Citation
The perception of privacy : a multidimensional scaling analysis

Material Information

Title:
The perception of privacy : a multidimensional scaling analysis
Creator:
Wilmoth, Gregory Hicks, 1947-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
ix, 184 leaves : 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Attribution theory ( jstor )
Crowding ( jstor )
Freedom of choice ( jstor )
Intimacy ( jstor )
Mental stimulation ( jstor )
Psychology ( jstor )
Self ( jstor )
Social interaction ( jstor )
Social psychology ( jstor )
Solitude ( jstor )
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF ( lcsh )
Privacy ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D ( lcsh )
Social psychology ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 175-182.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Gregory H. Wilmoth.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright [name of dissertation author]. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
023403868 ( ALEPH )
06952010 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text















THE PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING ANALYSIS














BY

GREGORY H. WILMOTH


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





UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1980













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


Just as few individuals have the requisite knowledge

and skills for single-handedly constructing a house, few

can complete a dissertation without assistance. In my case

many individuals provided knowledge, skills, labor, and mor-

al support.

First, I wish to acknowledge the eager, patient, and

professional guidance and support rendered by my committee

members. Dr. Lawrence J. Severy always offered encourage-

ment, faith and especially much needed latitude. He gen-

uinely facilitated the entire project, by his inspiration

and by his timely provision of materials and resources

needed to carry-out the research. Conceptual and methodo-

logical assistance was provided by Dr. Marvin E. Shaw. Dr.

Hernan Vera repeatedly inspired my thinking with his orig-

inal insights and questions. Dr. William Froming encour-

aged me to design the research to test wider issues than

privacy. Dr. Scott Miller helped clarify the presentation

of the methodology through his practical, specific questions.

Above all else the committee members showed patience and

faith in my less than orthodox execution of the dissertation.

Second, special thanks are directed to Michael Conlin

and the staff of CIRCA, the University of Florida. Without










Michael Conlin's humor, patience and programming expertise,

this dissertation would not now be complete.

Third, many deserve recognition for their valuable la-

bor. Starr Silver, Jeff Elliott, Charles Green, Sonja

Peterson, Darlene Puckett, and Jill Schepler all served as

coders for one or more phases of the research. Mercedes

de los Santos, Yvette Garcia, and Greta Garrett ably con-

ducted the experimental sessions. Karen Long typed the

rough draft. Lois Rudloff performed a miracle by typing

my disorganized, sporadic writings into a completed disser-

tation within minimal time limits. Her patience, profes-

sionalism, and friendliness greatly reduced my anxiety.

Fourth, my sincere thanks are extended to all those

students who endured the long and tedious experimental tasks.

Their conscientiousness underlies the quality of the data.

Fifth, my warmest thanks to especially to Karen Long

and Starr Silver. Without their concern, magnamity, and

emotional support, the months of labor on this dissertation

would have been desolate and hollow. Only I and they can

know their full contribution and my deep appreciation. Dr.

Lawrence Severy again deserves acknowledgement for his emo-

tional support. I could not have been more fortunate in my

selection of Dr. Severy as chairman of my dissertation.

Finally but not least, I wish to acknowledge the dur-

able understanding and material support of my parents, Leslie

and Eileen Wilmoth. Without them, I would never have reached

this goal.










My sincerest apologies to anyone whom I have forgotten

to acknowledge.














TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ....... ..........

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . .


CHAPTER


vii


INTRODUCTION ...........
Definitions of Privacy ......
Theories of Privacy .. .........
Biological Theories ......
Developmental-Learning Theories
Interpersonal Theories .......
Social-Normative Theories . .
Ecological Theory of Privacy .
Functional Theories of Privacy .


2


Research on Privacy .... ..........
Measures of Privacy ........
Research Related to Biological
Theories ..... ..............
Developmental Research .. ........
Research on Interpersonal Theories o
Privacy . . . . . . .
Research Related to Social-Normative
Theories ...................
Research on Functional Theories of
Privacy . . . . . . .

II METHOD . . . . . . . .


29
30

31
* 37

45

. 47


Phase 1 ..... .............
Phase 2 ..... .............
Phase 3 ..... .............

RESULTS ..... .............
Multidimensional Privacy Results
Multidimensional Intimacy Results
Multidimensional Reserve Results
Multidimensional Solitude Results


III










Page


CHAPTER


IV DISCUSSION ....... ...............
Comparison of Dimensions Across Types of
Privacy . . . . . . . . .
Dimensions Predictive of Perceived
Privacy . . . . . . . . .
Testing Multidimensional Models ....
Comparison of Results to Privacy
Theories ...... .................
Toward a Multidimensional Model of
Privacy . . . . . . . . .


APPENDIX

A CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATION OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING . . . . . . . .

B COLLECTION AND SELECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
STIMULI . . . . . . . . .


C SELECTION OF THE MDS TARGET STIMULI


D SELECTION OF DEFINING ATTRIBUTES AND
DEFINING ATTRIBUTE PROCEDURE .. ........

E EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI ..... ..........


REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . .

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....... ................


101

101

104
106


107

112


116


123


138


147

167


175

183










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



THE PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING ANALYSIS


By

Gregory H. Wilmoth

August 1980

Chairman: Lawrence J. Severy

Major Department: Psychology

The multidimensional nature of perceived privacy was

explored through a multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS)

of forty privacy situations. Three dimensions labeled "So-

cial Density," "Normativeness," and "Interpersonal Involve-

ment" were judged to best explain privacy. These dimen-

sions in combination significantly predicted the privacy

scale scores of the privacy situations. The data were par-

titioned into three sets according to three types of pri-

vacy situations (intimacy, reserve, and solitude) and an-

alyzed. Two (Personal-Impersonal and Normativeness) of

four dimensions found for intimacy were significantly re-

lated to the privacy scale scores. An Empathy and Self-

Disclosure dimension, along with an Undefined dimension of

a five-dimensional solution for reserve, accounted for sev-

enty percent of the privacy scale scores and was marginally


vii










significant. No reliable dimensional solution was obtained

for the solitude situations.

The Personal-Impersonal, Self-Disclosure, and Empathy

dimensions derived from the partitioned analyses shared de-

fining attributes with the Interpersonal Involvement dimen-

sion. This was interpreted as indicating that the Inter-

personal Involvement dimension was a higher-order dimension

with three components. Intimacy and reserve were distinct

based on their respective combinations of these component,

lower-order dimensions. Intimacy was further specified by

the Normativeness dimension.

The results were evaluated against current privacy the-

ories. The data were supportive of Altman's interpersonal

boundary-regulation theory and Kelvin's social-normative

theory of privacy. There was little evidence supporting a

theory of privacy as control and choice freedom.

A U-shaped three dimensional model consisting of Social

Density, Normativeness, and Interpersonal Involvement was

proposed to explain the perception of privacy. The model

specifies that both high Interpersonal Involvement (inti-

macy) and low Interpersonal Involvement (solitude) are as-

sociated with high perceived privacy. Solitude and anonym-

ity are primarily distinguished by being low and high re-

spectively on the Social Density dimension. Perceived pri-

vacy increases as Social Density decreases. The Normative-

ness dimension is speculated to interact additively with the


viii










other two dimensions. As Normativeness of the behavior de-

scribed decreases the perception of privacy increases.













CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Privacy has been proposed as the core, integrating

construct in environmental psychology by Altman (1975).

The class of proxemic behaviors including personal space,

interpersonal distance, immediacy, territoriality, social

density, and crowding are all explained using this construct.

Beyond proxemic behaviors, Kelvin (1973) contends that

privacy is a basic state relevant to an understanding of so-

cial behavior in general and crucial to social psychological

theory overall. The sociologists Georg Simmel (1957),

Erving Goffman (1959, 1963) and Barry Schwartz (1968), all

conceptualize privacy as the inherent, counterpattern to so-

cial interaction. The 'right to privacy' which is consid-

ered a fundamental value to democracy is an increasingly

addressed topic in political science and is a focal concern

among those studying the socio-political impact of informa-

tion technologies (Packard, 1964; Miller, 1971; Rule,

McAdam, Stearns & Uglow, 1980; and Westin, 1967).

In spite of privacy's central position in Altman's

(1974, 1975, 1976) conceptualization of the environment and

social behavior, and its importance within sociology and po-

litical science, there is remarkably little agreement on the

definition of privacy and little research on its






2



determinants and consequences. Given these circumstances

surrounding privacy, it seems appropriate to undertake an

empirical investigation of the dimensions underlying the

experiencing of privacy as a first step toward a more sys-

tematic understanding of an increasingly important concept.

Such an endeavor would also provide a set of parameters to

be manipulated in future research as well as possibly sug-

gesting a taxonomy of privacy situations.

The complexity of the concept has been noted by

Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1970) and others (see

Laufer, Proshansky & Wolfe, 1973; and Wolfe, 1978). An es-

sential, preliminary issue concerns this complexity: Is

privacy as defined by sociologists, anthropologists, polit-

ical scientists, and social and environmental psychologists

one concept or many?

The myriad definitions of privacy can be categorized

into three types. One category of definition centers around

the concept of information flow. Control or choice freedom

is the focal element of a second definitional type. The

third type defines privacy within the context of normative

constructs.



Definitions of Privacy


Westin (1967, p. 30) defined privacy as "the right of

the individual to decide what information about himself










should be communicated to others and under what conditions."

This seminal definition has been used by Pastalan (1970a,

1970b), Roberts and Gregor (1971) and Derlega and Chaikin

(1977). Three key elements of this definition, i.e. deci-

sion autonomy, information about self, and communication,

are central to related definitions. Bates (1964) stated

that privacy is a person's feeling that others should be

excluded from a structured portion of this total phenomeno-

logical field. Similarly for Jourard (1966) privacy is an

outcome of a person's wish to withhold from others certain

knowledge about his past and present experience and action,

and his intentions for his future. Finally, Bennett (1967)

defined privacy as the selective control of communication.

Despite the core elements shared by each of these def-

initions, a unified concept is negated by differences in

the ontological locus of privacy. In Westin's perspective,

privacy is a legal-political prerogative as opposed to the

emotional state proposed by Bates. Alternatively, privacy

is an informational outcome state between social actors re-

sulting from selective communication (Jourard, 1966).

Privacy definitions which focus exclusively on the

autonomy (choice freedom) dimension tend to claim the onto-

logical status of "process" rather than of "state." At the

most inclusive level, privacy is a claim to immunity from

intrusion or control by others (Proshansky & Ittelson, 1970;

and Weinstein, 1971). Margulis (1974 and used by Berscheid










(1977)) defined privacy as a process of controlling per-

sonal transactions through control over boundaries between

self and others, and Marshall (1974) defined it as the abil-

ity to control the degree to which people and institutions

encroach upon one's life. In Altman's (1975) privacy the-

ory, privacy is defined as "selective control of access to

the self or to one's group." (p. 18) These definitions

tend to share the characteristic that privacy is a bidirec-

tional process--both input from others to self and output

from the self to others are controlled. Definitions which

emphasize the selective control of information communicated

about self (Jourard, 1966; Westin, 1967; and others) do not

contain this bidirectionality dimension.

One further definitive dimension of privacy, its nor-

nativeness, is emphasized by sociologists. Warren and Las-

lett (1977) distinguish between secrecy and privacy by the

normative acceptance and protection of the behavior in ques-

tion. Privacy protects those behaviors which are either

morally neutral or valued by society through consensual,

social legitimation and further seen as nonthreatening to

others. Schwartz (1968) and Kelvin (1973) also primarily

discussed this normative element of privacy. None of the

previously cited definitions of privacy include this norma-

tive distinction.

Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973) contend that many

behaviors, events, and affective experiences are encompassed










in the word "privacy." Rather than attempting to define

privacy, they have worked at identifying the types of phe-

nomenon subsumed under this multi-dimensional concept.

Westin (1967) preceded them in this multi-dimensional per-

spective. Westin's four categories of privacy are solitude,

anonymity, reserve, and intimacy. Solitude exists when a

person is alone and free from observation. Anonymity oc-

curs when a person is in a public place with others present

but none of these others know his identity. Reserve is both

the selective control over information about self communi-

cated to others and the selective attention to others' com-

munications. Intimacy is a state in which two or more per-

sons are in a situation of solitude from the observation of

others. Intimacy may be thought of as group solitude.

Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1970) have noted that

Westin's types of privacy are not defined by the same di-

mensions.

Nine analytic dimensions of privacy were defined by

Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973), only three of which

qualify as categories of privacy. The remaining six dimen-

sions represent functions and processes of privacy. These

are the interaction, task, and ritual privacy dimensions.

Interaction privacy is the boundary-control process of com-

ing together and withdrawing from others. Task privacy is

restricted to only those situations in which task comple-

tion is enhanced by separation from others. Ritual privacy










covers those behaviors for which there is a normative pre-

scription that these be performed in nonpublic places free

of observation. Such behaviors include elimination and sex-

ual acts.

Through a factor analysis of questionnaire items, Mar-

shall (1974) identified two additional types of privacy to

those proposed by Westin (1967). These two were seclusion

and 'not neighboring.' An interpretation of the seclusion

factor suggests that it is the state of having one's ter-

ritory free from the visual and auditory observation of

others. It is distinguished from solitude by its territori-

al locus; solitude is privacy of the person while seclusion

is privacy of one's territory. Seclusion includes solitude

but the inverse relationship does not hold. Not neighbor-

ing concerns attitudes toward selective involvement with

neighbors and norms governing visiting.

This profusion of types of privacy and the multi-dimen-

sional nature of the existent definitions emphasizes the is-

sue of whether privacy is one concept or many. The choice

of a single definition of privacy or selection of one of

the concepts of privacy has implications for the variables

and relationships hypothesized as essential in explaining

that phenomenon. The result could be the appearance of sev-

eral seemingly conflicting theories of privacy. Any attempt

to encompass all of the different types and meanings of pri-

vacy into a unitary concept will require a much more










extensive range of variables and relationships, and more

complex theories to successfully integrate the diverse phe-

nomena involved.



Theories of Privacy


Given the variety of conceptualizations and types of

privacy, the existence of a wide and diverse range of pri-

vacy theories is to be expected. One classification of

these theories results in some six distinct orientations

toward privacy: biological, developmental-learning, inter-

personal, social-normative, ecological, and functional.

Many of the theories to be reviewed are multi-dimensional

in conceptualization and thus overlap these somewhat arbi-

trary classifications. Those theories which, however, as-

sume either a biological causation (genetic) or a mediating

biological process (e.g. arousal) are classified as biolog-

ical regardless of the presence of learning or social fac-

tors in the theories. Theories which are constructed on

learning principles or life-cycle maturation changes are

identified as developmental. Only those theories which

emphasize the regulatory nature of privacy as a process

involving adjustments of self-boundaries to permit various

levels of contact with others are included within the inter-

personal category. Where the institutional nature of pri-

vacy is central to a theory, it is distinguished as










social-normative. The ecological orientation is reserved

solely for explanations of privacy based on Barker's (1968)

analytic concepts. Those theories which conceive of pri-

vacy as a mediating process toward the attainment of a cer-

tain class of choice freedom goals are demarcated as func-

tions.


Biological Theories

Biological theories of privacy can be further subdi-

vided into three classes: genetic, arousal mediating, and

adaptation theory (Helson, 1964) derived. Genetic theories

postulate an innate propensity toward either gregariousness

(Halmos, 1953), territoriality (Pastalan, 1970a), or survival

(Klopfer & Rubenstein, 1977). Mehrabian and Russell's (1974)

arousal mediation theory proposes that the underlying, fun-

damental quality of all situations which elicit a desire

for privacy is the emotive response of the individual to

that situation which in turn is a function of the situa-

tion's arousal eliciting level. Both Hill (1969) and Mar-

shall (1972) explain desired privacy as a function of adap-

tation level processes.

Halmos (1953) postulated that the human species through

biological evolution is genetically programmed to be gre-

garious. This bio-social need has been frustrated as a re-

sult of an increasing division of labor concomitant with

cultural evolution. Primitive societies are characterized










by primary relationships (Gemeinshaft) and intimacy while

post-primitive societies are defined by secondary relation-

ships (Gesellshaft) and reserve. The social fragmentation

resulting from a Gesellshaft society creates social isola-

tion which engenders individual anxiety. It is this anxi-

ety which causes the individual's desire for privacy. Ano-

nymity is impossible (except possibly in selected rituals)

in a Gemeinshaft society. The desire for solitude is nat-

ural to both types of society and functions to "regenerate

social life for its more harmonious living" (Halmos, 1953,

p. 168).

Unlike Halmos, Pastalan (1970a) does not directly claim

territoriality to be an inherited drive. He does, however,

treat it as an universal in human behavior. Human territo-

riality has, furthermore, unique behavioral states (pri-

vacy) which have no conceptual counterparts in animal ter-

ritoriality. Westin's (1967) four states of privacy and

their related functions (personal autonomy, emotional re-

lease, self-evaluation, and protected communication) have

no parallel in animal behavior. Human territoriality, there-

fore, has social determinants such as the situational con-

text, one's position in a role system, and one's emotional

goals. These will be explicated later in reviewing Pasta-

lan's (1970b) other work.

