWHG 7KLV SURFHVV LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV FRQFHUQ IRU SHUFHSWXDO DFFXUDF\ QHHGV DQG LQWHUQDO VHWV 7KHVH QHHGV DQG LQWHUQDO VHWV PD\ EH LQWHJUDO SDUWV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV SHUVRQDOLW\ VWUXFWXUH PDQLIHVW LQ WKH IRUP RI KLV EDVLF UHVSRQVH VW\OH RU EH PRUH VLWXDWLRQDO DQG WUDQVLWRU\ 7KLUG WKH VXEMHFW PXVW IHHO RU EHOLHYH WKDW KLV UHVSRQVH ZLOO EH DFFHSWDEOH 7KH ODVW IDFWRU K\SRWKHVL]HG WR LQIOXHQFH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVH LV WKH PDQQHU E\ ZKLFK KH YHUEDOO\ DUWLFXODWHV KLV DQVZHU 7KHUH DUH IHZ UXOHV DQG OLPLWHG VWUXFWXUH SURYLGHG E\ WKH 5RUVFKDFK WHVW IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR XVH WR JXLGH KLV EHKDYLRU +H LV IRUFHG WR

PAGE 15

XVH KLV SV\FKRORJLFDO UHVRXUFHV DQG WKH EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK LQ KLV MXGJPHQW ZLOO SURGXFH WKH PRVW DFFHSWDEOH UHVSRQVH )URP WKHVH UHVSRQVHV GHVFULSWLYH VWDWHPHQWV FDQ EH PDGH E\ WKH FOLQLFLDQ WKDW IRFXV RQ VXFK IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO DV UHVSRQVH VW\OHV DIIHFWLYLW\ FRJQLWLYH RSHUDWLRQV PRWLYDWLRQV SUHRFFXSDWLRQV DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDOLQWHUHQYLURQ PHQWDO SHUFHSWLRQV DQG UHVSRQVH WHQGHQFLHV ([QHU f 7R DVVLVW LQ PDNLQJ GHVFULSWLYH VWDWHPHQWV HDFK 5RUVFKDFK V\VWHP KDV D VFRULQJ SURFHVV WKDW FRQYHUWV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV LQWR D ORJLFDO DQG V\VWHPDWLF IRUPDW VR WKDW WKH\ FDQ EH VWXGLHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ DQG FROOHFWLYHO\ 7KLV SURYLGHV WKH VWUXFWXUDO GDWD ZKHUHDV WKH YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV SURYLGH WKH FRQWHQW GDWD IURP ZKLFK K\SRWKHVHV DUH JHQHUDWHG 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQFHUQHG RQO\ ZLWK WKH VWUXFWXUDO GDWD 5RUVFKDFK f RULJLQDOO\ GHYLVHG D V\VWHP RI V\PEROV DQG DEEUHYLDWLRQV WR FRGH HDFK YHUEDO UHVSRQVH LQWR D ODQJXDJH ZKLFK LGHQWLILHV LWV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV DQG FRPSRQHQWV +LV VFKHPH IRU VFRULQJ FRQVLVWHG RI IRXU EDVLF FDWHJRULHV f /RFDWLRQ WKH DUHD RI WKH LQNEORW ZKHUH WKH UHVSRQVH RFFXUUHGf f 'HWHUPLQDQWVf WKH VWLPXOXV IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW WKDW FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI WKH SHUFHSWf f &RQWHQW WKH FRQWHQW RI WKH UHVSRQVHf DQG f 3RSXODULW\ ZKHWKHU WKH UHVSRQVH LV FRPPRQ WR WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQf ([QHU f :KLOH DOO RI WKH V\VWHPDWL]HUV KDYH PDLQWDLQHG WKLV IRUPDW LQ WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH V\VWHPV +HUW] f %HFN f DQG ([QHU f KDYH HDFK DGGHG D VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ GHVLJQDWHG DV 2UJDQL]DWLRQDO $FWLYLW\ WR UHSUHVHQW WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH LQGLYLGXDO KDV RUJDQL]HG YDULRXV IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQNEORW LQ D PHDQLQJIXO ZD\ ([QHU f

PAGE 16

$Q LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI HDFK RI WKHVH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV ZRXOG VXUHO\ KDYH EHHQ IUXLWIXO IRU UHVHDUFK EXW ZDV EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI WKLV SDSHU 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQFHUQHG VROHO\ ZLWK WKH GHWHUPLQDQW VFRUHV RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK 7KH VFRULQJ RI GHWHUPLQDQWV SURYLGHV LQIRUPDWLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH SHUFHSWXDOFRJQDWLYH SURFHVV ZKLFK KDV SURGXFHG WKH UHVSRQVH ([QHU f ,Q WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 6\VWHP WKH PDQ\ VWLPXOXV FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQNEORWV IDOO LQWR QLQH GHWHUPLQDQW VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV f IRUP f PRYHPHQW f FRORU FKURPDWLFf f FRORU DFKURPDWLFf f WH[WXUH VKDGLQJf f JHQHUDO VKDGLQJ f GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ IRUPf f GLPHQVLRQn DOLW\ VKDGLQJf f SDLUV DQG UHIOHFWLRQV ([QHU f 7KHUH KDV EHHQ FRPSDUDWLYHO\ OLWWOH UHVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG WR FRQILUP ZKLFK SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV WKH ODVW WKUHH RI WKHVH QLQH GHWHUPLQDQWV DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHSUHVHQW ,W ZDV WKHUHIRUH GHFLGHG WR IXUWKHU OLPLW WKH IRFXV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WR WKHVH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV 7KH GHWHUPLQDQWV ZKLFK ([QHU f LQWURGXFHG LQ KLV FRPSUHKHQVLYH V\VWHP DQG ZKLFK ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ KDYH KLVWRULFDOO\ EHHQ VFRUHG DV OLJKWGDUN GHWHUPLQHG UHVSRQVHV E\ RWKHU V\VWHPDWL]HUV 7KH VFRULQJ RI WKHVH OLJKWGDUN GHWHUPLQHG UHVSRQVHV LV DQ DUHD DERXW ZKLFK 5RUVFKDFK ZURWH YHU\ OLWWOH DQG DV D UHVXOW HDFK V\VWHPDWL]HU KDV GHYHORSHG KLV RZQ FULWHULD ([QHU f )RU H[DPSOH %HFN HW DO f VFRUHG WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DV RQH LQ ZKLFK WKH YDULDWLRQV LQ VKDGLQJ JDYH D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO HIIHFW DV RI VRPHWKLQJ VHHQ LQ SHUVSHFWLYH +LV FULWHULD IRU FRQWHQW UHVSRQVHV VFRUDEOH DV YLVWD ZHUH WKH GLVWDQW XVXDOO\ ODQGVFDSHV VRPHWLPHV DHULDO YLHZV RFFDVLRQDOO\ DVWURQRPLFDO SHUFHSWV WKH KHLJKWV LQ ODQGVFDSHV DUFKLWHFWXUH XVXVDOO\ DV KHLJKW DQG OHVV RIWHQ DV EHLQJ GLVWDQW LQVXODULW\ XVXDOO\ ODQG LQ ZDWHU EXW

PAGE 17

VRPHWLPHV ZDWHU VXUURXQGHG E\ ODQG GHSWKV XVXDOO\ ZDWHU EXW DOVR FDYHV UHIOHFWLRQV XVXDOO\ LQ ZDWHU VRPHWLPHV LQ PLUURUV %HFN HW DO SJf )RU D UHVSRQVH WR EH VFRUHG DV YLVWD WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV YHUEDOLn ]DWLRQV ZHUH UHTXLUHG WR UHIHU WR GLVWDQFH KHLJKW GHSWK RU UHIOHFWLRQ %HFN K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWHG VHQVHG SDLQ RU WKH FKDUDFWHU WUDLW RI LQIHULRULW\ IHHOLQJV %HFN HW DO f .ORSIHU $LQVZRUWK .ORSIHU DQG +ROW f XVHG WKH V\PERO ). WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV YHUEDOL]HG E\ DQ LQGLYLGXDO ZKHUH D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO RU GHSWK LPSUHVVLRQ LV FRPELQHG ZLWK GHILQLWH IRUP SHUFHSWLRQ JLYLQJ SHUVSHFWLYH WR WKH FRQWHQW 7KH V\PERO )N LV XVHG WR GHVLJQDWH D UHVSRQVH ZKHUH WKH XVH RI VKDGLQJ JLYHV WKH LPSUHVVLRQ RI D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO SODQH LQYROYLQJ GHILQLWH VKDSH RU N) DUH VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO XVHV VKDGLQJ WR JLYH D GLIIXVH XQVWUXFWXUHG EXW WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO HIIHFW WR WKH FRQWHQW RI WKHLU UHVSRQVH .ORSIHU HW DO f OLNH %HFN HW DO f GLG QRW DOZD\V UHTXLUH WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO GLUHFWO\ UHIHU WR WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV VKDGLQJf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

PAGE 18

WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR FRSH ZLWK DIIHFWLRQ DQG DQ[LHW\ E\ LQWURVSHFWLYH HIIRUWV .ORSIHU HW DO f ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV WKH\ DUH LQWHUSUHWHG WR UHSUHVHQW DQ DWWHPSW E\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR FRSH ZLWK WKH DQ[LHW\ JHQHUDWHG E\ KLV QHHGV IRU VHFXULW\ DIIHFWLRQ DQG EHORQJLQJQHVV E\ SXWWLQJ KLV SUREOHP DW D GLVWDQFH IURP KLPVHOI VR WKDW KH FDQ YLHZ LW PRUH GLVSDVVLRQn DWHO\ .ORSIHU HW DO f EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH ). W\SH UHVSRQVH DSSHDUHG WR EH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR DUH XQVXFFHVVIXO LQ FRSLQJ ZLWK WKHLU DQ[LHW\ E\ PRUH LQWHOOHFWXDO PHDQV DQG ODFN WKH HPRWLRQDO LQn VLJKW QHHGHG WR FRSH HIIHFWLYHO\ ZLWK WKHLU SUREOHPV ([QHU f KDV LQWURGXFHG LQWR WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP IRXU GHWHUPLQDQW VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV WKDW %HFN HW DO f ZRXOG VFRUH DV YLVWD DQG .ORSIHU HW DO f ZRXOG VFRUH DV D ). W\SH UHVSRQVH 7KHVH GHWHUPLQDQWV ZLOO EH GLVFXVVHG LQ WKH IROORZLQJ SDVVDJHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKRLU VFRULQJ FULWHULD DQG WKH UHVHDUFK FRQGXFWHG WKXV IDU WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV WKDW WKH\ UHIOHFW 7KH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 5HVSRQVH )'f ([QHU f LQWURGXFHG WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO )'f GHWHUPLQDQW WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV WR WKH LQNEORWV ZKLFK LQFOXGH SHUVSHFWLYH RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ IRUP LQWHUSUHWHG E\ VL]H RU LQ UHODWLRQ WR RWKHU EORW DUHDV $OWKRXJK WKHUH LV QR VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ FRPSDWLEOH WR LW LQ WKH RWKHU 5RUVFKDFK V\VWHPV .ORSIHU HW DO f KDYH LQFOXGHG VXFK UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH ). FDWHJRU\ HYHQ WKRXJK QR VKDGLQJ LV LQYROYHGf DQG %HFN HW DO f KDYH VFRUHG WKHVH UHVSRQVHV DV YLVWD ZKHQ WKH XQDUWLFXODWHG XVH RI VKDGLQJ VHHPV YHU\ OLNHO\ )RUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVHV KDYH EHHQ REVHUYHG WR RFFXU LQ UHVSRQVHV WR HDFK RI WKH LQNEORW

PAGE 19

FDUGV ([QHU f $OWKRXJK WKH FULWHULD IRU VFRULQJ )' KDYH QRW EHHQ ILQDOL]HG LW LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ RU SHUVSHFWLYH LV EDVHG RQ WKH VL]H RI WKH EORW DUHD XVHG RU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ EORW DUHDV 7KH XVHIXOQHVV RI )' DV D VHSDUDWH VFRULQJ GHWHUPLQDQW HPHUJHG IURP D VWXG\ RI VL[W\ 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV REWDLQHG IURP VXEMHFWV ZKR GXULQJ D SHULRG RI QLQHW\ GD\V IROORZLQJ WHVWLQJ PDGH D VXLFLGH DWWHPSW HLJKWHHQ RI ZKLFK ZHUH VXFFHVVIXO ([QHU f ([DPLQDWLRQ RI WKHVH SURWRFROV UHYHDOHG WKDW RQ WKH DYHUDJH WKH\ FRQWDLQHG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI IRUP GHWHUPLQHG GLPHQVLRQDOSHUVSHFWLYH UHVSRQVHV ; f DV FRPSDUHG WR D QRQSV\FKLDWULF JURXS ; f ([QHU DOVR REVHUYHG WKDW WKH )' W\SH RI UHVSRQVH RFFXUUHG ZLWK FRQVLGHUDEOH IUHTXHQF\ LQ WKH UHFRUGV RI D YDULHW\ RI VXEMHFWV ZKHWKHU WKH\ ZHUH IURP SV\FKLDWULF RU QRQSV\FKLDWULF SRSXODWLRQV 8VLQJ WKLV SDUWLFXODU VFRULQJ FULWHULRQ )' UHVSRQVHV ZHUH WDOOLHG IURP 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV ZKHUHDV RQO\ YLVWD UHVSRQVHV ZHUH WDOOLHG DV VFRUHG E\ WKH %HFN HW DO f 5RUVFKDFK V\VWHP ([QHU f 7KH PHDQ QXPEHU RI )' W\SH UHVSRQVHV DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK LW RFFXUV LQFUHDVHV FRQVLVWHQWO\ ZLWK WKH LQFUHDVH LQ D SHUVRQnV DJH ([QHU f %HJLQQLQJ DW DJH HLJKW WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH KDV EHHQ REVHUYHG WR DSSHDU DW OHDVW RQFH LQ PRUH WKDQ KDOI RI DOO LQGLYLGXDOV WHVWHG ,W ZDV ILUVW EHOLHYHG WKDW WKH )' UHVSRQVH ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI VXLFLGDO LQGLYLGXDOV )XUWKHU H[DPLQDWLRQ RI YDULRXV 5RUVFKDFK SURWRFROV VKRZHG WKDW DQ RXWSDWLHQW UHIHUHQFH JURXS JDYH DQ DYHUDJH RI )' W\SH UHVSRQVHV DQG D VFKL]Rn SKUHQLF UHIHUHQFH JURXS JDYH DQ DYHUDJH RI )' UHVSRQVHV SHU UHFRUG 1RQSDWLHQWV ZHUH IRXQG WR JLYH RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV SHU UHFRUG

PAGE 20

([QHU f ,W ZDV UHDVRQHG WKDW VLQFH RXWSDWLHQWV DUH HQFRXUDJHG WR EH LQWURVSHFWLYH GXULQJ WKHUDS\ DQG GHSUHVVLYHV E\ GHILQLWLRQ DUH VWLPXODWHG WRZDUG D IRUP RI LQWURVSHFWLRQ WKH )' UHVSRQVH PD\ EH UHn ODWHG WR LQWURVSHFWLYH DFWLYLW\ ([QHU KDV RIIHUHG VRPH WHQWDWLYH UHn VHDUFK ORRNLQJ DW WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS ([QHU f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

PAGE 21

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n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f DV DQ LQGH[ IRU PHDVXULQJ HJRFHQWULFLW\ 7KUHH VXEVFDOH VFRUHV FDQ EH REWDLQHG IURP WKLV WHVW f WKH 6HOI)RFXV VXEVFDOH VFRUH f WKH ([WHUQDO:RUOG

PAGE 22

)RFXV VXEVFDOH VFRUH DQG f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nV FULWHULD LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV DUH PRUH HJRFHQWULF WKDQ WKH KLJK )' JURXS 2QFH DJDLQ FRPSDULVRQV WR D FRQWURO JURXS ZHUH QRW UHSRUWHG :RUNLQJ IURP WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH )' UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D SURn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

PAGE 23

)URP WKHVH VWXGLHV ([QHU f FRQFOXGHG WKDW LI WKH )' UHVSRQVH LV DOVR LQWHUSUHWHG DV D W\SH RI IRUP UHVSRQVH DV KDYLQJ DIIHFWGHOD\ RSHUDWLRQV WKHQ WKH VHOIH[DPLQDWLRQ PD\ EH D IRUP RI DIIHFWLYHGHOD\ WKURXJK D W\SH RI UHDVRQLQJ ZKLFK FHQWHUV RQ WKH VHOI LWV DVVHWV DQG LWV OLPLWDWLRQV ,W UHSUHVHQWV D QRQHPRWLRQDO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV $ QXPEHU RI FULWLFLVPV FDQ EH UDLVHG DJDLQVW WKHVH VWXGLHV $V DOn UHDG\ PHQWLRQHG WKH KLJK DQG ORZ )' JURXSV ZHUH QRW FRPSDUHG WR D FRQWURO JURXS 7KHUHIRUH WKHVH VXEMHFWV PD\ QRW EH PRUH RU OHVV LQWURn VSHFWLYH WKDQ WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ $ VHFRQG FULWLFLVP FRQFHUQV WKH WKLUG VWXG\ $ QXPEHU RI YDULDEOHV RWKHU WKDQ LQWURVSHFWLYHQVV SHU VH VXFK DV OHYHO RI DQ[LHW\ PD\ KDYH LQIOXHQFHG WKH QXPEHU RI )' UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ 7KH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW WKH UHVXOWV ZHUH GXH WR DQ LQWURVSHFWLYH SURn FHVV FDQQRW EH UHDFKHG XQOHVV D PRUH VWULQJHQW FULWHULRQ LV XVHG WR WHVW WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS ,QWURVSHFWLRQ FDQ EH GHILQHG DV DQ H[DPLQDWLRQ RI RQHnV RZQ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV 'XYDO DQG :LFNOXQG f 1RQH RI WKH VWXGLHV FLWHG DERYH GLUHFWO\ WHVWHG ZKHWKHU VXEMHFWV ZKR JLYH PRUH )' UHVSRQVHV DUH PRUH DZDUH RI WKHLU RZQ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV WKDQ WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ ,Q DGGLWLRQ QRQH RI WKH VWXGLHV WHVWHG GLUHFWO\ ZKHWKHU DQ DIIHFWLYH FRPSRQHQW LV LQYROYHG RU DEVHQW IURP WKH )' UHVSRQVH 7KHUHIRUH WKH LQWHUSUHWLYH FRQFOXVLRQV UHDFKHG E\ ([QHU ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKLV UHVSRQVH VWLOO VHHP WHQWDWLYH DQG PRUH WKH UHVXOW RI LQn IHUHQFH WKDQ GLUHFW HPSLULFDO WHVWLQJ 5HIOHFWLRQ DQG 3DLU 5HVSRQVHV 5f DQG f 7KH UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU GHWHUPLQDQWV DUH QRW VFRUHG VHSDUDWHO\ LQ DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU 5RUVFKDFK V\VWHPV %HFN HW DO f DQG .ORSIHU HW DO f HDFK VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH RI UHVSRQVH EH VFRUHG

PAGE 24

DV D W\SH RI OLJKWGDUN UHVSRQVH %HFN HW DO f VFRUH WKH UHIOHFn WLRQ UHVSRQVH WKDW XVHV WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW DV D VKDGLQJ YLVWD UHVSRQVH DQG WKRVH EDVHG VROHO\ RQ WKH V\PPHWU\ RI WKH EORW DV D IRUP GHWHUPLQDQW UHVSRQVH %HFN HW DO DVVXPH WKDW WKH VDPH SHUFHSWXDO FRJQLWLYH SURFHVV LV LQYROYHG LQ WKH UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH RI UHVSRQVH DV WKDW LQYROYLQJ GHSWK DQGRU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ .ORSIHU HW DO f XVHG ). WR GHVLJQDWH WKH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH EDVHG RQ EORW V\PPHWU\ DQG LI WKH PLGOLQH RI WKH LQN EORW LV QRWHG DV D VKDGLQJ GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ /LNH WKH )' UHVSRQVHV WKH UHIOHFWLRQ 5f UHVSRQVH LV EDVHG RQ WKH IRUP RI WKH LQNEORW ([QHU GHVLJQDWHV WZR VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV IRU WKH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH 7KH ILUVW WKH UHIOHFWLRQIRUP UHVSRQVH U)f LV VFRUHG IRU WKRVH UHVSRQVHV LQ ZKLFK WKH V\PPHWU\ IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW DUH SULPDU\ LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH DQVZHU DQG IRUP LV XVHG QRQVSHFLILFDOO\ RU DPELJXRXVO\ DV DQ REMHFW EHLQJ UHIOHFWHG ([QHU S f 5Hn IOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV VFRUHG LQ WKLV PDQQHU DOZD\V LQYROYH FRQWHQW ZLWK QRQn VSHFLILF IRUP UHTXLUHPHQWV LH FORXGV VKDGRZV URFNVf 7KH IRUP UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH )5f LV XVHG WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV ZKHUH WKH IRUP RI WKH EORW LV XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ VSHFLILF FRQWHQW ZKLFK LV LQWHUn SUHWHG DV UHIOHFWHG EHFDXVH RI WKH V\PPHWU\ RI WKH EORW ([QHU S f 7KH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH ZKHWKHU U) RU )U LV EDVHG RQ WKH V\PPHWU\ RI WKH LQNEORW 7KH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH ZKLFK GRHV QRW XVH V\PPHWU\ DQG XVHV WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQNEORW LV VFRUHG VHSDUDWHO\ DV HLWKHU D YLVWD RU DV D VKDGLQJ UHVSRQVH 7KH SDLU f UHVSRQVH LV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ WKH IRUP SURSHUWLHV RI WKH LQNEORW DQG LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH SHUFHLYHG REMHFW LV UHSRUWHG DV WZR REMHFWV EHFDXVH RI WKH FDUG V\PPHWU\ ([QHU S f

PAGE 25

7KH UDWLRQDOH IRU FUHDWLQJ WZR VHSDUDWH VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV IRU UHn IOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV HPHUJHG LQ D VWXG\ RULJLQDOO\ GHVLJQHG WR H[DPLQH QDUFLVVLVP DQG DFWLQJRXW EHKDYLRU ([QHU Df 7KH VWXG\ ZDV EDVHG RQ D SUHPLVH RI QDUFLVVP H[SRXQGHG E\ .RKXW f .RKXW GHn VFULEHV D QDUFLVVLVWLF EDODQFH ZKLFK SURYLGHV WKH LPSHWXV WRZDUG GULYH VDWLVIDFWLRQ EXW ZKLFK LV DOVR WHPSHUHG E\ VRFLDO UHDOLW\ :KHQ WKLV EDODQFH LV GLVUXSWHG WZR IRUPV RI SDWKRORJ\ PD\ RFFXU 7KH ILUVW LQYROYHV DQ H[FHVVLYH SUHRFFXSDWLRQ ZLWK WKH VHOI DQG WKH LPPHGLDWH JUDn WLILFDWLRQ RI LPSXOVHV ZKLFK RFFXUV LQ WKH PDMRULW\ RI VH[XDO SHUYHUVLRQV DQG FKDUDFWHU GLVRUGHUV 7KH VHFRQG WDNHV WKH IRUP RI ZLWKGUDZDO ZKLFK RFFXUV LQ PDQ\ RI WKH GHSUHVVLYH UHDFWLRQV DQG VRPH VFKL]RSKUHQLDV 7KH VWXG\ WKXV LQFOXGHG WKUHH HTXDO JURXSV RI KRPRVH[XDOV VRFLRSDWKV DQG GHSUHVVLYHV DV WKHLU EHKDYLRU LV LQ WKHRU\ QDUFLVVLVWLF $ FRQWURO JURXS ZDV DOVR LQFOXGHG $OO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG 5RUVFKDFKV :KHQ WKHLU UHFRUGV ZHUH VFRUHG E\ WKH %HFN HW DO f PHWKRG HDFK JURXS ZDV IRXQG WR JLYH D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV 7KLV ZDV QRW WKH FDVH ZKHQ D VHSDUDWH VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ ZDV XVHG WR GHVLJQDWH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV 7KH KRPRVH[XDO DQG FKDUDFWHU GLVRUGHU JURXSV JDYH VLJQLILn FDQWO\ PRUH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV WKDQ WKH RWKHU WZR JURXSV 7KH GHSUHVn VLYH DQG FRQWURO JURXSV ZHUH QRW IRXQG WR GLIIHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ LQ WKLV UHJDUG 2Q WKH EDVLV RI WKHVH ILQGLQJV LW ZDV UHDVRQHG WKDW WKH VFRULQJ RI WKH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH ZDUUDQWHG D VHSDUDWH FDWHJRU\ IRU GLDJQRVWLF DSSUDLVDO ([QHU f 7KLV ORJLF ZDV DOVR DSSOLHG WR WKH SDLU f UHVSRQVH ZKLFK ZDV DOVR UHFRUGHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH\ PLJKW UHSUHVHQW D PRUH VXEWOH RU FRQWUROOHG IRUP RI UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVH ([QHU f 3DLU UHVSRQVHV RFFXUUHG LQ DOPRVW DOO RI WKH

PAGE 26

UHFRUGV 6LJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG XVLQJ WWHVWV WR FRPSDUH JURXSV 7KH KRPRVH[XDOV DV D JURXS JDYH PRUH RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV WKDQ DOO RWKHU JURXSV 7KH GHSUHVVLYHV JDYH IHZHU SDLU UHVSRQVHV WKDQ DOO RWKHU JURXSV ([QHU f ,Q OLJKW RI WKHVH ILQGLQJV ([QHU f WKHQ GHFLGHG WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV WR WKH FRQFHSW RI QDUFLVVLVP $ VDPSOH RI PDOHV FRPSRVHG RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV DQG LQGXVWULDO ZRUNHUV ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG D LWHP VHQWHQFH FRPn SOHWLRQ WHVW RULJLQDOO\ GHVLJQHG E\ :DWVRQ f DQG VXEVHTXHQWO\ PRGLn ILHG E\ ([QHU f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n VLVWLF JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG XVLQJ WWHVWV 7KH KLJK QDUFLVVLVWLF JURXS ZDV IRXQG WR DYHUDJH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV WKDQ WKH ORZ QDUFLVVLVWLF JURXS 1R FRQWURO JURXS ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH QXPEHU RI SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ GLIIHUHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP D QRUPDO SRSXODWLRQ ([QHU f IRUPXODWHG WKH WKUHH IROORZLQJ SRVWXODWHV EDVHG RQ WKHVH ILQGLQJV )LUVW WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR DUH KLJKO\ QDUFLVVLVWLF ZLOO PDQLIHVW WKLV WUDLW LQ WKHLU SHUFHSWLRQ DQG YHUEDOL]DWLRQ RI UHIOHFWLRQ RU PLUURULPDJH W\SH UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH

PAGE 27

5RUVFKDFK 6HFRQG WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR DUH ORZ RQ WKH QDUFLVVLVWLF WUDLW ZLOO QRW H[KLELW UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVHV DQG ZLOO KDYH D UHVWULFWHG QXPEHU RI SDLU UHVSRQVHV 7KLUG SHUVRQV GHPRQVWUDWLQJ D UHDVRQDEOH QDUFLVVLVWLF EDODQFH LQ WKHLU DGMXVWPHQW FDQ EH H[SHFWHG WR YHUEDOL]H D UHDVRQDEOH QXPEHU RI SDLU UHVSRQVHV DQG IHZ LI DQ\ UHIOHFn WLRQ UHVSRQVHV ([QHU IXUWKHU FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKHVH ILQGLQJV VHHP FRQVLVn WHQW ZLWK WKH SV\FKRDQDO\WLF FRQFHSWLRQ RI QDUFLVVLVP DV VHOIORYH )UHXG f 2QH TXHVWLRQ OHIW XQDQVZHUHG E\ WKLV VWXG\ FRQFHUQHG WKH GHSUHVVLYHV ,I GHSUHVVHG LQGLYLGXDOV DUH LQ WKHRU\ QDUFLVVLVWLF .RKXW f ZK\ GR WKH\ QRW YHUEDOL]H DV PDQ\ UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV DV WKH KRPRVH[XDO RU VRFLRSDWKLF JURXSV" ,W ZDV IRXQG WKDW WKH GHSUHVVLYH JURXS JDYH D VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV WKDQ DQ\ RI WKH RWKHU JURXSV H[FOXVLYH RI UHIOHFWLRQf ,I WKLV LV VR ZKDW GLIIHUHQWLDWHV WKH SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH" ([QHU UHSRUWHG WKDW EHFDXVH RI WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH FRQFHSW RI QDUn FLVVLVP LW VHHPHG PRUH DSSURSULDWH WR XVH WKH FRQFHSW RI HJRFHQWUL FLW\ RU VHOIIRFXV WR LQWHUSUHW WKHVH GDWD ([QHU f 1R IXUWKHU H[SODQDWLRQ ZDV RIIHUHG IRU WKLV FKDQJH LQ VWDQFH ([QHU f VXEVHn TXHQWO\ UHSOLFDWHG WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG VWXG\ XVLQJ D QRQSV\FKLDWULF SRSXODWLRQ RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV 7KH VHQWHQFH FRPSOHWLRQ EODQN ZDV UHYLVHG VR DV WR LQFOXGH RQO\ LWHPV DQG D PRUH FRPSUHKHQVLYH VFRULQJ V\VWHP 6L[W\ VXEMHFWV ZHUH VHOHFWHG WR IRUP WZR JURXSV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU H[WUHPHO\ KLJK RU H[WUHPHO\ ORZ VHOIIRFXV VFRUHV (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV VXEVHTXHQWO\ DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK $ FRPSDULVRQ RI WKH WZR JURXSV UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH KLJK VHOIIRFXV JURXS SURGXFHG QHDUO\ WZLFH DV

PAGE 28

PDQ\ SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV $ FRPSDULVRQ EHWZHHQ JURXSV RQ WKH VFRUH VHOIIRFXV VFRUH PLQXV H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXV VFRUHf ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG DOWKRXJK WKLV ZDV GHVLJQDWHG DV D FULWHULRQ IRU QDUFLVVLVP LQ WKH ILUVW VWXG\ DQG HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQ D SUHYLRXVO\ FLWHG VWXG\ LQYHVWLJDn WLQJ WKH )' UHVSRQVH ([QHU f 1R FRQWURO JURXS ZDV XVHG WR GHWHUPLQH LI WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVHV GLIIHUHG IURP D QRUPDO SRSXODWLRQ 1HYHUWKHOHVV WKHVH UHVXOWV ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG E\ ([QHU WR SURYLGH VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH QRWLRQ WKDW WKH UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV UHSUHVHQW D VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV ,Q RQH RI WKH IHZ VWXGLHV WKDW ZDV SURSRVHG WR VWXG\ WKH SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH WR WKH SURFHVV RI HJRFHQWULWLW\ LWVHOI ([QHU f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n FLW\ LV EHLQJ GHILQHG KHUH RU ZKHWKHU LW FDQ EH VDLG WR EH UHSUHVHQWHG KHUH DW DOO ,Q D VHSDUDWH SDSHU ([QHU DOVR UHSRUWHG RQ WKH XVH RI WKH 6HOI )RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WR FRPSDUH KLJK DQG ORZ PLUURU YLHZLQJ JURXSV ([QHU f 7KH KLJK PLUURU YLHZLQJ JURXS ZDV IRXQG WR VFRUH

PAGE 29

VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU RQ WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH WKDQ WKH ORZ PLUURU YLHZLQJ JURXS 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZLWK WKH QXPEHU RI UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV SURGXFHG ZDV QRW UHSRUWHG %DVHG RQ RWKHU ILQGLQJV ([QHU f LW PD\ EH LQIHUUHG WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR VWDUHG LQ WKH PLUURU IRU D JUHDWHU OHQJWK RI WLPH DQG JDYH PRUH VHOIIRFXVHG UHVSRQVHV ZRXOG JLYH PRUH UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLUW\SH UHVSRQVHV WKDQ WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR VSHQW OLWWOH WLPH ORRNLQJ LQ WKH PLUURU 7KLV LV RQO\ DQ LQIHUHQFH DQG LW LV VXUSULVLQJ WKDW ([QHU GLG QRW UHSRUW RQ WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS DV VXSSRUWLQJ RU FRQWUDGLFWLQJ KLV K\SRWKHVLV 5D\FKDXGXUL DQG 0XNHUML f IRXQG WKDW UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV DSSHDU YHU\ LQIUHTXHQWO\ DPRQJ DGXOW SURWRFROV H[FHSW IRU WKRVH LQGLYLn GXDOV ZLWK VHULRXV VH[ UROH FRQIXVLRQ WKRVH ZKR DUH SURQH WR DQWLVRFLDO EHKDYLRU DQG VFKL]RSKUHQLFV 7KH\ FRQFOXGH WKDW WKH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH LV D SULPLWLYH IRUP RI VHOIFHQWHUHGQHVV %DVHG RQ WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH DERYH VWXGLHV ([QHU f SURSRVHG WKDW UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV DUH UHODWHG WR DQ HJRFHQWULF RU VHOI IRFXVLQJ SURFHVV +H WKHQ GHYHORSHG DQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ U f5f WR GHVLJQDWH VHOIFRQFHUQ ,W ZDV GHFLGHG WR PXOWLSO\ WKH QXPEHU RI UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV E\ WKUHH EHFDXVH RI WKH UHODWLYH LQIUHTXHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK LW RFFXUV LQ DOO SRSXODWLRQV )RU QRQSDWLHQWV WKLV UDWLR UDQJHV IURP WR UHVSRQVHV SHU SURWRFRO $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV ZHUH VXEn VHTXHQWO\ FDUULHG RXW WR GHWHUPLQH WKH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 2QH VXFK VWXG\ ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW FKLOGUHQ DUH YHU\ VHOIFHQWHUHG HVSHFLDOO\ GXULQJ WKH HDUO\ GHYHORSPHQWDO \HDUV ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f IRXQG WKDW UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV DSSHDU LQ KDOI RI WKH

PAGE 30

SURWRFROV RI FKLOGUHQ DJHV ILYH WKURXJK HLJKW 7KH SURSRUWLRQ RI 5RUVFKDFK SURWRFROV FRQWDLQLQJ UHIOHFWLRQV EHJLQV WR GLPLQLVK DW DJH QLQH +RZHYHU ILIWHHQ\HDU ROGV JLYH D ODUJH SURSRUWLRQ RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV 7KH SDLU UHVSRQVHV ZHUH IRXQG WR RFFXU LQ WKH SURWRFROV RI FKLOGUHQ DW HYHU\ DJH JURXS :LWK WKH H[FHSWLRQ RI WKH FKLOGUHQ DW WKH ILYH \HDU DJH OHYHO QR VWDWLVWLFDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV IRU WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI SDLU UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ ZHUH IRXQG EHWZHHQ DJH JURXSV 7KH U f5 LQGH[ ZDV IRXQG WR GHFOLQH FRQVLVWHQWO\ DV DJH LQFUHDVHV ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f ([QHU .XKQ 6FKXPDFKHU DQG )LVKPDQ f H[DPLQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DQG WKH ILHOG GHSHQGHQFHLQGHSHQGHQFH SKHQRPHQRQ RU ORFXV RI FRQWURO ,(f YDULDEOH $ URG DQG IUDPH DSSDUDWXV ZDV XVHG WR PHDVXUH ILHOG GHSHQGHQFH DQG 5RWWHUnV ,( VFDOH WR PHDVXUH ORFXV RI FRQWURO 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH SDWLHQWV DQG QRQSDWLHQWV 5DQN RUGHU FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR WHVW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS $ ORZ SRVLWLYH EXW QRW VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ ORFXV RI FRQWURO DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 7KH ILQGLQJ ZDV WKH VDPH IRU WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ ILHOG GHSHQGHQFHLQGHSHQGHQFH DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f LQWURGXFHG D VSHFLDO 5RUVFKDFK VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ 3HUVRQDOf 3(5f WR GHVLJQDWH UHIHUHQFH WR SHUVRQDO NQRZOHGJH RU H[SHULHQFH LQ GLUHFW UHODWLRQ WR D UHVSRQVH 2UGLQDULO\ WKH SHUVRQDO SURQRXQV PH P\ RU ZH ZLOO EH SUHVHQW LQ WKH 3(5 UHVSRQVH EXW LW LV QRW VXIILFLHQW WR MXVWLI\ WKH VFRULQJ 5DWKHU WKH YHUEDOL]Dn WLRQ WR EH VFRUHG LPSOLHV D FOHDU MXVWLILFDWLRQ WR WKH SHUFHSW S f ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f VHOHFWHG D JURXS RI VXEMHFWV IURP D SRRO RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV EDVHG RQ WKHLU UHVSRQVHV WR WKH *HRXJK $GMHFWLYH

PAGE 31

&KHFNOLVW 7KLV VFDOH LV IUHTXHQWO\ XVHG DV DQ LQGH[ RI VHOIHVWHHP DOWKRXJK LW ZDV QRW GHVLJQHG WR GR VR +HQFH LWV YDOLGLW\ DQG UHOLDn ELOLW\ DUH KLJKO\ VXVSHFW :\OLH f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n VKLS EHWZHHQ WKH QXPEHU RI 3(5 UHVSRQVHV DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ZDV QRW FRPSDUHG GLUHFWO\ ,I WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ GRHV UHSUHVHQW D VHOI IRFXVLQJ SURFHVV VXEMHFWV ZKR HQGRUVHG WKH JUHDWHVW QXPEHU RI SRVLWLYH DGMHFWLYHV DQG JDYH D KLJK QXPEHU RI 3(5 UHVRQVHV VKRXOG KDYH KDG D VLJQLILFDQWO\ KLJKHU PHDQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ VFRUH WKDQ WKH FRQWURO JURXS 7KH IDFW WKDW WKH\ GLG QRW FDOOV IXUWKHU DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH SRLQW PDGH HDUOLHU ZLWK UHJDUG WR WKH DEVHQFH RI FRQWURO JURXSV LQ PDQ\ RI ([QHUnV VWXGLHV DQG VKHGV VRPH GRXEW RQ WKH ILQGLQJV IURP SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV 7KLV ZDV WKH ILUVW DQG RQO\ VWXG\ E\ ([QHU UHODWLQJ VHOIHVWHHP WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ $OWKRXJK QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH LQGLFHV WKH TXHVWLRQDEOH YDOLGLW\ RI WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUH XVHG VWLOO OHDYHV WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS RSHQ WR IXUWKHU WHVWLQJ ,Q IDFW ([QHU

PAGE 32

f VWDWHG WKDW DOWKRXJK WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ LV HVVHQWLDOO\ UHODWHG WR D VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV WKH LVVXH RI VHOIHVWHHP LV DOVR SUREDEO\ PDQLIHVW DW OHDVW ZKHQ WKH LQGH[ LV ORZ S f 7KLV VWDWHn PHQW ZDV EDVHG RQ WKH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI GHSUHVVHG VXEMHFWV DQG VXLFLGH SURQH SDWLHQWV ZKR JLYH D ORZ LQGH[ ([QHU f FDXWLRQV KRZHYHU WKDW D KLJK HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ VKRXOG QRW EH LQWHUSUHWHG WR LQGLFDWH D IRUP RI VHOIJORULILFDWLRQ $Q H[FHVVLYH VHOIIRFXV PD\ EH UHODWHG WR ORZ VHOIHVWHHP DQG VHUYH DV D GHIHQVH DJDLQVW IHHOLQJV RI SRRU VHOIZRUWK ,Q IDFW KLJKHU WKDQ DYHUDJH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV RFFXU LQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI RQH LQ HYHU\ ILYH HIIHFWLYH VXLFLGH FDVHV $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH ORRNHG DW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DQG LWV FRQVWLWXHQWVf DQG SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ ([QHU f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

PAGE 33

WKH LPSURYHG FKDUDFWHU GLVRUGHUV VKRZHG QR GLIIHUHQFHV )URP WKHVH ILQGLQJV ([QHU f SRVWXODWHG WKDW LI UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV GR UHSUHVHQW D IRUP RI VHOIIRFXV RU HJRFHQWULFLW\ WRR PXFK RU WRR OLWWOH PD\ FKDUDFWHUL]H SDWKRORJLFDO FRQGLWLRQV 3RVWWUHDWPHQW LPSURYHPHQW LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ D FKDQJH WRZDUG D OHYHO RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ VLPLODU WR WKDW ZKLFK LV FKDUDFWHULVWLFDOO\ IRXQG LQ QRQSDWLHQW UHFRUGV ([QHU :\OLH DQG .OLQH f IRXQG WKDW WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ FKDQJHV LQ SDWLHQWV WUHDWHG LQ WKHUDS\ )RXU KXQGUHG DQG WKLUW\ YROXQWHHU VXEMHFWV DJHV WKURXJK ZHUH VROLFLWHG IURP SULYDWH SUDFWLWLRQHUV FOLQLFV DQG KRVSLWDOV DQG DVVLJQHG WR RQH RI VHYHQ PRGHV RI WUHDWPHQW 7KH WUHDWPHQW PRGDOLWLHV ZHUH f D SV\FKRDQDO\WLF XQFRYHULQJ IRUP RI SV\FKRWKHUDS\ f JHVWDOW LQGLYLGXDO SV\FKRWKHUDS\ f D PRGHOLQJ IRUP RI WUHDWPHQW ZLWK WKH PDMRU IRFXV RQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO SDWWHUQV f DVVHUWLYHn QHVV WUHDWPHQW f V\VWHPDWLF GHVHQVLWL]DWLRQ f WUDQVDFWLRQDOO\ RULHQWHG JURXS WKHUDS\ DQG f D ELRIHHGEDFN IRUP RI LQWHUYHQWLRQ 1R HIIRUW ZDV PDGH WR VWXG\ WKHUDSLVWV RU WR PDWFK VXEMHFWV IRU SDWKRORJ\ $OO VXEMHFWV ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG D 5RUVFKDFK DW SUHWUHDWPHQW HLJKW WR QLQH PRQWKV DIWHU WKH RQVHW RI WUHDWPHQW VL[WHHQ WR HLJKWHHQ PRQWKV DIWHU WKH RQVHW RI WUHDWPHQW DQG WR PRQWKV DIWHU WKH RQVHW RI WUHDWPHQW 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO VWDWXV RI HDFK VXEMHFW ZDV HYDOXDWHG FRQFXUUHQWO\ ZLWK HDFK WHVWLQJ E\ D VLJQLILFDQW RWKHU DQG WKH SDWLHQWnV WKHUDSLVW 5DWLQJV ZHUH PDGH XVLQJ )RUP 5 RI WKH .DW] $GMXVWPHQW 6FDOH 7KH RXWSDWLHQW VWXG\ ZDV QRW GHVLJQHG WR FRPSDUH WKHUDS\ HIIHFWLYHn QHVV EXW UDWKHU WR GHWHUPLQH ZKDW FKDQJHV ZRXOG RFFXU LQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK XQGHU GLIIHUHQW PRGHV RI WKHUDS\ ZKHUH WKH SDWLHQW VHOHFWHG WKH W\SH RI WKHUDS\ $ FKDQJH LQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ IURP HLWKHU WRR KLJK RU WRR

PAGE 34

ORZ WR WKH QRUPDO UDQJH ZDV IRXQG WR RFFXU VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ IRU WKRVH RXWSDWLHQWV UDWHG DV LPSURYHG WKDQ IRU WKRVH UDWHG DV QRW LPSURYHG DIWHU DW OHDVW WZHQW\QLQH PRQWKV RI WKHUDS\ 7KRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR HQWHUHG WUHDWPHQW ZLWK DQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ LQ WKH DYHUDJH QRUPDOf UDQJH ZHUH UDWHG E\ VLJQLILFDQW RWKHUV DV KDYLQJ D KLJKHU VXFFHVV UDWH WKDQ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR HQWHUHG WUHDWPHQW ZLWK LQGH[ VFRUHV RXWVLGH WKDW UDQJH $OWKRXJK RQH PLJKW FRQFOXGH IURP WKLV VWXG\ WKDW D KLJK RU ORZ HJRn FHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ VFRUH LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK SV\FKRSDWKRORJ\ LW VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW D QXPEHU RI SDWLHQWV ZKR IHOO LQWR WKH QRUPDO UDQJH RQ WKLV LQGH[ DW WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WUHDWPHQW ZHUH VHHNLQJ WKHUDS\ IRU SUREOHPV LQ OLYLQJ ,Q DGGLWLRQ EHFDXVH WKHUH ZDV QR HIIRUW PDGH WR PDWFK VXEMHFWV RQ W\SH RU GHJUHH RI SDWKRORJ\ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR H[KLELWHG QRUPDO HJRn FHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV PD\ QRW KDYH KDG SUREOHPV RU GLIILFXOWLHV DV FKURQLF RU VHYHUH DV WKH RWKHU WZR JURXSV +LJK HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV PD\ EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK QRUPDO DGMXVWPHQW LQ FHUWDLQ SRSXODWLRQV ([QHU DQG 0XULOOR f IRXQG WKDW D VXEn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

PAGE 35

GLVFKDUJHG (&7 DQG GUXJWUHDWHG JURXSV RQ UDWLQJV RI VRFLDO EHKDYLRU RQH \HDU ODWHU \LHOGHG D VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH IDYRULQJ WKH (&7 JURXS 7KLV GLIIHUHQFH ZDV QRW DSSDUHQW WKUHH \HDUV IROORZLQJ GLVFKDUJH ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKHLU PHDQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV GLG QRW FKDQJH VLJQLILFDQWn O\ GXULQJ WKLV WLPH 7KH SRVWGLVFKDUJH VXFFHVV RI WKH GUXJWUHDWHG JURXS SRLQWV WR DQ LQVWDQFH ZKHUH DQ H[FHVVLYHO\ KLJK HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ GRHV QRW DSSHDU WR EH D KDQGLFDS $ VWXG\ E\ ([QHU DQG 0XULOOR f LQGLFDWHV WKDW WKLV PLJKW QRW EH WKH FDVH ZLWK WKRVH VXEMHFWV GLVFKDUJHG ZLWK EHORZ DYHUDJH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW RI QRQVFKL]RSKUHQLFV ZKR UHODSVHG KDG HJRn FHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV RI OHVV WKDQ DYHUDJH DW GLVFKDUJH 2I WKH ILIW\ILYH VXEMHFWV IURP WKLV JURXS ZKR GLG QRW UHODSVH RQO\ IRXU KDG HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGLFHV EHORZ WKH QRUPDO UDQJH :KHQ YLHZHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJV RI WKH RWKHU VWXGLHV UHODWLQJ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ WR SV\FKRn SDWKRORJ\ LW DSSHDUV WKDW WKHUH DUH QR KDUG DQG IDVW UXOHV IRU GHILQLQJ WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS 7KH 6KDGLQJ'LPHQVLRQDOLW\ 5HVSRQVH 9LVWDf 5RUVFKDFK DQG 2EHUKRO]HU f REVHUYHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV VRPHWLPHV XVHG WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQNEORW WR FUHDWH D SHUFHSW RI GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ 7KH\ SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKLV UHSRQVH UHSUHVHQWHG D FDXWLRXV DIIHFWLYLW\ ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH QXDQFHV .ORSIHU HW DO f ZDV WKH ILUVW V\VWHPDWL]HU WR IRUPDOO\ VFRUH WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH +H DOVR XVHG WKLV FDWHJRU\ )Nf WR GHVLJQDWH GLIIXVH VKDGLQJ DQG UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV .ORSIHU HW DO f WKRXJKW WKDW WKH )N W\SH UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWHG D W\SH RI LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ WKH LQGLYLGXDO FRSHV ZLWK DQ[LHW\ E\

PAGE 36

GLVWDQFLQJ KLPVHOI HPRWLRQDOO\ IURP KLV SUREOHPV LQ RUGHU WR YLHZ WKHP PRUH REMHFWLYHO\ %HFN HW DO f DOVR LQFRUSRUDWHG D IRUPDO VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ 9LVWDf LQWR WKHLU V\VWHP WR DFFRXQW IRU UHVSRQVHV WKDW XVH WKH VKDGLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQNEORW WR DOWHU WKH IODW SHUVSHFWLYH LQWR D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO SHUFHSW %HFN LQFOXGHG UHIOHFWLRQ UHSVRQVHV LQ WKLV FDWHJRU\ +LV VFRULQJ FULWHULD GLG QRW UHTXLUH WKDW WKH VXEMHFW DUWLFXODWH WKH VKDGLQJ IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQNEORW %HFN HW DO f SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWHG D SURFHVV RI VHOIDSSUDLVDO WKDW LQYROYHG IHHOLQJV RI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG LQIHULRULW\ ([QHU f DGRSWHG WKH V\PEROV UHSUHVHQWLQJ YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV 9 9) DQG )9f IURP %HFN HW DO f WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV LQYROYLQJ GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG RQ WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW ([QHU f VFRUHG DQ DQVZHU DV D SXUH YLVWD UHVSRQVH 9f ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW UHSRUWHG GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ WKH VKDGLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH EORW ZLWK QR IRUP LQYROYHPHQW S f $ YLVWDIRUP UHVSRQVH 9)f ZDV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFWnV DQVZHU LQFOXGHG D SULPDU\ HPSKDVLV RQ WKH VKDGLQJ IHDWXUHV WR UHSUHVHQW GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQn DOLW\ DQG LQFRUSRUDWHG WKH IRUP IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW IRU FODULILFDWLRQ DQGRU HODERUDWLRQ S f 7KH IRUPYLVWD UHVSRQVH )9f LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW XVHV IRUP DV WKH SULPDU\ IHDWXUH DQG WKH VKDGLQJ FRPSRQHQW LV XVHG WR UHSUHVHQW GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ IRU SXUSRVHV RI FODULILFDWLRQ DQGRU HODERUDWLRQ S f ([QHU f IRXQG WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH RFFXUV ZLWK WKH ORZHVW PHDQV DQG IUHTXHQFLHV RI DOO WKH GHWHUPLQDQWV IRU DOO DGXOW SRSXODWLRQV LH LQSDWLHQWV RXWSDWLHQWV DQG QRUPDOVf ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f IRXQG WKDW QRQH RI WKH GLIIHUHQW YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV RFFXU LQ WKH UHFRUGV RI

PAGE 37

VL[ VHYHQ DQG QLQH \HDU ROG FKLOGUHQ EXW GR RFFXU ZLWK FRQVLGHUDEOH IUHn TXHQF\ DW WKH DJH RI WZHOYH 7KH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHVH UHSVRQVHV WKHQ GHn FOLQHV DV DJH LQFUHDVHV $ QXPEHU RI LQYHVWLJDWLRQV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH SV\FKRORJLn FDO VLJQLILFDQFH RI WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH ([QHU f HYDOXDWHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI VL[WHHQ VXEMHFWV ZKR PDGH VXLFLGH JHVWXUHV ZLWKLQ GD\V DIWHU WHVWLQJ RQO\ WZR RI ZKLFK ZHUH VXFFHVVIXO 7KHVH VXEMHFWV ZHUH IURP D ODUJHU SRRO RI VXEMHFWV GLDJQRVHG DV VXIIHULQJ IURP UHDFWLYH GHn SUHVVLRQ QHXURWLF GHSUHVVLRQ LQYROXWLRQDO UHDFWLRQ RU GHSUHVVLYH SV\FKRn VLV 1RQH RI WKH VXEMHFWV KDG D KLVWRU\ RI SULRU VXLFLGH DWWHPSWV $ FRPn SDULVRQ RI WKH JURXS RI SDWLHQWV ZKR DWWHPSWHG VXLFLGH WR WKH QRQn DWWHPSWLQJ JURXS UHYHDOHG WKDW WKRVH ZKR DWWHPSWHG VXLFLGH KDG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV %RWK JURXSV ZHUH IRXQG WR JLYH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH YLVWD UHVSRQVHV WKDQ D UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG JURXS RI RXWSDWLHQWV DQG QRQSDWLHQWV 7KH UHVXOWV VXJJHVWHG WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH PD\ EH DVVRFLDn WHG ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV DQG WKH SDLQIXO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV FRPPRQ WR WKHVH SDWLHQWV 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV QRW XQOLNH WKDW SRVWXODWHG E\ %HFN HW DO f 7KH YLVWD UHVSRQVH ZDV DOVR LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ D VWXG\ UHYLHZHG HDUOLHU WKDW H[DPLQHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV DQG WKH )' UHVSRQVH ([QHU f 6XEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR KLJK DQG ORZ JURXSV EDVHG RQ D PHGLDQ VSOLW RI WKH QXPEHU RI )' UHVSRQVHV DQG SODFHG LQ ZDLWLQJ JURXSV 7KH KLJK )' JURXS ZDV UDWHG DV PDNLQJ PRUH VHOIIRFXVLQJ YHUEDOL]Dn WLRQV WKDQ WKH ORZ )' JURXS ,W ZDV DOVR IRXQG WKDW WKH KLJK )' JURXS JDYH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH YLVWD DQVZHUV ; f WKDQ WKH ORZ )' JURXS ; f (LJKWHHQ RI WKH WZHQW\ KLJK )' 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV FRQWDLQHG YLVWD UHVSRQVHV ZKHUHDV WKHVH UHVSRQVHV DSSHDUHG LQ RQO\ VHYHQ RI WKH ORZ )' SURWRFROV