Without proposing discrete instincts, Klopfer and Ru-

benstein (1977) argue that some degree of privacy is










essential to many animals' survival. Although animals like

the social, colonial insects (bees and ants) apparently

display no privacy, most animal species exhibit some pat-

terned social withdrawal (privacy) and/or concealment of

information about their motivational state. Privacy aids

survival by reducing competition for food and reproductive

resources, by providing protection from predators, and by

concealing information about one's motivational state and

intentions from a competitor. An economic model is applied

to predict under what environmental contingencies a species

will evolve privacy behaviors. The costs of attaining and

maintaining a particular form and level of privacy must be

counterbalanced by the benefits resulting from this privacy

in order to enhance survival. Klopfer and Rubenstein (1977)

discuss several classes of contingencies in an animal's phy-

sical and animate environment which govern these cost-bene-

fit ratios. To the extent that privacy in humans is moti-

vated by a desire for 'happiness' rather than survival, pri-

vacy becomes a peculiarly human concept.

Although Mehrabian and Russell (1974) do not present a

systematic theory of privacy, their discussion of privacy

suggests certain systemic relations. They formulated a gen-

eral approach to understanding the relationships of behav-

ior to the environment. Between the environment and any be-

havior is an emotional mediating response to the environment.

These emotional responses are in turn grounded on the










physiological responses of arousal, pleasure, and muscular

tension. Activity, evaluation, and dominance (potency) are

the emotional-connotative (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957)

responses corresponding to the respective physiological re-

sponses. Arousal is a direct function of the information

load of an environment. An environment's information load

is measured by its novelty and complexity.

Privacy is equated with low environmental information

load (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, p. 299). A person is in

a state of privacy to the extent that he is receiving a

low level of output (information load) from others. The

desire for privacy should be an inverse function of the in-

formation load to which one is exposed. Reciprocally, the

rate, breadth, and depth of information load from the self

to others determines the degree of privacy. A low informa-

tion load from self (another's environmental stimulus) to

another constitutes high privacy. To the extent that en-

vironments enhance positive (pleasure) feelings, self-dis-

closure (information load to others) is also enhanced.

Since either an excessively high or low information load

is aversively arousing and thus unpleasant, the maximum

preference for environments will be slightly discrepant

from the adaptation level. People will be engaged, there-

fore, in an ever changing flow between privacy and social

interaction.











Whereas the discrepancy hypothesis is central to

Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) approach, adaptation level

theory is focal for Hill (1969) and Marshall (1972). Adap-

tation level theory has been applied differently by Hill and

Marshall. Hill applies the theory to two dimensions: the

relation of perceived to actual privacy and the optimization

of visual privacy requirements with visual-access-outward

requirements. In neither instance is a formal, systematic

explanation proposed in terms of adaptation level theory.

Only focal stimuli and background stimuli, but not residual

stimuli (Helson, 1964), are implied by Hill. On the issue

of the relation of perceived to actual privacy, Hill hypoth-

esizes that "as people become aware of their surrounding

environment (both physical and social) so their judgements

of perceived privacy are modified and approach a level which

is roughly equivalent to the real amount of privacy present

in a given situation" (Hill, 1969, p. 39). The fit between

past privacy experience (residual stimuli) and present pri-

vacy opportunities and/or constraints is not discussed.

The problem of optimization is a function of the in-

herent boundary permeability involved in privacy. While

privacy is desired, isolation is not; where freedom from

observation is sought, the complete lack of access to out-

ward observation is not. The process of optimization be-

tween these extremes of visibility is an adaptation (balance)

between outward and inward visibility (privacy). There is,










however, no single such optimization; rather the achieved

optimization is influenced by such focal and background

stimuli as room function and outside view--activity. The

compromise between the opposing requirements for outward

and inward vision would be optimized more toward privacy

for a bedroom fronting on the street as opposed to a kitch-

en facing a secluded backyard.

Marshall (1972) explicitly treats the residual stim-

uli of childhood home density and childhood neighborhood

density. She deduced that: (1) those reared in a high

density home (large number of siblings and without a room

of one's own) would prefer low levels of privacy as a re-

sult of adapting to the attendant lack of privacy in the

childhood home, and (2) those spending their childhood in

cities, as opposed to small towns, would prefer more ano-

nymity as a result of adapting to the increased availabil-

ity of anonymity in the city. Both actual density and per-

ceived crowdedness of childhood environments were consid-

ered.

Background stimuli such as present environmental den-

sity in the home and neighborhood were also hypothesized to

be related to preferred privacy (Marshall, 1972). An in-

dividual's preference for privacy represents an adaptation

to the amount of privacy available within one's environment.

Preference for privacy should be inversely related to den-

sity in the present home and neighborhood environment.











Predictions about the type of privacy effected by home

and neighborhood density are different and thus the de-

sired type of privacy also changes respective to these two

forms of density. Note that whereas Marshall addresses

the adaptation relation between preferred (desired) pri-

vacy and environmentally available privacy, Hill (1969)

focuses on the relation between perceived privacy and

achieved privacy.


Developmental-Learning Theories

Marshall's (1972) hypotheses about the effect of

childhood density experiences on adult privacy preferences

assumes that experiences perceived as either private, inva-

sions of privacy, or crowding are the same in both child-

hood and adulthood. Developmental psychology challenges

such assumptions, partially through the impact of learning.

Ittelson, Proshansky, Rivlin, and Winkel (1974) believe

that our conceptions of what constitutes privacy, the areas

in which privacy is appropriate, the settings which support

it, and the techniques available to enforce privacy are

learned through the observation of adults, primarily through

experiencing exclusion from adults' lives.

The earliest developmental conceptualization of privacy

(Smith et al., 1969) focused on the family developmental cycle

as opposed to the individual developmental cycle. Different

stages of the family cycle represent distinguishable activity










patterns. The priorities awarded to privacy and interac-

tion within the home are influenced by these activity pat-

terns. The desires for specific types of privacy, there-

fore, are a function of family-cycle stages. Family life-

cycle stage interacts with dwelling size and arrangement,

family size, and occupational status of the parents.

Six dimensions of development relevant to privacy were

identified by Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973). The

first of these, ego development, concerns itself with de-

velopment of independence and autonomy. Both behaviors in-

volve the individual's volition of freedom to choose being

alone versus being a member of a group. Coping with forced

aloneness (isolation), chosen aloneness (solitude), being a

stranger (anonymity), forced intimacy (invasion of privacy),

and chosen intimacy are all developmental tasks in the ma-

turation of independence, autonomy, and interpersonal inter-

dependence.

Aging from infancy to adulthood inherently transfers

the individual through different roles imposing different

demands and requirements. New concepts and patterns of pri-

vacy are defined by the changing role requirements. New

modes of privacy which accompany increased status must be

added to the individual's behavioral repertoire.

In addition to the socially structured behaviors of

roles, other activities and environments change through the










life cycle. New physical settings such as school present

new problems for privacy requiring new adaptations in pri-

vacy behaviors.

A less obvious developmental task which takes on par-

ticular importance in industrial-secular societies is adap-

tation to socio-cultural change. The patterns and expecta-

tions of privacy learned in pre-adulthood may be incompat-

ible with rapidly emerging life styles, mores, and technol-

ogies.

Since control is a critical element in all definitions

of privacy, development of the awareness of being able to

control becomes important. The first successfully concealed

behavior begins awareness that one's own thoughts and behav-

iors are not known unless they are volitionally disclosed.

The learning of what thoughts and behaviors to control

(neither to perform in public or to make publicly announced)

is an important process of socialization.

Of the six dimensions (Laufer, Proshansky & Wolfe,

1973) the last is conceptual complexity. With maturation

the concept of privacy should become both more complex and

integrated with related conceptual systems like moral reason-

ing. The complexity of the behavioral repertoire used to

create and maintain privacy and the functions for which pri-

vacy is engaged should also increase with age. Laufer,

Proshansky and Wolfe (1973) rather than presenting a devel-

opmental theory of privacy have identified six analytic










developmental dimensions which are hypothesized to be re-

lated to privacy.

The only specifically learning theory of privacy to

appear is that of Smith and Swanson (1979). They apply

Rotter's (1954) social learning theory to privacy. Through

the learning history of the individual, both preferences

for types of reinforcements and expectancies of reinforce-

ment resulting from various actions are formed. "[PIrivacy

as a process of interactional control is a function of the

value of such control and the expectancy of achieving such

control" (Smith & Swanson, 1979, p. 5). The immediate

and enduring psychological situation is the third factor

influencing the behavior potential toward privacy. The

psychological situation refers to those aspects of the in-

ternal and external environment as perceived by the indi-

vidual. The primary hypothesis states that "individual no-

tions of privacy vary as a function of their environment"

(Smith & Swanson, 1979, p. 17). On the psychological lev-

el, the environment influences behavior potential not

through changing values but through impacting expectancies

that potential behaviors will be reinforced. Expectancies

should be object- and situation-specific whereas values are

intra-individual entities transcending situational specifics.

Failure to achieve privacy will be more aversive as the ex-

pectancy for attainment and value of attainment increase.











Social learning theory suggests a model of reactions to in-

vasion of privacy which Smith and Swanson (1979) do not de-

velop.


Interpersonal Theories

Some of the developmental dimensions presented by

Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973) confront the interper-

sonal, social nature of privacy. Jourard (1966, 1971),

most known for his theory and research on interpersonal

self-disclosure, has clearly conceived of privacy as one

extreme of the self-disclosure process. He frames self-

disclosure and concealment (privacy) as bi-polar opposites.

Jourard's (1966, 1971) definitions of self-disclosure and

privacy are conceptually interdependent: privacy is the

achieved concealment of knowledge about self while self-

disclosure is the revealment of knowledge about self. Self-

disclosure is a process that changes the state of privacy

existing between two people. Intimacy is both achieved by

and a state of high self-disclosure. In Westin's (1967)

frequently cited types of privacy, intimacy is the polar

opposite of solitude.

The psychological functions attributed to privacy

(Jourard, 1966; and Altman, 1975) are identical to those

claimed for self-disclosure (Jourard, 1971). That which

constitutes the content of privacy is conceptually equiva-

lent to that of self-disclosure: centrality to the person's










social identity. The interpersonal, environmental, and

psychological conditions conducive to self-disclosure are

the same as those for the privacy state of intimacy (Der-

lega & Chaikin, 1977). Solitude, anonymity, and reserve

all function to conceal knowledge about the self. Jourard

(1966) notes that solitude and anonymity conceal behavioral

knowledge about the self while reserve (the opposite of

self-disclosure?) conceals psychological (attitudes, in-

tentions, emotions, etc.) knowledge from others. Self-

disclosure is championed (Jourard, 1971) as the cure to

isolation (forced privacy) and alienation whereas privacy

is championed (Jourard, 1966) as the cure to constant pub-

lic scrutiny and alienation.

Altman's (1975) theory of privacy owes a heavy intel-

lectual debt to Jourard's self-disclosure work. Altman and

Taylor (1973) expanded the self-disclosure process into a
'social penetration' process. Privacy emerges as the su-

preme self-other interpersonal boundary-regulation process

(Altman, 1975). An important aspect of Altman's theory is

his contention that privacy is a dialectic process, as op-

posed to a personal disposition or situational contingency.

As a boundary-regulation process, privacy is a constantly

shifting balance between being accessible to others (so-

cial penetration) and being closed to others (privacy).

This shifting balance manifests the inherent nature of pri-

vacy toward optimization. The individual desires a specific











level of privacy-interaction, either a deficit or an ex-

cess activates behaviors to restate the optimization bal-

ance. Both inputs from others and outputs to others are

governed by this boundary-regulation process.

Altman's theory has conceptual appeal due to the fact

that the conceptualization of crowding and isolation can be

derived from the privacy theory. Crowding exists when de-

sired privacy is high and inputs from others are simultane-

ously high. When the desire for social contact is high

(low desired privacy) and actual contact (output to others)

is low then isolation is experienced. The motivational

element (desired privacy) of the theory introduces the cen-

tral concept of control. Whether intimacy or invasion of

privacy occurs is determined by whether the contact is cho-

sen. Choice is the volitional aspect of control. To the

extent that privacy is optimized, control has been success-

fully achieved. An achieved privacy which is discrepant

from the desired privacy motivates the re-exertion of con-

trol.

Whereas Jourard (1966, 1971) restricts privacy to the

control exercised over information about self, Altman (1975)

encompasses the control over all self-other contacts within

privacy. The implications of this distinction are impor-

tant: in Jourard's conceptualization there is a single,

essential motivation for privacy, the concealment of knowl-

edge about self; in Altman's theory there can be multiple










motivations for privacy other than the concealment of self

such as task completion, restoration of sleep, etc. The

principles governing and dimensions of Altman's privacy

should be more numerous, diverse, and complex than those

applying to Jourard's privacy.


Social-Normative Theories

An emphasis on motivational states in explaining pri-

vacy suffers from the danger of not seeing the wider so-

cial matrix in which both motivation and privacy exist.

In spite of the proof of individual differences, most behav-

ior is predictable from knowing the social group to which a

person belongs and the social situation in which that per-

son is found. Privacy, as a form of social behavior, is

theorized to be structured and institutionalized like other

social behaviors. This normative theoretical perspective

is exemplified by Schwartz (1968), Kelvin (1973), and Pas-

talan (1970.

Social life is a constant flow into contact with others

and ebbs from such contact. This ebb and flow is all of a

single whole. Just as social interaction is governed by in-

stitutionalized expectations (norms), so social withdrawal

is also guided by norms (Schwartz, 1968). Norms for privacy

function identically as do norms for social interaction:

to stabilize the social order. These norms stabilize the

social order in two ways: (1) one set of norms prescribe

what behaviors must be performed in private thereby










maintaining intact those rules which would be subverted

by public performance, and (2) a second set of norms which

guarantee privacy through describing who may observe and/

or reveal information about whom and under what highly cir-

cumscribed circumstances. Authority typically has the pre-

rogative and duty to intrude another's privacy when the pub-

lic safety or morality is perceived to be threatened. Sur-

veillance i legitimated, institutionalized privacy intru-

sion (Schwartz, 1968). Simultaneously, authority is gener-

ally immune legally from intrusion.

Privacy, as an institutionalized mode of withdrawal,

will reflect the social structure of which the norms are a

part. The set of privacy norms form subsets of norms asso-

ciated with respective statuses. Both the privilege and

power to require information (intrude upon) of another are

normative aspects of the status hierarchy. Other norms in

turn govern the use of this power in order to guarantee

some level of confidentiality of the subordinate's infor-

mation. To the extent that the social structure is a func-

tion of the economic system, privacy will also be a luxury

restricted to those who can purchase it in the forms of se-

cluded estates, butlers, answering services, etc.

Group solidarity is enhanced by privacy in two ways.

First, privacy protects self-defaming information from be-

coming group knowledge which could result in expulsion or,

potentially worse, create the formation of coalitions










splintering the group. Second, privacy allows for the so-

cial withdrawal from the group necessary to prevent the hos-

tility which is likely to arise from too much group inti-

macy (Schwartz, 1968).

Role performance is public performance with its con-

comitant surveillance thereby enforcing conformity. This

constant conformity restricts the expression of individual

differences and in turn suppresses the individual's iden-

tity. Privacy provides an institutionalized outlet for en-

actment of non-role behavior and helps prevent "the ego

from identifying itself too closely with or loosing itself

in (public) roles" (Schwartz, 1968, p. 752).

Finally, privacy is institutionalized in architecture.

Spaces must be included for prescribed private behavior

(bathrooms) and the privileged privacy connected with stat-

us must be provided and constructed to symbolize status.

Pastalan (1970b), unlike Schwartz, specifically fo-

cused on role theory model for desired privacy. As members

of a society, individuals occupy a number of roles in the

social order. Characteristics of one's role complex act

as contingencies conducive to eliciting desires for privacy.

The cumulative demands of multiple roles may be stress pro-

ducing, privacy in the form of solitariness may be desired

to escape from this stress and to recuperate mental, emo-

tional, and physical energies. Role behavior is both pre-

scribed behavior and public behavior; therefore, it is











conformity constrained behavior and constantly open to

sanction. Under these conditions, privacy is desired as

both an escape for personal expression and an escape from

the sanctions inherent with surveillance. In addition to

cumulative demands of multiple roles, the requirements of

some roles may conflict with the successful performance of

requirements for other roles. The stress engendered by

this role conflict can be reduced by keeping the incompat-

ible roles separate which may be viewed as the form of se-

lective, task privacy. Privacy will be also desired in

order to maintain the enactment of incompatible roles which

would not be able to be both enacted if one status system

knew of this dual, incompatible role enactment. In states

where a person may not be a member of the Communist party

and a teacher in the public schools, privacy functions to

conceal information about performing these incompatible

roles from those in the public education status system.

Kelvin (1973) presented a social psychological theory

of privacy as opposed to the strictly sociological theories

of Schwartz and Pastalan. Privacy is a subjective state,

it is perceived privacy (Kelvin, 1973). The perception of

privacy is a function of the potential vulnerability ex-

pected in an immediate situation from the presence of

others. As this feeling of vulnerability increases, the

probability that one's actions are changed by the presence

of another increases and perceived privacy decreases.











Privacy is an aspect of a relationship; it is the negation

of potential power relations between self and others.

The major source of another's power is a result of

norms, the presence of norms legitimizes another's negative

sanctioning of our behavior through criticism, rebuke, rid-

icule, etc. Specific norms prescribing privacy function to

protect an individual's independence in situations in which

the person would be vulnerable by another's surveillance.

These privacy norms are higher-order norms which counter-

mand other norms. It is these other norms which create the

vulnerability. Since norms constrain behavior choices

through their prescriptions and proscriptions, privacy norms

provide freedom of choice in these countermanded, protected

behavioral content areas. Privacy norms constrain the lim-

iting power of social norms. Ambiguity arises from this

normative conflict which in turn creates intrapsychic anx-

iety which is a source of the desire for privacy.

Kelvin (1973) postulates that privacy norms arise in

those areas of behavior which are in transition from rigid

normative control to public permissiveness. In situations

of permissiveness our independence is not vulnerable to

others' socially sanctioned power. Changes in technology,

social organization, standard of living, etc. effect atti-

tudes toward norms and permissiveness.










Ecological Theory of Privacy

Ecological psychology (Barker, 1968) integrates the

constructs of norms and roles into the built environment.

Behavior settings are defined by K-21 (Wicker, 1979) scores

which measure various aspects (penetration and autonomy are

two) of the normative role patterns in specifiable spacio-

temporal sites. Behavior programs are the particular role

action patterns of a behavior setting.

Bechtel (1977) has applied ecological theory to the

discussion of privacy. Behavior settings require boun-

daries to control access of others and outside stimulation

which would disrupt the setting's behavior program. The

determinants of privacy needs are the characteristics of

the specific behavior program. Requirements for privacy

vary with each different behavior program. Anything that

interrupts or influences the enactment of a behavior pro-

gram is an invasion of privacy. This is usually some ex-

traneous source of stimulation which interferes with task

performance.

Vulnerability and a lack of privacy exist when the pen-

etration and autonomy levels of a behavior setting are too

low. Penetration is the amount of population interdepen-

dence across settings. A low penetration score indicates

that many people other than those enacting the behavior pro-

gram enter that behavior setting. The autonomy score mea-

sures the amount of decision making possessed by those










enacting the behavior program. Low scores on both penetra-

tion and autonomy indicate that the behavioral program is

receiving high levels of external stimulation and external

interference (decisional influence). Vulnerability results

from this inability to control external stimulation and in-

terference.

The conceptual unit in ecological psychology for mea-

suring privacy is not the person but rather a behavior set-

ting. In the absence of physical boundaries which maintain

privacy for a behavior setting, however, psychological bar-

riers must be erected by the setting's occupants to regain

privacy. Since psychological boundaries require the exer-

tion of energy beyond that required for the behavior pro-

gram, it is considered stressing. Boundary problems are

created by either work settings differing in behavior pro-

grams of work settings unrelated in organization being too

close physically.


Functional Theories of Privacy

Proshansky, Ittelson, and Rivlin (1970) have taken a

functional, analytic approach to privacy. Their conceptual

comparison of Westin's (1967) four types of privacy resulted

in their proposition that they all share the common property

of maximizing the individual's freedom of choice by removing

social constraints. The exercise of privacy is the exercise

of power over who shall or shall not control our actions











(Ittelson, Proshansky, Rivlin, & Winkel, 1974). The psy-

chological experience of privacy occurs when the person

perceives and believes that he has the freedom in a given

situation to determine when and how to behave. The desire

or need for privacy arises when the individual is faced

with social constraints or limitations which prevent him

from behaving in ways appropriate to his particular pur-

poses. Crowding occurs to the extent that the sheer num-

ber of people present restricts freedom of choice in pur-

suing one's goals. Territorial behavior is an expression

of a desire for privacy in so far as it decreases crowding

and social constraints.

A conceptual refinement of this functional approach

was provided by Johnson (1974). Freedom of choice is

equated with personal control which was distinguished into

primary and secondary control. Secondary control consists

of those behaviors which create conditions which are pre-

requisites or facilitative to primary controlling behaviors.

Privacy comprises those behaviors intended to establish sec-

ondary control over outcomes. As such privacy does not

function to satisfy any inherent or fundamental need but

rather functions to facilitate the attainment of other

goals. Formally, Johnson defines privacy as "those behav-

iors which enhance and maintain one's control over outcomes

indirectly by controlling interactions with others" (1974,

p. 90). Once freedom of choice has been exercised in the











selection of a goal, freedom of choice is performed in the

selection of behaviors expected to lead to that goal. Pri-

vacy is this behavior selection control designed to attain

pre-selected goals. Privacy, therefore, is not an outcome

but a behavior conducive to an outcome.

Whether privacy is satisfying is a function of the ex-

tent to which it achieves the desired outcome. The selec-

tion of privacy behavior automatically leads to multiple

consequences in the form of eliminated options in addition

to the intended consequence. Ambivalence then is fre-

quently experienced with privacy. Since secondary control

is distal from the desired outcome, the relationship be-

tween privacy and outcomes may be highly uncertain. This

uncertainty in turn is a source of stress and anxiety asso-

ciated with privacy.



Research on Privacy


As this review of privacy theories has indicated, pri-

vacy is a complex construct. The research on privacy mir-

rors this complexity. At the present embryonic stage of

theory and its testing, a detailed critique of privacy re-

search design and methodology seems premature. Instead

only the findings reported as significant will be presented.

Thus the word 'significant' is not repeated for each find-

ing. The methodological soundness of the reported research










and the appropriateness of the statistical analyses are but

briefly reviewed. Conflicting findings may be due, there-

fore, to a variety of operational, methodological, and an-

alytic differences and inadequacies.


Measures of Privacy

A large proportion of the research in the area of pri-

vacy has addressed such concerns as personality dispositions

toward privacy and attitudes about privacy. Before review-

ing the literature reporting on privacy research it is nec-

essary to briefly describe these personality and attitudi-

nal scales for privacy and report on their reliability and

validity.

Marshall (1972, 1974) has developed the most compre-

hensive dispositional measure of privacy preferences. The

fifty-six item Privacy Preference Scale (PPS) consists of

six statistically determined factors: Intimacy, Not Neigh-

boring, Seclusion, Solitude, Anonymity, and Reserve. While

no reliability level was reported for the scale as a whole,

tests of subscale (factors) item homogeneity using coeffi-

cient alpha yielded reliability coefficients ranging from

.80 for Not Neighboring to .56 for Intimacy. The subscale

totals when correlated with the PPS total score ranged from

.47 (Intimacy) to .65 (Not Neighboring). The reported va-

lidity for the PPS is based on its correlation with seven-

teen predicted relations with behavior. Of these seventeen










hypotheses, nine of them were confirmed. Only one relation-

ship of thirty-seven non-predicted hypotheses was signif-

icant.

The Need-for-Privacy Subscale (NPS) of McKechnie's

(1977) Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) is a gener-

alized measure with no distinctive factors. The major

themes of the subscale are the need for physical isolation

from stimulation, need for freedom from distraction, and

dislike of neighboring. The only published scale reliabil-

ity and validity information appears in the scale's manual

which is available only through purchase.

The Environmental Privacy Scale (EPS; Windley, 1973)

was developed to assess preferences to control access to

others by using features of the physical environment. The

reliability (item homogeneity) for this scale was intoler-

ably low at .40 indicating high measurement error. Because

of this low reliability no validity data were reported for

the EPS.


Research Related to Biological Theories

There is no directly relevant research on privacy ap-

plicable to Halmos' (1953) bio-social need theory, Mehrabian

and Russell's (1974) semantic arousal mediation theory, or

Bechtel's (1977) ecological theory. Research is available

on territorial theories (Klopfer & Rubenstein, 1977; and

Pastalan, 1970b) and on adaptation theories (Hill, 1969; and

Marshall, 1972, 1974) of privacy.










Sommer (1966) has distinguished two strategies of ter-

ritorial defense to protect privacy or attain privacy:

avoidance and offensive display. In task situations free-

dom from distraction can be attained either by being phys-

ically removed from others (avoidance) or by laying effec-

tive claim to a large work area (offensive display). At

library study tables, the avoidance strategy for privacy

resulted in a significantly greater choice of end chairs

at tables. Chairs at the middle of tables were chosen more

for the offensive display strategy. The avoidance strategy

was used more than offensive displays. Sommer hypothesized,

but did not test, that the effectiveness of the offensive

display strategy decreases as social density and size of

the area claimed increases.

Barriers to interaction are defensive territorial mark-

ers; fencing is an example of this territorial strategy.

Marshall (1974) found that persons scoring high on the PPS

Reserve subscale had a greater amount of fencing around

their homes.

Within the home, Rosenblatt and Budd (1975) obtained

differences in the use of territory for privacy between mar-

ried and unmarried couples. Unmarried couples were signif-

icantly more likely than married couples to have an area

within their residence for being alone. Married couples,

however, had more separate storage areas than unmarried

couples.










While territory is one strategy to attain privacy,

territoriality and privacy have different psychological

effects (Edney & Buda, 1976). Students preferred a situ-

ation which was both in their territory and afforded pri-

vacy for a wide range of activities: (1) personal activ-

ities: taking care of personal business, personal hobby,

and writing a book about self; (2) work activities: study-

ing, reading and creative writing; (3) basic biological

functions: sex and toilet-grooming; and (4) thinking about

anything and singing out loud. Territory without privacy

was more preferred for relaxation activities: watching TV,

'just relaxing-being yourself,' casual conversation with

one friend, and eating but not for relaxing after a hard

day. For drinking and 'doing something very different and

unconventional' subjects preferred no territory and no pri-

vacy. Across all seventeen activities, a majority of peo-

ple preferred territory without privacy indicating that peo-

ple distinguish between privacy and territory.

Edney and Buda (1976) and Bower (1979) also found that

territory and privacy differentially affect attribution,

creativity, perception of the environment, and self-percep-

tion. Subjects without privacy and those without territory

attributed their behavior more to the influence of others.

Bower (1979) was unable to replicate this finding for the

territory condition but did replicate the privacy effect on

attribution. Subjects in privacy but not territory scored











higher on a creativity test than those without privacy.

Rooms which were private were perceived as more stimulating

than non-private ones. Both privacy alone and the inter-

action of privacy and territory increased the felt comfor-

tableness of the room (Bower, 1979). Territoriality did

not affect room stimulation perception. Territory did, how-

ever, increase reports of feelings of possession whereas

the privacy conditions did not. Bower (1978) replicated

this finding with the semantic differential but also found

an interaction between privacy and territoriality on seman-

tic differential ratings of possession.

Hill's (1969) use of adaptation level theory relates

present privacy opportunities to perceived privacy. As ac-

tual privacy opportunities decrease the preference for pri-

vacy should increase with all other things being equal.

The preference for privacy increased as the number of po-

tential observers passing by windows outside increased

(Hill, 1969). Marshall (1972) provided additional support

for this hypothesis. Preference for privacy scores on her

PPS scale for the total PPS, Seclusion, Solitude, and Re-

serve subscales all decreased as perceived privacy within

the present home increased. Inversely, as perceived crowd-

ing within the present home increased, the preference for

Reserve increased. People who perceived their present

house as too crowded (insufficient privacy) reported ob-

jective conditions which indicated a lack of actual privacy










opportunities: (1) more persons per room, (2) less ade-

quate insulation between noisy and quiet activities in the

home, (3) more able to overhear neighbors, (4) and more

houses visible from the living room windows. Those who per-

ceived their homes as sufficiently private had more actual

insulation between noisy and quiet activities, had fewer

houses visible from their living room windows, and lived

further away from neighbors. People increased the use of

drapes drawn closed during the day as their perceived pri-

vacy from neighbors decreased (Marshall, 1972). Contrary

to the adaptation hypothesis of perceived privacy, per-

ceived privacy from neighbors increased as reported noise

from traffic and from neighbors increased (Marshall, 1972).

Pastalan (1974) reported that PPS scores decreased

for nursing home residents who moved to a new nursing home

which provided more actual opportunities for privacy (pri-

vate rooms). Those patients reporting having a successful

strategy for attaining privacy had lower preferences for

solitude. The desire for Intimacy (PPS subscale) was most

clearly related to changes in actual levels of privacy.

The preference for reserve (PPS subscale), however, was not

related to changes in actual reserve.

Results reported by Lawton and Bader (1970) attenuate

Hill's adaptation hypothesis. Regardless of actual privacy

opportunities, the preference for privacy increases with

age and socio-economic status.










Hill's (1969) other adaptation hypothesis dealt with

the optimization of privacy and boundary permeability.

Privacy boundaries function to control interaction and ac-

cess, not to eliminate these. There is a functional bal-

ance between privacy (access to self) and visibility (ac-

cess to others). Hill found this optimization process, as

the desire for privacy increased the visual access by the

resident to others outside the home decreased.

Rather than interpreting adaptation level theory in

terms of present privacy conditions, Marshall (1972, 1974)

focuses on the impact of childhood privacy conditions on

adult privacy preferences. Those people experiencing lit-

tle privacy in childhood will develop a low preference for

privacy as adults. Their adult preferences are a result of

childhood adaptations. Marshall (1972, 1974), however,

found minimal relations between the density of childhood

environments and adult privacy preferences. There were no

significant relationships between the childhood density

measures and preference for seclusion or solitude (PPS

subscale scores). Privacy preference (total PPS score) was

not significantly related to childhood perceived privacy,

number of siblings, childhood perceived crowding, having

own room, amicability of siblings, amount of open space in

childhood neighborhoods, childhood town size, and childhood

spatial mobility.










Some relationships between certain childhood density

variables and isolated PPS subscales were found. Prefer-

ence for anonymity increased as the size of the town one

had grown-up in increased. An increasing size of childhood

town increased the preference for adult intimacy. The de-

sire for intimacy was higher amongst those adults who had

lived in single family residences as children. While shar-

ing a room as a child, having many siblings, and having

open space around the childhood home were not related to

adult privacy preferences, these variables were related

to perceived crowding of the childhood home. Those adults

who in turn remembered their childhood homes as crowded

preferred both anonymity, intimacy, and reserve.


Developmental Research

Developmental research on privacy can be divided into

four categories: (1) research on changes in privacy atti-

tudes over the developmental cycle, (2) research on changes

in the meaning of privacy over the developmental cycle,

(3) research on changes in household privacy behaviors and

their socialization correlates over the developmental cycle,

and (4) research on changes in household privacy behaviors

over the stages of the family cycle. These will be reviewed

in turn.

Viewing preference as an attitude, preference for a

private room increases with age from years ten through forty











(Lawton & Bader, 1970). This privacy preference stabilized

after age forty. Analyses of Marshall's (1970 and 1974)

Privacy Preferency Scale (PPS) scores resulted in several

age related differences. Adults (the parents of the stu-

dent respondents) had higher preferences for reserve and

not neighboring while the students had higher preferences

for solitude and intimacy. Attitudes about what content

should be private indicated that older persons are less

concerned than younger persons about others possessing

knowledge of one's interests, values, and social adjust-

ment (Rosenbaum, 1973).

Wolfe and Laufer's (1974) research substantiated the

theoretical predictions by Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe

(1973) that with maturation the concept of privacy should

become more complex and the salience of the defining attrib-

utes of privacy should change. The ability to give a def-

inition of privacy is a function of age, 53 percent of five-

year-olds could not give a definition even though they

could give examples of private times and places. The ma-

jor shift point in this definitional ability occurred be-

tween the ages of five and seven. only 7 percent of seven-

year-olds failed to provide a definition. The complexity

of these definitions as indexed by nonredundant responses

increased with age. The greatest increase in conceptual

complexity occurred between ages eleven and thirteen.











The salient meanings of privacy changed frequently

between years five and seventeen. Five meanings were sa-

lient at all these ages: alone, doing what you want with-

out being bothered, quiet, alone with somebody, and con-

trolling access to information. These correspond to sol-

itude, control, task privacy, intimacy, and reserve. The

most salient dimension at age five is quiet. Controlling

access to spaces, being away from people, doing and think-

ing alone, and no one bothering me were not given by five-

year-olds but were given by older children. The most sa-

lient meaning at age seven was 'controlling information.'

The salience of controlling interaction (being alone when

you want to) as a privacy meaning occurred for all ages

nine and above. Controlling individual activity, i.e.

autonomy (being able to do what you want) is a salient mean-

ing for children eleven and older.