PAGE 38

7KH KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH RI ERWK WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DQG WKH )' UHVSRQVH ZDV WKRXJKW WR RIIHU VXSSRUW IRU WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH LV DQ LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV 7KHUH ZDV QR PHQWLRQ RI WKH UHODWLRQn VKLS EHWZHHQ WKH QXPEHU RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ DQG WKH QXPEHU RI VHOI IRFXVLQJ VWDWHPHQWV PDGH ,W PD\ EH WKDW WKHVH VXEMHFWV DUH PRUH VHOI IRFXVHG WKDQ LQWURVSHFWLYH ,W PD\ DOVR EH DVNHG ZKHWKHU WKH KLJK RFFXUUHQFH RI YLVWD ZLWK )' UHVSRQVHV FDQ EH DFFRXQWHG IRU E\ YDULDEOHV RWKHU WKDQ DQ LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV SHU VH 7KH HQVXLQJ VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG E\ ([QHU WR DGGUHVV WKLV LVVXH ([QHU f FRPSDUHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI LQSDWLHQWV ZKR ZHUH WHVWHG DW SUHWUHDWPHQW DQG SRVWWUHDWPHQW $OO RI WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH GLDJQRVHG DV VXIIHULQJ IURP VRPH IRUP RI DIIHFWLYH GLVRUGHU $W OHDVW RQH YLVWD UHn VSRQVH DSSHDUHG LQ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV DW WKH RQVHW RI WUHDWPHQW ; f $W SRVWWUHDWPHQW WKHVH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH IRXQG WR RFFXU LQ RQO\ RI WKH SURWRFROV ; f 7KH QXPEHU RI )' UHVSRQVHV GLG QRW FKDQJH VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP SUH WR SRVWWUHDWPHQW 96 f $Q H[SODQDWLRQ IRU WKH UHVXOWV ZDV RIIHUHG WKDW VXJJHVWHG WKDW ZKLOH WKH SDLQIXO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV GLPLQLVKHG WKH WHQGHQF\ WR LQWURVSHFW UHPDLQHG KLJK ([QHU LV LPSO\LQJ WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH FRQWDLQV DQ DIIHFWLYH FRPn SRQHQW ZKLOH WKH )' UHVSRQVH GRHV QRW
PAGE 39

7KH 5RUVFKDFK SURWRFROV RI WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH RXWn SDWLHQW VWXG\ GHVFULEHG HDUOLHU ([QHU :\OLH DQG .OLQH f ZHUH HYDOXDn WHG IRU WKHLU YLVWD UHVSRQVHV 6XEMHFWV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ RQH RI VHYHQ GLIIHUn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n DIILUPHG WKH K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH UHIOHFWV D IRUP RI HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK VHOIH[DPLQDWLRQ RU LQWURVSHFWLRQ DOWKRXJK QR GDWD ZHUH SUHVHQWHG RQ FKDQJHV LQ )' RU RQ RWKHU PHDVXUHV RI VHOIH[DPLQDWLRQ RU LQWURVSHFWLRQ ([QHU DQG :\OLH f UHSRUWHG WKH XVH RI D FRQVWHOODWLRQ RI HOHYHQ 5RUVFKDFK YDULDEOHV HLJKW RU PRUH RI ZKLFK DSSHDU LQ D ODUJH SHUFHQWDJH RI UHFRUGV FROOHFWHG IURP HIIHFWHG VXLFLGH FDVHV ZLWKLQ GD\V SULRU WR WKH DWWHPSW 7KH\ H[DPLQHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI VXEMHFWV DJHV WR WKDW ZHUH DGPLQLVWHUHG ZLWKLQ GD\V RI DQ HIIHFWHG VXLFLGH $ GLVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQV DQDO\VLV ZDV FDOFXODWHG WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHWKHU DQ\ RQH RI WKH HOHYHQ YDULDEOHV LQ WKH FRQVWHOODWLRQ VKRXOG EH ZHLJKWHG PRUH KHDYLO\ WKDQ WKH RWKHUV S f 7KH YDULDEOH )99)9)'! ZDV IRXQG WR FRUUHODWH SRVLWLYHO\ DQG VLJQLILFDQWO\ f ZLWK HIIHFWHG VXLFLGH 7KH DXWKRUV FRQFOXGHG WKDW WKH )' UHVSRQVH VHHPV WR EH UHODWHG WR LQWURVSHFWLRQ DQG WKDW

PAGE 40

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nV LQWHUQDO H[SHULHQFHV WKHQ RQH FRXOG DOVR VSHFXODWH WKDW LW PLJKW FRQWULEXWH WR WKH YDULDQFH RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH 6WDWHPHQW 2I 7KH 3UREOHP ([QHU f KDV SURSRVHG WKUHH EURDG VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV WR GHVLJQDWH WKRVH UHVSRQVHV WKDW %HFN HW DO f FDWDJRUL]H DV YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV DQG .ORSIHU HW DO f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f ([QHU KDV K\SRWKHVL]HG ZKLFK

PAGE 41

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f5f ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHSUHVHQW D VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ 7KH SDLU DQG UHIOHFn WLRQ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH ILUVW VWXGLHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR SDWLHQW SRSXODWLRQV WKDW ZHUH WKRXJKW LQ WKHRU\ WR EH QDUFLVVLVWLF 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR VWXGLHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR VXEMHFWV ZKR DWWDLQHG KLJK DQG ORZ VFRUHV RQ D SHQ DQG SHQFLO WHVW RI QDUFLVn VLVP :DWVRQ f PRGLILHG E\ ([QHU f ([QHU GHFLGHG WKDW WKH FRQFHSW RI QDUFLVVLVP ZDV WRR FRPSOH[ DQG WKH GDWD ZHUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DV UHn IOHFWLQJ D VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV RU HJRFHQWULFLW\ 7KHVH GHWHUPLQDQWV ZHUH WKHQ VWXGLHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WLPH VSHQW YLHZLQJ RQHVHOI LQ D PLUURU $OWKRXJK WKH DXWKRU FRQFOXGHG WKDW UHIOHFWLRQ DQG SDLU UHVSRQVHV UHSUHVHQW D VHOI IRFXVLQJ SURFHVV WKH\ GLG QRW DGHTXDWHO\ GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW WKLV VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV LV DW WKH H[SHQVH RI D FRQFHUQ IRU RU DZDUHQHVV RI RWKHUV ZKLFK WKH FRQFHSW RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ LPSOLHV 6LPLODUO\ LW LV QRW FOHDU KRZ VHOIIRFXVn LQJ LV GHILQHG 2QH LV QRW VXUH ZKHWKHU LW HQWDLOV D IRFXV RQ RQHnV DSSHDUn DQFH RQHnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV RU RQHnV VHOI LQ UHODWLRQ WR RWKHUV

PAGE 42

7KH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ U f5f KDV EHHQ LQYHVWLJDWHG DV UHSUHVHQWn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

PAGE 43

ZKHWKHU DQ DIIHFWLYH YDULDEOH FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH YDULDQFH RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH ,W LV QRW FOHDU KRZ ([QHU DQG :HLQHU f FRQFOXGH WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZKR JLYHV D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV GRHV QRW OLNH ZKDW KH VHHV ,W FRXOG WKHQ EH DVNHG ZKHWKHU WKH VXEMHFWn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f ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV WKH VXEMHFWnV WHQGHQF\ WR EH VHOIFHQWHUHG RU RWKHUFHQWHUHG VHH PHWKRG VHFWLRQf $ VHFRQG K\SRWKHVLV RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WKDW WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZLWK KLJK GHSUHVVLRQ DQ[LHW\ DQG DQJHU VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZRXOG VKRZ D KLJK IUHTXHQF\

PAGE 44

RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV EXW QRW HLWKHU WKH )' RU HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ YDULDEOHV 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 0F1DLU /RUU DQG 'URSSOHPDQ f ZDV XVHG WR SURYLGH DQ HVWLPDWH RI WKH VXEMHFWVn DIIHFWLYH VWDWH VHH PHWKRG VHFWLRQf ,W ZDV GHFLGHG WR XVH WKH DQJHU GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOHV RI WKH SURILOH RQ WKH EDVLV WKDW WKHVH DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV DUH W\SLFDOO\ ODEHOHG DV SDLQIXO DQG G\VSKRULF DQG DUH LQ WKHRU\ FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI GHSUHVVLYHV )UHXG 5DGR DQG )HQLFKHO f 7KH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6FDOH )HQLJVWHLQ 6FKHLHU DQG %XVV f ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV WHQGHQF\ WR GLUHFW DWWHQWLRQ LQZDUG RU RXWn ZDUG DQG WKH SURFHVV RI VHOIIRFXVHG DWWHQWLRQ 7ZR VXEVFDOHV RI WKLV PHDVXUH DUH RI SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW WR WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ 7KH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVn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f SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZKR JLYHV D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI YLVWD UHVSRQVHV LV LQWURVSHFWLYH DQG GRHV QRW OLNH ZKDW KH VHHV 5RVHQEHUJnV 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 5RVHQEHUJ f ZDV XVHG WR DVVHVV WKH

PAGE 45

LQGLYLGXDOnV VHOIUHJDUG $ K\SRWKHVLV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ZDV WKDW VFRUHV RQ WKH 5RVHQEHUJnV 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 56(6f WKDW LQGLFDWH ORZ VHOIHVWHHP ZRXOG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK 7KH OLWHUDWXUH RQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ LQGLFDWHV WKDW ORZ VHOIHVWHHP PD\ EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ HLWKHU D KLJK RU ORZ VFRUH RQ WKLV YDULDEOH 7KHUHIRUH D ILQDO K\SRWKHVLV RI WKH VWXG\ ZDV WKDW ORZ VHOIHVWHHP VFRUHV ZRXOG EH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[W\SH UHVSRQVHV

PAGE 46

&+$37(5 ,, 0(7+2' 6XEMHFWV 2QH KXQGUHG DQG ILIW\ VXEMHFWV PDOHV DQG IHPDOHVf IURP WKH 8QLn YHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ 7KHLU DJHV UDQJHG IURP HLJKWHHQ WR WKLUW\VL[ ZLWK D PHDQ DJH RI WZHQW\ 7KH\ ZHUH UHFUXLWHG IURP D VXEMHFW SRRO FRPSULVHG RI VWXGHQWV HQUROOHG LQ LQWURGXFWRU\ H[SHULPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ FODVVHV WKDW UHTXLUHG KRXU SHU KRXU FUHGLW IRU SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ YDULRXV VWXGLHV 7KH VXEMHFWV ZHUH REWDLQHG YLD SV\FKRORJ\ FODVVHV EXW ZHUH IRXQG WR EH PDMRULQJ LQ D QXPEHU RI DUHDV f FRPSXWHU UHODWHG f f HQJLQHHULQJ fM f EXVLQHVV UHODWHG f DQG KHDOWK UHODWHG f )LIW\ILYH ZHUH DV \HW XQGHFLGHG 7R UHFUXLW VXEMHFWV D VLJQXS VKHHW ZDV SRVWHG WKDW UHDG DV IROORZV $ QRUPDWLYH VWXG\ LV EHLQJ FRQGXFWHG WR FROOHFW GDWD RQ 8QLn YHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD VWXGHQWV IRU D QXPEHU RI SV\FKRORJLFDO WHVWV $V D SDUWLFLSDQW RI WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH IRXU TXHVWLRQQDLUHV GHVLJQHG WR UHIOHFW WKH WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV WKDW FROOHJH VWXGHQWV KDYH ,Q DGGLWLRQ \RX ZLOO EH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW ZKLFK LV D WHVW WKDW LV DOVR GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV VWXGHQWnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV LQ D OHVV GLUHFW PDQQHU 7KH WRWDO GXUDWLRQ RI WKLV SURFHGXUH ZLOO EH WZR KRXUV 7R HQVXUH FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ HDFK VXEMHFW ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ ZDV DVVLJQHG D VSHFLILF QXPEHU 7KLV QXPEHU UDWKHU WKDQ WKHLU QDPH RU RWKHU LGHQWLI\LQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ WHVW PDWHULDOV DQG LQ WKH DQDOn \VHV FRQGXFWHG 2QO\ WKH DXWKRU DQG KLV VXSHUYLVRU KDG DFFHVV WR WKH VXEn MHFWnV QDPH A'XH WR WLPH FRQVWUDLQWV DQG GLIILFXOW\ REWDLQLQJ VXEMHFWV IURP WKH VXEMHFW SRRO ILIWHHQ IHPDOH YROXQWHHU RFFXSDWLRQDO WKHUDS\ VWXGHQWV DOVR SDUWLFLSDn WHG LQ WKH VWXG\

PAGE 47

$VVHVVPHQW ,QVWUXPHQWV 7KH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRUPDW DQG VFRULQJ 7KLV TXHVWLRQQDLUH ZDV ILUVW GHYHORSHG E\ :DWVRQ f DV DQ RSHUDWLRQDO FULWHULRQ RI QDUFLVVLVP 6HQWHQFH FRPSOHWLRQ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH VFRUHG IRU WKUHH FDWHJRULHV f QDUFLVVLVWLF IDQWDV\ f UHDO ZRUOG DQFKRUDJH DQG f REMHFW FDWKH[LV ([QHU f REVHUYHG WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI LWHPV XVHG E\ 'U :DWVRQ WR GLVFULPLQDWH KLJK DQG ORZ QDUFLVVLVWLF LQGLYLGXDOV IURP D ODUJHU SRSXODn WLRQ FRQWDLQHG VHOIUHIHUHQFH VWDWHPHQWV LH PH RU P\f +H VXEVHTXHQWn O\ FRQVXOWHG ZLWK 'U :DWVRQ WR GHYHORS D QHZ VHQWHQFH FRPSOHWLRQ EODQN ZKLFK KH WHUPHG WKH 6HOI)RFXVHG 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW 6)6&f ([QHU f 7KH SUHVHQW IRUPDW RI WKH 6)6& XVHV WKLUW\ RI WKH RULJLQDO IRUW\ILYH VHQWHQFH VWHPV VHH ([QHU f 7KH VXEMHFW LV LQVWUXFWHG WR FRPSOHWH HDFK VHQWHQFH VR WKDW LW H[SUHVVHV D FRPSOHWH WKRXJKW 5HVSRQVHV DUH MXGJHG RQ D \HVQR EDVLV WR PHHW WKH VFRULQJ FULWHULD RI RQH RI IRXU PXWXDOO\ H[FOXVLYH FDWHJRULHV 7KH VHOIIRFXV FDWHJRU\ 6f GHVLJQDWHV WKRVH UHVSRQVHV WKDW FOHDUO\ IRFXV RQ WKH VHOI ZLWK OLWWOH RU QR UHJDUG IRU WKH H[WHUQDO ZRUOG 7KH H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXV FDWHJRU\ (f GHVLJQDWHV WKRVH UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK FOHDUn O\ PDQLIHVW FRQFHUQ IRU UHDO WKLQJV RU SHRSOH 7KH DPELYDOHQFH UHVSRQVH FDWHn JRU\ $f GHQRWHV WKRVH VHQWHQFHV ZKLFK FOHDUO\ FRQWDLQ ERWK VHOIIRFXVHG DQG H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXVHG VWDWHPHQWV HLWKHU RI ZKLFK FRXOG EH VFRUHG VHSDUDWHO\ $ QHXWUDO UHVSRQVH FDWHJRU\ f GHVLJQDWHV WKRVH UHVSRQVHV ZKLFK GR QRW PHHW DQ\ RI WKH DERYH FULWHULD 6FRUHV DUH REWDLQHG IRU HDFK RI WKH VFDOHV E\ VLPSO\ FRXQWLQJ WKH QXPEHU RI UHVSRQVHV MXGJHG WR EH UHSUHVHQWDWLYH RI HDFK FDWHJRU\ 6DPSOH UHVSRQVHV DUH SURYLGHG LQ WKH PDQXDO IRU VFRULQJ 1RUPDWLYH GDWD DUH SURYLGHG IRU PDOH

PAGE 48

1 f DQG IHPDOH 1 f FROOHJH VWXGHQWV IRU HDFK RI WKH VFDOHV ,Q DGGLn WLRQ WR WKH VFDOH VFRUHV D VFRUH FDQ EH REWDLQHG E\ VXEWUDFWLQJ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXVLQJ UHVSRQVHV IURP WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI VHOI IRFXVLQJ UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ E\ D VXEMHFW $ VHSDUDWH VFRUH 61f FDQ DOVR EH FDOn FXODWHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH VHOIIRFXVLQJ VWDWHPHQWV ZKLFK DUH MXGJHG WR EH QHJDn WLYH LQ FRQWHQW E\ VLPSO\ DGGLQJ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV 1RUPDn WLYH GDWD IRU ERWK WKH DQG 61 VFRUHV DUH DOVR SURYLGHG )RU SXUSRVHV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ WKH 61 VFRUH WKH VHOIIRFXV VFDOH DQG WKH VFRUH ZHUH XVHG WR SUHGLFW WR D SUREDELOLW\ RI IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR XVHG DV FRUUHODWHV WR RWKHU PHDVXUHV 5HOLDELOLW\ VWXGLHV +LJK LQWHUVFRUHU UHOLDELOLW\ KDV EHHQ IRXQG IRU 3K' FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORn JLVWV ZKR ZHUH DVNHG WR VWXG\ WKH VFRULQJ FULWHULD DQG WKHQ LQGHSHQGHQWO\ VFRUH WZHQW\ UHFRUGV ([QHU f 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV REWDLQHG ZHUH 6 ( $ 6Q (D 9DOLGLW\ VWXGLHV ([QHU f UHSRUWV VHYHUDO VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR LQYHVWLn JDWH WKH FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 6)6& ,Q RQH VXFK VWXG\ LW ZDV IRXQG WKDW D JUHDWHU WKDQ DYHUDJH QXPEHU RI VHOIIRFXVLQJ UHVSRQVHV 6f UHODWHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKRVH SV\FKLDWULF FODVVLILFDWLRQV WKDW DUH FRQVLGHUHG WR EH H[FHVVLYHO\ VHOIFHQWHUHG LH KRPRVH[XDOV DQG SV\FKRSDWKVf $ VHFRQG VWXG\ IRXQG WKDW DQ DERYH DYHUDJH QXPEHU RI 6 UHVSRQVHV FRUUHODWHG KLJKO\ ZLWK 5RUVFKDFK UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV ,Q D WKLUG VWXG\ WUDLQHHV ZKR IDLOHG WR FRPSOHWH 3HDFH &RUSV WUDLQLQJ RU ZKR SHUIRUPHG LQDGHTXDWHO\ LQ WKH VHUYLFH ZHUH IRXQG WR JLYH DQ DERYH DYHUDJH QXPEHU RI 6 UHVSRQVHV

PAGE 49

7ZR DGGLWLRQDO VWXGLHV FLWHG E\ ([QHU PDGH XVH RI DQ LQWHUYLHZ VLWXDWLRQ WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR JDYH D SURSRUWLRQDWHO\ JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI VHOIIRFXVHG WKDQ H[HUQDOZRUOG IRFXVHG UHVSRQVHV ([QHU f 7KHVH LQGLn YLGXDOV WHQGHG WR YHUEDOL]H PRUH VHOIIRFXVLQJ VWDWHPHQWV GXULQJ WKHLU LQWHUn YLHZ 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR IRXQG WR VSHQG PRUH WLPH YLHZLQJ WKHPVHOYHV LQ D PLUURU SULRU WR WKHLU LQWHUYLHZ ([QHU f REVHUYHG WKDW WKH SV\FKLDWULF GLDJQRVLV RI GHSUHVVLRQ ZDV RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKRVH LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR JDYH D VXEVWDQWLDOO\ JUHDWHU QXPEHU RI H[WHUQDOZRUOG WKDQ VHOIIRFXVHG W\SH UHVSRQVHV ,W ZDV DOVR REn VHUYHG WKDW ZKHQ WKH VHOIIRFXV WR H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXV UDWLR ZDV GLVSURSRUn WLRQDWH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH GLUHFWLRQ LQGLYLGXDOV H[KLELWHG OHVV HIIHFWLYH DQG PRUH SDWKRORJLFDO EHKDYLRUV $ SUH DQG SRVWWUHDWPHQW FKDQJH IURP D GLVn SURSRUWLRQDWH UDWLR WR RQH ZKLFK LV PRUH EDODQFHG KDV EHHQ IRXQG IRU VFKL]Rn SKUHQLFV DQG DFWLQJRXW DGROHVFHQWV ZKR PDQLIHVW V\PSWRP UHPLVVLRQ DQG QR DSSDUHQW UHODSVH ([QHU f 7KHVH SUH DQG SRVWWUHDWPHQW VWXGLHV VXJJHVW WKDW WKLV IRUP RI UHVSRQVH VW\OH FDQ DQG GRHV FKDQJH 7KH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRUPDW DQG VFRULQJ 7KH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH LV D WUDLW PHDVXUH WKDW ZDV GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV WKH WHQGHQF\ RI D SHUVRQ WR GLUHFW KLV RU KHU DWWHQWLRQ LQZDUG RU RXWZDUG VHH )HQLJVWHLQ 6KHLHU DQG %XVV f 7KLV FRQFHSWLRQ RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DV D WUDLW LV GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH FRQFHSW RI VHOIDZDUHQHVV ZKLFK UHIHUV WR D VWDWH DQG LV WKH UHVXOW RI HLWKHU WUDQVLHQW VLWXDWLRQDO YDULDEOHV FKURQLF GLVSRVLWLRQV RU ERWK $ QXPEHU RI SURFHGXUHV ZHUH IROORZHG LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6FDOH )LUVW EHKDYLRUV WKDW ZHUH WKRXJKW WR

PAGE 50

UHSUHVHQW WKH GRPDLQ RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV ZHUH VHOHFWHG 7KH IROORZLQJ EHKDYLRU FODVVLILFDWLRQ ZDV FRQVWUXFWHG f SUHRFFXSDWLRQ ZLWK SDVW SUHVHQW DQG IXWXUH EHKDYLRU f VHQVLWLYLW\ WR LQQHU IHHOLQJV f UHFRJQLWLRQ RI RQHnV SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH DWWULEXWHV f LQWURVSHFWLYH EHKDYLRU f D WHQGHQF\ WR SLFWXUH RU LPDJLQH RQHVHOI f DZDUHQHVV RI RQHnV SK\VLFDO DSSHDUDQFH DQG SUHn VHQWDWLRQ DQG f FRQFHUQ RYHU WKH DSSUDLVDO RI RWKHUV )HQLJVWHLQ HW DO S f 7KLUW\HLJKW LWHPV ZHUH VHOHFWHG WR VDPSOH WKLV GRPDLQ DQG WKH VFDOH ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG WR XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV $ IDFWRU DQDO\VLV \LHOGHG WKUHH IDFWRUV f SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV f SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DQG f VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ 7KH ILUVW WZR IDFWRUV UHIHU WR D SURFHVV RI VHOI IRFXVHG DWWHQWLRQ ZKLOH WKH WKLUG UHIHUV WR D UHDFWLRQ WR WKLV SURFHVV 7KH VFDOH ZDV WKHQ UHYLVHG WR HOLPLQDWH WKRVH LWHPV WKDW ORDGHG KLJKO\ RQ PRUH WKDQ RQH IDFWRU WKRVH WKDW ZHUH HQGRUVHG HLWKHU WRR IUHTXHQWO\ RU LQIUHTXHQWn O\ DQG WKRVH WKDW ZHUH GHVFULEHG E\ VXEMHFWV DV WRR DPELJXRXV $ ILYHSRLQW /LNHUWW\SH VFDOH ZDV LQFOXGHG WR UDWH HDFK LWHP 7KH UHYLVHG VFDOH ZDV DGn PLQLVWHUHG WR D VDPSOH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV $ IDFWRU DQDO\VLV \LHOGHG WKH VDPH WKUHH IDFWRUV $OO LWHPV ORDGHG DERYH ZLWK WKHLU DSSURSULDWH IDFWRU 7KH ILQDO YHUVLRQ RI WKH VFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI WKUHH VXEVFDOHV WZR RI ZKLFK DSSHDU WR EH VHSDUDWH DVSHFWV RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV WKH VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH DQG WKH SXEOLF VHOI FRQVFLRXVRQHVV VXEVFDOH 7KH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH LWHPV UHn IOHFW WKH SURFHVV RI DWWHQGLQJ WR RQHnV LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV ,W LV GHILQHG E\ D FRJQLWLYH SULYDWH PXOOLQJ RYHU DERXW WKH VHOI 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV LV SRVWXODWHG WR EH VLPLODU WR WKH -XQJLDQ FRQFHSW RI LQWURYHUVLRQ -XQJ f LQ WKDW WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV JHQHUDOO\ RULHQWHG WRZDUG