The age points at which the salience for various mean-

ings change vary by specific meaning. The increase for

the salience of 'no one bothering me' occurs between ages

seven and nine, (2) for 'alone' between seven and eleven,

and (3) for 'controlling access to information' between

thirteen and seventeen. 'Controlling access to information'

decreased from age seven to thirteen and 'controlling access

to spaces' decreased between eleven and thirteen.

Comparing the salience of alternative meanings across

age groups revealed a complex pattern of results.










"Controlling information" was emitted more than "alone"

for only seven-year-olds, than "no one bothering me" for

all ages except thirteen-year-olds, and than "controlling

access to spaces" by all ages. The meaning "alone" was

given by a greater percentage of children than "no one

bothering me" at all ages except seven, and more than "con-

trolling spaces" at all ages except seven and nine. Only

children at age thirteen gave "no one bothering me" more

than "controlling spaces." More children at all ages gave
"alone" and "controlling information" than "no one bother-

ing me" and "control over spaces." The percent of chil-

dren using "when you want to" as part of the meaning for

privacy increases with age and is used more often after

age fifteen.

Averaged across all ages, the most frequently pro-

vided meanings for privacy were: (1) controlling access

to information (39%), (2) alone (33%), (3) no one bother-

ing me, and (4) controlling access to spaces. These four

categories of mean were given by four largely independent

groups of children controlling for age. This result indi-

cates that control per se cannot be viewed experientially

as unidimensionally.

Knowledge about privacy behavioral changes and the so-

cialization influences on these changes is provided Parke

and Sawin's (1979) research. They found that the use of

physical privacy markers and privacy rules both increased











with the child's age. Both of these developmental trends

were focused around two household areas: the bathroom and

the child's bedroom. The primary privacy marker was the

closed door and the most prominent privacy rule was knock-

ing on closed doors. A closed door signalled restricted

access to the room. As the age of the child increased,

both parents and siblings were more restricted in their

access to the bathroom occupied by the child. The largest

shift (increase) in the child restricting access to others

occurred during early adolescence. Adolescents of the same

age who were more physically mature as measured by an ob-

jective index were more likely to keep the bathroom door

closed and to restrict access to other family members even

after they knocked.

Viewing the family as a social system, the exercise

of privacy by one member is largely contingent on the co-

operative behavior of the remaining family members. As a

result not only are parents and siblings increasingly re-

stricted in access to the bathroom as the child ages but

parents knock more on both the bathroom and bedroom doors

of older children. These mutually contingent behaviors

are strongly attenuated by the gender composition of inter-

actants and by the activity being engaged in by the pri-

vacy-seeking member. The child's restriction of access to

others is less for same sex versus opposite sex parents and

siblings. Inversely parents knock on the bathroom door










more when it is occupied by a child of the opposite gender.

While fathers knock on daughter's bedroom doors more than

their son's door, mothers' knocking show no difference be-

tween sons and daughters. The greatest increase in the per-

centage of girls restricting access to the bathroom was be-

tween ten and thirteen but for fathers only. The changes

for boys occurred later (fourteen to seventeen) and was di-

rected toward both parents.

Not surprisingly the type of activity influences pri-

vacy. The more intimate the bathroom behavior (toilet use,

bathing, dressing, and grooming), the more others are re-

stricted access as the child gets older. This restriction

is applied more to parents of the opposite rather than like

gender.

Parke and Sawin (1979) compared the influence of matu-

ration with house size and family size. Neither overall

household square footage nor family size were related to

the privacy measures. Family density (space divided by

family size), however, was related to the privacy measures.

As the number of bedrooms in a house increased, more chil-

dren kept their bedroom doors closed. It can be hypoth-

esized that parents with greater privacy preferences choose

houses with more bedrooms and encourage greater privacy be-

haviors in their children. In support of this hypothesis,

the more bathrooms in a house the more likely that children

between two and nine, but not for those between ten and










seventeen (a ceiling effect possibly for this latter group?)

closed the bathroom door. Family density was curvilinearly

related to both sibling access restriction to bathrooms and

parental knocking on bathroom doors. Both these behaviors

were high in low and high density homes.

A number of maternal socialization practices impacted

on children's privacy and children's privacy behaviors.

Restrictive and coercive mothers exercise more control over

their children's privacy habits. Children's bedroom doors

were kept open more during recreational periods and while

entertaining friends in homes where the mothers were more

protective, imposed more restrictive regulations, clar-

ified and enforced household rules more, and made more co-

ercive suggestions. Children of such mothers sought more

privacy as indicated by keeping the bathroom door closed

more.

Affectionate and approving mothers permit more private

behaviors by their children and have children who seek less

privacy. Children of mothers who were more affectionate

and more approving in their critical appraisals kept the

bathroom open more while grooming and dressing (Parke &

Sawin, 1979).

Developmental changes in privacy continue beyond child-

hood and adolescence. Relationships and families also move

through a developmental cycle. Unmarried co-residing cou-

ples exercise different privacy behaviors than similar










married couples (Rosenblatt & Budd, 1975). While married

couples are more likely to have a place in their residence

to be alone than married couples, married couples have more

separate storage areas. Neither type of couple showed a

difference in access restrictiveness toward their partner

when occupying the bathroom. Couples who co-resided before

marriage were less territorial (separate storage areas)

than couples married without prior co-residence (Rosenblatt

& Budd, 1975).

Once a married couple has children further modifica-

tions in privacy behavior occur. Mothers with children

have less time alone in the house and less time alone with

guests (Smith et al., 1969). There was no difference, how-

ever, in the amount of time mothers and nonmothers spent in

the home. Those with pre-school children have less privacy

than those mothers with only school age children. More pro-

tective mothers (those who always accompany their children

outside and require the child to play in the same room in

which the mother is working) have less privacy. Alterna-

tively those mothers who participate more in their chil-

dren's play and encourage their children to help more in

household chores have less privacy. Household rules also

affect the mother's privacy. When one room is the chil-

dren's play area and other rooms are "off limits" and when

all the pre-school children are required to nap at the same

time, the mother has more privacy.










Fathers have less privacy (time alone in the home)

than husbands without children. Men with children achieved

privacy by spending less time in the home than did those

without children who acquired their privacy by having a

separate room in the home for themselves. Although fathers

spent less time in the home than husbands without children,

the amount of time they spent in interaction with other mem-

bers of the family did not vary across family stages (Smith

et al., 1969).

Family stage also affects the amount of children's

privacy. The youngest pre-school child has more privacy

than other age children due to nap time which may not al-

ways be spent in sleep. Children with private bedrooms

were able to choose more privacy and had more privacy than

those who shared bedrooms (Smith et al., 1969). On a cog-

nitive level, however, Wolfe and Laufer (1974) found no re-

liable differences in the salience of privacy meanings be-

tween children sharing and not sharing bedrooms.


Research on Interpersonal Theories of Privacy

When privacy is conceptualized as control over when and

to whom to transmit information, then research on self-dis-

closure becomes relevant to privacy. Jourard (1966, 1971)

has explicitly related these two research areas as points

along the same continuum of self-communication. In both the

privacy (Westin, 1967) and self-disclosure literature,










intimacy is a key concept. The meaning of the concept is

not the same, however, in both contexts. As a state of

privacy, intimacy is the chosen seclusion of a dyad or

group (Westin, 1967). Intimacy in self-disclosure refers

to the self-centrality of the information communicated

(Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). Although the privacy state of

intimacy may imply a depth of disclosure between the par-

ties, this disclosure depth is not an explicit definitional

component. The term intimacy will be used subsequently in

this paper to refer only to the depth of disclosure and not

to Westin's (1967) state of privacy for which 'group seclu-

sion' will be substituted.

Reserve, which is one of Westin's privacy states

rather than Westin's intimacy, is conceptually more sim-

ilar to self-disclosure intimacy. Defined as "a psycho-

logical barrier against unwanted intrusion" (Westin, 1967,

p. 32), Westin unfortunately includes three discrete types

of behavior under reserve: (1) withholding disclosure,

(2) discretion by the recipient of disclosure, and (3) se-

lective attention to others (tuning others out). Reserve

as withholding disclosure is clearly related to the self-

disclosure research. This research (Derlega & Chaikin,

1977) has shown that one's level of self-disclosure is par-

tially determined by the discloser's trust in the recipi-

ent's discretion.










The implicit notion that 'group seclusion' (Westin's

intimacy) is a facilitating condition for self-disclosure

intimacy has been supported by Holahan and Sleikin (1977).

When physical-environmental barriers were not available for

privacy, the psychological barrier of reserve became oper-

ative as demonstrated by the reduced level of self-disclo-

sure.

Altman (1975) theorizes that privacy is a dialectic

process; there is a shifting balance between social con-

tact (penetration) and withdrawal (privacy). Self-disclo-

sure operates as a dialectic process; "the best predictor

of the level of intimacy B will use in disclosing to A is

the level of intimacy with which A initiated the communica-

tion" (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977, p. 106). The intimacy of

communication between members of a dyad tends to stabilize

at the level at which one member stops reciprocating the

level of intimacy (Altman & Taylor, 1973).


Research Related to Social-Normative Theories

Chaikin and Derlega (1974) and Derlega and Chaikin

(1977) have identified several norms current in American

society that regulate the amount and level of self-disclo-

sure. These norms serve as one form of the institutional-

ization of privacy. Such institutionalized privacy modes

are hypothesized to reflect and express the social structure

(power hierarchies). Not only are women expected to










disclose more than men, they in fact do disclose more and

the content of this increased disclosure exposes their weak-

nesses (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). The content of men's

self-disclosure consists more of information attesting to

their strengths. Social dominance by men is manifest both

by the amount (less) and content of their self-disclosure.

When one person or group knows more about another person or

group, that person or group is in a position to influence

or exploit the other.

Control over when, where, how and by whom one's body

is touched is another form of privacy. Research shows that

a touched person is more likely to be of a lower occupa-

tional status than the toucher (Henley, 1973). Another

instance of male dominance and privacy is the finding that

men initiate touch with females more than vice versa (Hen-

ley, 1973a). If increasing age confers increasing status,

it is consistent that a touched person is younger than the

toucher (Henley, 1973). Henley (1974) concluded that

personal information flows opposite to the chain of author-

ity. The prerogative of eliciting personal information,

however, is in line with the authority hierarchy (Kelvin,

1973).

Kelvin (1973) theorized that perceived privacy de-

creases as one's vulnerability increases. The perception

of vulnerability increases with the power differential be-

tween the self and the other. The specific information










that places one in a position of vulnerability is deter-

mined by norms and the reference group in which one is

functioning. Anxiety accompanies the perception of vulner-

ability.

Self-disclosure is much less in those content areas

that provoke anxiety (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). Altman and

Taylor (1973) found evidence that personal characteristics

negatively valued by the self and those socially forbidden

by one's reference groups were scaled as more intimate.

These attributes were also perceived as having higher costs

(vulnerability). One of five factors found for questions

judged to be sensitive to privacy invasion was 'social ad-

justment' (Rosenbaum, 1973). Items of this factor dealt

with negatively valued personal characteristics such as

drug and alcohol use, and psychiatric history. Those groups

lower in the social structure (women, younger respondents,

the less educated, and those with lower income) were more

sensitive to questions about social adjustment.

Questions inquiring about finances and family back-

ground (including religion and race) were rated as the

most vulnerable to privacy invasion (Rosenbaum, 1973). Re-

ligion was also an objectional content area in MIPI ques-

tions (Gynther, 1972). Dominant groups (males and those

with more income) were more sensitive to financial questions.

An exception to this result was that lower educated persons

rated these items as more private. Only the less educated









and those from urban areas were more concerned about ques-

tions delving into family background. In a rural setting

one's family background is already public knowledge.

Privacy norms function to protect those behaviors pro-

scribed to private performance (Kelvin, 1973). The two con-

tent areas of the MMPI with the most items judged as intrud-

ing on privacy were those dealing with sex and elimination

processes (Gynther, 1972).

No research was found bearing on Pastalan's (1970b)

theory of role complexity, role incompatibility, and pri-

vacy. Neither has research been conducted to test Bechtel's

(1977) privacy theory which is derived from ecological psy-

chology.


Research on Functional Theories of Privacy

While the social-normative theories focus on the ef-

fects of power on privacy, the functional theories empha-

size the control nature of privacy. Privacy functions to

facilitate freedom of choice and to reduce social con-

straints on behavior. The only reported research relevant

to these issues investigated cognitive and emotional dimen-

sions of control.

The meanings 'controlling access to information' and

'doing what you want without being bothered' were salient

for all age groups from five to seventeen (Wolfe & Laufer,

1974), while 'controlling spaces' was salient for all those

above age six. Control over information and over spaces










were salient to distinct groups of children. Wolfe and

Laufer (1974) interpreted this finding as indicating that

while the notion of control may be central to meanings of

privacy, the behaviors over which control is incorporated

into the meaning of privacy vary between groups.

A study (Harmon & Betak, 1974) of privacy constructs

related to housing showed that the value of privacy was in

controlling intrusion from neighbors. An analysis of these

privacy constructs led to the conclusion that freedom of

choice was a superordinate construct unifying the privacy

constructs. A major concern elicited from elderly res-

dents about neighborhood designs was the privacy concern

for autonomy or freedom of choice over involvement with

children in particular (Steinfeld, 1973). Finally, sub-

jects in a privacy versus non-privacy condition reported

feeling more freedom (Edney & Buda, 1976; and Bower, 1978)

and control (Dower, 1978).

The conceptualization of privacy remains a crucial is-

sue. The choice of one definition rather than another re-

sults in different theories, programs of research, and em-

pirical results. As a first attempt at clarifying this is-

sue, two types of definitions are considered: formal and

subjective. Formal definition is one which consists of a

set of properties external to the organism. The occurrence

of this set of properties constitutes an instance of the

referent. The definition of reinforcement in behaviorism










is such a formal definition. Jourard's (1966) conceptual-

ization of privacy as an informational outcome state exist-

ing between interactants is another formal definition. Any

condition which changes the informational flow between two

individuals would be a variable impacting privacy. Poten-

tially independent of this informational exchange is the

person's emotional experience of 'privacy.' A subjective

definition, therefore, is one whose referent is some inter-

nal state of the organism, in this case an emotional state

associated with the linguistic label--'privacy.' It is sub-

jective precisely in the sense that the meaning of the lex-

eme associated with the emotional state changes with age

(Wolfe & Laufer, 1974) and across culture (Roberts & Gregor,

1971) and history (Flaherty, 1972).

The types of theories required to deal with subjective

privacy must address both meaning and learning. A theory

of meaning should provide an explanation of the semantic

components of the referent 'privacy.' Such a theory should

locate the concept within a semantic domain at a specified

level of hierarchical inclusion. Privacy is not an iso-

lated concept but rather one within an interlocking network

of concepts. Using the lexeme 'woman' as an example, woman,

which is a unit in the domain 'humans,' is an adult and a

female of the species. Evidence already exists demonstrat-

ing that the meaning of privacy changes with age (Wolfe &

Laufer, 1974). This suggests that some aspect (either











components or structure) of the domain in which privacy is

an element is changing. An explanation of subjective pri-

vacy, therefore, will require some theory of learning to

account for these semantic changes. Wolfe and Laufer (1974)

conclude that the complexity of the meaning of privacy in-

creases with age thus indicating that the environmental

stimuli eliciting the emotional state associated with the

cognitive-linguistic category 'privacy' become more diverse.

What are the dimensions underlying these diverse, complex

stimuli which elicit the feeling of privacy? What explains

variations in these underlying dimensions across age and

cultures?

A program of research on subjective privacy should con-

sist of explorations into meaning such as that by Wolfe and

Laufer (1974) and multi-dimensional analysis of situations

to identify the dimensions underlying privacy across a wide

range of environmental (both physical, social, and conative)

contingencies. Research should also be directed toward the

role of socialization (learning) on the meaning of privacy.

Parke and Sawin (1979) have examined privacy behaviors in

light of socialization practices but have not yet addressed

the differences in meaning that privacy takes on under these

varying types of socialization. Both the referents of

linguistic categories and the experiencing of emotions are

largely consensual within a social group or culture. One

manifestation of this consensus is the presence of norms.











Norms are a given existing before an infant's birth and

constitute a part of the infant's socialization. These

larger contexts of privacy meaning must be investigated

for an adequate theory of subjective privacy.

As an initial approximation to understanding privacy,

the proposed research investigates subjective or perceived

privacy. In this instance subjects will themselves decide

what is "private" by responding to an elicitation frame in-

structing them to describe a situation in which they felt

private. Within this conceptual context and following the

reasoning of Schopler et al. (1978), this research asks,

"What are the cognitive and stimulus dimensions that deter-

mine peoples' perceptions of being private?" The preced-

ing review of the privacy literature indicates a wide di-

vergence about what constitutes the necessary and sufficient

conditions for eliciting the state of feeling private. Nine

major conditions can be identified in the literature and

these are the dimensions hypothesized to be the determi-

nants of the experience of feeling private:

1. a physical situation characterized by the absence

of others (solitude), Westin (1967);

2. an interpersonal situation involving limited so-

cial stimulation (the absence of distraction),

Bechtel, (1977) and Mehrabian and Russell, (1974)

(and the absence of stimulus overload), Altman

(1975);











3. the selective control to which others encroach

upon one's life (personal control), Proshansky,

Ittelson & Rivlin (1970);

4. the selective control of information communicated

about self (reserve), Jourard (1966), Westin (1967),

and Chaikin and Derlega (1977);

5. a situation in which the person is an outsider or

unknown to others (anonymous), Westin (1967);

6. a situation of desired physical and/or psycholog-

ical immediacy between two or more people (inti-

macy), Westin (1967);

7. a situation in which one is free from observation,

Shaw (1980);

8. a situation characterized by perceived adequacy

of space, Bechtel (1977), Sommer (1966), and

Stokols (1972);

9. the amount of information one person possesses

about another.

Other conditions have been posited as leading to the desire

for privacy. An example is the enactment of anti-normative

behaviors (Kelvin, 1973). The study of the variables con-

ducive to eliciting a desire for privacy is, however, an-

other issue from the investigation of the perception of pri-

vacy. But, although theoretically there should be a syste-

matic relationship between the two sets of variables, but










the investigation of motivational determinants is beyond the

scope of this research proposal. The same caveat applies

for the consequences of privacy.

Given the formative stage of theory and research on

privacy, the selection of a research strategy which samples

a large variety of situations in which people may experi-

ence privacy and which is independent of any one theory

and/or conceptualization of privacy is desirable. Such a

promising exploratory methodology is multidimensional scal-

ing (Shepard, Romney & Nerlove, 1972). This methodology

has been gainfully applied to the concept of crowding by

Schopler et al. (1978) and Stockdale et al. (1978) and

was adopted for this study (see Appendix A for a conceptual

explanation of multidimensional scaling).













CHAPTER II
METHOD



The study consisted of three phases. The first phase

involved collecting paragraphs describing situations in

which students felt private. These served as the experi-

mental stimuli. In Phase 2 subjects produced similarity

rankings between the privacy stimuli. These data enabled

the determination of the dimensions used by respondents in

comparing and discriminating among privacy situations. In

order to identify and label these major dimensions, Phase 3

respondents rated each privacy situation on 40 relevant

qualities. An overview of the procedures employed will be

described separately for each of these phases. A complete,

detailed description of each phase is provided in respec-

tive appendices noted.



Phase 1


Paragraphs describing privacy situations were collected

from 36 undergraduates from the University of Florida. Sub-

jects received class credits for responding five times to

the following instructions:

Please think of a time in your life when you felt very

private.










Describe the incident you have in mind, and your

feelings at the time, in as much detail as pos-

sible. (Refer to Appendix B for complete instruc-

tions.)

Forty privacy situations were selected from the 187 col-

lected to serve as the experimental stimuli. These 40

situations represented: (1) all four types of privacy

(solitude, anonymity, reserve, and intimacy) and (2) the

most and least private situations for each of the four

types (refer to Appendix B for a description of this se-

lection procedure).



Phase 2


Twenty males and 20 females participated in Phase

2 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an intro-

ductory psychology class. Groups composed of 5 same-sex

persons working at two, two-hour sessions one week apart

completed the experimental tasks.

The experimenter explained that he was interested in

discovering what caused people to feel private. Subjects

were told that the task they were about to perform would

provide this information. Respondents were given a deck

of 4x6 cards on which were typed the experimental stimuli

(the privacy situations collected in Phase 1) and were first

instructed to familiarize themselves with the descriptions.










Subsequently the subjects were presented response booklets.

At the top of each page of the booklet was a "target situ-

ation" and subjects were instructed to rank order all of

the privacy situations in terms of their similarity in the

experience of being private to each target. The nine sep-

arate target situations were members of the 40 experi-

mental stimuli and were selected to represent each of the

nine hypothesized conditions causing the subjective expe-

rience of privacy (see Appendix C for a description of this

selection procedure). Order of targets was randomized over

subjects. One target was repeated to provide a reliability

estimate (refer to Appendix C).



Phase 3


The dimensions constituting the experience of subjec-

tive privacy were determined by analysing the data obtained

in Phase 2 via SAS ALSCAL (Young & Lewyckyj, 1979). In

order to identify and label these resultant dimensions,

45 introductory psychology students participated in

Phase 3 for course credit. One female and two males failed

to appropriately complete the experimental task and their

data were excluded from the analysis. Subjects were tested

in same-sex groups of 10.

The experimenter explained that the purpose of the ex-

periment was to identify the qualities that best character-

ized situations in which students felt private. Each










subject received a booklet containing 41 pages, each of

which contained a privacy situation and listed 40 rele-

vant qualities on which to be rated. (See Appendix D for

the selection of the forty qualities.) These qualities

reflected hypotheses about the dimensions of subjective

privacy. Subjects were instructed to rate the situation

and the actors on a ten-point scale and to record their

responses on computer-scored answer sheets. Both the or-

der of qualities and situations were randomly determined.

The presentation order of the privacy situations was pro-

gressively staggered over the ten booklets such that fa-

tigue effects were distributed equally over all 40 exper-

imental stimuli (see Appendix D). One experimental stim-

ulus was repeated at the end of the booklet to provide a

response reliability estimate (see Appendix D).













CHAPTER III
RESULTS



The ranking data collected in Phase 2 were analyzed

with SAS-ALSCAL (Young & Lewyckyj, 1979). The following

parameters guided the analysis: (1) the measurement lev-

el of the datawere ordinal since a ranking task was used;

(2) the data were dissimilarity as opposed to similarity

in type; (3) the data we row conditional; and (4) the

data were asymmetric in the sense that not all possible

comparisons of stimuli were performed. Row conditional

data obtain when the experimental stimuli are ranked

against target stimuli. The meaning of rank values var-

ies for each standard target stimulus against which an

item is compared. The characteristics of the observations

are conditional on some aspect of the experimental proce-

dure (the targets) in such a way that some observations

cannot be meaningfully compared with other observations.

Since multidimensional scaling is primarily an ex-

ploratory analysis, a triangulation approach was used for

analyzing and interpreting the data. Although ALSCAL pro-

vides for each dimensional solution a measure of goodness

of fit (stress) and the amount of variance accounted for,

there is no statistical criterion which signals which di-

mensional solution is the best or appropriate one. Two










sources of information are resorted to in determining the

most appropriate and illuminating dimensional solution.

First, correlations between the dimensional coordinates of

each solution and the defining attribute ratings are exam-

ined and reported. Second, correlations between the dimen-

sional coordinates of each solution and the privacy unidi-

mensional scale values obtained in Phase 1 are examined and

reported. This triangulation of data sometimes converges

to clarify the interpretation of the results and at other

times suggests noncongruent, alternative interpretations.



Multidimensional Privacy Results


The stress values and r-square values for the one

through six dimensional solutions are presented in Table 1.

The reduction in stress values due to the generation of the

third and subsequent dimensions is small. This suggests

that a two-dimensional solution is adequate. Subsequent ex-

ploratory analyses of the three- through five-dimensional

solutions indicate that the four-dimensional solution is

noteworthy. Thus both the two-dimensional and four-dimen-

sional analyses are presented.

The first dimension of the two-dimensional solution is

defined by three attributes. The attribute, "too much going

on around the actor," is the only one achieving an accepted

level of significance (r=-.36, p=.02). The other two














Table 1.

Privacy MDS Results


Dimension Stress RSQ


1 .516 .196

2 .394 .244

3 .320 .308

4 .264 .368

5 .223 .425

6 .192 .480










attributes (too many people for space available, r=-.31,

p=.053; and crowded, r=-.30, p=.06) are marginally signif-

icant. Together these attributes are interpreted as "So-

cial Density" and this dimension is thus labeled.

The second dimension of the two-dimensional solution

has one attribute which is correlated at a level of margin-

al significance. "The actor's behavior is against the

rules" (r=.29, p=.068) is cautiously interpreted as a "Nor-

mativeness" dimension. This dimension is unique to this so-

lution, not reappearing in any other dimensional solution.

This argues for yet increased caution.

The four-dimensional solution further elaborates the

first dimension previously discussed. The correlations of

the attributes "too much going on around the actor" (r=-.48,

p=.03) and "the actor feels claustrophobic" (r=-.31, p=.05)

are also now significantly related to this dimension. The

one marginally significant attribute ("the actor wants to

escape" (r=-.29, p=.07)) also seems relevant to the inter-

pretation of this dimension. This dimension represents a

continuum from crowded to not crowded. Four consequences

are apparently associated with this crowding continuum. The

amount of stimulation impinging on the actor, the degree of

privacy available, the motivation to escape the situation,

and the feeling of claustrophobia all vary along the same

dimension as crowding.








No attribute is significantly or marginally correlated

with the second dimension of the four-dimensional solution.

The attribute defining the second dimension of the two-di-

mensional solution is only correlated r=.05 with this dimen-

sion. This dimension is uninterpretable and thus unlabeled.

The nine attributes defining the third dimension indi-

cate that it is a complex one. In order of correlational

magnitude, the nine are: (1) no one knows the actor, anon-

ymous (#12, r+.50, p=.001); (2) the actor is visible (#16,

r=-.45, p=.004); (3) the actor is self-revealing (#22, r=

-.44, p=.005); (4) the actor is solitary (#30, 4=-.45, p=

.004); (5) another knows the actor's thoughts and feelings

(#6, r=-.41, p=.008); (6) the actor's feelings are caused

by the presence of others (#29, r=-.41, p=.03); (7) the

actor trusts others present (#20, r=-.34, p=.03); (8)

others understand how the actor feels (#15, r=-.33, p=.04);

and (9) the actor is free to be self (#10, 4=.32, p=.04).

The attribute "the actor is careful about what they say"

(#13, r=.27, p=.09) is marginally significant. A single

rubric which encompasses all of these attributes is not

immediately obvious.

"Privacy" suggests itself as one candidate. One end

of this dimension is anchored by two types of privacy,

i.e., anonymity and solitude. The other end, however, is

marked by two attributes (self-revealing and being care-

ful about what is said) which are frequently believed to cre-

ate two other types of privacy, i.e., intimacy and reserve










respectively. Partially for this reason, this dimension

is not interpreted as privacy.

What is desired is a construct which encompasses all

of these attributes without contradiction or exception. A

careful, detailed examination of the attributes varying

along this dimension suggests such a construct. As one ap-

proaches the end of the dimension anchored by anonymity,

solitude, and freedom to be oneself, the following changes

occur: other's knowledge of self decreases, one's visibil-

ity decreases, one's self-revealingness decreases, other's

understanding of one's feelings decreases, one's trust of

others decreases, one's guardedness over what is said de-

creases, and the extent to which one's feelings are caused

by others decreases. Moving away from this anchor point,

anonymity or ignorance of one's identity (both name and self-

hood) decreases, solitude or withdrawal from others de-

creases, and freedom to be oneself (interpreted here as

spontaneity) decreases. These processes suggest a movement

toward or away from engaging others and being involved with

others. This dimension is, therefore, interpreted and la-

beled as "Interpersonal Involvement."

The fourth dimension shares three attributes (#4, #24,

and #40) with the first dimension. The polar opposite of

these attributes is, however, different in the two dimen-

sions. Only "the actor wants to escape" (r=.32, p=.04) is

significantly correlated to this dimension. The attributes,






67



Table 2.

Privacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Defining Attributes


2 4
Dimension Item # r r


SOCIAL DENSITY
37 too much going on around
actor
19 too many people for space
available
38 crowded
28 too little privacy
24 actor feels intruded upon
40 actor feels claustrophobic
4 actor wants to escape

NOPTIATIVENESS
8 actor's behavior is against
the rules


-.36 -.48

-.313 -.40


-.26j





.293


INTERPERSONAL INVOLVEMENT
no one knows actor, anonymous
another knows actor's thoughts
and feelings
actor is visible
actor is solitary
actor's feelings caused by
presence of others
actor is self-revealing
actor is free to be self
actor is careful about they say
others understand how actor
feels
actor trusts others present

PHYSICAL INVOLVEMENT
actor wants to escape
situation is largely physical
situation is sexual
actor feels claustrophobic
actor feels intruded upon
actor's feelings due to
situation


-.38
-.34
-.313
-.313
-.29


.05



.50
-.41

-.45
.42
-.41

-.44
.323
-.27
-.33

-.34


.323
.293
.273
+ 28
.263


4
4
4

2(2)1



3






68



Table 2--continued.



iDimension #2 of the two-dimensional solution is distinct
from dimension #2 of the three-dimensional solution which
is undefined.
2Correlation coefficients for the 2-dimensional solution.

3Probability is greater than .05 and less than .10.

4Correlation coefficients for the four-dimensional solution.










"the situation is largely physical" (r=-.29, p=.07), "the

actor feels claustrophobic" (r=.28, p=.09), "the situation

is sexual" (r=-.27, p=.09), and "the actor feels intruded

upon" (r=.26, p=.10) are marginally significant. This con-

tinuum ranges from a situation which is sexual and physical

to nonsexual and nonphysical. Simultaneously the continuum

covers both the desire to escape (avoidance), and the feel-

ing of intrusion, and claustrophobia on one end to the de-

sire to not escape (approach), and the absence of feeling

intruded upon and claustrophobic. In the first dimension

the attributes common to both dimensions were associated

with crowdedness but in this dimension they are related to

sexuality. A cautious interpretation of the tenuous (mar-

ginal) relationship between approach-avoidance (escape) and

sexuality is "Physical Involvement."

The five-dimensional solution is similar to the four-

dimensional solution. This solution is not insightful since

no attribute is related to the dimension and it adds nothing

to the variance accounted for in a stepwise regression of

dimensional coordinates onto the privacy scale scores.

To what extent are the dimensions used by subjects in

discriminating privacy situations related to the perceived

degree of privacy in those situations? To answer this ques-

tion correlations between the dimension coordinates for each

privacy situation and the privacy scale values for each pri-

vacy situation were computed. Table 3 presents the results.














Table 3.

Privacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Privacy Scale Values


Dimensional Dimension
Solution 1 2* 3 4 5


2 -.3211 -.3012

3 -.3261 .1393 -.3102

4 -.3801 .0963 -.3701 .0583

5 -.4001 .1323 -.4431 -.1023 -.055



*Dimension 2 is defined by distinct attributes in solution 2
versus solutions 3, 4 and 5.
1
P<.05
2
2 P<10

3
_>.10










Dimension #1 (Social Density) is significantly correlated

with the degree of perceived privacy. The "Interpersonal

Involvement" dimension (#3) is also significantly related

to perceived privacy. Finally, the second dimension (NOR-

MATIVENESS) of the two-dimensional solution is correlated

(r=-.301, p=.06) at a marginally significant level. "Phys-

ical Involvement" shows no relationship to perceived privacy.

The stepwise regression of the two-dimensional solution

indicates that both dimensions together significantly pre-

dice (F(2,30)=4.7, p=.02) the privacy scale scores. Each

dimension accounts for one-half of the explained variance

(rsq=.20).

The four-dimensional solution also significantly pre-

dicts the privacy scale scores. When dimension #1 is en-

tered first into the stepwise regression followed by the

inclusion of dimension #3 29 percent of the variance in

privacy scale scores is predicted (F(2,30)=7.68, p=.002).

Although the F-value (F2,30)=3.97, p=.009) for all four

dimensions entered into the stepwise regression is signif-

icant, less than 2 percent of explained variance is added.

Note that dimension #2 in the four-dimensional solution is

distinctly different from the "Normativeness" dimension of

the two-dimensional solution.

While the above analyses add support to the view that

privacy is a single, multidimensional construct, a more

atomistic analysis might provide further evidence














Table 4.

Regression of Privacy MDS Dimensions on
Privacy Scale Values


Dimensional
Solution


Dimension RSQ
3


Stepwise
MRSQ


.1031
(1)

.1061
(1)

.1441
(1)


.0912
(2)

.0193
(3)

.0093
(3)


.1601 .0173


.0962
(2)
.1373
(2)

.1971


.2031


.2391


.3121


.0033
(4)


.0033 .4061


*Dimension 2 is defined by distinct attributes in solution
2 versus solutions 3, 4 and 5.
p05
2
SP.10

3* >10










demonstrating the specific dimensional combinations and

properties of the four types of privacy. The multidimen-

sional data set was, therefore, subsequently partitioned

into subsets containing data for the privacy situations

previously coded into the four types. Three usable subsets

resulted. Too few stimuli existed for privacy situations

which were anonymous to be further analyzed. The results

for the remaining three privacy types are reported in al-

phabetical order.