PAGE 51

WKH LQQHU ZRUOG RI LGHDV DQG FRQFHSWV +RZHYHU SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV LV PRUH VSHFLILF 7KH IRFXV LV RQ WKRXJKWV DQG UHIOHFWLRQV WKDW GHDO VROHO\ ZLWK WKH VHOI 7KH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI LWHPV WKDW GHILQH D JHQHUDO DZDUHQHVV RI VHOI DV D VRFLDO REMHFW WKDW KDV DQ HIIHFW RQ RWKHUV 7KLV SURFHVV LV WKRXJKW WR EH UHODWHG WR WKDW SURSRVHG E\ 0HDG f ZKR DUJXHG WKDW FRQVFLRXVQHVV RI VHOI FRPHV DERXW ZKHQ WKH SHUVRQ EHFRPHV DZDUH RI DQRWKHUnV SHUVSHFWLYH DIWHU ZKLFK KH FDQ YLHZ KLPVHOI DV DQ REMHFW 7KH VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI LWHPV UHIOHFWLQJ GLVFRPIRUW IHOW LQ WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV 7KH VFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI WZHQW\WKUHH LWHPV HDFK RI ZKLFK LV UDWHG RQ D VFDOH RI ]HUR H[WUHPHO\ XQFKDUDFWHULVWLFf WR IRXU H[WUHPHO\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFf 7KLV \LHOGV ORZ VFRUHV IRU D ORZ OHYHO RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DQG KLJK VFRUHV IRU D KLJK OHYHO RI VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDn WLRQV DUH DYDLODEOH IRU PDOH DQG IHPDOH XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV )RU SXUSRVHV RI WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ RQO\ WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZLOO EH XVHG WR SUHGLFW WR D SUREDELOLW\ RI IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW 5HOLDELOLW\ VWXGLHV )HQLJVWHLQMA HW DO f UHSRUWHG KLJK WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ RYHU D WZRZHHN SHULRG 7KH FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH VXEVFDOHV ZHUHe SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ DQG IRU WKH WRWDO VFDOH VFRUH 6LPLODU ILQGLQJV KDYH DOVR EHHQ UHSRUWHG E\ +HLQHPDQ f LQ D *HUPDQ UHSOLFDWLRQ DQG 9OHHPLQJ DQG (QJHOVH f LQ D 'XWFK UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO VWXG\ FRQGXFWHG E\ )HQLJVWHLQ HW DO f &RQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ IRU WKH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VFDOH KDV EHHQ SURYLGHG E\ )HQLJVWHLQ HW DO f +HLQHPDQ f DQG 9OHHPLQJ DQG (QJHOVH f LQ

PAGE 52

WKHLU UHSOLFDWLRQ RI WKH RULJLQDO VWXG\ ,Q HDFK VWXG\ D IDFWRU DQDO\VLV \LHOGHG WKH VDPH WKUHH IDFWRUV DQG WKH VDPH FRUUHODWLRQ SDWWHUQ EHWZHHQ WKH VXEVFDOHV 3XEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV FRUUHODWHG PRGHUDWHO\ ZLWK ERWK SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV f DQG VRFLDO DQ[LHW\ f %RWK WKH *HUPDQ +HLQHPDQ f DQG 'XWFK 9OHHPLQJ DQG (QJHOVH f UHSOLFDn WLRQV IRXQG WKDW FHUWDLQ LWHPV DQG f ORDGHG RQ IDFWRUV RWKHU WKDQ ZHUH LQWHQGHG ,W LV QRW VXUH ZKHWKHU WKLV ILQGLQJ ZDV GXH WR WKH WUDQVODWLRQ RI WKH LWHPV LQWR D GLIIHUHQW ODQJXDJH 'LVFULPLQDQW YDOLGLW\ IRU WKH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VFDOH KDV EHHQ SURn YLGHG E\ &DUYHU DQG *ODVV f 7KHVH DXWKRUV FRUUHODWHG WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOHV WR YDULDEOHV WKDW ZHUH WKRXJKW WR SRWHQWLDOO\ LQIOXHQFH WKHVH YDULDEOHV 7KH VXEVFDOHV ZHUH WHVWHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR LQWHOOLJHQFH WKH QHHG IRU DFKLHYHPHQW WHVW DQ[LHW\ DFWLYLW\ OHYHO DQG VRFLDELOLW\ 7KH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEn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f 7XUQHU &DUYHU 6FKHLHU DQG ,FNHV f IRXQG VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DQG WKH *XLOIRUG =LPPHUPDQ 7KRXJKWIXOQHVV 6FDOH DQG WKH 3DYLR ,PDJHU\ 6FDOH 7KH\ DOVR IRXQG WKDW HDFK VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH FRUUHODWHG

PAGE 53

VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK WKH VHOIPRQLWRULQJ VFDOH 6FKHLHU )HQLJVWHLQ DQG %XVV f GLYLGHG VXEMHFWV LQWR KLJK DQG ORZ JURXSV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 6XEMHFWV LQ WKH KLJK JURXS ZHUH PRUH DZDUH RI WKHLU LQWHUQDO DIIHFWLYH VWDWH DQG EHFDPH PRUH DJJUHVVLYH IROORZLQJ SURYRFDWLRQ E\ DQ DQJU\ LQYHVWLJDWRU %XVV DQG 6FKHLUHU f GHPRQVWUDWHG WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR REWDLQ D KLJK VFRUH RQ WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH PDNH PRUH VHOIDWWULEXWLRQV WKDQ LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR REWDLQ ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKLV VFDOH 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRUPDW DQG VFRULQJ 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 56(6f ZDV GHYHORSHG DV D PHDVXUH RI JOREDO VHOIUHJDUG 5RVHQEHUJ f ,Q FRQVWUXFWLQJ WKH VFDOH 5RVHQEHUJ f ZDV JXLGHG E\ WKH IROORZLQJ SUDFWLFDO DQG WKHRUHWLFDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQV f WKH HDVH RI DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ f HFRQRP\ RI WLPH f XQLGLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EH DEOH WR UDQN SHRSOH DORQJ D FRQWLQXXPf DQG f IDFH YDOLGLW\ $ *XWWPDQ VFDOH SURFHGXUH ZDV XVHG WR HQVXUH WKDW WKH ODVW WZR FRQVLGHUDWLRQV ZHUH DGHTXDWHO\ PHW 3RVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH LWHPV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG DOWHUQDWLYHO\ WR UHGXFH WKH HIIHFW RI D UHVSRQVH VHW VHH 5RVHQEHUJ f 7KH 56(6 FRQVLVWV RI WHQ LWHPV WKDW DUH UDWHG RQ D IRXUSRLQW /LNHUW W\SH VFDOH $ VFRULQJ SURFHGXUH GHVLJQHG E\ 5LRV*DUFLD DQG &RRN f ZLOO EH HPSOR\HG DV LW LV OHVV FRPSOLFDWHG DQG PRUH HDVLO\ LQWHUSUHWDEOH WKDQ WKDW SURSRVHG E\ 5RVHQEHUJ f 7KH VFDOH LV VFRUHG E\ VXEn WUDFWLQJ WKH VXP RI WKRVH LWHPV UHIOHFWLQJ SRRU VHOIUHJDUG IURP WKRVH LWHPV UHIOHFWLQJ VHOIVDWLVIDFWLRQ $ FRQVWDQW RI WZHQW\ILYH LV WKHQ DGGHG WR WKLV VFRUH 7KH KLJKHU WKH VFRUH WKH ORZHU WKH VHOIHVWHHP

PAGE 54

+LJK VHOIHVWHHP DV UHIOHFWHG LQ WKH 56(6 LWHPV H[SUHVVHV WKH IHHOLQJ WKDW RQH LV JRRG HQRXJK RU IHHOLQJV RI VHOIDFFHSWDQFH +H GRHV QRW FRQVLGHU KLPVHOI WR EH VXSHULRU WR RWKHUV EXW UDWKHU VLPSO\ EHOLHYHV WKDW KH LV D SHUVRQ RI ZRUWK DQG KH UHVSHFWV KLPVHOI $ ORZ VHOIHVWHHP VFRUH LPSOLHV VHOIUHMHFWLRQ VHOIGLVVDWLVIDFWLRQ DQG VHOIFRQWHPSW +H ODFNV UHVSHFW IRU WKH VHOI WKDW KH REVHUYHV 1RUPDWLYH GDWD DUH SURYLGHG IRU XQGHUJUDGXDWH SV\FKRORJ\ VWXGHQWV 5LRV*DUFLD DQG &RRN f 5HOLDELOLW\ VWXGLHV 5LRV*DUFLD DQG &RRN f REWDLQHG D WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILn FLHQW RI IRU D VDPSOH RI FROOHJH VWXGHQWV XVLQJ WKHLU VFRULQJ SURFHGXUH 9DOLGLW\ VWXGLHV $ QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ VHOHFWHG LWHPV RI WKH 56(6 HLWKHU DORQH RU LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK LWHPV IURP RWKHU VFDOHV %HFNPDQ .DSODQ DQG 3RNRUQ\ 1RFNV DQG %UDGOH\ f 7KH VHOIHVWHHP PHDVXUH WKDW ZDV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ FRQWDLQV WKH 56(6 RULJLQDO LWHPV 7KH 56(6 ZDV GHVLJQHG WR UHSUHVHQW D XQLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOH +RZHYHU DQ LQWHUQDO IDFWRU DQDO\VLV SHUIRUPHG E\ .DSODQ DQG 3RUNRUQ\ f SURn GXFHG WZR XQFRUUHODWHG IDFWRUV ZKLFK DFFRXQWHG IRU IRUW\ SHUFHQW RI WKH WRWDO YDULDQFH 7KHLU IDFWRU RQH VFRUHV ZKLFK WKH\ WHUPHG VHOIGHURJDn WLRQ FRUUHODWHG LQ D VLPLODU IDVKLRQ WR WKRVH REWDLQHG E\ 5RVHQEHUJ f ZLWK WKH WRWDO VFDOH 7KHLU VHFRQG IDFWRU ZDV WKRXJKW WR UHIOHFW D SRVWXUH RI FRQYHQWLRQDO GHIHQVH RI LQGLYLGXDO ZRUWK D VWDQFH ZKLFK LV FRPSDWDEOH ZLWK HLWKHU KLJK RU ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKH VHOIGHURJDWLRQ IDFWRU S f 7KLV ILQGLQJ KDV QRW EHHQ UHSOLFDWHG

PAGE 55

7KH 56(6 ZDV RULJLQDOO\ GHVLJQHG WR EH XVHG ZLWK DQ DGROHVFHQW SRSXn ODWLRQ +RZHYHU D QXPEHU RI VWXGLHV KDYH XVHG WKLV PHDVXUH ZLWK DGXOW SRSXODWLRQV 6LOEHU DQG 7LSSHWW f SURYLGHG VRPH HYLGHQFH IRU WKH FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 56(6 XVLQJ D FROOHJH SRSXODWLRQ 7KH 56(6 ZDV FRUUHODWHG DJDLQVW WKUHH RWKHU PHDVXUHV RI VHOIHVWHHP WKH .HOO\ 5HSHUn WRU\ 7HVW U f WKH +HDOWK 6HOI,PDJH 4XHVWLRQQDLUH U DQG LQWHUn YLHZHUVn UDWLQJV RI VHOIHVWHHP U f 7KHVH FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGLWLHV ZHUH DPRQJ WKH KLJKHVW REVHUYHG LQ FURVVLQVWUXPHQW FRUUHODWLRQV :\OLH f 6RPH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH PHDVXUH KDV EHHQ SURYLGHG LQ VWXGLHV FRQn FHUQLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ 56(6 VFRUHV DQG RWKHU YDULDEOHV ZKLFK VHOIHVWHHP LV WKHRUHWLFDOO\ H[SHFWHG WR EH UHODWHG 5RVHQEHUJ f IRXQG WKDW DPRQJ VXEMHFWV DW WKH 1DWLRQDO ,QVWLWXWH RI 0HQWDO +HDOWK ZKR ZHUH UDWHG E\ QXUVHV WKRVH ZLWK KLJK 56(6 VFRUHV ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH RIWHQ UDWHG DV JORRP\ DQG GLVDSSRLQWHG 7KH\ ZHUH DOVR UDWHG DV WRXFK\ HDVLO\ KXUW DQG QRW ZHOO OLNHG .DSODQ DQG 3RNRUQ\ f IRXQG D VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKHLU VHOIGHURJDWLRQ IDFWRU IURP WKH 56(6 DQG 5RVHQEHUJnV *XWWPDQ VFDOH RI GHSUHVVLYH DIIHFW 0RVW RI WKH RWKHU VWXGLHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ DGROHVFHQW SRSXODWLRQV 5LRV*DUFLD DQG &RRN f XVHG WKHLU PRGLILHG YHUVLRQ RI WKH 56(6 WR LQYHVWLJDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VHOIDFFHSWDQFH DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO DGMXVWPHQW DQG VHYHUDO PHDVXUHV RI GHIHQVLYHQHVV /RZ VHOIHVWHHP VFRUHV FRUUHODWHG SRVLWLYHO\ ZLWK UHSUHVVLYHVHQVLWL]DWLRQ HJR FRQWURO DQG WUDLW DQ[LHW\ DQG QHJDWLYHO\ ZLWK JHQHUDO GHIHQVLYHQHVV 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRUPDW DQG VFRULQJ 7KH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 3206f LV D IDFWRU DQDO\WLFDOO\ GHULYHG LQYHQWRU\ ZKLFK DWWHPSWV WR PHDVXUH VL[ LGHQWLILDEOH PRRG RU DIIHFWLYH

PAGE 56

VWDWHV 0F1DLU /RUU DQG 'URSSOHPDQ f 7KHVH LQFOXGH WHQVLRQ DQ[LHW\ GHSUHVVLRQGHMHFWLRQ DQJHUKRVWLOLW\ YLJRUDFWLYLW\ IDWLJXH LQHUWLD DQG FRQIXVLRQEHZLOGHUPHQW 7KH WRWDO LQYHQWRU\ LV FRPSRVHG RI VL[W\ILYH DGMHFWLYHV WKDW DUH UDWHG RQ D ILYHSRLQW LQWHQVLW\ VFDOH QRW DW DOO H[WUHPHO\f 6XEMHFWV DUH DVNHG WR HQGRUVH HDFK LWHP VR WKDW LW GHVFULEHV KRZ WKH\ KDYH EHHQ IHHOLQJ GXULQJ WKH SDVW ZHHN LQFOXGn LQJ WKH SUHVHQW GD\ VHH 0F1DLU /RUU DQG 'URSSOHPDQ f 7KH 3206 FDQ EH FRPSOHWHG LQ DERXW ILYH PLQXWHV DQG LW LV HDVLO\ DGn PLQLVWHUHG VFRUHG DQG LQWHUSUHWG 7R REWDLQ D UDZ VFRUH IRU HDFK PRRG IDFWRU RQH VLPSO\ VXPV WKH UHVSRQVHV WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW QHJDWLYH ZHLJKWVf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f DV ZHOO DV REVHUYDEOH SV\FKRPRWRU PDQLIHVWDWLRQV VKDN\ UHVWOHVVf 7KH\ DOVR UHIHU WR YDJXH GLIIXVH DQ[LHW\ VWDWHV DQ[LRXV XQHDV\f 7KH GHSUHVVLRQGHMHFWLRQ VXEVFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI ILIWHHQ DGMHFWLYH VFDOHV 7KH VXEVFDOH VFRUH UHSUHVHQWV WKH PRRG RI GHn SUHVVLRQ DFFRPSDQLHG E\ D VHQVH RI SHUVRQDO LQDGHTXDF\ 7KH LWHPV FRPn SRVLQJ WKLV VXEVFDOH UHIHU WR IHHOLQJV RI SHUVRQDO ZRUWKOHVVQHVV XQn ZRUWK\f IXWLOLW\ UHJDUGLQJ WKH VWUXJJOH WR DGMXVW KRSHOHVV GHVSHUDWHf

PAGE 57

D VHQVH RI HPRWLRQDO LVRODWLRQ IURP RWKHUV EOXH ORQHO\ KHOSOHVV PLVHUDEOHf VDGQHVV VDG XQKDSS\f DQG JXLOW JXLOW\ VRUU\ IRU WKH WKLQJV GRQHf S f 7KH DQJHUKRVWLOLW\ VXEVFDOH LV FRPSRVHG RI WZHOYH DGMHFWLYH VFDOHV 7KH VXEVFDOH VFRUH UHSUHVHQWV WKH PRRG RI DQJHU DQG DQWLSDWK\ WRZDUGV RWKHUV 7KH LWHPV FRPSULVLQJ WKLV VFDOH GHVFULEH IHHOn LQJV RI LQWHQVH RYHUW DQJHU DQJU\ IXULRXVf PLOGHU IHHOLQJV RI KRVn WLOLW\ JURXFK\ DQQR\HGf DQG WKH PRUH VXOOHQ DQG VXVSLFLRXV FRPSRQHQWV RI KRVWLOLW\ UHVHQWIXO VSLWHIXOf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n FKLDWULF WUHDWPHQW UDQJHG IURP IRU YLJRU DQG IRU DQJHU 7KH REWDLQHG VWDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV DUH ORZHU WKDQ WKH WR OHYHOV H[SHFWHG RI PHDVXUHV RI VWDEOH SHUVRQDOLW\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV $ PRRG KRZHYHU LV D UHODWLYHO\ WUDQVLHQW VWDWH WKDW ZRXOG QRW EH H[SHFWHG WR UHDFK WKH OHYHOV UHTXLUHG RI SHUVRQDOLW\ WUDLWV 9DOLGLW\ VWXGLHV 7KH DXWKRUV FLWH VL[ IDFWRU DQDO\WLF UHSOLFDWLRQV WKDW ZHUH FRQGXFWHG LQ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 3206 DV HYLGHQFH IRU WKH IDFWRULDO YDOLGLW\ RI

PAGE 58

WKH VL[ PRRG IDFWRUV 7KH UHVXOWV RI HDFK ZHUH KLJKO\ VLPLODU GHVSLWH XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW SRSXODWLRQV QRUPDOV YV SDWLHQWVf UDWLQJ WLPH SHULRGV DQG UDWLQJ VFDOHV ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO LWHPV GHILQLQJ HDFK PRRG VFDOH DQG ORDGLQJ RQ D SDUWLFXODU IDFWRU KDYH XSRQ H[DPLQDWLRQ IDFH RU FRQWHQW YDOLGLW\ 7KH 3206 LV VXSSRUWHG E\ VHYHUDO VWXGLHV WKDW KDYH SURYLGHG HYLGHQFH IRU SUHGLFWLYH DQG FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ /RUU 0F1DLU :HLQVWHLQ 0LFKDX[ DQG 5DVNLQ f XVHG WKH YLJRU WHQVLRQDQ[LHW\ GHSUHVVLRQGHMHFWLRQ DQJHUKRVWLOLW\ DQG IDWLJXH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 3206 WR FRPSDUH SV\FKRn WKHUDS\ DORQH WR IRXU RWKHU WUHDWPHQW JURXSV 2XWSDWLHQWV VKRZHG LPSURYHn PHQW RQ DOO VXEVFDOHV H[FHSW YLJRU $ QXPEHU RI RWKHU VWXGLHV KDYH EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WKDW XVHG WKH 3206 WR DVVHVV RU SUHGLFW WUHDWPHQW RXWFRPH /RUU 0F1DLU DQG :HLQVWHLQ f +DVNHOO 3XJWFK DQG 0F1DLU f 0F1DLU *ROGVWHLQ /RUU &LEHOOL DQG 5RWK f DQG 0F1DLU .DKQ 'URSSHOPDQ DQG )LVKHU f 7KH 3206 KDV DOVR EHHQ XVHG WR DVVHVV DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV LQ VWXGLHV WKDW DVVHVV UHVSRQVH WR HPRWLRQLQGXFLQJ FRQGLWLRQV 3LOODUG DQG )LVKHU f 3LOODUG $WNLQVRQ DQG )LVKHU f DQG 3LOODUG DQG )LVKHU f 6RPH FRQFXUUHQW YDOLGLW\ KDV DOVR EHHQ UHn SRUWHG IRU WKH LQYHQWRU\ )RU LQVWDQFH WKH WHQVLRQDQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH KDV EHHQ IRXQG WR FRUUHODWH KLJKO\ f ZLWK WKH 7D\ORU PDQLIHVW DQ[LHW\ VFDOH 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW 4XHVWLRQQDLUH IRUPDW DQG VFRULQJ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW FRQVLVWV RI WHQ LQNEORWV DQG VXEMHFWV DUH UHTXLUHG WR YHUEDOL]H ZKDW WKH\ SHUFHLYH HDFK EORW RU LWV YDULRXV FRPSRn QHQWV WR UHSUHVHQW 5RUVFKDFK f 7KH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVHV DUH UHn FRUGHG YHUEDWLP $IWHU WKH VXEMHFW KDV UHVSRQGHG WR WKH WHQ GLIIHUHQW

PAGE 59

LQNEORWV KH LV SUHVHQWHG ZLWK HDFK RQH D VHFRQG WLPH VR WKDW WKH H[DPLQHU FDQ LQTXLUH DERXW ZKDW WKH VXEMHFW SHUFHLYHG ZKHQ KH JDYH KLV UHVSRQVH VHH ([QHU f ([QHUnV &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP ZDV XWLOL]HG IRU VFRULQJ UHn VSRQVHV LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ([QHU f 7KH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO GHWHUn PLQDQW )'f GHVLJQDWHV WKRVH YHUEDO UHVSRQVHV WR WKH LQNEORWV ZKLFK LQn FOXGH SHUVSHFWLYH RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ IRUP LQWHUn SUHWHG E\ VL]H RU LQ UHODWLRQ WR RWKHU EORW DUHDV ([QHU f 7KH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH LV DOVR EDVHG RQ WKH IRUP IHDWXUHV RI WKH LQNEORW 7ZR VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV DUH XVHG WR GHVLJQDWH WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH 7KH UHIOHFWLRQIRUP UHVSRQVH U)f LV VFRUHG IRU WKRVH UHVSRQVHV LQ ZKLFK WKH V\PPHWU\ IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW DUH SULPDU\ LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH DQVZHU DQG IRUP LV XVHG QRQVSHFLILFDOO\ RU DPELJXRXVO\ DV DQ REMHFW EHLQJ UHIOHFWn HG ([QHU S f 5HIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV VFRUHG LQ WKLV PDQQHU DOZD\V LQYROYH FRQWHQW ZLWK QRQVSHFLILF IRUP UHTXLUHPHQWV LH FORXGV VKDGRZV URFNVf 7KH IRUPUHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH )Uf LV XVHG WR UHFRUG WKRVH UHVSRQVHV ZKHUH WKH IRUP RI WKH EORW LV XVHG WR LGHQWLI\ VSHFLILF FRQWHQW ZKLFK LV LQWHUSUHWHG DV UHIOHFWHG EHFDXVH RI WKH V\PPHWU\ RI WKH EORW ([QHU S f 7KH UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVH ZKHWKHU U) RU )U LV EDVHG RQ WKH V\PPHWU\ RI WKH LQNEORW 7KH SDLU UHVSRQVH f LV EDVHG VROHO\ RQ WKH IRUP SURSHUWLHV RI WKH LQNEORW DQG LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH SHUn FHLYHG REMHFW LV UHSRUWHG DV WZR REMHFWV EHFDXVH RI WKH FDUG V\PPHWU\ ([QHU S f ([QHU f FRQVWUXFWHG DQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ FRPSULVHG RI ERWK WKH SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVHV U f5f ,W ZDV GHFLGHG WR PXOWLSO\ WKH QXPEHU RI UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV E\ WKUHH EHFDXVH RI WKH UHODWLYH LQIUHTXHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK LW RFFXUV LQ DOO SRSXODn WLRQV 7KH YLVWD GHWHUPLQDQW LV XVHG WR UHFRUG WKRVH UHVSRQVHV LQYROYLQJ

PAGE 60

GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG RQ WKH OLJKWGDUN IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW 7KH SXUH YLVWD UHVSRQVH 9f LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFWnV UHVSRQVH LQYROYHG GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ EDVHG H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ WKH VKDGLQJ FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH LQNEORW ZLWK QR IRUP LQYROYHPHQW ([QHU S f 7KH YLVWD IRUP UHVSRQVH 9)f LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH UHVSRQVH LQFOXGHV D SULPDU\ HPSKDn VLV RQ WKH VKDGLQJ IHDWXUHV WR UHSUHVHQW GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ DQG LQn FRUSRUDWHV WKH IRUP IHDWXUHV RI WKH EORW IRU FODULILFDWLRQ DQGRU HODn ERUDWLRQ ([QHU S f 7KH IRUPYLVWD UHVSRQVH )9f LV VFRUHG ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW XVHV IRUP DV WKH SULPDU\ IHDWXUH DQG WKH VKDGLQJ FRPSRQHQW LV XVHG WR UHSUHVHQW GHSWK RU GLPHQVLRQDOLW\ IRU SXUSRVHV RI FODULILFDWLRQ DQGRU HODERUDWLRQ ([QHU S f 1RUPDWLYH GDWD IRU DGXOW QRQSDWLHQWV SOXV IRXU SV\FKLDWULF JURXSV DUH SURYLGHG IRU WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO DQG WKH YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV ([QHU f 5HOLDELOLW\ VWXGLHV 6RPH VWXGLHV WKDW H[DPLQHG WKH WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ RI WKH HJRn FHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DQG WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DUH DYDLODEOH ,Q HDFK RI WKHVH VWXGLHV WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH KDV EHHQ FRPELQHG ZLWK DOO RI WKH VKDGLQJ GHWHUPLQDQWV WR IRUP RQH FDWHJRU\ 6+f ([QHU /HXUD $UPEUXVWHU DQG 9LJOLRQH f FRQGXFWHG D WHVWUHWHVW VWXG\ XVLQJ QRQSDWLHQW DGXOWV WR GHWHUPLQH WKH WHPSRUDO FRQVLVWHQF\ RI WKH VWUXFWXUDO GDWD RYHU D WKUHH \HDU SHULRG &RUUHODWLRQV IRU 6+ DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ZHUH U DQG U UHVSHFWLYHO\ :KLOH LW ZRXOG DSSHDU WKDW WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ZDV UHODWLYHO\ VWDEOH RYHU WLPH WKH VKDGLQJ VFRUHV VHHPHG WR IROORZ D PRUH WUDQVLHQW SDWWHUQ 6LPLODU ILQGLQJV ZHUH DOVR IRXQG IRU YROXQWHHU QRQSDWLHQWV UHWHVWHG DIWHU RQH ZHHN ([QHU DQG %U\DQW f