Multidimensional Intimacy Results


The MDS stress values and r-square values for one

through five dimensional solutions appear in Table 5. The

insubstantial increase in the stress and r-square values be-

tween the two and three, and four and five dimensional solu-

tions suggests that either a two or four dimensional solu-

tion is optimal. Both solutions are, therefore, explored

via the defining attribute data. The five dimensional solu-

tion is also discussed due to its potentially interesting

relationship to the privacy scores.

The first dimension of the two dimensional solution is

defined by six attributes (see Table 6). In order of their

correlational magnitude they are (1) the situation is im-

personal (r=-.87, p=.002), (2) the situation is unpredict-

able (r=.84, p=.004); the actor is self-revealing to others






74






Table 5.

Intimacy MDS Results


Dimension Stress RSQ


1 .441 .573

2 .265 .702

3 .211 .763

4 .149 .858

5 .106 .917










(r=-.73, p=.025); (4) the situation is largely psycholog-

ical (r=.72, p=.03); (5) the actor feels comfortable (r=

-.68, p=.05); and (6) others understand how the actor feels

(r=-.67, p=.05). The most salient attribute continuum along

which subjects discriminate intimacy situations is the de-

gree to which the interpersonal interaction is personal or

impersonal. An interpretation of this personal-impersonal

dimension is suggested by three attributes. The more the

actor is self-revealing and the more others understand the

actor's feelings the more personal is the situation. Dis-

closing feelings and having others understand one's feel-

ings makes the situation more psychological rather than

mundane. Interaction is mundane to the extent that it fo-

cuses on task or external content. Apparently a prominent

affect accompanying this personal-impersonal dimension is

emotional comfort. Felt comfort decreases along this di-

mension as the situation becomes more personal. The extent

to whicn the situation (the other's behavior and one's own?)

is predictable increases as the interaction becomes more

personal. This interpretation of the attribute loadings

and combination suggests that an appropriate labeling of

this dimension is "Personal-Impersonal."

Only two attributes correlate significantly with the

second dimension of the two-dimensional solution. These

are "the situation is familiar" (r=.98, p=.0001) and "the

actors' feelings are caused by the presence of others"










(r=.81, p=.008). The dimension is clearly a "familiarity"

one but it is unclear what constitutes "the situation."

Two alternative explanations are that (1) the situation

is the physical and behavioral environment and (2) the sit-

uation refers to the other persons present. One hypothesis,

therefore, is that as the physical and behavioral environ-

ment becomes more familiar, the actor's emotions are a func-

tion of the others present, the more novel and unfamiliar

the situation the more the actor's emotions are associated

with the physical and behavioral environment and less with

the others present. An alternative hypothesis results when

the situation refers to the other people present. In this

case the more familiar are the other people present the more

the actor's emotions are associated with these people and

the less the emotions are related to either the actor's in-

ternal motivations or to the external, physical, non-human

environment. Regardless of which of these alternatives or

others is correct, this dimension is labeled as "familiar-

ity.

The first two dimensions of the four-dimensional solu-

tion are essentially the same in their defining attributes

as those of the two-dimensional solution. Seven attributes

are significantly correlated to the first dimension of the

four-dimensional solution. These are (1) the situation is

impersonal (r=-.88, p=.002), (2) the situation is unpre-

dictable (r=-.79, p=.01); (3) the actor is self-revealing




Table 6.


Intimacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with Defining Attributes
(Two, Four and Five Dimensional Solution)


Dimension Item # DIMENSION LABEL / Item 2-dimens 4-dimens 5-dimens
r r r

1 PERSONAL-IMPERSONAL
26 situation is impersonal .871 -.882 -.921
2 situation is unpredictable .841 -.792 -.703
32 actor is self-revealing to others -733 .772 .841
23 situation is public .663 .762 -.733
34 situation is largely psychological -.723 .713 .693
15 others understand how actor feels .673 .773
12 no one knows actor .72

2 FAMILIARITY
18 situation is familiar .981 .862 841
29 actor's feelings caused by presence :812 .683 723
of others
3 UNDEFINED44
23 situation is public .474 .384
16 actor is visible .57

4 ACCEPTABILITY OF BEHAVIOR
5 actor's behavior is shameful .782 39 4
8 actor's behavior is against the rules .772 :024

5 FREEDOM
10 actor is free to be self .812
5 actor's behavior is shameful .683
13 actor is careful about what they say .67
1
2P .005
3p<. 01
3P<-01
4 .05
>.05










to others (r=.77, p=.02); (4) the situation is public

(r=-.76, p=.02); (5) the situation is largely psychological

(r=.71, p=.03); (6) the actor feels comfortable (r=.70,

p=.04); and (7) others understand how the actor feels

(r=.67, p=.05). The only change in the first dimension

between the two and four-dimensional solutions is the ad-

dition of the attribute "the situation is public. This

attribute is marginally (p=.052) significant for the two-

dimensional solution. The more impersonal the situation,

the more public it is. The interpretation of this dimen-

sion remains the same, "Personal-Impersonal."

The second dimension of the four-dimensional solution

is identical to that for the two-dimensional solution ex-

cept that the magnitudes of the significant correlations is

reduced. The "familiarity" attribute remains the most prom-

inent, defining one.

No attribute is significantly correlated with the

third of the four dimensions. The attribute (the situation

is public r=.47, p=.2) with the highest correlation on

this dimension is significantly correlated with the first

dimension. No interpretation is possible of this dimension.

This finding potentially argues for a two-dimensional solu-

tion as most parsimonious to the data.

The fourth dimension is, however, defined by two at-

tributes which are significantly correlated with it. Both

attributes concern the actor's behavior; one evaluates it










while the other compares it against norms. These attri-

butes are "the actor's behavior is shameful" (r=.78, p=

.01); and "the actor's behavior is against the rules" (r=

.77, p=.01). One interpretation is that the actor's behav-

ior in intimate situations is discriminated along a con-

tinuum of being shameful apparently in association with

the degree to which the behavior conforms to the rules.

This dimension is therefore interpreted as "Normativeness."

Given that people can discriminate situations which

are intimate along a number of dimensions, which of these

dimensions or combination of dimensions is most related to

the perception of privacy? The correlations (see Table 7)

between the dimensional coordinates of each intimacy situ-

ation and their privacy scale score indicate that only the

first dimension is significantly correlated (r=.725, .747,

and .770 respectively, p=.01) with the privacy scores. The

direction of this relationship is such that as the situation

becomes more personal the perception of the amount of pri-

vacy present increases. Regression analyses (see Table 8)

further show that the Personal-Impersonal dimension pre-

dicts over 50 percent of the variance in privacy scale

scores. The addition of the second dimension results in

neither a significant multivariate F nor a substantial in-

crease in the variance accounted for. In spite of the

strength and clarity of the second dimension, it plays lit-

tle role in the perception of privacy. The same is true of














Table 7.

Intimacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Privacy Scale Value


Dimensional Dimension
Solution 1 2 3 4 5


2 -.747* .230

3 .725* .177 -.254

4 .770* .088 -.234 .464
5 .770* .085 -.197 .157 .350




*p<.05













Table 8.

Regression of Intimacy MDS Dimensions on
Privacy Scale Values


Dimensional Dimensions Stepwise
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5 MRSQ


2 .558* .053 .580

3 (l)** (2)

3 .526* .031 .064 .601

(1) (2) (3)
4 .593* .007 .054 .215 .865*

(1) (4) (3) (2)
5 .593* .007 .039 .025 .122 .799

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

*p<.05

**Designates the order in which the dimension was optimally
entered into the stepwise regression.










third dimension. Entering the fourth dimension into a

setpwise regression following the first dimension results,

however, in both a significant prediction (F (2,8)=13.08,

p=.007) and an increase of 22 percent of variance

accounted for over that for the first dimension alone. The

more normative and less shameful the actor's behavior the

less private is the intimacy situation perceived. These

two dimensions of Personal-Impersonal and Normativeness

combined account for eighty-one percent of the privacy scale

score variance.



Multidimensional Reserve Results


Table 9 shows the stress values and r-square values

for one through five-dimensional solutions. The addition

of dimension two substantially reduces the stress value and

increases the r-square. The stress reduction due to the in-

clusion of the third and fourth dimensions is more modest.

While two dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions,

the maximum number is uncertain. Although the five dimen-

sional solution results in a small decrease in the stress

value, this solution offers the best prediction of the pri-

vacy scale scores. For this reason, both the two- and five-

dimensional solutions are interpreted based on the defining

attribute data.













Table 9.

Reserve MDS Results


Dimension Stress RSQ


1 .454 .439

2 .292 .617

3 .210 .742

4 .151 .841

5 .111 .905










The first dimension of the two-dimensional solution

is an anomaly. Although this dimension has the least dis-

persion of actual scores from the computed dimension, no

attribute is significantly correlated with it. Two attri-

butes are marginally significant in their correlation with

this dimension. The attributes are "the actor is self-re-

vealing to other" (r=-.66, p=.054) and "the actor's feel-

ings are due to self" (r=.59, p=.092). A cautious inter-

pretation of this dimension is "Self-Disclosure." Subjects

discriminate situations which are reserved to the extent

that self-disclosure is present. Such an interpretation is

conceptually relevant to the construct "reserved." Appar-

ently the level of self-disclosure occurring and the extent

to which the actor's feelings are due to internal motiva-

tions are associated. The more inhibited the actor feels

about self-disclosing, the more the actor's feelings are due

to his/her own motivations and concerns. This interpreta-

tion, albeit based on questionable statistical significance,

is conceptually reasonable.

Five attributes define the second dimension of the two

dimensional solution. In descending order of correlational

magnitude, they are (1) too many people for space avail-

able (r=-.84, p=.005); (2) the actor is visible (r=-.81,

p=.008); (3) the actor feels claustrophobic (r=-.79, r=.01);

(4) others are too close to actor (r=-.71, p=.03); and (5)

too little privacy (r=-.70, p=.04). Four other attributes










are marginally significant; they are (1) actor is soli-

tary (r=.66, p=.051); (2) others interfere with or block

the actor (r=-.66, p=.053); (3) the actor feels anxious

(r=-.66, p=.053); and (4) crowded (r=.61, p=.08). Overall,

four attributes (#19, 40, 7, and 38) suggest that this di-

mension primarily represents a continuum of social density.

Another attribute (#33) has been hypothesized to be a cause

of feeling crowded. Visibility is closely associated with

this dimension and thus with crowding. Further related to

this dimension is inadequate privacy. Based on the prepon-

derance of attributes denoting and implying crowding, this

dimension is labeled 'Social Density."

For the five-dimensional solution, only the "actor is

self-revealing" attribute is marginally correlated (r=-.60,

p=.09) with the first dimension. The cautious interpreta-

tion of this dimension as "Self-Disclosure" is maintained.

The second dimension of the five-dimensional solution

is defined by nine attributes (#19, 28, 40, 22, 33, 29, 16,

38, and 7). Items #19, 28, 40, 22, 33, 16, 38, and 7(see

Table 10) are identical to those for the two dimensional

solution. The new attribute which is added to the defini-

tion of this dimension is "the actor's feelings are caused

by the presence of others" (r=.70, p=.04). This does not

change the original interpretation and labeling of this di-

mension as "Social Density." It does suggest that as crowd-

ing increases the actor's emotions are more related to the

presence of others.




TaDie 1U.
Reserve MDS Dimensions Correlated with Defining Attributes
(Two and Five Dimensional Solutions)


Dimension Item # DIMENSIONAL LABEL / Item 2-Dim 5-Dim
r r
1 SELF-DISCLOSURE 2 2
32 actor is self-revealing .662 -.60 3
36 feelings due to self .59 46
2 SOCIAL DENSITY
19 too many people for space -.841 .83 1
16 actor is visible -.81 1 69 1

40 actor feels claustrophobic -.79 .782
7 others are too close -.71 1671
28 too little privacy -.70 .823
39 actor is solitary .66 2 -.50 1
33 others interfere with actor -.662 741
22 actor feels anxious -.662 .761
38 crowded .61 691
29 feelings caused by presence of others 701
10 actor is free to be self :642
24 actor feels intruded upon .62
3 SHAME 1
5 actor's behavior is shameful -.771
23 situation is public -721
26 situation is impersonal -652
4 SITUATIONAL ATTRIBUTION OF EMOTIONS 1
25 actor's feelings due to situation -. 90 1
34 situation is largely psychological 751
8 actor's behavior is against the rules .68

5 EMPATHY
15 others understand how actor feels -.602
P<.05
2
p.10
3
p>10









Dimension 3 has two attributes with significant corre-

lations. They are "the actor's behavior is shameful" (r=-.77,

p=.02), and "the situation is public" (r=-.72, p=.03). An-

other attribute, "the situation is impersonal" (r=-.65, p=

.059) is marginally significant. These attributes are con-

sistent with Schneider's (1977) conception of shame, thus

this dimension is labeled as "Shame."

The fourth dimension of the five-dimensional solution

is defined by three attributes: (1) the actor's feelings

are due to the situation (r=.90, p=.001); (2) the situation

is largely psychological (r=-.75), p=.02); and (3) the ac-

tor's behavior is against the rules (r=-.68, p=.05). This

dimension seems to best represent the level of situationally

motivated feelings. At one end of the continuum character-

istics of the situation largely influence the actor's emo-

tions while at the other extreme of the continuum the ac-

tor's emotions are mostly unrelated to characteristics of

the situation. Along this same dimension but in the oppo-

site direction is the degree to which the situation is psy-

chological. The more the actor's feelings are due to sit-

uational contingencies the less psychological is the situa-

tion. Similarly the more the actor's feelings are due to

the situation the less the actor's behavior is against the

rules. The conjunction of these attributes suggests the

actor is making an attribution of external causation for

his/her emotions. This dimension, therefore, is interpreted

as "Situational Attribution of Emotions."










Only one attribute potentially defines the fifth di-

mension. The attribute, "others understand how the actor

feels" (r=-.60, p=.09), is marginally significant when cor-

related with dimension #5. This dimension is cautiously

interpreted as "Empathy."

Of the five dimensions, only the last one is margin-

ally correlated (r=.60, p=.088) with the privacy scale

scores for the reserve situations. The perception of pri-

vacy for situations in which people felt reserved increases

as the emotional empathy of the others present decreases.

A stepwise regression of all five dimensions onto the

privacy scale scores again reveals marginally significant

findings. Dimension #5 accounts for 36 percent of

the variance in privacy scores (F(2,8)=3.93, p-.088). The

inclusion of dimension #3 next increases the r-square to

.56 (F(2,8)=4.01, p=.078). The addition of dimension #1 is

the last inclusion to a stepwise regression which results

2
in a substantial increase in r-square (r =.70) and is still

marginally significant (F(2,8)=3.81, p=.09). Although

based on marginally significant findings, this result cau-

tiously suggests that reserved situations are perceived as

more private as they are characterized by increasing emo-

tional empathy from others, by the increasingly personal na-

ture of the content of interaction, by the increasing ex-

tent to which the content is not public knowledge, and by













Table 11.

Reserve Correlations with Privacy Scale Values


Dimensional Dimensions
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5

2 .111 -.130

3 .171 -.234 .251

4 .191 -.125 .198 .565

5 .369 .158 .464 -.051 .600*


*p=. 088













Table 12.

Regression of Reserve MDS Dimensions on Privacy
Scale Values


Dimensional Dimensions RSQ Stepwise
Solutions 1 2 3 4 5 MRSQ


2 .012 .017 .029
(2)** (1)

3 .029 .055 .063 .152
(3) (2) (1)

4 .036 .016 .039 .320 .404
(3) (4) (2) (1)

5 .136 .025 .215 .003 .360* .719
(3) (4) (2) (5) (1)



*p>.05

**Designates the order in which the dimension was optimally
entered into the stepwise regression.










decreasing self-disclosure. While this is suggestive at

best, these findings are consistent with various theories

of privacy.



Multidimensional Solitude Results


The one through six dimensional stress and r-square

values are presented in Table 13. The addition of the

fourth dimension results in a small decrease in stress thus

the three dimensional solution is considered the most accu-

rate and parsimonious. This decision is partially sup-

ported by the defining attribute analysis. An examination

of the attributes highly correlating with each dimension

for the three, four, and five dimensional solutions reveals

that only those for the first dimension in each analysis

are similar. Given the unstable nature of these relation-

ships, it seems that three dimensions is the maximum reli-

able.