PAGE 61

7KH FRUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQW IRU 6+ ZDV DQG IRU WKH HJRFHQWUL FLW\ LQGH[ $ WHVWUHWHVW VWXG\ XVLQJ GLIIHUHQW QRQSDWLHQW YROXQWHHUV RYHU D GD\ SHULRG \LHOGHG VLPLODU UHVXOWV 6+ U HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ U ([QHU $UPEUXVWHU DQG /HXUD f 9DOLGLW\ VWXGLHV 7KH VWXGLHV ZKLFK KDYH LQYHVWLJDWHG WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO DQG YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVH KDYH EHHQ GHVFULEHG SUHYLRXVO\ LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ VHFWLRQ RI WKLV SDSHU ([SHULPHQWDO 3URFHGXUH ([SHULPHQWHUV 7KH DXWKRU DQG WHQ FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ SUHGRFWRUDO JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DFWHG DV H[SHULPHQWHUV (DFK H[SHULPHQWHU KDG UHFHLYHG D VHPHVWHU RI IRUPDO LQVWUXFWLRQ LQ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ VFRULQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK XVLQJ ([QHUn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n PHQW RI FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ DW 6KDQGV 7HDFKLQJ +RVSLWDO )RXU RI WKH

PAGE 62

URRPV ZHUH JHQHUDOO\ XVHG IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI FRQGXFWLQJ IRUPDO SV\FKRORJLFDO DVVHVVPHQWV ZKLOH WKH ILIWK ZDV XVHG IRU FRQIHUHQFHV ,W ZDV EHOLHYHG WKDW WKLV VHWWLQJ ZRXOG SURYLGH D VHQVH RI DXWKHQWLFLW\ (DFK URRP FRQWDLQHG D WDEOH WKDW SURYLGHG DPSOH URRP IRU ERWK WKH H[DPLQHU DQG VXEMHFW WR VLW VLGH E\ VLGH 3UHFDXWLRQV ZHUH WDNHQ WR FRYHU DOO RQHZD\ PLUURUV E\ GUDZLQJ WKH FXUWDLQV LQ WKRVH URRPV WKDW FRQWDLQHG WKHP 7KLV ZDV GRQH WR DYRLG WKH SRVVLEOH UHDFWLYH HIIHFWV WKDW PLUURUV KDYH RQ VHOIDZDUHQHVV 'XYDO DQG :LFNOXQG f DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI UHIOHFWLRQ W\SH UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ RQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK ([QHU f 2ULJLQDO &RQWDFW 2QFH D VXEMHFW KDG VLJQHG XS WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ KHVKH ZDV FRQWDFWHG E\ WHOHSKRQH DQG JLYHQ GLUHFWLRQV WR WKH FOLQLF +H RU VKH ZDV DOVR LQIRUPHG ZKLFK H[DPLQHU ZRXOG JUHHW WKHP (DFK H[DPLQHU KDG VSHFLn ILHG FHUWDLQ KRXUV RI WKH GD\ WKDW WKH\ ZRXOG EH DYDLODEOH IRU WHVWLQJ VXEMHFWV 7KHVH KRXUV ZHUH SRVWHG RQ WKH VLJQXS VKHHW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WKHUHIRUH DVVLJQHG WR WKH H[DPLQHU ZKRVH WLPH VORW WKH\ KDG HQGRUVHG $VVLJQPHQW WR *URXSV $OO VXEMHFWV ZHUH WHVWHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ 7KH\ ZHUH UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG WR RQH RI WZR JURXSV EDVHG RQ WKH RUGHU RI WHVW SUHVHQWDWLRQ +DOI RI WKH VXEMHFWV FRPSOHWHG WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH 56(6 WKH 3206 DQG WKH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 4XHVWLRQQDLUH SULRU WR KDYLQJ WKH 5RUVFKDFK DGPLQLVWHUHG WR WKHP 7KH RWKHU KDOI FRPSOHWHG WKHVH TXHVWLRQn QDLUHV IROORZLQJ WKH DGPLQLVWUDWLRQ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK 6XEMHFWV ZHUH GLYLGHG LQWR WKHVH WZR JURXSV WR WHVW IRU SRVVLEOH RUGHULQJ HIIHFWV DQG WKH UHDFWLYLW\ RI VHOIIRFXV RQ WKH IUHTXHQF\ DQG W\SH RI 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ LQ WKH VXEVHTXHQW DQDO\VHV

PAGE 63

([SHULPHQWDO 6HVVLRQ 8SRQ WKHLU DUULYDO LQ WKH WHVWLQJ URRP HDFK VXEMHFW ZDV VHDWHG DQG SUHVHQWHG ZLWK DQ LQIRUPHG FRQVHQW IRUP WR UHYLHZ DQG VLJQ $SSHQGL[ )f 2QFH KHVKH DJUHHG WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH VWXG\ KHVKH ZDV WKHQ UHDG WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQW
PAGE 64

UDQJHV IURP H[WUHPHO\ XQFKDUDFWHULVWLFf WR H[n WUHPHO\ FKDUDFWHULVWLFf 3OHDVH UDWH HDFK VWDWHPHQW E\ FKHFNLQJ RQH DQVZHU VR WKDW LW EHVW GHVFULEHV \RXU WKRXJKWV 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH SUHVHQWHG WKH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV 7KH IROORZLQJ VWDWHPHQWV UHIOHFW WKRXJKWV WKDW VWXGHQWV KDYH 1H[W WR HDFK VWDWHPHQW LV D UDWLQJ VFDOH WKDW UDQJHV IURP VWURQJO\ DJUHHf WR VWURQJO\ GLVn DJUHHf 3OHDVH UDWH HDFK VWDWHPHQW E\ FKHFNLQJ HDFK DQVZHU VR WKDW LW EHVW GHVFULEHV \RXU WKRXJKWV 7KH 3URILOH 2I 0RRG 6WDWHV GHSLFWHG WKH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV %HORZ LV D OLVW RI ZRUGV WKDW GHVFULEH IHHOLQJV SHRSOH KDYH 3OHDVH UHDG HDFK RQH FDUHIXOO\ 7KHQ ILOO LQ RQH VSDFH XQGHU WKH DQVZHU WR WKH ULJKW ZKLFK EHVW GHVFULEHV KRZ \RX KDYH EHHQ IHHOLQJ GXULQJ WKH SDVW ZHHN LQFOXGLQJ WRGD\ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW ZDV DGPLQLVWHUHG LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK WKH VWDQn GDUG JXLGHOLQHV RI ([QHUnV &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP $OO H[DPLQHUV ZHUH VHDWHG EHVLGH WKH VXEMHFW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH UHDG WKH VWDQGDUG LQWURGXFn WLRQ WR WKH WHVW 1RZ ZH DUH JRLQJ WR GR WKH LQNEORW WHVW +DYH \RX HYHU KHDUG RI LW RU KDYH \RX WDNHQ LW EHIRUH" ,I WKH VXEMHFW KDG QRW KHDUG DERXW WKH WHVW WKH H[DPLQHU LQIRUPHG KLP KHU WKDW LW LV MXVW D VHULHV RI LQNEORWV WKDW ,nOO VKRZ \RX DQG ZDQW \RX WR WHOO PH ZKDW WKH\ ORRN OLNH WR \RX ([QHU S f 7KH H[DPLQHU WKHQ KDQGHG WKH VXEMHFW WKH ILUVW 5RUVFKDFK FDUG DQG DVNHG :KDW PLJKW WKLV EH" (DFK UHVSRQVH JLYHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFW WR HDFK FDUG ZDV UHFRUGHG YHUEDWLP $ SURPSW IRU PRUH WKDQ RQH UHVSRQVH ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH ILUVW FDUG RQO\ $IWHU WKH VXEMHFW KDG UHVSRQGHG WR DOO WHQ FDUGV KHVKH ZDV UHTXLUHG WR UHYLHZ DOO WHQ FDUGV DJDLQ VR WKDW WKH H[DPLQHU FRXOG LQn TXLUH DERXW DQG LQVXUH WKH DFFXUDWH VFRULQJ RI WKH UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ LQ WKH IUHH DVVRFLDWLRQ 7KH LQTXLU\ ZDV LQWURGXFHG ZLWK WKH IROORZLQJ VWDWHn PHQW

PAGE 65

1RZ ZDQW WR JR EDFN WKURXJK WKH FDUGV DJDLQ ,W ZLOO QRW WDNH YHU\ ORQJ ZLOO UHDG ZKDW \RX WROG PH WKDW \RX VDZ DQG WKHQ ZDQW \RX WR KHOS PH WR VHH LW DV \RX GLG ,Q RWKHU ZRUGV ZDQW WR NQRZ ZKHUH \RX VDZ LW DQG ZKDW LW LV WKHUH WKDW PDNHV LW ORRN OLNH WKDW VR WKDW FDQ VHH LW MXVW OLNH \RX GLG ([QHU S f $OO TXHVWLRQV E\ WKH H[PDLQHU LQ WKH LQTXLU\ ZHUH WKRVH UHFRPPHQGHG E\ ([QHU f ,nP QRW VXUH VHH LW DV \RX GR S f &RXOG \RX WHOO PH ZKDW PDNHV LW ORRN OLNH WKDW WR \RX S f DQG ,nP QRW VXUH NQRZ ZKHUH \RX VHH LW S f $OO TXHVWLRQV FRQFHUQLQJ WKH 5RUVFKDFK ZHUH DQVZHUHG DIWHU WKH HQWLUH H[SHULPHQWDO SURFHGXUH ZDV FRPSOHWHG ,I WKH\ DVNHG ZKDW LW ZDV EHLQJ XVHG IRU WKH\ ZHUH LQIRUPHG 7KLV LV DQRWKHU PHDVXUH WKDW ZH DUH XVLQJ WR ILQG RXW DERXW FROOHJH VWXGHQWVn WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV 8QOLNH RWKHU WHVWV LW GRHV WKLV LQ DQ LQGLUHFW ZD\ $IWHU DOO WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV KDG EHHQ FRPSOHWHG DQG WKH 5RUVFKDFK KDG EHHQ DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH VXEMHFW ZDV UHDG D GHEULHILQJ VWDWHPHQW 7KHUH KDV EHHQ QR GHFHSWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\
PAGE 66

HIIHFWV UHVSRQVHV ZHUH VFRUHG FDUG E\ FDUG UDWKHU WKDQ VXEMHFW E\ VXEMHFW IRU JURXSV RI WHQ 7KDW LV FDUG ZDV VFRUHG IRU WHQ VXEMHFWV SULRU WR VFRULQJ FDUG ,, ,QWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV REWDLQHG IRU WKH ILUVW WKLUW\ 5RUVFKDFK SURWRFROV 7KH DXWKRU DQ H[SHUW 5RUVFKDFK H[DPLQHUf VHUYHG DV WKH VHFRQG UDWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ GDWD ZHUH JDWKHUHG IRU HYHU\ ILIWK UHVSRQVH LQ WKH RUGHU VFRUHG E\ WKH ILUVW H[DPLQHU IRU WKUHH JURXSV RI WHQ VXEMHFWV (DFK UHVSRQVH ZDV VFRUHG IRU f ORFDWLRQ f GHWHUPLQDQWV f FRQWHQW DQG f IRUP TXDOLW\ )RUP TXDOLW\ ZDV VFRUHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI ZKHWKHU WKH UHVSRQVH PHW WKH FULWHULD RI SRRU IRUP TXDOLW\ f RU JRRG IRUP TXDOLW\ f 7KH ZHDN DQG RUGLQDU\ IRUP TXDOLW\ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH FODVVLILHG LQWR WKHVH FDWHJRULHV 7KH SRSXODULW\ RI D UHVSRQVH DQG WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQDO TXDOLW\ ZHUH QRW VFRUHG 5HOLDELOLW\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU DQ RYHUDOO 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVH DQG IRU HDFK RI WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG FDWHJRULHV E\ GLYLGn LQJ WKH QXPEHU RI UHVSHFWLYH 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVHV VFRUHG FRUUHFWO\ E\ ERWK H[DPLQHUV E\ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI UHVSRQVHV VFRUHG $ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUH IRU LQWHUUDWHU DJUHHPHQW ZDV REWDLQHG E\ PXOWLSO\LQJ WKLV QXPEHU E\ RQH KXQn GUHG ,W ZDV GHFLGHG WKDW D PLQLPXP RI HLJKW\ SHUFHQW LQWHUVFRUHU DJUHHn PHQW ZRXOG EH DQ DFFHSWDEOH FXWRII SRLQW WR HQVXUH VFRULQJ DFFXUDF\ 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW $OO 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVWV ZHUH VFRUHG E\ D FOLQLn FDO SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQW ZKR ZDV WUDLQHG E\ WKH DXWKRU DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH WHVW PDQXDO IRU VFRULQJ DQG LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ([QHU f +H ZDV SDLG ILIW\ FHQWV SHU FRPSOHWLRQ WHVW IRU KLV VHUYLFHV )LIWHHQ FRPSOHWLRQ WHVWV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ VHOHFWHG IRU WKH SXUSRVH RI REWDLQLQJ LQWHUVFRUHU UHn OLDELOLW\ 7KH DXWKRU DFWHG DV WKH VHFRQG VFRUHU $OO UHVSRQVHV IRU D

PAGE 67

WHVW WKDW ZDV VHOHFWHG ZHUH VFRUHG ,QWHUVFRUHU DJUHHPHQW ZDV FDOFXODWHG E\ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH WKDW ZDV HPSOR\HG ZLWK WKH 5RUVFKDFK +\SRWKHVHV $QG $QDO\VHV ([QHU SURSRVHG WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D QRQ HPRWLRQDO LQWURSVHFWLYH SURFHVV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FRQWUROOLQJ IRU RWKHU YDULDEOHV D VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV SHUIRUPHG 7KH IRUPn GLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG LQWR D ORZ DQG KLJK IUHTXHQF\ JURXS EDVHG RQ WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH VWXG\ DQG DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH DQG VHOIIRFXV VXEn VFDOH VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DQG WKH DQJHU GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DFWHG DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ,W ZDV H[n SHFWHG WKDW f WKH GLIIHUHQW PRRG VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZRXOG QRW SUHGLFW WR IUHTXHQF\ RI WKLV UHVSRQVH f D KLJK VFRUH RQ WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH DQG KLJK VFRUHV RQ WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOHV ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWLYH RI D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI WKLV UHVSRQVH DQG f WKH VFRUH ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWLYH RI D ORZ IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH )' UHVSRQVH ([QHU SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ UHIOHFWV D VHOI IRFXVLQJ SURFHVV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV DQG WR LQYHVWLJDWH ZKHWKHU VHOIn HVWHHP LV UHODWHG WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU RWKHU YDULn DEOHV D VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG 7KH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG E\ WKH VDPH SURFHGXUH HPSOR\HG ZLWK WKH )' UHVSRQVH DQG DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH WKH 61 DQG VHOIIRFXVLQJ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPn SOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV

PAGE 68

WKH DQJHU DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DQG WKH 56(6 ,W ZDV SUHGLFWHG WKDW D KLJK VFRUH DV ZHOO DV KLJK VFRUHV RQ WKH VHOIIRFXVLQJ DQG WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOHV ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG WR D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 1R UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DQG WKH GLIIHUHQW PRRG VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZDV H[n SHFWHG WR EH IRXQG ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW ERWK D KLJK VFRUH RQ WKH 56(6 ORZ VHOIHVWHHPf DQG 61 VXEVFDOH ZRXOG SUHGLFW WR ERWK D KLJK DQG ORZ IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 7KH YLVWD UHVSRQVH LV SURSRVHG WR UHSUHVHQW D SDLQIXO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV DQG D GLVSOHDVXUH IRU ZKDW RQH VHHV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV FRQWUROOLQJ IRU RWKHU YDULDEOHV D VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG 7KH YLVWD UHVSRQVH ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG LQWR D KLJK DQG ORZ IUHTXHQF\ JURXS LQ WKH PDQQHU GHVFULEHG IRU WKH )' UHVSRQVH DQG DFWHG DV GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV WKH 61 DQG WKH VHOIIRFXVLQJ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH DQJHU DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DQG WKH 56(6 ,W ZDV H[SHFWHG WKDW KLJK VFRUHV RQ DOO RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG WR D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVH $ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV QRW H[SHFWHG WR EH IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& DQG WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH SODQQHG DQDO\VHV QRWHG HDUOLHU RQH DGGLWLRQDO SRVW KRF DQDO\VLV ZDV DOVR FRQGXFWHG 3DWKRORJLFDO JURXSV ZHUH FUHDWHG E\ GLYLGLQJ VXEMHFWV LQWR KLJK DQG ORZ JURXSV EDVHG RQ WKHLU VFRUHV IDOOn LQJ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ DERYH DQG EHORZ WKH PHDQV SURYLGHG IRU HDFK TXHVWLRQQDULH DQG VXEVFDOH 7KH IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH HJRFHQWULn FLW\ LQGH[ WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO DQG YLWD W\SH UHVSRQHV IRU WKHVH JURXSV

PAGE 69

ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHLU RFFXUUHQFH LQ WKH QRUPDO SRSXODn WLRQ &RPSDULVRQV ZHUH PDGH XVLQJ &KL6TXDUH DQDO\VHV

PAGE 70

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 (YDOXDWLRQ 2I 3RVVLEOH ([DPLQHU $QG 7HVW 2UGHU ,QIOXHQFHV 7KH DXWKRU DQG WHQ SUHGRFWRUDO FOLQLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DFWHG DV H[DPLQHUV DQG DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW $OO H[DPn LQHUV RWKHU WKDQ WKH DXWKRU ZHUH EOLQG WR WKH VWXG\ 7KLV FUHDWHG WKH SRVVLELOLW\ WKDW WKH DXWKRU HOLFLWHG D GLIIHUHQW QXPEHU RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDULDEOHV RI LQWHUHVW DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH RWKHU H[DPLQHUV 7R WHVW IRU WKH SRVVLELOLW\ RI H[DPLQHU ELDV WWHVWV ZHUH SHUIRUPHG WR FRPSDUH WKH WHQ H[DPLQHUV SRROHG WRJHWKHU WR WKH DXWKRU ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO DQG YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV HOLFn LWHG 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ W MG f IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO W M f DQG YLVWD W e f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f IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO W MG f DQG HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ W e f

PAGE 71

,QWHUUDWHU 5HOLDELOLW\ 7KH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW ,QWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV FDOFXODWHG IRU DQ RYHUDOO 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVH DQG IRU HDFK RI LWV GLIIHUHQW FRQVWLWXHQWV 3HUFHQW DJUHHPHQW EHWZHHQ WKH DXWKRU DQG WKH GHVLJQDWHG VFRUHV ZDV XVHG DV WKH LQGH[ RI UHn OLDELOLW\ 7KH LQWHUUDWHU UHOLDELOLW\ SHUFHQWDJH VFRUHV REWDLQHG ZHUH f RYHUDOO UHVSRQVH bf f ORFDWLRQ bf f GHWHUPLQDQWV bf DQG IRUP TXDOLW\ bf ,QWHUVFRUHU DJUHHPHQW IRU HDFK DQDO\VLV PHW WKH SUHn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n VHQWDWLRQ RI WKH VXEMHFWVn UHVSRQVHV ,Q OLJKW RI WKHVH ILQGLQJV DOO VXEVHTXHQW DQDO\VHV WHVWLQJ WKH K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG ZLWKRXW FRQn WUROOLQJ IRU H[DPLQHU RU WHVWRUGHU LQIOXHQFHV 7KH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 5HVSRQVH ([QHU SURSRVHG WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH )'f UHSUHVHQWV D QRQHPRWLRQDO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV D GLVFULPLQDQW

PAGE 72

DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG IROORZHG E\ D VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV )RU WKHVH DQDO\VHV WKH )' UHVSRQVH ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG EDVHG RQ WKH PHDQ QXPEHU RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV JLYHQ E\ WKH VXEMHFWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ WKH VWXG\ DQG DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH PHDQ ZDV IRXQG WR EH DQG WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH FDWHJRUL]HG DFFRUGLQJ WR ZKHWKHU WKH\ GLG RU GLG QRW YHUEDOL]H WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH SUHVHQW Q DEVHQW Q f 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV IRU ERWK DQDO\VHV ZHUH WKH VFRUH DQG VHOIIRFXVLQJ VXEVFDOH VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHVAn DQG WKH GHSUHVVLRQ DQJHU DQG DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV 'LVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH GLVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV WUHPHQGRXV RYHUODS EHWZHHQ WKH SUHVHQW DQG DEVHQW IRUPGLPHQn VLRQDO FDWHJRULHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV 7KH OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH YDULDEOHV ZDV XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR JURXSV 7DEOH f 6WHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV 7KH QH[W DQDO\VLV WHVWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HDFK LQGHSHQGHQW YDULn DEOH DV LW LQGLYLGXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH )' JURXSV 7HVWLQJ DW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI HTXDO FRYDULDQFH PDWUL[HV FRXOG QRW EH UHMHFWHG DQG )LVKHUnV GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ D Af'XH WR D W\SLQJ HUURU RQH LWHP ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ WKH SULYDWH VHOI FRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH OHDYLQJ QLQH LWHPV LQVWHDG RI WHQ 7R FRUUHFW IRU WKLV D ZHLJKWHG VFRUH ZDV DGGHG LQGLYLGXDOO\ WR HDFK VXEVFDOH VFRUH 7KH ZHLJKWHG VFRUH ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ DYHUDJLQJ WKH QLQH LWHPV RI HDFK VXEVFDOH 7KH K\SRWKHVHV ZHUH HYDOXDWHG XVLQJ ERWK WKH FRUUHFWHG DQG QRQFRUUHFWHG VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 2QO\ WKH DQDO\VHV XVLQJ WKH FRUUHFWHG VXEVFDOH VFRUHV DUH UHSRUWHG DV WKH UHVXOWV REWDLQHG XVLQJ HLWKHU VXEVFDOH VFRUH ZHUH QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW

PAGE 73

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 3UHVHQW 9DULDEOH 1 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ 6FRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH )RUP f'LPHQVLRQDO $EVHQW 6FRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH

PAGE 74

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXS &ODVVLILFDWLRQ E\ WKH 'LVFULPLQDQW )XQFWLRQ $QDO\VLV 1XPEHU RI 2EVHUYDWLRQV DQG 3HUFHQWV &ODVVLILHG LQWR WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO &DWHJRULHV )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 5HVSRQVH 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3HUFHQW 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ 6SHFLILFLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQWf 6HQVLWLYLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQWf 7RWDO &RUUHFW &ODVVLILFDWLRQ 3HUFHQW &RUUHFWO\ &ODVVLILHG %\ &KDQFH *LYHQ 7KH 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ )DOVH 3RVLWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQW EXW ZHUH DEVHQWf )DOVH 1HJDWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQW EXW ZHUH SUHVQWf

PAGE 75

VWHSZLVH SURFHGXUH .HQGDOO DQG 6WXDUW f 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW QRQH RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQGLYLGXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH )' JURXSV DW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO DQG QRQH ZHUH DEOH WR LQGLYLGXDOO\ GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV 7DEOH f $QDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $V DQ DOWHUQDWH ZD\ RI WHVWLQJ IRU GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV D VHULHV RI RQHZD\ $129$V ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR FRPSDUH WKH IRUPn GLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH PHDQ VFRUHV RI HDFK VXEVFDOH 7KH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG VHYHQ LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV QRZ DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DQG WKH GLFKRWRPL]HG )' UHVSRQVH DFWHG DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULn DEOH 1R VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV ZHUH IRXQG )YDOXHV IRU HDFK RI WKH $129$V ZHUH f WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& )A f MG f f WKH VHOIIRFXVLQJ VXEVFDOH RI WKH 6)6& f MG f f WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH ,7 f e f f WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f e f f WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH )A f e f f WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH -) f MR f DQG f WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH )A f MG f &KLVTXDUH DQDO\VLV $ VHULHV RI &KL6TXDUH DQDO\VHV ZDV SHUIRUPHG WR WHVW ZKHWKHU WKH IUHTXHQFLHV REVHUYHG ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW ZKLFK ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG E\ FKDQFH 7KUHH VXEMHFW SRSXODWLRQV ZHUH FUHDWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU VFRUHV RQ HDFK RI WKH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG VXEVFDOHV +LJK DQG ORZ SRSXODWLRQ JURXSV ZHUH GHILQHG E\ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR VFRUHG HLWKHU RQH VWDQGDUG GHn YLDWLRQ DERYH RU EHORZ WKH VXEVFDOH PHDQV REWDLQHG IURP WKH VWXG\ VDPSOH 7KRVH VXEMHFWV ZKRVH VFRUHV IHOO ZLWKLQ RQH VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQ RI WKH PHDQ ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WR UHSUHVHQW DQ LQWHUPHGLDWH JURXS 7KH &KL6TXDUH

PAGE 76

7DEOH 6WHSZLVH 6HOHFWLRQ RI 9DULDEOHV IRU WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV 9DULDEOH ) VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH 3URE ) 7ROHUDQFH

PAGE 77

DQDO\VHV FRPSDUHG WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU HDFK VXEVFDOH WR WKH GLFKRWRPL]HG IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV 7KH DQDO\VHV GLG QRW \LHOG VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV 7DEOH f 7KH 9LVWD 5HVSRQVH 7KH YLVWD 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVH LV SURSRVHG WR UHSUHVHQW D SDLQIXO LQn WURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV DQG D GLVSOHDVXUH IRU ZKDW RQH VHHV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV D GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG IROORZHG E\ D VWHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV )RU WKHVH DQDO\VHV WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG LQ WKH VDPH PDQQHU DV WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH DQG DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KH PHDQ ZDV IRXQG WR EH DQG WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH FDWHJRUL]HG DFFRUGLQJO\ SUHVHQW Q DEVHQW Q f 7KH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV IRU ERWK DQDO\VHV ZHUH WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV WKH DQG f61 VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH VHOIn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f 6WHSZLVH GLVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV 7KH QH[W DQDO\VLV WHVWHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HDFK LQGHSHQGHQW YDULn DEOH DV LW LQGLYLGXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH YLVWD FDWHJRULHV 7HVWLQJ DW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI HTXDO FRYDULDQFH PDWUL[HV FRXOG

PAGE 78

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH &KL6TXDUH $QDO\VHV XVLQJ WKH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV DV WKH &ODVVLILFDQW )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV 6HOI)RFXVLQJ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV 6HOI)RFXVLQJ 6XEVFDOH +LTK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSVf§ 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LTK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; 1! ,, $ f R e )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSVf§ 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LTK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW [ e

PAGE 79

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO *URXSV $QJHU 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 80

7DEOH 0HDQV DQG 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQV RI WKH 9LVWD *URXSV 9LVWD 3UHVHQW 9DULDEOH 1 0HDQ 6WDQGDUG 'HYLDWLRQ VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 9LVWD $EVHQW VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $QJHU 6XEVFDOH

PAGE 81

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH 9LVWD *URXSV &ODVVLILFDWLRQ E\ WKH 'LVFULPLQDQW )XQFWLRQ $QDO\VLV 1XPEHU RI 2EVHUYDWLRQV DQG 3HUFHQWV &ODVVLILHG LQWR WKH 9LVWD *URXSV 9LVWD 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3HUFHQW 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ 6SHFLILFLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQWf 6HQVLWLYLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQWf 7RWDO &RUUHFW &ODVVLILFDWLRQ 3HUFHQW &RUUHFWO\ &ODVVLILHG %\ &KDQFH *LYHQ 7KH 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ )DOVH 3RVLWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQW EXW ZHUH DEVHQWf )DOVH 1HJDWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQW EXW ZHUH SUHVQWf

PAGE 82

QRW EH UHMHFWHG DQG )LVKHUnV GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ D VWHSZLVH SURFHGXUH 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWHG WKDW QRQH RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH LQGLYLGXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH YLVWD FDWHJRULHV DW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO DQG QRQH ZHUH DEOH WR LQGLYLGXDOO\ GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR SRSXODWLRQV 7DEOH f $QDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $V DQ DOWHUQDWH PHWKRG RI WHVWLQJ IRU GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV D VHULHV RI RQHZD\ $129$V ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR FRPSDUH WKH YLVWD FDWHJRULHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH PHDQ VFRUHV RI HDFK VXEVFDOH 7KH DIRUHn PHQWLRQHG QLQH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV QRZ DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DQG WKH GLFKRWRPL]HG YLVWD UHVSRQVH DFWHG DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 7KHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFHV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH DEVHQW DQG SUHVHQW YLVWD JURXSV 7KH )YDOXHV IRU HDFK RI WKH $129$V ZHUH WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW ,> f e f WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f e f WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f e f WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH )A f e f WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& )A f e f WKH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH )A f e f WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH )A f S WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH )A f e f DQG WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH ) f e f &KLVTXDUH DQDO\VHV $V ZDV GRQH ZLWK WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH D VHULHV RI &KL 6TXDUH DQDO\VHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW ZKHWKHU WKH IUHTXHQFLHV REVHUYHG ZHUH GLIIHUHQW IURP WKDW ZKLFK ZRXOG EH SUHGLFWHG E\ FKDQFH 7KUHH

PAGE 83

7DEOH 6WHSZLVH 6HOHFWLRQ RI 9DULDEOHV IRU WKH 9LVWD &DWHJRU\ VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH $QJHU 6XEVFDOH ) 3URE ) 7ROHUDQFH

PAGE 84

VXEMHFW JURXSV IRU HDFK RI WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV ZHUH FUHDWHG LQ WKH PDQQHU H[SODLQHG HDUOLHU DQG FRPSDUHG WR WKH YLVWD JURXSV 7KH DQDO\VHV GLG QRW \LHOG VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV 7DEOH f 7KH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ ([QHU SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ UHIOHFWV D VHOIIRFXVn LQJ SURFHVV 7R WHVW WKLV K\SRWKHVLV DQG WR GHWHUPLQH LI VHOIHVWHHP DQGRU DQ DIIHFWLYH VWDWH LV DOVR UHODWHG WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ D GLVFULPLQDQW DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG IROORZHG E\ D EDFNZDUG VWHSZLVH ORn JLVWLFDO DQDO\VLV 7KH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ ZDV GLFKRWRPL]HG LQ WKH PDQQHU GHVFULEHG IRU WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH DQG DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH IRU WKHVH DQDO\VHV 7KH PHDQ ZDV IRXQG WR EH DQG WKH VXEn MHFWV ZHUH JURXSHG DFFRUGLQJO\ SUHVHQW Q DEVHQW Q f 7KH LQGHn SHQGHQW YDULDEOHV IRU WKHVH DQDO\VHV ZHUH WKH SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOI FRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH WKH DQG 61 VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI (VWHHP 6FDOH DQG WKH DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH VFRUHV 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH PHDQV DQG VWDQGDUG GHYLDWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH LQn GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH DQDO\VHV 'LVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH GLVFULPLQDQW IXQFWLRQ DQDO\VLV LQGLFDWHG WKDW WKHUH ZDV FRQVLGHUDEOH RYHUODS EHWZHHQ WKH SUHVHQW DQG DEVHQW HJRFHQWULn FLW\ LQGH[ SRSXODWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV +RZHYHU WKH OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZDV DEOH WR GLVFULPLn QDWH EHWZHHQ WKHVH WZR SRSXODWLRQV 7DEOH f

PAGE 85

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH &KL6TXDUH $QDO\VHV XVLQJ WKH 9LVWD *URXSV DV WKH &ODVVLILFDQW 9LVWD 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH RI WKH 6)6& +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e 9LVWD VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e 9LVWD 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e 9LVWD 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 86

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG 9LVWD 61 6FRUH RI WKH 6)6& +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e 9LVWD 5RVHQEHUT 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; 2 ,, R f 9LVWD $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e 9LVWD 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 87

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG 9LVWD $QJHU 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 88

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

PAGE 89

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ *URXS &ODVVLILFDWLRQ E\ WKH 'LVFULPLQDQW )XQFWLRQ $QDO\VLV 1XPEHU RI 2EVHUYDWLRQV DQG 3HUFHQWV &ODVVLILHG LQWR WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ *URXSV (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3UHVHQW $EVHQW 7RWDO 3HUFHQW 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ 6SHFLILFLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQWf 6HQVLWLYLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQWf 7RWDO &RUUHFW &ODVVLILFDWLRQ 3HUFHQW &RUUHFWO\ &ODVVLILHG %\ &KDQFH *LYHQ 7KH 3ULRU 3UREDELOLW\ )DOVH 3RVLWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQW EXW ZHUH DEVHQWf )DOVH 1HJDWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQW EXW ZHUH SUHVQWf

PAGE 90

%DFNZDUG VWHSZLVH ORJLVWLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV $ VHFRQG DQDO\VLV ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HDFK LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH DV LW LQGLYLGXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXSV 7HVWLQJ DW WKH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO WKH DVVXPSWLRQ RI HTXDO FRYDULDQFH PDWUL[HV ZDV UHMHFWHG DQG D EDFNZDUG VWHSZLVH ORJLVWLFDO UHJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VLV ZDV SHUIRUPHG 7DEOH f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f HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXS HQGRUVHG VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH QHJDWLYH VHOIVWDWHPHQWV DV UHIOHFWHG E\ WKHLU 61 VFRUHV ; f WKDQ WKH DEVHQW HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXS ; f S f ,QGLYLGXDOV LQ WKH SUHVHQW HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXS HQGRUVHG IHHOLQJ VLJQLILFDQWO\ OHVV DQJU\ ; f WKDQ WKRVH LQ WKH DEVHQW HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXS ; f S f 7DEOH GHSLFWV WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DQG WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& WR FODVVLI\ VXEMHFWV LQWR WKH WZR HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXSV :KLOH WKHUH ZDV VLJQLILFDQW VHSDUDWLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ SRSXODWLRQV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKHVH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV WKHUH ZDV DOVR FRQVLGHUDEOH RYHUODS DQG WKH VHSDUDWLRQ ZDV QRW YHU\ FOHDU RU ZHOO GHILQHG

PAGE 91

7DEOH %DFNZDUG 6WHSZLVH 6HOHFWLRQ RI 9DULDEOHV IRU WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ *URXSV 9DULDEOH &KL6TXDUH 3 9DOXH 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH 7HQVLRQ 6XEVFDOH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& $QJHU 6XEVFDOH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6&

PAGE 92

7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ *URXS &ODVVLILFDWLRQ E\ WKH DQG 61 6FRUHV RI WKH 6)6& DQG WKH $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 3UHGLFWHG $EVHQW $EVHQW 7UXH 3UHVHQW 3UHVHQW 7RWDO 7RWDO 6HQVLWLYLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQWf 6SHFLILFLW\ SHUFHQW FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQWf 7RWDO &RUUHFW &ODVVLILFDWLRQ )DOVH 3RVLWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV SUHVHQW EXW ZHUH DEVHQWf )DOVH 1HJDWLYH 5DWH SHUFHQW FODVVLILHG DV DEVHQW EXW ZHUH SUHVHQWf

PAGE 93

$QDO\VLV RI YDULDQFH $V DQ DOWHUQDWH PHWKRG RI WHVWLQJ IRU GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV D VHULHV RI RQHZD\ $129$V ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR FRPSDUH WKH HJRFHQ WULFLW\ LQGH[ FDWHJRULHV ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH PHDQ VFRUHV RI HDFK VXEn VFDOH 7KH DIRUHPHQWLRQHG QLQH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV QRZ DFWHG DV WKH GHSHQGHQW YDULDEOHV DQG WKH GLFKRWRPL]HG HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DFWHG DV WKH LQGHSHQGHQW YDULDEOH 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV ZHUH IRXQG IRU WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW ," f e f WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f e f WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f e WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH -) f e f WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH ,7 f e f WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH )A f e f WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& )A f e f DQG WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH ) f e f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n WLRQ RI WKH PHDQ ZHUH FRQVLGHUHG WR UHSUHVHQW DQ LQWHUPHGLDWH JURXS 7KH &KL6TXDUH DQDO\VHV FRPSDUHG WKH WKUHH JURXSV IRU HDFK VXEVFDOH WR WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ FDWHJRULHV 7KH DQDO\VHV GLG QRW \LHOG VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOWV IRU WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQn WHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH WKH

PAGE 94

5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEn VFDOH DQG WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH $ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW DQG WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH 7DEOH f )XUWKHU ([SORUDWLRQ RI WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO DQG 9LVWD &DWHJRULHV ([QHUnV &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP LQFOXGHV VHSDUDWH VFRULQJ FULWHULD IRU GHVLJQDWLQJ HJRFHQWULFLW\LQGH[ IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO DQG YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV 7KHVH UHVSRQVHV DUH VXEVXPHG SUHGRPLQDQWO\ XQGHU WKH KHDGLQJ RI WKH )N UHVSRQVH LQ WKH .ORSIHU V\VWHP .ORSIHU HW DO f DQG WKH YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVH LQ WKH %HFN 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP %HFN HW DO f $ VHULHV RI RQHZD\ $129$V DQG VXEVHTXHQW DQDO\VHV XVLQJ 'XQFDQn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f WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& )A f MG f

PAGE 95

Y 7DEOH 6XPPDU\ RI WKH &KL6TXDUH $QDO\VHV XVLQJ WKH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ *URXSV DV WKH &ODVVLILFDQW (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 3ULYDWH 6HOI &RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 96

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (RTRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 97

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ 'HSUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ $QJHU 6XEVFDOH +LJK ,QWHUPHGLDWH /RZ 3UHVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW $EVHQW )UHTXHQF\ &ROXPQ 3HUFHQW ; e

PAGE 98

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

PAGE 99

f WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH )A f S f f WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH ,> f S f f WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH RI WKH 6)6& )A f S f f WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& ) f S f f WKH 56(6 ) f S f f WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH )A f S f WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH )A f S f DQG f WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH ) f S f &RUUHODWLRQ 0DWUL[ $ 3HDUVRQ SURGXFWPRPHQW FRUUHODWLRQ PDWUL[ ZDV FRPSXWHG WR LQYHVWLn JDWH WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV DPRQJ WKH GLIIHUHQW TXHVWLRQQDLUHV DQG VXEVFDOHV 7DEOH f 6RPH RI WKH FRUUHODWLRQV ZHUH RI SDUWLFXODU LQWHUHVW WR WKH VWXG\ DQG DUH UHSRUWHG EHORZ 6HOI(VWHHP $ VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW DQG WKH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI(VWHHP 6FDOH MU S f 7KHVH YDULDEOHV ZHUH DOVR IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH IROORZLQJ VXEVFDOHV f WKH DQ[LHW\ VXEVFDOH U S f IRU 61f U S f IRU 56(6f f WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH U S f IRU 61f U S f IRU 56(6f f WKH DQJHU VXEVFDOH U S f IRU 61f 6HOI)RFXV $ UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG IRU WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW DQG WKH IROORZLQJ YDULDEOHV f WKH SULYDWH VHOI FRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH U S f f WKH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH RI WKH

PAGE 100

7DEOH &RUUHODWLRQ 0DWUL[ 3HDUVRQ 3URGXFW 0RPHQW &RUUHODWLRQV %HWZHHQ $OO 9DULDEOHV f rrr rrr r 3ULYDWH rr rr rrr f 3XEOLF r rr f 6HOI r f 61 rrr rrr rrr r rr f 56(6 rr rrr f $Q[LHW\ rrr rrr f 'HSUHVVLRQ rrr r $QJHU f &3ULYDWH 1RWH 1 7KH 6FRUH 2I 7KH 6)6& 3ULYDWH 7KH 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH 3XEOLF 7KH 3XEOLF 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH 6HOI 6HOI)RFXV 6XEVFDOH 2I 7KH 6)6& 61 7KH 61 6FRUH RI WKH 6)6& 56(6 7KH 5RVHQEHUJ 6HOI (VWHHP 6FDOH $Q[LHW\ 7KH $Q[LHW\ 6XEVFDOH 2I 7KH 3206 'HSUHVVLRQ 7KH 'Hn SUHVVLRQ 6XEVFDOH 2I 7KH 3206 $QJHU 7KH $QJHU 6XEVFDOH 2I 7KH 3206 &3ULYDWH 7KH &RUUHFWHG 3ULYDWH 6HOI&RQVFLRXVQHVV 6XEVFDOH rS rrS rrrS

PAGE 101

6)6& e e f DQG f WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& e e f 7KH VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOH ZDV IRXQG WR EH LQYHUVHO\ UHODWHG WR WKH 56(6 e e f 7KH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH ZDV IRXQG WR UHODWH VLJQLILFDQWO\ WR WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH e e f DQG WKH 56(6 e e f 7KH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH ZDV IRXQG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH XQFRUUHFWHG SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH e e f WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& e e f DQG WKH GHSUHVVLRQ VXEVFDOH e e f 3RLQW %LVHULDO &RUUHODWLRQ 7KH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 5HVSRQVH $ SRLQW ELVHULDO FRUUHODWLRQ SURFHGXUH ZDV HPSOR\HG WR WHVW IRU D UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH DQG WKH VHOIHVWHHP PHDVXUHV 7KLV PHWKRG FRPSDUHV FRQWLQXRXV WR GLVFRQWLQXRXV YDULDEOHV 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG IRU HLWKHU WKH 61 VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& UA f RU WKH 56(6 UA f ZLWK UHVSHFW WR WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV

PAGE 102

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 ,QYHVWLJDWRUV KDYH SRVLWHG QXPHURXV K\SRWKHVHV DERXW ZKLFK SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV DUH HPERGLHG LQ HDFK RI WKH VSHFLILF VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG LQ DQ HIIRUW WR IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWH WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI FHUWDLQ DVSHFWV RI WKH &RPSUHKHQVLYH 5RUVFKDFK 6\VWHP GHYHORSHG E\ ([QHU f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

PAGE 103

7KH )RUP'LPHQVLRQDO 6FRULQJ &DWHJRU\ ([QHU SURSRVHG WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D QRQ HPRWLRQDO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH SUHVHQW JURXSf ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH ZKR GLG QRW DEVHQW JURXSf 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH WHQGHQF\ WR DWWHQG WR LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVVf WKH DZDUHQHVV RI RQHVHOI DV D VRFLDO REMHFW SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVVf DIIHFWLYH VWDWH DQJHU DQ[LHW\ DQG GHSUHVVLRQf WKH WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ RQHVHOI VHOIIRFXV VXEVFDOHf DQG WKH WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ RQHVHOI ZLWK OLWWOH RU QR UHJDUG IRU WKH H[WHUQDO ZRUOG VFRUHf $ OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV ZDV QHLWKHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG QRU DEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ RU FODVVLn I\ VXEMHFWV LQWR WKHVH WZR JURXSV :KLOH WKHUH ZDV DQ LPSURYHPHQW LQ WKH SHUFHQW RI VXEMHFWV FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG XVLQJ WKH OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DV FRPSDUHG WR FKDQFH WKH LPSURYHPHQW LQ FODVVLILFDWLRQ ZDV DWWULEXWDEOH PRVWO\ WR WKH SULRU SUREDELOLW\ RI FODVVLILFDWLRQ IDYRUn LQJ WKH DEVHQW JURXS (DFK YDULDEOH ZDV VXEVHTXHQWO\ FRQVLGHUHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH WZR IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV 7KH LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV K\SRWKHn VL]HG WR EH HPERGLHG LQ WKLV UHVSRQVH ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR PHDVXUHV GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV RQHnV WHQGHQF\ WR DWWHQG DQG EH DZDUH RI LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV WKH WHQGHQF\ WR EH DZDUH RI RQHVHOI DV D VRFLDO REMHFW WKH WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ RQHVHOI DQG WKH WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ RQHVHOI DW WKH H[SHQVH RI WKH H[WHUQDO ZRUOG ([QHU f IRXQG WKDW VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]H D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVHV DUH PRUH VHOIIRFXVHG WKDQ WKRVH ZKR GR QRW ,Q WKH SUHVHQW

PAGE 104

VWXG\ QHLWKHU D OLQHDU QRU D QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ VHOIIRFXV DQG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV DV PHDVXUHG ([QHU f DOVR IRXQG WKDW VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]H D ORZ IUHTXHQF\ RI WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH KDYH D JUHDWHU WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ WKHPVHOYHV DW WKH H[SHQVH RI WKH H[WHUQDO ZRUOG DQG DUH PRUH HJRFHQWULF WKDQ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDn OL]H D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV QRW UHSOLFDWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 1HLWKHU D OLQHDU QRU D QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ DQG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV DV PHDVXUHG 7KH SUHGLFn WLRQ WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVHV ZRXOG EH PRUH DWWHQWLYH WR WKHLU LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV DQG PRUH DWWHQWLYH RI WKHPVHOYHV DV D VRFLDO REMHFW ZDV QRW FRQILUPHG 1R UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ LQWURVSHFWLRQ DV PHDVXUHG DQG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV 7KH K\SRWKHVL]HG DEVHQFH RI DQ DIIHFWLYH FRPSRQHQW ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH PRRG VWDWHV RI DQ[LHW\ DQJHU DQG GHSUHVVLRQ DV PHDVXUHG E\ WKH VXEVFDOHV RI WKH 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV $V SUHGLFWHG QR UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKHVH DIIHFWLYH PRRG VWDWHV DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH 6LPLODU ILQGLQJV WR WKRVH GHVFULEHG DERYH ZHUH REWDLQHG ZKHQ WKH WZR IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV ZHUH XVHG WR SUHGLFW WR WKH VFRUHV RQ WKH GLIIHUHQW PHDVXUHV 1R VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH IRXQG 7KH DEVHQFH RU SUHn VHQFH RI WKLV UHVSRQVH ZDV XQDEOH WR SUHGLFW WR KLJK RU ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKH TXHVWLRQQDLUHV ,Q VXPPDU\ ([QHU f K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D QRQHPRWLRQDO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ IDLOHG WR HVWDEOLVK WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV RI VHOIIRFXV LQWURVSHFWLRQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ RU DIIHFWLYH VWDWH DV

PAGE 105

VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWLYH RI WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH IRUPn GLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH 7KH ODFN RI UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ DQG DIIHFWLYH VWDWH ZLWK WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV SURYLGHV VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH GLVFULPLQDQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV UHVSRQVH +RZHYHU WKH ODFN RI UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VHOIIRFXV SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV ZLWK WKH WZR IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO JURXSV IDLOHG WR SURYLGH FRQYHUJHQW YDOLGn LW\ IRU WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFW RI LQWURVSHFWLRQ DV PHDVXUHG 7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKHVH ILQGLQJV 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR UHSOLFDWH ([QHUnV ILQGLQJV DQG WR LQYHVWLn JDWH PRUH GLUHFWO\ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV HPREGLHG LQ WKLV UHVSRQVH 7KH IDLOXUH WR UHSOLFDWH WKHVH UHVXOWV PD\ EH GXH WR WKH PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG DQDO\VHV XVHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ DOVR LQFOXGHG RWKHU PHDVXUHV ZKLFK KDYH EHHQ FRQFHSWXDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH FRQn FHSW RI LQWURVSHFWLRQ RU LWV FKDUDFWHULVWLF IHDWXUHV 7KH QRQVLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKHVH PHDVXUHV DQG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHn VSRQVH UDLVHV VRPH TXHVWLRQV DERXW WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV UHn VSRQVH 7KH FUHDWLRQ RI WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH UHTXLUHV D FHUWDLQ GHJUHH RI VRSKLVWLFDWLRQ DQG FUHDWLYLW\ ,W PD\ EH WKH FDVH WKDW WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH LV PRUH UHIOHFWLYH RI D VXEMHFWnV OHYHO RI LQWHOOLJHQFH DEVWUDFW WKRXJKW SURFHVVHV RU DELOLW\ WR IRUP LPDJHV 7HQWDWLYH VXSSRUW IRU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV LV SURYLGHG E\ D VWXG\ FLWHG HDUOLHU ([QHU f WKDW UHODWHG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO WR WKH KXPDQ PRYHPHQW UHVSRQVH ZKLFK LV WKRXJKW WR UHIOHFW WKHVH SURFHVVHV 'DQD f 7KLV ZDV QRW WHVWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ ,W PD\ DOVR EH WKH FDVH WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D W\SH RI LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV GHILQHG E\ FULWHULD GLIIHUHQW WKDQ WKDW XVHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ )RU LQVWDQFH

PAGE 106

LW PLJKW UHSUHVHQW D VWDWH UDWKHU WKDQ WUDLW SURFHVV DQG LV YHUEDOL]HG LQ UHVSRQVH WR WUDQVLWLRQDO VLWXDWLRQDO YDULDEOHV 3UHWUHDWPHQW DQG SRVWWUHDWPHQW VWXGLHV H[DPLQLQJ WKLV UHVSRQVH KRZHYHU ZRXOG VXJJHVW WKDW LW UHSUHVHQWV D PRUH VWDEOH WUDLW ([QHU f ,I LW LV WKH FDVH WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D FHUWDLQ W\SH RI LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV FOHDUO\ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ FDOO IRU D PRUH VWULQJHQW GHILQLWLRQ DQG D OLPLW WR WKH W\SH RI GHVFULSWLYH VWDWHPHQWV WKDW FDQ EH JHQHUDWHG IURP WKLV UHVSRQVH FDWHJRU\ +RZHYHU WKH IDLOXUH WR UHSOLFDWH ([QHUn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f ,W LV WKHUHIRUH SRVVLEOH WKDW WKLV UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV FRJQLWLYH VW\OH RU D GHIHQVLYH RSHUDWLRQ HJ LVRODWLRQ RI DIIHFWf ZKHUHE\ DZDUHQHVV DQG WKH H[SHULHQFH RI QHJDWLYH DIIHFW LV GHIHQGHG DJDLQVW 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ ZRXOG EH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKDW SURSRVHG E\ .ORSIHU HW DW f :KHQ WKH UHVXOWV RI WKLV VWXG\ DUH YLHZHG LQ FRQMXQFWLRQ ZLWK RWKHU ILQGLQJV LW PD\ EH VSHFXODWLYHO\ K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH LV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI

PAGE 107

LQGLYLGXDOV ZKR WHQG WR EH FRJQLWLYHO\ IOH[LEOH EXW DIIHFWLYHO\ FRQn VWULFWHG DQG ZKR WHQG WR FRSH ZLWK HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFHV E\ GLVWDQFLQJ WKHPVHOYHV IURP WKHP E\ LQWHOOHFWXDO RSHUDWLRQV RQO\ RQH RI ZKLFK PLJKW EH LQWURVSHFWLYH LQ QDWXUH 7KH 9LVWD 6FRULQJ &DWHJRU\ ([QHU SURSRVHG WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH UHSUHVHQWV D SDLQIXO LQWURn VSHFWLYH SURFHVV WKDW LV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK GHSUHVVLYH IHDWXUHV DQG D GLVn SOHDVXUH IRU ZKDW RQH VHHV ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH SUHVHQW JURXSf ZHUH FRPSDUHG WR WKRVH ZKR GLG QRW DEVHQW JURXSf 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DIIHFWLYH VWDWH VHOIIRFXV HJRFHQWULFLW\ VFRUHf DQG VHOIHVWHHP 56(6 DQG 61 VFRUHf $ OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR DQG ZDV XQDEOH WR GLVFULPLQDWH EHWZHHQ RU FODVVLI\ VXEMHFWV LQWR WKHVH JURXSV :KLOH WKHUH ZDV DQ LPSURYHPHQW LQ WKH SHUFHQW RI VXEMHFWV FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG XVLQJ WKH OLQHDU FRPELQDn WLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DV FRPSDUHG WR FKDQFH WKH LPSURYHPHQW LQ FODVVLn ILFDWLRQ ZDV DWWULEXWDEOH PRVWO\ WR WKH SULRU SUREDELOLW\ RI FODVVLILFDn WLRQ IDYRULQJ WKH DEVHQW JURXS DQG WKH XVH RI D UHODWLYHO\ QRQVWULQJHQW FULWHULD IRU WHVWLQJ WKH HTXDOLW\ RI WKH WZR JURXSV 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS RI HDFK YDULDEOH WR WKH YLVWD JURXSV ZDV VXEVHn TXHQWO\ FRQVLGHUHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ 7KH LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH HPERGLHG LQ WKLV UHVSRQVH ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR SULYDWH DQG SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VHOIIRFXV DQG HJRFHQWULFLW\ 1HLWKHU D VLJQLILFDQW OLQHDU QRU D QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ HDFK RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DQG WKH WZR YLVWD JURXSV DV PHDVXUHG