A total of sixteen attributes define the first dimen-

sion of the three-dimensional solution. Four of the six

attributes with the highest correlations with this dimen-

sion concern the actor's affect. These attributes are

(1) the situation is comfortable (r=-.76, p-.0001); (2) the

actor feels distressed (r=.69, p=.0008); (3) the actor feels

helpless (r=.68, p=.001); and (4) the actor feels anxious

(r=.62, p=.003). One aspect of this dimension along which




Full Text
7
extensive range of variables and relationships, and more
complex theories to successfully integrate the diverse phe
nomena involved.
Theories of Privacy
Given the variety of conceptualizations and types of
privacy, the existence of a wide and diverse range of pri
vacy theories is to be expected. One classification of
these theories results in some six distinct orientations
toward privacy: biological, developmental-learning, inter
personal, social-normative, ecological, and functional.
Many of the theories to be reviewed are multi-dimensional
in conceptualization and thus overlap these somewhat arbi
trary classifications. Those theories which, however, as
sume either a biological causation (genetic) or a mediating
biological process (e.g. arousal) are classified as biolog
ical regardless of the presence of learning or social fac
tors in the theories. Theories which are constructed on
learning principles or life-cycle maturation changes are
identified as developmental. Only those theories which
emphasize the regulatory nature of privacy as a process
involving adjustments of self-boundaries to permit various
levels of contact with others are included within the inter
personal category. Where the institutional nature of pri
vacy is central to a theory, it is distinguished as


72
Table 4.
Regression of Privacy MDS Dimensions on
Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Dimension RSQ
Stepwise
Solution
1
2*
3
4
5
MRSQ
2
. 1031
(1)
. 0912
(2)
. 2031
3
. 1061
(1)
. 0193
(3)
. 0962
(2)
. 2391
4
. 1441
(1)
. 0093
(3)
. 1373
(2)
0033
(4)
. 3121
5
. 1601
. 0173
. 1971
0103
003 3
. 4061
*Dimension 2 is defined by distinct attributes in solution
2 versus solutions 3, 4 and 5.
1p<.05
2p<.10
3p>.10


THE PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING ANALYSIS
BY
GREGORY H. WILMOTH
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1980


Taoie 1U.
Reserve MDS Dimensions Correlated with Defining Attributes
(Two and Five Dimensional Solutions)
Dimension
Item #
DIMENSIONAL LABEL / Item
2-Dim
r
5-Dim
r
1
SELF-DISCLOSURE
32
actor is self-revealing
-.66
-. 60
36
feelings due to self
. 59 2
. 463
2
SOCIAL DENSITY
1
19
too many people for space
-,84r
.83,
16
actor is visible
-.81,
.69,
40
actor feels claustrophobic
-.797
.78,
7
others are too close
-71|
.677
28
too little privacy
-. 70;:
.82,
39
actor is solitary
. 66 ,
-.507
33
others interfere with actor
-.66,
74i
22
actor feels anxious
-.66^
.76,
38
crowded
. 612
.697
29
feelings caused by presence of others
.707
10
actor is free to be self
-.64
24
actor feels intruded upon
.62z
3
SHAME
1
5
actor's behavior is shameful
-.777
23
situation is public
-.727
26
situation is impersonal
-. 652
4
SITUATIONAL ATTRIBUTION OF EMOTIONS
I
25
actor's feelings due to situation
-.907
34
situation is largely psychological
75g
8
actor's behavior is against the rules
- 68X
5
EMPATHY
15
others understand how actor feels
-.60
1p<.05
2p<.10
3p>.10


51
were salient to distinct groups of children. Wolfe and
Laufer (1974) interpreted this finding as indicating that
while the notion of control may be central to meanings of
privacy, the behaviors over which control is incorporated
into the meaning of privacy vary between groups.
A study (Harmon & Betak, 1974) of privacy constructs
related to housing showed that the value of privacy was in
controlling intrusion from neighbors. An analysis of these
privacy constructs led to the conclusion that freedom of
choice was a superordinate construct unifying the privacy
constructs. A major concern elicited from elderly res-
dents about neighborhood designs was the privacy concern
for autonomy or freedom of choice over involvement with
children in particular (Steinfeld, 1973). Finally, sub
jects in a privacy versus non-privacy condition reported
feeling more freedom (Edney & Buda, 1976; and Bower, 1978)
and control (Bower, 1978).
The conceptualization of privacy remains a crucial is
sue. The choice of one definition rather than another re
sults in different theories, programs of research, and em
pirical results. As a first attempt at clarifying this is
sue, two types of definitions are considered: formal and
subjective. Formal definition is one which consists of a
set of properties external to the organism. The occurrence
of this set of properties constitutes an instance of the
referent. The definition of reinforcement in behaviorism


165
Table 26continued.
*The test-retest was conducted using privacy situa
tion #301 as the situation being rated.
**When r_<.4 5 then p<.001; when r£.36 then p<.01;
when r<.26 then p>.05, (n=42)7


66
respectively. Partially for this reason, this dimension
is not interpreted as privacy.
What is desired is a construct which encompasses all
of these attributes without contradiction or exception. A
careful, detailed examination of the attributes varying
along this dimension suggests such a construct. As one ap
proaches the end of the dimension anchored by anonymity,
solitude, and freedom to be oneself, the following changes
occur: other's knowledge of self decreases, one's visibil
ity decreases, one's self-revealingness decreases, other's
understanding of one's feelings decreases, one's trust of
others decreases, one's guardedness over what is said de
creases, and the extent to which one's feelings are caused
by others decreases. Moving away from this anchor point,
anonymity or ignorance of one's identity (both name and self
hood) decreases, solitude or withdrawal from others de
creases, and freedom to be oneself (interpreted here as
spontaneity) decreases. These processes suggest a movement
toward or away from engaging others and being involved with
others. This dimension is, therefore, interpreted and la
beled as "Interpersonal Involvement."
The fourth dimension shares three attributes (#4, #24,
and #40) with the first dimension. The polar opposite of
these attributes is, however, different in the two dimen
sions. Only "the actor wants to escape" (r=.32, p=.04) is
significantly correlated to this dimension. The attributes,


32
Sommer (1966) has distinguished two strategies of ter
ritorial defense to protect privacy or attain privacy:
avoidance and offensive display. In task situations free
dom from distraction can be attained either by being phys
ically removed from others (avoidance) or by laying effec
tive claim to a large work area (offensive display). At
library study tables, the avoidance strategy for privacy
resulted in a significantly greater choice of end chairs
at tables. Chairs at the middle of tables were chosen more
for the offensive display strategy. The avoidance strategy
was used more than offensive displays. Sommer hypothesized,
but did not test, that the effectiveness of the offensive
display strategy decreases as social density and size of
the area claimed increases.
Barriers to interaction are defensive territorial mark
ers; fencing is an example of this territorial strategy.
Marshall (1974) found that persons scoring high on the PPS
Reserve subscale had a greater amount of fencing around
their homes.
Within the home, Rosenblatt and Budd (1975) obtained
differences in the use of territory for privacy between mar
ried and unmarried couples. Unmarried couples were signif
icantly more likely than married couples to have an area
within their residence for being alone. Married couples,
however, had more separate storage areas than unmarried
couples.


19
social identity. The interpersonal, environmental, and
psychological conditions conducive to self-disclosure are
the same as those for the privacy state of intimacy (Der-
lega & Chaikin, 1977). Solitude, anonymity, and reserve
all function to conceal knowledge about the self. Jourard
(1966) notes that solitude and anonymity conceal behavioral
knowledge about the self while reserve (the opposite of
self-disclosure?) conceals psychological (attitudes, in
tentions, emotions, etc.) knowledge from others. Self-
disclosure is championed (Jourard, 1971) as the cure to
isolation (forced privacy) and alienation whereas privacy
is championed (Jourard, 1966) as the cure to constant pub
lic scrutiny and alienation.
Altman's (1975) theory of privacy owes a heavy intel
lectual debt to Jourard's self-disclosure work. Altman and
Taylor (1973) expanded the self-disclosure process into a
'social penetration' process. Privacy emerges as the su
preme self-other interpersonal boundary-regulation process
(Altman, 1975). An important aspect of Altman's theory is
his contention that privacy is a dialectic process, as op
posed to a personal disposition or situational contingency.
As a boundary-regulation process, privacy is a constantly
shifting balance between being accessible to others (so
cial penetration) and being closed to others (privacy).
This shifting balance manifests the inherent nature of pri
vacy toward optimization. The individual desires a specific


2
determinants and consequences. Given these circumstances
surrounding privacy, it seems appropriate to undertake an
empirical investigation of the dimensions underlying the
experiencing of privacy as a first step toward a more sys
tematic understanding of an increasingly important concept.
Such an endeavor would also provide a set of parameters to
be manipulated in future research as well as possibly sug
gesting a taxonomy of privacy situations.
The complexity of the concept has been noted by
Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1970) and others (see
Laufer, Proshansky & Wolfe, 1973; and Wolfe, 1978). An es
sential, preliminary issue concerns this complexity: Is
privacy as defined by sociologists, anthropologists, polit
ical scientists, and social and environmental psychologists
one concept or many?
The myriad definitions of privacy can be categorized
into three types. One category of definition centers around
the concept of information flow. Control or choice freedom
is the focal element of a second definitional type. The
third type defines privacy within the context of normative
constructs.
Definitions of Privacy
Westin (1967, p. 30) defined privacy as "the right of
the individual to decide what information about himself


113
Density increases and Normativeness increases, privacy de
creases .
According to this model, solitude and anonymity occupy
relatively the same location (low) on the Interpersonal In
volvement dimension. The defining attribute structure for
this dimension locates both types of privacy at the low end
of the dimension. Remembering, however, that the solitude
situations have truncated privacy scale values at the high
end of privacy and the anonymous situations have truncated
values at the low end of the privacy scale, another dimen
sion is required to explain these divergent privacy scores.
This discriminating dimension is the Social Density dimen
sion. Being anonymous is at the high end of Social Density
while solitude is characterized by low Social Density. The
Normativeness dimension adds another source of perceived
privacy variance. The less normative the behavior occur
ring in solitary and anonymous situations, the more that
privacy is perceived.
In contrast to solitude and anonymity, intimacy is
characterized by high Interpersonal Involvement. Intimacy
is similar to solitude in that it is hypothesized to be low
on Social Density. One factor hypothesized to cause inti
macy to be rated across a wide range of perceived privacy
values is the Normativeness of the intimate behavior. But
this is not expected to account for all or even most of the
variance in privacy scores for intimacy. The model becomes


48
disclose more than men, they in fact do disclose more and
the content of this increased disclosure exposes their weak
nesses (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). The content of men's
self-disclosure consists more of information attesting to
their strengths. Social dominance by men is manifest both
by the amount (less) and content of their self-disclosure.
When one person or group knows more about another person or
group, that person or group is in a position to influence
or exploit the other.
Control over when, where, how and by whom one's body
is touched is another form of privacy. Research shows that
a touched person is more likely to be of a lower occupa
tional status than the toucher (Henley, 1973). Another
instance of male dominance and privacy is the finding that
men initiate touch with females more than vice versa (Hen
ley, 1973a). If increasing age confers increasing status,
it is consistent that a touched person is younger than the
toucher (Henley, 1973). Henley (1974) concluded that
personal information flows opposite to the chain of author
ity. The prerogative of eliciting personal information,
however, is in line with the authority hierarchy (Kelvin,
1973).
Kelvin (1973) theorized that perceived privacy de
creases as one's vulnerability increases. The perception
of vulnerability increases with the power differential be
tween the self and the other. The specific information


79
while the other compares it against norms. These attri
butes are "the actor's behavior is shameful" (r=.78, p=
.01); and "the actor's behavior is against the rules" (r=
.77, p=.01). One interpretation is that the actor's behav
ior in intimate situations is discriminated along a con
tinuum of being shameful apparently in association with
the degree to which the behavior conforms to the rules.
This dimension is therefore interpreted as "Normativeness."
Given that people can discriminate situations which
are intimate along a number of dimensions, which of these
dimensions or combination of dimensions is most related to
the perception of privacy? The correlations (see Table 7)
between the dimensional coordinates of each intimacy situ
ation and their privacy scale score indicate that only the
first dimension is significantly correlated (r=.725, .747,
and .770 respectively, p=.01) with the privacy scores. The
direction of this relationship is such that as the situation
becomes more personal the perception of the amount of pri
vacy present increases. Regression analyses (see Table 8)
further show that the Personal-Impersonal dimension pre
dicts over 50 percent of the variance in privacy scale
scores. The addition of the second dimension results in
neither a significant multivariate F nor a substantial in
crease in the variance accounted for. In spite of the
strength and clarity of the second dimension, it plays lit
tle role in the perception of privacy. The same is true of


93
subjects discriminate solitary situations is how pleasant
and stressful they are. One extreme of solitary occasions
is those that are uncomfortable, stressful, and produce
anxiety and feelings of vulnerability. The other extreme
is simply the opposite of these affective states.
Another aspect of this complex dimension is indicated
by three attributes which are (1) the actor is free to
be self (r=-.75, p=.0002); (2) the actor is in control of
events (r=-.74, p=.0002); and (3) the actor feels intruded
upon (r=.47, p=.04). This component constitutes a continu
um from being free, in control, and not intruded upon to
being constrained, not in control, and being intruded upon.
The latter extreme logically terminates the solitary state.
Two attributes anchor a third facet of this dimension.
At one end the actor's feelings are not due to the self
(r=-.50, p=.02) while at the other terminus the actor's
feelings are due to the situation (r=.51, p=.02). It seems
consistent that if the actor's feelings are due to self then
the actor's attention will be focused on self (r=-.55,
p-.Ol) with the opposite true when the actor's feelings are
due to the situation.
Conceptually related are three attributes bearing on
the knowledge others have about the actor. These attributes
are (1) no one knows the actor, he/she is anonymous (r=
-.56, p=.01); (2) the actor is self-revealing (r=.48, p=
.03); and (3) another knows the actor's thoughts and


160
Table 24.
Unique Variables Remaining After the Factor Analysis
of Potential Defining Attributes
Item #*
Item
actor voluntarily exposes self
20 trusts others present
no communication between actors
17 actors are intimate
36 feelings due to self
actor does not feel involved
would not want others to know what they are doing
or thinking
actor is aloof
actor is intruding on another
12 actor is anonymous
28 too little privacy
9 situation is largely physical
many options available
18 familiar
actor is distracted
actor does not feel they belong
8 actor is behaving against the rules
14 too much social stimulation
25 feelings due to situation
others have access to actor
actor's talk or action is confidential
occurs over a long period of time
feels hostile
actor's feelings are unique
actor is withdrawing
no one bothering actor
feel like an outsider
29 feelings caused by presence of others
2 situation is unpredictable
actor is screening out others
situation is social
actor is concealed
14 situation is largely psychological
*Indicates the item number in the final forty defining at
tributes used in Phase 3; no number means that the item
was not included in Phase 3.


55
3. the selective control to which others encroach
upon one's life (personal control), Proshansky,
Ittelson & Rivlin (1970);
4. the selective control of information communicated
about self (reserve) Jourard (1966) Westin (1967) ,
and Chaikin and Derlega (1977);
5. a situation in which the person is an outsider or
unknown to others (anonymous), Westin (1967);
6. a situation of desired physical and/or psycholog
ical immediacy between two or more people (inti
macy) Westin (1967);
7. a situation in which one is free from observation,
Shaw (1980) ;
8. a situation characterized by perceived adequacy
of space, Bechtel (1977), Sommer (1966), and
StokoIs (19 72) ;
9. the amount of information one person possesses
about another.
Other conditions have been posited as leading to the desire
for privacy. An example is the enactment of anti-normative
behaviors (Kelvin, 1973) The study of the variables con
ducive to eliciting a desire for privacy is, however, an
other issue from the investigation of the perception of pri
vacy. But, although theoretically there should be a syste
matic relationship between the two sets of variables, but


162
As a result of these considerations, forty items (see
Table 26) were finally selected. Two items ("situation is
sexual" and "actor's behavior is shameful") were not in the
original item pool factor analyzed but were added as poten
tially interesting. Sexual behavior was mentioned in sev
eral of the experimental stimuli (privacy situations).
Furthermore, ritual privacy as described by Laufer, Pro-
shansky and Wolfe (1973) includes sexual behavior.
Schneider (1977) has argued the relationship between shame
and privacy.
Defining Attribute Procedure
In order to identify and label the dimensions result
ing from the MDS analysis, an independent sample of forty-
five students (twenty-five males and twenty females) rated
each privacy situation used in the MDS phase on all forty
defining attribute items. Subjects participated for par
tial fulfillment of the course requirements for an intro
ductory psychology class. Subjects were tested in same-
sex groups of ten. The data from three subjects were elim
inated due to incorrectly completing the task.
Each subject was presented a booklet containing forty-
one pages. Each page contained one privacy situation fol
lowed by the forty defining attributes. A ten-point Likert-
type response format was used (see the description of the


75
(r=-.73, p=.025); (4) the situation is largely psycholog
ical (r=.72, p=.03); (5) the actor feels comfortable (r=
-.68, p=.05); and (6) others understand how the actor feels
(r=-.67, p=.05). The most salient attribute continuum along
which subjects discriminate intimacy situations is the de
gree to which the interpersonal interaction is personal or
impersonal. An interpretation of this personal-impersonal
dimension is suggested by three attributes. The more the
actor is self-revealing and the more others understand the
actor's feelings the more personal is the situation. Dis
closing feelings and having others understand one's feel
ings makes the situation more psychological rather than
mundane. Interaction is mundane to the extent that it fo
cuses on task or external content. Apparently a prominent
affect accompanying this personal-impersonal dimension is
emotional comfort. Felt comfort decreases along this di
mension as the situation becomes more personal. The extent
to whicn the situation (the other's behavior and one's ov/n?)
is predictable increases as the interaction becomes more
personal. This interpretation of the attribute loadings
and combination suggests that an appropriate labeling of
this dimension is "Personal-Impersonal."
Only two attributes correlate significantly with the
second dimension of the two-dimensional solution. These
are "the situation is familiar" (r=.98, p=.0001) and "the
actors' feelings are caused by the presence of others"