PAGE 108

7KH GHSUHVVLYH DIIHFWLYH VWDWH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKLV UHVSRQVH ZDV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH PRRG VWDWHV RI DQ[LHW\ GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQJHU ZKLFK DUH FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI GHSUHVVLYHV )UHXG )HQLFKHO f 7KH UHVXOWV IDLOHG WR VXSSRUW WKH SUHGLFWLRQ RI D VLJQLILFDQW OLQHDU RU QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKHVH DIIHFWLYH PRRG VWDWHV DQG WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI RFFXUUHQFH RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DV PHDVXUHG 7KH VHOIHYDOXDWLYH SURFHVV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKLV VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ ZDV H[DPLQHG LQ UHODWLRQ WR VHOIHVWHHP ,W ZDV SUHn GLFWHG WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG YLVWD W\SH UHVSRQVHV ZRXOG EH XQFRPIRUWDEOH ZLWK WKHLU GHSUHVVLRQ DQG KDYH SRRU VHOIUHJDUG 7KLV SUHn GLFWLRQ ZDV QRW FRQILUPHG $ QRQVLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHn WZHHQ VHOIHVWHHP DQG WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DV PHDVXUHG 6LPLODU ILQGLQJV WR WKRVH GHVFULEHG ZHUH REWDLQHG ZKHQ WKH WZR YLVWD JURXSV ZHUH XVHG WR SUHGLFW WR VFRUHV RQ WKH GLIIHUHQW PHDVXUHV 1R VLJn QLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV ZHUH IRXQG 7KH DEVHQFH RU SUHVHQFH RI WKLV UHVSRQVH ZDV XQDEOH WR SUHGLFW WR KLJK RU ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKH PHDVXUHV ,Q VXPPDU\ ([QHU f K\SRWKHVL]HG WKDW WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH UHSUHn VHQWV D SDLQIXO LQWURVSHFWLYH SURFHVV ZLWK FRQFRPPLWDQW GHSUHVVLYH IHDn WXUHV DQG D GLVSOHDVXUH IRU ZKDW RQH VHHV ,Q WHVWLQJ WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH DQ DWWHPSW ZDV PDGH WR HVWDEOLVK UHODWLRQn VKLSV ZLWK WKLV VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ DQG PHDVXUHV WKDW ZHUH EHOLHYHG WR EH FRQFHSWXDOO\ DQG HPSLULFDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV K\SRn WKHVL]HG WR EH HPERGLHG LQ WKLV UHVSRQVH $ OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZDV XQDEOH WR SUHGLFW WR WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH 7KH UHVXOWV IDLOHG WR HVWDEOLVK WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV RI

PAGE 109

VHOIIRFXV LQWURVSHFWLRQ HJRFHQWULFLW\ DIIHFWLYH VWDWH RU VHOIHVWHHP DV VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWLYH RI WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH 7KH ILQGLQJ WKDW HJRFHQWULFLW\ ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH YLVWD JURXSV SURYLGHV VRPH VXSSRUW IRU WKH GLVFULPLQDQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKLV UHn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n WLRQ DQG D OLPLW WR WKH W\SH RI GHVFULSWLYH VWDWHPHQWV WKDW FDQ EH JHQHn UDWHG IURP WKLV VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ ,W FRXOG DOVR EH DUJXHG WKDW QR VLJQLn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f WR GHIHQG DJDLQVW IRFXVLQJ RQ WKHPVHOYHV RU WKHLU HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFH 7KH IRUPDWLRQ RI WKH YLVWD UHVSRQVH LQYROYHV D FRPSOH[ SHUFHSWXDOFRJQLWLYH SURFHVV ZKHUHE\ WKH VXEMHFW LV UHTXLUHG WR

PAGE 110

XWLO L]H WKH 5RUVFKDFK VWLPXOL LQ D FUHDWLYH PDQQHU $OWKRXJK LW ZDV QRW WHVWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKH SRVLWLYH UHODWLRQVKLS IRXQG EHWZHHQ YLVWD DQG WKH IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVH ([QHU f VXJJHVWV WKDW YLVWD PD\ DOVR UHODWH WR DQ LQGLYLGXDOn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f IRXQG D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI ERWK YLVWD DQG IRUPGLPHQVLRQDO UHVSRQVHV LQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI VXLFLGDO LQGLYLGXDOV 8VLQJ D SRSXODWLRQ RI VXEMHFWV VXIIHULQJ IURP DIIHFWLYH GLVRUGHUV ([QHU f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

PAGE 111

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f 7KH (JRFHQWULFLW\ ,QGH[ ([QHU SURSRVHG WKDW WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ UHSUHVHQWV D VHOIIRFXVn LQJ SURFHVV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ ,Q WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG WKLV W\SH RI UHVSRQVH SUHVHQW JURXSf ZHUH FRPn SDUHG WR WKRVH ZKR GLG QRW DEVHQW JURXSf 7KH WZR JURXSV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV DIIHFWLYH VWDWH VHOIIRFXV HJRFHQWULFLW\ VFRUHf DQG VHOIHVWHHP 56(6 61 VFRUHf $ OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH SV\FKRORJLFDO YDULDEOHV ZDV DEOH WR GLVFLPLQDWH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR JURXSV EXW WKH GLVFULP LQDWLRQ ZDV QRW YHU\ FOHDU :KLOH WKHUH ZDV D VLJQLILFDQW LPSURYHPHQW LQ WKH SHUFHQW RI VXEMHFWV FRUUHFWO\ FODVVLILHG XVLQJ WKH OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKHVH YDULDEOHV DV FRPSDUHG WR FKDQFH WKH IDOVH SRVLWLYH DQG IDOVH QHJDWLYH UDWHV ZHUH UHODWLYHO\ KLJK $V VXFK LW LV XQOLNHO\ WKDW ZH FRXOG H[SHFW YHU\ JRRG GLVFULPLQDWLRQ XVLQJ D QHZ YDOLGDWLRQ VDPSOH

PAGE 112

6XEVHTXHQWO\ HDFK YDULDEOH ZDV FRPSDUHG LQGHSHQGHQWO\ WR WKH WZR HJRFHQWULFLW\ JURXSV ([QHU f IRXQG WKDW VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]HG D KLJK IUHTXHQF\ RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ W\SH UHVSRQVHV KDYH D JUHDWHU WHQGHQF\ WR IRFXV RQ WKHPVHOYHV DW WKH H[SHQVH RI WKH H[WHUQDO ZRUOG DQG DUH PRUH HJRFHQWULF WKDQ WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR YHUEDOL]H D ORZ IUHTXHQF\ 7KLV ILQGLQJ ZDV QRW UHSOLFDWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 1HLWKHU D OLQHDU QRU D QRQOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH VFRUH RI WKH 6)6& DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXSV ([QHU f DOVR IRXQG WKDW VXEMHFWV ZLWK KLJK HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ VFRUHV DUH PRUH VHOIIRFXVHG WKDQ VXEMHFWV ZLWK ORZ VFRUHV 1R UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ VHOIIRFXV DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ JURXSV DV PHDVXUHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ 7KH SUHn GLFWLRQ WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH SUHVHQW JURXS ZRXOG EH PRUH DWWHQWLYH WR WKHLU LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV WKDQ WKRVH LQ WKH DEVHQW JURXS ZDV QRW FRQILUPHG 1R UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVn QHVV DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ JURXSV DV PHDVXUHG $ FXUYLOLQHDU UHODWLRQn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

PAGE 113

WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 1R UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ DQG WKH GLIIHUHQW PRRG VXEVFDOH VFRUHV ZDV H[SHFWHG WR EH IRXQG 7KLV SUHGLFWLRQ ZDV FRQILUPHG IRU WKH PRRG VWDWHV RI GHSUHVVLRQ DQG DQ[LHW\ +RZHYHU D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ZDV IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH PRRG VWDWH RI DQJHU DQG WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXSV 6XEMHFWV LQ WKH DEVHQW JURXS HQGRUVHG IHHOLQJ DQJULHU WKDQ WKRVH VXEMHFWV LQ WKH SUHVHQW JURXS $QJHU HJRFHQWULFLW\ VFRUHf DQG VHOIHVWHHP 61 VFRUHf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nV HDUOLHU ILQGLQJV E\ XVLQJ WKH VXEn VFDOH VFRUHV RI WKH 6HOI)RFXV 6HQWHQFH &RPSOHWLRQ 7HVW ([QHU f 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ GLG QRW ILQG D VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ HLWKHU VHOIIRFXV RU HJRFHQWULFLW\ DQG WKH SDLUUHIOHFWLRQ LQGH[ 7KHUH DUH D QXPEHU RI SRVVLEOH H[SODQDWLRQV IRU WKHVH ILQGLQJV )LUVW ([QHU HPSOR\HG WWHVWV ZKHUHDV PRUH VRSKLVWLFDWHG DQDO\VHV WKDW FRQWUROOHG IRU WKH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DPRQJ YDULDEOHV ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH FXUUHQW VWXG\ ,W LV SRVVLEOH WKDW ([QHUnV UHVXOWV ZHUH GXH WR WKH ILQGLQJ RI D VSXULRXV VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLS ,W VKRXOG DOVR EH QRWHG WKDW ([QHU GLG QRW GHYHORS WKH IRUPXOD IRU WKH SDLUUHIOHFWLRQ LQGH[ DW WKH WLPH WKDW WKHVH VWXGLHV ZHUH FRQGXFWHG 7KH SDLU DQG UHIOHFWLRQ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH LQYHVWLn JDWHG VHSDUDWHO\ 7KH UHVXOWV RI WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ VXJJHVW WKDW VRPH

PAGE 114

LQIRUPDWLRQ PD\ EH ORVW E\ PXOWLSO\LQJ WKH QXPEHU RI UHIOHFWLRQV E\ WKUHH DQG GLYLGLQJ WKLV QXPEHU SOXV WKH QXPEHU RI SDLUV E\ WKH WRWDO QXPEHU RI UHVSRQVHV ([QHU f H[SORUHG WKH FRQFHSW RI HJRFHQWULFLW\ E\ GLYLGLQJ VXEMHFWV LQWR KLJK DQG ORZ JURXSV RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH VHOIn IRFXV DQG H[WHUQDOZRUOG IRFXV VXEVFDOH VFRUHV RQ WKH 6)6& 7KH FXUUHQW VWXG\ XVHG WKH VFRUH ZKLFK DFFRUGLQJ WR ([QHU LV WKH PRUH UHSUHVHQWDn WLYH FULWHULD IRU HJRFHQWULFLW\ 6HOIIRFXV DV GHILQHG E\ DQ DZDUHQHVV RI RQHnV LQQHU WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV DOVR ZDV IRXQG QRW WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH SDLUUHIOHFWLRQ LQGH[ +RZHYHU VXEMHFWV ZKR REWDLQHG HLWKHU KLJK RU ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKLV LQGH[ ZHUH IRXQG WR EH HLWKHU KLJKO\ DZDUH RI WKHPVHOYHV DV VRFLDO REMHFWV DQG FRQFHUQHG DERXW RWKHUnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKHP RU KLJKO\ XQDZDUH RI WKHPn VHOYHV DV VRFLDO REMHFWV WKDW KDYH DQ HIIHFW RQ RWKHUV 7KLV ILQGLQJ LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH OLWHUDWXUH WKDW KDV IRXQG KLJK DQG ORZ LQGH[ VFRUHV LQ SDWKRORJLFDO SRSXODWLRQV WKDW KDYH LQWHUSHUVRQDO GLIILFXOWLHV RI WKLV NLQG HJ GHSUHVVLYH FKDUDFWHU GLVRUGHUV QDUFLVVLVWV DQG VFKL]RSKUHQLFVf $W ILUVW JODQFH WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR REWDLQ KLJK VFRUHV RQ WKH SDLUUHIOHFWLRQ LQGH[ HQGRUVH VLJQLILFDQWO\ PRUH QHJDWLYH VHOIVWDWHPHQWV FKDUDFWHULVWLF RI ORZ VHOIHVWHHP WKDQ WKRVH ZKR REWDLQ ORZ VFRUHV RQ WKLV LQGH[ LV VXUSULVLQJ VLQFH GHSUHVVLYHV WHQG WR VFRUH ORZ RQ WKLV LQGH[ ([QHU f +RZHYHU ([QHU f WKRXJKW WKDW KLJK LQGH[ VFRUHV PD\ DOVR EH UHODWHG WR SRRU VHOIHVWHHP ,Q IDFW KH IRXQG WKDW KLJKHU WKDQ DYHUDJH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ VFRUHV RFFXU LQ WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHFRUGV RI RQH LQ HYHU\ ILYH HIIHFWHG VXLFLGH FDVHV ([QHU f

PAGE 115

7KH ILQGLQJ WKDW VXEMHFWV LQ WKH DEVHQW HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ JURXS H[SUHVVHG IHHOLQJ OHVV DQJU\ WKDQ WKH SUHVHQW JURXS ZDV XQH[SHFWHG DV DIIHFW ZDV QRW SUHGLFWHG WR UHODWH WR WKLV VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ ,W PD\ EH WKDW LQGLYLGXDOV LQ WKLV JURXS WHQG WR H[SUHVV DQG H[WHUQDOL]H WKHLU DQJHU PRUH WKDQ WKRVH LQ WKH SUHVHQW JURXS 7KLV LV FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKRVH VXEMHFWV ZKR VFRUH KLJK RQ WKH LQGH[ KDYH SRRUHU VHOIn HVWHHP DQG DUH VXLFLGDO DV WKHVH DUH RIWHQ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK DQJHU H[SUHVVn HG WRZDUG WKH VHOI LQVWHDG RI WKH RXWVLGH ZRUOG ,W LV QRW FRQVLVWHQW KRZHYHU ZLWK WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW FKDUDFWHU GLVRUGHUV VFRUH KLJK RQ WKLV LQGH[ DV WKHVH LQGLYLGXDOV WHQG WR LPSXOVLYHO\ H[SUHVV WKHLU DQJHU ,W VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKH DQJHU H[SUHVVHG E\ WKH ORZ JURXS LV QR PRUH WKDQ WKDW H[SUHVVHG E\ WKH QRUPDO SRSXODWLRQ ,Q VXPPDU\ WKH UHVXOWV FDOO IRU D UHGHILQLWLRQ RI WKH VHOIIRFXVLQJ SURFHVV HPERGLHG LQ WKH HJRFHQWULFLW\ LQGH[ 7KH FRQFHSW RI VHOIHVWHHP DV UHODWHG WR WKLV YDULDEOH DOVR QHHGV WR EH LQYHVWLJDWHG PRUH WKRURXJKO\ 7KH UHODWLRQVKLS IRXQG EHWZHHQ WKH DIIHFW RI DQJHU DQG WKH LQGH[ VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH VXEMHFWnV DIIHFWLYH VWDWH FRQWULEXWHV WR WKH YDULDQFH RI WKLV UHVSRQVH 7KH UHVSRQVH VKRXOG EH IXUWKHU LQYHVWLJDWHG XVLQJ WUDLW UDWKHU WKDQ VWDWH PHDVXUHV RI PRRG DV WKLV ZDV QRW WHVWHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ )XUWKHU ([DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK 5HVSRQVHV $ SRVW KRF LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH WKUHH 5RUVFKDFK VFRULQJ FDWHJRULHV ZDV FRQGXFWHG WR H[DPLQH DOO SRVVLEOH LQWHUDFWLRQV DPRQJ WKHP 7KH GLIIHUHQW VFRUH FRPELQDWLRQV ZHUH XVHG WR SUHGLFW WR VFRUHV RQ WKH PHDn VXUHV GLVFXVVHG SUHYLRXVO\ 1R LQWHUDFWLRQV ZHUH IRXQG ZKLFK VXSSRUWV

PAGE 116

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n YDULHV ZLWK WKH SUHVHQFH RI WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFW RI LQWHUHVW $ SUREOHP ZLWK WKLV W\SH RI DSSURDFK LV WKDW D GLDJQRVLV LQFOXGHV RWKHU SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV DQG FRYDULDWLRQ PD\ EH GXH WR WKH DELOLW\ RI WKH VFRUH WR PHDVXUH WKHVH RWKHU SURFHVVHV 7R DYRLG WKLV FRQIRXQGLQJ LQIOXn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f +RZHYHU QR PHDVXUH ZDV XVHG WR WHVW GLUHFWO\ ZKHWKHU WKLV YDULDEOH KDG LQIOXHQFHG WKH UHVXOWV 6FRUHV RQ WKH SXEOLF VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VFDOH LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH PDMRULW\ RI VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQGHHG FRQFHUQHG DERXW KRZ WKH\ DSSHDU WR RWKHUV EXW QR PRUH VR WKDQ WKH JHQHUDO SRSXODWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ VXEMHFWnV OHYHO RI GHIHQVLYHQHVV ZDV QRW PHDVXUHG GLUHFWO\ WR

PAGE 117

GHWHQQLQH WKHLU ZLOOLQJQHVV WR VHOIGLVFORVH RQ WKH PHDVXUHV 7KXV WKH UDWLRQDOH IRU WKH ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV IRU ERWK WKH IRUPGLPHQn VLRQDO DQG YLVWD UHVSRQVHV WKDW ZDV SURYLGHG HDUOLHU LQ WKLV GLVFXVVLRQ LV RQO\ D WHQWDWLYH K\SRWKHVLV 2QH LWHP ZDV IRXQG WR EH PLVVLQJ IURP WKH SULYDWH VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VXEVFDOH ,W FRXOG WKHUHIRUH EH DUJXHG WKDW WKLV FRQVWUXFW ZDV QRW DGHn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f 7KH TXHVWLRQ RI VHOIHVWHHP DV LW UHODWHV WR WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVHV LQYHVWLJDWHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ LV VWLOO XQDQVZHUHG DQG QHHGV WR EH H[SORUHG IXUWKHU $V PHQWLRQHG HDUOLHU LQ WKLV SDSHU WKH XVH RI VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV UHTXLUHV WKDW WKH VXEMHFW EH DEOH WR UHSRUW RQ WKHLU H[SHULHQFHV +RZn HYHU VXEMHFWV GLIIHU LQ WKHLU DELOLW\ WR GR WKLV ZKLFK PD\ KDYH VHUYHG WR PLQLPL]H WKH DPRXQW RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH QHHGHG WR JHW VLJQLILFDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW VFRUHV RQ WKH PHDVXUHV EHWZHHQ VXEMHFWV ,W LV DOVR WKH FDVH WKDW VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV DUH TXDOLWDWLYHO\ GLIIHUHQW WKDQ VHOIUHSRUW PHDVXUHV 7KH PHDVXUHV XVHG LQ WKLV VWXG\ DVNHG WKH VXEMHFWV WR UDWH WKHPVHOYHV RQ VSHFLILF FULWHULD ZKHUHDV WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHTXLUHG WKDW WKH\

PAGE 118

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n WLYHO\ KRPRJHQHRXV ZLWK IHZ VXEMHFWV H[KLELWLQJ VLJQV RI VWUHVV RU SDWKn RORJ\ 7R KHOS DGGUHVV WKLV LVVXH LQ WKH GHVLJQ RI WKH VWXG\ DUWLILFLDO SDWKRORJLFDO JURXSV ZHUH FUHDWHG RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKHLU VFRUHV RQ WKH GLIIHUHQW PHDVXUHV 7KLV GLG QRW LQIOXHQFH WKH UHVXOWV ,W PD\ EH WKH FDVH WKDW LW LV QRW WKH GHJUHH EXW WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO SURn FHVVHV WKDW LV WKH NH\ IDFWRU $V VXFK LW PD\ EH D FRPELQDWLRQ RI PRUH WKDQ RQH FRQVWUXFW WKDW FRYDULHV ZLWK WKH VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ 7KH SUHVHQW VWXG\ XVHG D VRSKLVWLFDWHG VHULHV RI DQDO\VHV WR WHVW IRU UHODWLRQVKLSV DV FRPSDUHG WR WKH WWHVWV ZKLFK ZHUH XVHG LQ PRVW RI ([QHUnV VWXGLHV ,W PD\ EH WKDW KLV ILQGLQJV ZHUH GXH WR WKH UHVXOW RI VSXULRXV UHODWRQVKLSV 6LPLODUO\ D QXPEHU RI PHDVXHUV ZHUH XVHG WR H[DPLQH ERWK WKH FRQYHUJHQW DQG GLVFULPLQDQW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK UHVSRQVHV 7KH LQDELOLW\ RI D OLQHDU FRPELQDWLRQ RI WKH YDULDEOHV RU IRU

PAGE 119

WKH LQGLYLGXDO YDULDEOHV WR SUHGLFW WR WKH IUHTXHQF\ RI WKHVH UHVSRQVHV FDOOV LQWR TXHVWLRQ WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH UHVSRQVHV DQG WKH GHn VLJQ XVHG WR WHVW WKHP ,PSOLFDWLRQV IRU )XWXUH 5HVHDUFK &OLQLFLDQV WHQG WR XVH D FRQILJXUDWLRQDO DSSURDFK WR WKH LQWHUSUHn WDWLRQ RI WKH VWUXFWXUDO GDWD RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK 7KH PHDQLQJIXOQHVV RI D SDUWLFXODU FODVV RI UHVSRQVHV LV QRW VLPSO\ GHWHUPLQHG E\ LWV SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH EXW E\ LWV SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH LQ UHODWLRQ WR WKH SUHVHQFH RU DEVHQFH RI RWKHU FODVVHV RI UHVSRQVHV 7R GDWH WKH JUHDW PDVV RI UHn VHDUFK LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH 5RUVFKDFK KDV IRFXVHG RQ H[DPLQLQJ PLQRU VHJn PHQWV RI WKH SURWRFROV LQ UHODWLRQ WR GLVFUHWH IDFHWV RI SHUVRQDOLW\ RU VSHFLILF EHKDYLRUV ([QHU KV DGDSWHG WKLV DSSURDFK LQ LQYHVWLJDWLQJ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ HDFK 5RUVFKDFK VFRULQJ FDWHJRU\ 7KLV GHVLJQ ZDV DOVR IROORZHG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\ LQ DQ HIIRUW WR UHSOLFDWH ([QHUnV HDUOLHU ILQGLQJV 7KH ODFN RI VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV FDOO IRU D FRQILJXUDWLRQDO DSSURDFK ,Q WKLV UHJDUG D WZRVWHS GHVLJQ FRXOG EH HPSOR\HG )LUVW D IDFWRU DQDO\VLV SURFHGXUH ZRXOG EH FRQGXFWHG WR GHWHUPLQH WKH LQWHUFRUUHODWLRQV DPRQJ DOO WKH 5RUVFKDFK YDULDEOHV 4XHVWLRQQDLUHV WKDW ZHUH WKRXJKW WR EH FRQFHSWXDOO\ DQG HPSLULFDOO\ UHODWHG WR WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQVWUXFWV RI LQWHUHVW FRXOG WKHQ EH FRPSDUHG WR WKH GLIIHUHQW IDFWRUV IRXQG )XWXUH VWXGLHV ZRXOG DOVR LQYROYH D ODUJH VDPSOH RI ERWK SV\FKLDWULF DQG QRQSV\FKLDWULF VXEMHFWV WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI DOWHUQDWLYH PHDVXUHV WKDW DUH EHKDYLRUDO SURMHFWLYH DQG VHOIUHSRUW LQ IRUPDW DQG WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI PHDVXUHV RI VRFLDO GHVLUDELOLW\ OHYHO RI LQWHOOLJHQFH DQG GHIHQVLYH VW\OH ,W LV

PAGE 120

EHOLHYHG WKDW RQO\ WKURXJK VXFK DQ HIIRUW H[WHQVLYH DV LW PD\ EH FDQ WKH FRQVWUXFW YDOLGLW\ RI WKH 5RUVFKDFK WUXO\ EH LQYHVWLJDWHG

PAGE 121

$33(1',; ,1)250(' &216(17 72 3$57,&,3$7( ,1 5(6($5&+ +,//,6 0,//(5 +($/7+ &(17(5 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ *$,1(69,//( )/25,'$
PAGE 122

352&('85(6 )25 7+,6 5(6($5&+ $V D SDUWLFLSDQW RI WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW \RX ZLOO EH DVNHG WR FRPSOHWH IRXU TXHVWLRQQDLUHV GHVLJQHG WR UHIOHFW WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV WKDW FROOHJH VWXGHQWV KDYH ,Q DGGLWLRQ \RX ZLOO DOVR EH DGPLQLVWHUHG WKH 5RUVFKDFK ,QNEORW 7HVW ZKLFK LV D WHVW WKDW LV DOVR GHVLJQHG WR DVVHVV VWXGHQWVn WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV LQ D OHVV GLUHFW PDQQHU 7KH WRWDO GXUDWLRQ RI WKLV SURFHGXUH ZLOO EH WZR KRXUV 327(17,$/ 5,6.6 25 ',6&20)2576 7KHUH DUH QR NQRZQ ULVNV DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SURFHGXUH DQG PHDVXUHV HPSOR\HG LQ WKH SUHVHQW VWXG\

PAGE 123

327(17,$/ %(1(),76 72 <28 25 72 27+(56 $V D VWXGHQW \RX ZLOO KDYH WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ WR REVHUYH DQG SDUWLFLSDWH LQ SV\FKRORJLFDO DVVHVVPHQW SURFHGXUHV
PAGE 124

*(1(5$/ &21',7,216 XQGHUVWDQG WKDW ZLOO ZLOO QRW ; UHFHLYH PRQH\ IRU P\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ ,I DP FRPSHQVDWHG ZLOO UHFHLYHB XQGHUVWDQG WKDW ZLOO ZLOO QRW ; EH FKDUJHG DGGLWLRQDO H[n SHQVHV IRU P\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ ,I DP FKDUJHG DGGLWLRQDO H[SHQVHV WKHVH ZLOO FRQVLVW RI XQGHUVWQDG WKDW DP IUHH WR ZLWKGUDZ P\P\ FKLOGnV FRQVHQW DQG GLVFRQn WLQXH SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV UHVHDUFK SURMHFW DW DQ\ WLPH ZLWKRXW WKLV GHFLVLRQ DIIHFWLQJ P\P\ FKLOGnV PHGLFDO FDUH ,Q WKH HYHQW RI P\P\ FKLOGnV VXVWDLQLQJ D SK\VLFDO LQMXU\ ZKLFK LV SUR[L PDWHO\ FDXVHG E\ WKLV H[SHULPHQW QR SURIHVVLRQDO PHGLFDO rFDUH UHFHLYHG DW WKH +LOOLV 0LOOHU +HDOWK &HQWHU H[FOXVLYH RI KRVSLWDO H[SHQVHV ZLOO EH SURYLGHG PH ZLWKRXW FKDUJH 7KLV H[FOXVLRQ RI KRVSLWDO H[SHQVHV GRHV QRW DSSO\ WR SDWLHQWV DW WKH 9HWHUDQV $GPLQLVWUDWLRQ 0HGLFDO &HQWHU 9$0&f ZKR VXVWDLQ SK\VLFDO LQMXU\ GXULQJ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ 9$0&DSSURYHG VWXGLHV ,W LV XQGHUVWRRG WKDW QR IRUP RI FRPSHQVDWLRQ H[LVWV RWKHU WKDQ WKRVH GHVFULEHG DERYH $OO GDWD REWDLQHG IURP WKLV UHVHDUFK ZLOO UHPDLQ FRQILGHQWLDO 7KH 8QLn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n WLRQ KDYH JLYHQ SHUPLVVLRQ RI P\P\ FKLOGnV SDUWLFLSDWLRQ LQ WKLV VWXG\ 6LJQDWXUH RI 3DWLHQW RU 6XEMHFW RU 5HODWLYH RU 3DUHQW RU *XDGLDQ VSHFLI\f 'DWH

PAGE 125

6LJQDWXUH RI &KLOG WR \UV RI DJHf 'DWH 6LJQDWXUH RI :LWQHVV 'DWH

PAGE 126

5()(5(1&(6 %DFNPDQ -*
PAGE 127

([QHU -( 7KH 5RUVFKDFK $ &RPSUHKHQVLYH 6\VWHP 9ROXPH 5HFHQW 5HVHDUFK DQG $GYDQFHG ,QWHUSUHWDWLRQ 1HZ
PAGE 128

)HQLJVWHLQ $ 6HOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VHOIDZDUHQHVV DQG UHMHFWLRQ 8Qn SXEOLVKHG GRFWRUDO GLVVHUWDWLRQ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 7H[DV )HQLJVWHLQ $ 6FKHLHU 0) DQG %XVV $+ 3XEOLF DQG SULYDWH VHOI FRQVFLRXVQHVV $VVHVVPHQW DQG WKHRU\ -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\  )UHXG 6 0RXUQLQJ DQG 0HODQFKROLD f 6WDQGDUG (GLWLRQ ;,9 /RQGRQ +RJDUWK 3UHVV 2ULJLQDOO\ SXEOLVKHG f )UHXG 6 /LELGLQDO 7\SHV f 6WDQGDUG (GLWLRQ ;;, /RQGRQ +RJDUWK 3UHVV 2ULJLQDOO\ SXEOLVKHG f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f &OHYHODQG :HVWHUQ 5HVHUYH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV -XQJ &* 3V\FKRORJLFDO 7\SHV 1HZ
PAGE 129

.RKXW + )RUPV DQG WUDQVIRUPDWLRQV RI QDUFLVVLVP -RXUQDO RI WKH $PHULFDQ 3V\FKRDQDO\WLF $VVRFLDWLRQ -A /RUU 0 0F1DLU '0 DQG :HLQVWHLQ *(DUO\ HIIHFWV RI FKORUGLD ]HSR[LGH /LEULXPf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n TXLHVFHQFH DQG GUXJ HIIHFWV ,Q 5LFNHOV (Gf 1RQVSHFLILF IDFWRUV LQ GUXJ WKHUDS\ 6SULQJILHOG ,OO && 7KRPDV 0F1DLU '0 /RUU 0 DQG 'URSSOHPDQ /) 3URILOH RI 0RRG 6WDWHV 6DQ 'LHJR &DOLIRUQLD (GXFDWLRQDO DQG ,QGXVWULDO 7HVWLQJ 6HUYLFH 0HDG *+ 0LQG 6HOI DQG 6RFLHW\ &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 0HHKO 3( 6WUXFWXUHG DQG SURMHFWLYH WHVWV 6RPH FRPPRQ SUREOHPV LQ YDOLGDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI 3URMHFWLYH 7HFKQLTXHV B 1RFNV -DQG %UDGOH\ '/ 6HOIHVWHHP LQ DQ DOFRKROLF SRSXODWLRQ 'LVHDVHV RI WKH 1HUYRXV 6\VWHP A} 3LOODUG 5& $WNLQVRQ .: DQG )LVKHU 6 7KH HIIHFW RI GLIIHUHQW SUHSDUDWLRQV RQ ILOPLQGXFHG DQ[LHW\ 7KH 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5HFRUG 9 3LOODUG 5& DQG )LVKHU 6 (IIHFWV RI FKORUGLD]HSR[LGH DQG VHFREDUn ELWDO RQ ILOPLQGXFHG DQ[LHW\ 3V\FKRSKDUPDFRORJLD BA 3LOODUG 5& DQG )LVKHU 6 $VSHFWV RI DQ[LHW\ LQ GHQWDO FOLQLF SDWLHQWV -RXUQDO RI WKH $PHULFDQ 'HQWDO $VVRFLDWLRQ

PAGE 130

3LRWURZVNL = 3HUFHSWDQDO\VLV 1HZ
PAGE 131

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ 0LFKDHO 8QJHU ZDV ERUQ DQG UDLVHG LQ 2FHDQVLGH 1HZ
PAGE 132

, 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\ f§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

PAGE 133

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aMf t 'HDQ &ROOHJH RI +HDOWK 5HODWHG 3URIHVVLRQV 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO

PAGE 134

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


-80-
Backward stepwise logistical regression analyses
A second analysis was conducted to test the relationship of each
independent variable as it individually related to the egocentricity
index groups. Testing at the .1 significance level, the assumption of
equal covariance matrixes was rejected and a backward stepwise logistical
regression analysis was performed (Table 11). The results indicated that
the private and public self-consciousness subscales, the Rosenberg
Self-Esteem Scale, the anxiety and depression subscales, the D score of
the SFSC, and the self-focusing subscale were not individually related to
the egocentricity index groups at the 0.05 significance level and were
unable to discriminate between the two populations. Significant results
were obtained for the "SN" score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion
Test and the anger subscale partialing out the effects of all other
independent variables. Individuals in the "present egocentricity index
group endorsed significantly more negative self-statements as reflected by
their SN scores (X=4.5), than the "absent" egocentricity index group
(X=3.8), (p <0.01). Individuals in the "present" egocentricity index
group endorsed feeling significantly less angry (X=48) than those in the
"absent" egocentricity index group (X=50.6), (p <0.03). Table 12 depicts
the ability of the linear combination of these variables and the D score
of the SFSC to classify subjects into the two egocentricity index groups.
While there was significant separation between the two egocentricity index
populations with respect to these independent variables, there was also
considerable overlap and the separation was not very clear or well
defined.


-118-
Fenigstein, A. Self-consciousness, self-awareness, and rejection. Un
published doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, 1974.
Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M.F., and Buss, A.H. Public and private self-
consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 1975, 4, 522-527.
Freud, S. Mourning and Melancholia (1917). Standard Edition. XIV: 247-
258. London: Hogarth Press, 1957. (Originally published, 1977).
Freud, S. Libidinal Types (1931). Standard Edition. XXI: 215-220.
London: Hogarth Press, 1961. (Originally published, 1931).
Goldfried, M.R., Strieker, G., and Weiner, I.B. Rorschach Handbook of
Clinical and Research Applications. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1971.
Haskell, D.H., Pugatch, D., and McNair, D.M. Time-limited psychotherapy
for whom? Archives of General Psychiatry, 1969, 21, 546-552.
Heineman, W. The assessment of public and private self-consciousness:
A German replication. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1979,
9^ 331-337.
Hertz, M.R. Percentage Charts for Use in Computing Rorschach Scores.
Chicago, Illinois: Brush Foundation and the Department of
Psychology, Western Reserve University, 1940.
Hertz, M.R. Frequency Tables for Scoring Rorschach Response (3rd ed.).
Cleveland: Western Reserve University Press, 1951.
Jung, C.G. Psychological Types. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1933.
Kaplan, H.B., and Pokorny, A.D. Self-derogation and psychosocial adjust
ment. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1969, 149, 421-434.
Kaplan, H.B., and Pokorny, A.D. Age-related correlates of self-deroga
tion: Report of childhood experiences. British Journal of Psychia
try, 1970, 117, 533-534.
Kaplan, H.B., and Pokorny, A.D. Self-derogation and childhood broken
home. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1971, 33, 328-337.
Kendall, M.G., and Stuart, K.J.. The Advanced Theory of Statistics.
Vol. 3. New York, New York: Hafner Press, 1977.
Klopfer, B., Ainsworth, M.D., Klopfer, W.G., and Holt, R.R. Develop
ments in the Rorschach Technique. I: Theory and Development.
Yonkers-on-Hudson, N.Y.: World Book Company, 1954.


egocentricity index. Each scoring category is hypothesized to reflect a
psychological process or perceptual-cognitive process that is used to
create the response. The form-dimensional response is proposed to re
flect a nonemotional introspective process. The egocentricity index is
hypothesized to represent a self-focusing process characteristic of ego
centricity. The vista response is hypothesized to represent a painful
introspective process that is associated with depressive features.
The current study was conducted to further examine the psychological
processes represented by these variables. A nonpatient population of
undergraduate students was used. Four questionnaires were used that were
thought to represent the psychological processes hypothesized to be re
flected by each variable. The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test was
used to assess the tendency to be self or other-centered. The Profile of
Mood States was selected to provide an estimate of affective state. The
Self-Consciousness Scale was used to assess the process of self-focused
attention. The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale was employed to measure self-
regard.
Discriminant function, stepwise discriminant, backward stepwise
logistical regression, univariate (analysis of variance) and Chi-Square
analyses were utilized. These analyses failed to support a hypothesis of
convergent validity for the vista and form-dimensional responses. Public
self-consciousoness, self-esteem, and the mood state of anger were found
to be significantly related to the egocentricity index. These results
are discussed in terms of implications for future research.
-x-


CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
Investigators have posited numerous hypotheses about which
psychological processes are embodied in each of the specific scoring
categories of the Rorschach. The present study was conducted in an effort
to further investigate the construct validity of certain aspects of the
Comprehensive Rorschach System developed by Exner (1974). Specifically,
the egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista determinant scoring
categories were examined to determine the extent or degree that they
individually and/or collectively measure the construct or psychological
processes that they hypothetically represent. Chapter I reviewed the
historical and conceptual background of the Rorschach and evaluated the
published and unpublished research concerning the construct validity of
the egocentricity index, form-dimensional, and vista response
categories. Chapter II and III presented an empirical approach to
examining the construct validity of these determinant scoring categories
by comparing the frequency of their occurrence to questionnaire scores
representing the psychological processes they are hypothesized to
represent. In the discussion that follows, the results of this empirical
approach are used to gain perspective on the psychological processes
represented by these Rorschach responses.
-92-


-69-
Table 4-continued
Form-Dimensional Groups Anxiety Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
9
41
8
Column Percent
37.50
39.81
34.78
Absent
Frequency
15
62
15
Column Percent
62.50
60.19
65.22
X2 = 0.22 £
<0.90
Form-Dimensional Groups Depression Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
4
51
3
Column Percent
20.00
42.15
33.33
Absent
Frequency
16
70
6
Column Percent
80.00
57.85
66.67
X2 = 3.67 £
<0.16
Form-Dimensional Groups Anger Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
5
49
4
Column Percent
27.78
41.18
30.77
Absent
Frequency
13
70
9
Column Percent
72.22
58.82
69.23
X2 = 1.56 £ <0.46


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES vii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTER
I LITERATURE REVIEW 1
Introduction 1
The Rorschach Test 4
The Form-Dimensional Response: (FD) .... 8
Reflection and Pair Responses: (R) and (2) 13
The Shading-Dimensionality Response: (Vista) 25
Statement of the Problem 30
Hypotheses 33
II METHOD 36
Subjects 36
Assessment Instruments 37
The Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test .... 37
The Self-Consciousness Questionnaire 39
The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale 43
The Profile of Mood States 45
The Rorschach Inkblot Test 48
Experimental Procedure .... 51
Experimenters 51
Setting 51
Original Contact 52
Assignment to Groups 52
Experimental Session 53
Interrater Reliability of the Projective
Instruments 55
Rorschach Inkblot Test 55
Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test 56
Hypotheses and Analyses 57
-v-


-29-
The Rorschach protocols of those individuals who participated in the out
patient study described earlier (Exner, Wylie, and Kline, 1977) were evalua
ted for their vista responses. Subjects participated in one of seven differ
ent modes of psychotherapy. Rorschachs were administered to all subjects at
four different time intervals during the course of treatment. An examination
of the Rorschach protocols of those subjects treated by dynamic, gestalt, and
group psychotherapy revealed that at the first retest, the frequency of vista
responses nearly doubled. The frequency of these responses at other intervals
was not reported. It was suggested that the increase in the number of vista
responses given by these subjects was due to the fact that the types of
therapy that they entered taught them to introspect and required that they
focus on "negative qualities." The authors suggested that the results re
affirmed the hypothesis that the vista response reflects a form of emotional
experience associated with self-examination or introspection although no data
were presented on changes in FD or on other measures of self-examination or
introspection.
Exner and Wylie (1977) reported the use of a constellation of eleven
Rorschach variables, eight or more of which appear in a large percentage of
records collected from effected suicide cases within 60 days prior to the
attempt. They examined the Rorschach records of 59 subjects, ages 18 to 57,
that were administered within 60 days of an effected suicide. "A discriminant
functions analysis was calculated to determine whether any one of the eleven
variables in the constellation should be weighted more heavily than the
others" (p. 206). The variable FV+VF+V+FD>2 was found to correlate
positively and significantly (0.38) with effected suicide. The authors
concluded that the FD response seems to be related to introspection and that


-64-
Table 2
Summary of the Form-Dimensional Group Classification
by the Discriminant Function Analysis
Number of Observations and Percents
Classified into the Form-Dimensional Categories
Form-Dimensional Response
Present
Absent
Total
Present
12
20.69
46
79.31
58
100.00
Absent
13
14.13
79
85.87
92
100.00
Total
25
125
150
Percent
16.67
83.33
100.00
Prior Probability
0.39
0.61
Specificity (percent correctly classified as absent) = 0.85
Sensitivity (percent correctly classified as present) = 0.21
Total Correct Classification = 0.61
Percent Correctly Classified By Chance Given The Prior Probability = 0.52
False Positive Rate (percent classified as present but were absent) = 0.52
False Negative Rate (percent classified as absent but were presnt) = 0.37


-108-
respond to ambiguous stimuli in the context of little structure or
guidelines. The Rorschach may be more of a measure of how a person
approaches his or her world rather than a measure of a particular
construct. As such, these assessment instruments may add to each other
but do not necessarily measure the same process. It should be noted that
high interrater reliability was obtained for scoring both the Rorschach
and the Self-Focus Completion Test. Examiner bias was controlled for in
both the administration and scoring of the measures. The reactivity of
the measures with the Rorschach was also controlled for.
Subjects were tested in a clinical setting to create a sense of
authenticity and to simulate actual testing conditions. The fact that
the great majority of the subjects scored within one standard deviation
of the mean on the measures indicates that the subject sample was rela
tively homogeneous with few subjects exhibiting signs of stress or path
ology. To help address this issue in the design of the study, artificial
"pathological" groups were created on the basis of their scores on the
different measures. This did not influence the results. It may be the
case that it is not the degree but the quality of the psychological pro
cesses that is the key factor. As such it may be a combination of more
than one construct that covaries with the scoring category.
The present study used a sophisticated series of analyses to test
for relationships as compared to the t-tests which were used in most of
Exner's studies. It may be that his findings were due to the result of
spurious relatonships. Similarly, a number of measuers were used to
examine both the convergent and discriminant validity of the Rorschach
responses. The inability of a linear combination of the variables or for


-32-
The egocentricity index (3r + (2)/R) has been investigated as represent
ing a self-focusing process by observing the frequency of its occurrence in
child and patient populations. This relationship has also been explored by
using Locus of Control and Field Dependence-Independence paradigms, and "PER"
responses on the Rorschach. These studies have met with mixed results. The
egocentricity index has also been investigated in relation to self-esteem.
Because of the highly questionable validity of the self-esteem measure used,
further testing still needs to be conducted in this area. A review of the
studies that have explored the relationship between the egocentricity index
and psychopathology have met with mixed results and suggest that no hard and
fast rules apply to this relationship.
The vista response has been hypothesized to represent a painful
introspective process that is associated with depressive features. The person
does not like what he sees. This hypothesis was inferred on the basis of
observation of the frequency of this response in patient populations,
particularly depressives. The relationship of this response to depressive
features, affect, and the introspective process was tested by studying the
frequency of its occurrence in relation to the FD response either separately
or over the course of therapy. However, a number of variables are prevalent
in the therapeutic process other than the introspective process and painful
affect that were not controlled for and may have contributed to the variance
of both the FD and vista response. No study was directly tested whether
subjects who give a higher than average number of these responses are indeed
more aware of their own thoughts and feelings nor has a definition of the
painful or depressive features that the vista response is hypothesized to
represent been offered. Similarly, no direct test was made to determine


-35-
individual's self-regard. A hypothesis of the current study was that scores
on the Rosenberg's Self-Esteem Scale (RSES) that indicate low self-esteem
would be associated with a high frequency of the vista type responses on the
Rorschach. The literature on the egocentricity index indicates that low
self-esteem may be represented by either a high or low score on this variable.
Therefore, a final hypothesis of the study was that low self-esteem scores
would be associated with a high frequency of the egocentricity index-type
responses.


-72-
not be rejected and Fisher's discriminant analysis was conducted using a
stepwise procedure. The results indicated that none of the independent
variables were individually related to the vista categories at the .1
significance level and none were able to individually discriminate
between the two populations (Table 7).
Analysis of variance
As an alternate method of testing for differences between the two
groups, a series of one-way ANOVAs were conducted to compare the vista
categories with respect to the mean scores of each subscale. The afore
mentioned nine independent variables now acted as the dependent variables
and the dichotomized vista response acted as the independent variable.
There were no significant differences found between the absent and
present vista groups. The F-values for each of the ANOVAs were the "D"
score of the Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test (I[ (1,148)=0.07,
£ <0.79); the public self-consciousness subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.17, £ <
0.68); the private self-consciousness subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.62, £ <0.43);
the self-focus subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.35, £ <0.55); the "SN" score
of the SFSC (F^ (1,148)=0.81, £ <0.37); the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (F^
(1,148)=0.02, £ <0.97); the anxiety subscale (F^ (1,148)=0.04, p <0.84;
the depression subscale (F^ (1,148)=-.21, £ <0.65); and the anger subscale
(F (1,148)=0.12, £ <0.73).
Chi-square analyses
As was done with the form-dimensional response, a series of Chi-
Square analyses were conducted to test whether the frequencies observed
were different from that which would be predicted by chance. Three


-21-
Checklist. This scale is frequently used as an index of self-esteem
although it was not designed to do so. Hence, its validity and relia
bility are highly suspect (Wylie, 1974). The twenty subjects selected
had endorsed the greatest number of positive adjectives and the fewest
number of negative adjectives. A sample of 20 subjects was selected
from the remaining pool to act as a control group. All were administered
the Rorschach. While the number of PER responses given per group differed
significantly, the groups were not found to differ significantly with
respect to their mean egocentricity index scores.
These findings are of interest for a number of reasons. The PER
response is not unlike the self-focus response of the Self-Focus Sentence
Completion Test developed and used by Exner in his 1969 and 1973 studies.
Both responses contain personal references. In this study, the relation
ship between the number of PER responses and the egocentricity index was
not compared directly. If the egocentricity index does represent a self-
focusing process, subjects who endorsed the greatest number of positive
adjectives and gave a high number of PER resonses should have had a
significantly higher mean egocentricity index score than the control
group. The fact that they did not calls further attention to the point
made earlier with regard to the absence of control groups in many of
Exner's studies and sheds some doubt on the findings from previous
studies.
This was the first and only study by Exner relating self-esteem to
the egocentricity index. Although no significant relationship was found
between the indices, the questionable validity of the questionnaire used
still leaves this relationship open to further testing. In fact, Exner


-86-
Table 13-continued
Egocentricity Index Public Self-Consciousness Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
8
60
5
Column Percent
30.77
55.56
31.25
Absent
Frequency
18
48
11
Column Percent
69.23
44.44
68.75
X2 = 7.33 £
<0.03
Egocentricity Index SN score of
the SFSC
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
15
56
2
Column Percent
68.18
49.12
14.29
Absent
Frequency
7
58
12
Column Percent
31.82
50.88
85.71
X2 = 9.99 £
<0.01
Eoqocentricity Index Rosenberg Self-Esteem
Scale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
13
45
15
Column Percent
68.42
46.39
44.12
Absent
Frequency
6
52
19
Column Percent
31.58
53.61
55.88
X2 = 3.45 £
<0.18
Egocentricity Index Anxiety Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present
Frequency
11
52
10
Column Percent
45.83
50.49
43.48
Absent
Frequency
13
51
13
Column Percent
54.17
49.51
56.52
X2 = 0.46 £ <0.79


-63-
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations of the Form-Dimensional Groups
Form-Dimensional = Present
Variable
N
Mean
Standard Deviation
D Score of the SFSC
58
16.48
5.57
Self-Focus Subscale
58
9.93
3.39
Private Self-Consciousness
58
26.67
4.55
Public Self-Consciousness
58
18.81
3.61
Anger Subscale
58
47.83
8.21
Depression Subscale
58
46.84
6.77
Anxiety Subscale
58
48.98
9.23
Form-
Dimensional
= Absent
D Score of the SFSC
92
15.43
6.02
Self-Focus Subscale
92
9.47
3.03
Private Self-Consciousness
92
25.83
5.34
Public Self-Consciousness
92
19.74
4.88
Anger Subscale
92
50.25
10.06
Depression Subscale
92
48.23
8.99
Anxiety Subscale
92
50.42
10.22


-75-
Table 8
Summary of the Chi-Square Analyses using
the Vista Groups as the Classificant
Vista Self-Focus Subscale of the SFSC
High
Intermediate
Low
Present Frequency
6
37
8
Column Percent
25.00
37.00
30.77
Absent Frequency
18
63
18
Column Percent
75.00
63.00
69.23
X2 = 1.39 £ <0.50
Vista D score of the SFSC
High
Intermediate
Low
Present Frequency
7
38
6
Column Percent
26.92
36.89
28.57
Absent Frequency
19
65
15
Column Percent
73.08
63.11
71.43
X2 = 1.24 £ <0.54
Vista Private Self-Consciousness
Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present Frequency
6
37
8
Column Percent
28.57
36.27
29.63
Absent Frequency
15
65
19
Column Percent
71.43
63.73
70.3 7
X2 = 0.74 £ <0.69
Vista Public Self-Consciousness
Subscale
High
Intermediate
Low
Present Frequency
8
38
5
Column Percent
30.77
35.19
31.25
Absent Frequency
18
70
11
Column Percent
69.23
64.81
68.75
X
2 = 0.24 £ <0.89


-56-
effects, responses were scored card by card rather than subject by subject
for groups of ten. That is, card I was scored for ten subjects prior to
scoring card II.
Interrater reliability was obtained for the first thirty Rorschach
protocols. The author (an expert Rorschach examiner) served as the
second rater. Reliability data were gathered for every fifth response in
the order scored by the first examiner for three groups of ten subjects.
Each response was scored for 1) location, 2) determinants, 3) content,
and 4) form quality. Form quality was scored on the basis of whether the
response met the criteria of poor form quality (-), or good form quality
(+). The weak and ordinary form quality responses were classified into
these categories. The popularity of a response and the organizational
quality were not scored. Reliability was calculated for an overall
Rorschach response and for each of the aforementioned categories by divid
ing the number of respective Rorschach responses scored correctly by both
examiners by the total number of responses scored. A percentage score for
interrater agreement was obtained by multiplying this number by one hun
dred. It was decided that a minimum of eighty percent interscorer agree
ment would be an acceptable cut-off point to ensure scoring accuracy.
Self-Focus Sentence Completion Test
All 150 Self-Focus Sentence Completion Tests were scored by a clini
cal psychology graduate student who was trained by the author according to
the test manual for scoring and interpretation (Exner, 1973). He was paid
fifty cents per completion test for his services. Fifteen completion
tests were randomly selected for the purpose of obtaining interscorer re
liability. The author acted as the second scorer. All responses for a


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.
.CdM
Eileen B. Fennell, Chairman
Associate Professor of Clinical
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.
Hugh C. D^Tvis
Professor of Clinical 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.
C<_y.
Nathan W. Perry, Jr.
Professor of Clinical 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.
kussell M. Bauei
Associate Professor of Clinical
Psychology