97
focused on self (r=-.38, p=.10). All of these attributes
are significantly related to the first dimension. This di
mension is, therefore, considered undefined. No specula
tion concerning the co-occurrence of these attributes on
this dimension is offered.
The third dimension is better, although not clearly,
defined. Three attributes mark this dimension: (1) the
situation is familiar (r=.50, p=.03); (2) the actor trusts
others present (r=-.49, p=.03); and (3) the actor is self-
revealing (#32, r=-.46, p=.04). Two additional attributes
are marginally significant, "the actor's feelings are due
to the situation" (#16, 4=-.43, p=.06) and "the actor is
visible" (r=-.42, p=.06). Attributes #32 and #16 also de
fine the first dimension. Since some of these attributes
are anomalies, this dimension is left undefined. If the
actor is solitary then there should be no one available to
trust and no one to whom to be visible. The attributes as
sociated with this dimension are identical to those asso
ciated with this dimension of the five dimensional solu
tion, with the second dimension of the two-dimensional so
lution, and with the third dimension of the four-dimen
sional solution. These other solutions, therefore, do not
aid in the interpretation of this dimension.
Given the complexity and nebulousness of the solitude
dimensions, it is not unexpected that none of these dimen
sions are significantly related to the privacy scale scores


102
variance or idiosyncratic-subject-error variance. Second,
privacy may be such a diffuse construct that many more than
six dimensions are necessary. One line of evidence arguing
against the error variance alternative is the substantial
goodness of fit for the dimensions when the intimacy situa
tions are analyzed separately. Supporting the second al
ternative explanation is the high number of dimensions re
sulting for the individual types of privacy which are dis
tinct from those dimensions found for privacy as a whole.
These unique and shared dimensions are explicated next.
Four dimensions best depict the intimacy data. Of
these four (Personal-Impersonal, Familiarity, Undefined,
and Normativeness) only the Normativeness dimension is one
of the privacy dimensions. It is hypothesized, however,
that the Personal-Impersonal dimension is a special case
or subset of the Interpersonal Involvement privacy dimen
sion. The attributes defining the Personal-Impersonal di
mension constitute a reasonable subset of the Interpersonal
Involvement defining attributes.
A five-dimensional solution is chosen as the most ac
curate model for reserve. The Social Density dimension is
present in both the privacy and reserve solutions. Two of
the reserve dimensions, namely Self-Disclosure and Empathy,
again are speculated to be special, partial components of
the Interpersonal Involvement dimension. The shared items
between these dimensions add credence to this hypothesis.


39
The salient meanings of privacy changed frequently
between years five and seventeen. Five meanings were sa
lient at all these ages: alone, doing what you want with
out being bothered, quiet, alone with somebody, and con
trolling access to information. These correspond to sol
itude, control, task privacy, intimacy, and reserve. The
most salient dimension at age five is quiet. Controlling
access to spaces, being away from people, doing and think
ing alone, and no one bothering me were not given by five-
year-olds but were given by older children. The most sa
lient meaning at age seven was 'controlling information.'
The salience of controlling interaction (being alone when
you want to) as a privacy meaning occurred for all ages
nine and above. Controlling individual activity, i.e.
autonomy (being able to do what you want) is a salient mean
ing for children eleven and older.
The age points at which the salience for various mean
ings change vary by specific meaning. The increase for
the salience of 'no one bothering me' occurs between ages
seven and nine, (2) for 'alone' between seven and eleven,
and (3) for 'controlling access to information' between
thirteen and seventeen. 'Controlling access to information'
decreased from age seven to thirteen and 'controlling access
to spaces' decreased between eleven and thirteen.
Comparing the salience of alternative meanings across
age groups revealed a complex pattern of results.


15
patterns. The priorities awarded to privacy and interac
tion within the home are influenced by these activity pat
terns. The desires for specific types of privacy, there
fore, are a function of family-cycle stages. Family life-
cycle stage interacts with dwelling size and arrangement,
family size, and occupational status of the parents.
Six dimensions of development relevant to privacy were
identified by Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973). The
first of these, ego development, concerns itself with de
velopment of independence and autonomy. Both behaviors in
volve the individual's volition of freedom to choose being
alone versus being a member of a group. Coping with forced
aloneness (isolation), chosen aloneness (solitude), being a
stranger (anonymity), forced intimacy (invasion of privacy),
and chosen intimacy are all developmental tasks in the ma
turation of independence, autonomy, and interpersonal inter
dependence .
Aging from infancy to adulthood inherently transfers
the individual through different roles imposing different
demands and requirements. New concepts and patterns of pri
vacy are defined by the changing role requirements. New
modes of privacy which accompany increased status must be
added to the individual's behavioral repertoire.
In addition to the socially structured behaviors of
roles, other activities and environments change through the


149
Table 21continued.
46
4 7
"4 8
"4 9
"50
"51
'52
"53
"54
"55
"56
"57
"58
"5 9
"60
'61
'62
'6 3
'64
"6 5
'6 6
'67
"68
'69
"7 0
'll
72
"7 3
"74
"7 5
"76
'll
IS
19
'8 0
81
8 2
8 3
'84
8 5
8 6
8 7
8 8
89
90
actor is revealing
actor is concealed
actor has to fight for what he/she wants
situation is largely psychological
actor does not feel free to do as he/she chooses
actor(s) voluntarily exposes self to others
trusts others present
actor feels powerful
pleasant
feels stress
actor(s) is self-revealing
no communication between actors
situation is public
too much going on around actor
actor(s) is willing to talk about self
others interfere with or block actor
actor(s) is physically separated from others
actors are intimate
feels helpless
feelings due to self
feels tranquil
attention is focused on self
actor does not feel involved
actor(s) is under surveillance
actor(s) feels at ease/relaxed
would not want others to know what they are doing
or thinking
actor is aloof
actor is intruding on another
actor(s) is anonymous
too little privacy
actor(s) is careful about what they say
actor(s) is secluded
actor feels distressed
situation is largely physical
feels vulnerable
confronted with too many inputs
feels at one with surroundings
many options available
actor wants to escape
too much physical stimulation
familiar
feels under scrutiny
other's actions toward actor are intentional
actor(s) is distracted
no one knows actor


Table 23continued
Factor 3
ANONYMOUS
undetected
no one knows actor


52
is such a formal definition. Jourard's (1966) conceptual
ization of privacy as an informational outcome state exist
ing between interactants is another formal definition. Any
condition which changes the informational flow between two
individuals would be a variable impacting privacy. Poten
tially independent of this informational exchange is the
person's emotional experience of 'privacy.' A subjective
definition, therefore, is one whose referent is some inter
nal state of the organism, in this case an emotional state
associated with the linguistic label--'privacy.' It is sub
jective precisely in the sense that the meaning of the lex
eme associated with the emotional state changes with age
(Wolfe & Laufer, 1974) and across culture (Roberts & Gregor
1971) and history (Flaherty, 1972).
The types of theories required to deal with subjective
privacy must address both meaning and learning. A theory
of meaning should provide an explanation of the semantic
components of the referent 'privacy.' Such a theory should
locate the concept within a semantic domain at a specified
level of hierarchical inclusion. Privacy is not an iso
lated concept but rather one within an interlocking network
of concepts. Using the lexeme 'woman' as an example, woman
which is a unit in the domain 'humans,' is an adult and a
female of the species. Evidence already exists demonstrat
ing that the meaning of privacy changes with age (Wolfe &
Laufer, 1974). This suggests that some aspect (either


87
Dimension 3 has two attributes with significant corre
lations. They are "the actor's behavior is shameful" (r=-.77,
p=.02), and "the situation is public" (r=-.72, p=.03). An
other attribute, "the situation is impersonal" (r=-.65, p=
.059) is marginally significant. These attributes are con
sistent with Schneider's (1977) conception of shame, thus
this dimension is labeled as "Shame."
The fourth dimension of the five-dimensional solution
is defined by three attributes: (1) the actor's feelings
are due to the situation (r=.90, p=.001); (2) the situation
is largely psychological (r=-.75), p=.02); and (3) the ac
tor's behavior is against the rules (r=-.68, p=.05). This
dimension seems to best represent the level of situationally
motivated feelings. At one end of the continuum character
istics of the situation largely influence the actor's emo
tions while at the other extreme of the continuum the ac
tor's emotions are mostly unrelated to characteristics of
the situation. Along this same dimension but in the oppo
site direction is the degree to which the situation is psy
chological. The more the actor's feelings are due to sit
uational contingencies the less psychological is the situa
tion. Similarly the more the actor's feelings are due to
the situation the less the actor's behavior is against the
rules. The conjunction of these attributes suggests the
actor is making an attribution of external causation for
his/her emotions. This dimension, therefore, is interpreted
as "Situational Attribution of Emotions."


21
motivations for privacy other than the concealment of self
such as task completion, restoration of sleep, etc. The
principles governing and dimensions of Altman's privacy
should be more numerous, diverse, and complex than those
applying to Jourard's privacy.
Social-Normative Theories
An emphasis on motivational states in explaining pri
vacy suffers from the danger of not seeing the wider so
cial matrix in which both motivation and privacy exist.
In spite of the proof of individual differences, most behav
ior is predictable from knowing the social group to which a
person belongs and the social situation in which that per
son is found. Privacy, as a form of social behavior, is
theorized to be structured and institutionalized like other
social behaviors. This normative theoretical perspective
is exemplified by Schwartz (1968), Kelvin (1973), and Pas-
talan (1970.
Social life is a constant flow into contact with others
and ebbs from such contact. This ebb and flow is all of a
single whole. Just as social interaction is governed by in
stitutionalized expectations (norms), so social withdrawal
is also guided by norms (Schwartz, 1968). Norms for privacy
function identically as do norms for social interaction:
to stabilize the social order. These norms stabilize the
social order in two ways: (1) one set of norms prescribe
what behaviors must be performed in private thereby


150
Table 21--continued.
91 actor does not feel he/she belongs
92 other is cold
93 actor is behaving against the rules
94 too much social stimulation
95 feelings due to situation
96 feelings are shared by others
97 feels anxious
98 feels angry
99 feels comfortable
100 actor does not know how to act


136
the highest scale value was one of the three. A Q-value
of three was obtained for twenty-six situations while two
situations had Q-values of 3.25. Thirty-three additional
situations had a Q-value of four.
Although thirty-four privacy situations were of the
type 'solitary,' only one solitary situation had a Q-value
of two or less and that situation had the highest of all
scale values. Of nine situations in which the actor was
anonymous, three had Q-values of two or less. Six of
seventeen reserved situations had Q-values of two or be
low. While no situation involving intimacy possessed a
Q-value below two, seven of eighteen such situations had
a Q-value of two.
Construction of the MDS Stimulus Set
The information resulting from the studies described
above provided the basis for selecting items used as the
MDS experimental stimuli. Construction of the MDS stimulus
set conformed to seven decision criteria:
1. the proportion of MDS items representing each of
Westin's (1967) privacy types coincided with the
proportions determined in the open-ended privacy
collection study;
items were selected which had the lowest Q-values
within each of the remaining criteria;
2.


REFERENCES
Altman, Irwin. Privacy: A conceptual analysis. In Daniel
Carson (Ed.), Man-environment interactions: Evalua
tions and applications, Part II (6). Stroudsburg, Pa.:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Altman, Irwin. The environment and social behavior: Pri
vacy, personal space, territory, crowding. Monterey,
Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1975.
Altman, Irwin. Privacy: A conceptual analysis. Environ
ment and Behavior, 1976, !3, 7-29.
Altman, Irwin. Privacy regulation: culturally universal
or Culturally specific? Journal of Social Issues,
1977, 33, 66-84.
Altman, I. & Taylor, D. Social penetration: The develop
ment of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Attneave, F. A method of graded dichotomies for the scal
ing of judgements. Psychological Review, 1949, 56,
334-340.
Barker, R.G. Ecological psychology. Stanford: Stanford
University Press, 1968.
Bates, Alan. Privacy: A useful concept? Social Forces,
1964, 42, 432-437.
Bechtel, G. Personal communication, 1979.
Bechtel, Robert. Enclosing behavior. Stroudsburg, Pa.:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1977.
Bennett, Chester. What price privacy. American Psycholo
gist, 1967, 22, 371-376.
Berardo, Felix. Marital invisibility and family privacy.
In Daniel Carson (Ed.), Man-environment interactions:
Evaluations and applications, Part II (6). Strouds
burg Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Berscheid, Ellen. Privacy: A hidden variable in experimen
tal social psychology. Journal of Social Issues, 1977,
33, 85-101.
175


26
Ecological Theory of Privacy
Ecological psychology (Barker, 1968) integrates the
constructs of norms and roles into the built environment.
Behavior settings are defined by K-21 (Wicker, 1979) scores
which measure various aspects (penetration and autonomy are
two) of the normative role patterns in specifiable spacio-
temporal sites. Behavior programs are the particular role
action patterns of a behavior setting.
Bechtel (1977) has applied ecological theory to the
discussion of privacy. Behavior settings require boun
daries to control access of others and outside stimulation
which would disrupt the setting's behavior program. The
determinants of privacy needs are the characteristics of
the specific behavior program. Requirements for privacy
vary with each different behavior program. Anything that
interrupts or influences the enactment of a behavior pro
gram is an invasion of privacy. This is usually some ex
traneous source of stimulation which interferes with task
performance.
Vulnerability and a lack of privacy exist when the pen
etration and autonomy levels of a behavior setting are too
low. Penetration is the amount of population interdepen
dence across settings. A low penetration score indicates
that many people other than those enacting the behavior pro
gram enter that behavior setting. The autonomy score mea
sures the amount of decision making possessed by those


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
ABSTRACT vii
CHAPTER
I INTRODUCTION 1
Definitions of Privacy 2
Theories of Privacy 7
Biological Theories 8
Developmental-Learning Theories .... 14
Interpersonal Theories 18
Social-Normative Theories 21
Ecological Theory of Privacy 26
Functional Theories of Privacy 27
Research on Privacy 29
Measures of Privacy 30
Research Related to Biological
Theories 31
Developmental Research 37
Research on Interpersonal Theories of
Privacy 45
Research Related to Social-Normative
Theories 47
Research on Functional Theories of
Privacy 50
II METHOD 57
Phase 1 57
Phase 2 58
Phase 3 59
III RESULTS 61
Multidimensional Privacy Results 62
Multidimensional Intimacy Results 73
Multidimensional Reserve Results 82
Multidimensional Solitude Results 91
v


5
in the word "privacy." Rather than attempting to define
privacy, they have worked at identifying the types of phe
nomenon subsumed under this multi-dimensional concept.
Westin (1967) preceded them in this multi-dimensional per
spective. Westin's four categories of privacy are solitude,
anonymity, reserve, and intimacy. Solitude exists when a
person is alone and free from observation. Anonymity oc
curs when a person is in a public place with others present
but none of these others know his identity. Reserve is both
the selective control over information about self communi
cated to others and the selective attention to others' com
munications. Intimacy is a state in which two or more per
sons are in a situation of solitude from the observation of
others. Intimacy may be thought of as group solitude.
Proshansky, Ittelson and Rivlin (1970) have noted that
Westin's types of privacy are not defined by the same di
mensions .
Nine analytic dimensions of privacy were defined by
Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973), only three of which
qualify as categories of privacy. The remaining six dimen
sions represent functions and processes of privacy. These
are the interaction, task, and ritual privacy dimensions.
Interaction privacy is the boundary-control process of com
ing together and withdrawing from others. Task privacy is
restricted to only those situations in which task comple
tion is enhanced by separation from others. Ritual privacy


157
Table 23.
Secondary Factor Structure for Potential Defining
Attributes Loading on Factor 1 of Initial Factor
Solution
Factor # Factor Label Item Loading
Factor 1 AFFECT AND SOURCES OF AFFECT
feels distressed .77
feels angry .76
feels helpless .75
feels stress .72
feels intruded upon .71
wants to escape .70
feels vulnerable .69
fight for what wanted .67
other interfere or block actor .63
feels claustrophobic .66
not free to do as choose .62
too many inputs .60
feels anxious .60
goals blocked .59
relaxed -.59
feels under scrutiny .58
feels comfortable -.57
people in way .56
self-image threatened .56
pleasant -.54
too much phyiscal stimulation .56
other's actions intentional .52
other is cold .52
feels uncertain .54
does not know how to act .52
Factor 2 CONTROL AND FREEDOM FROM CONSTRAINT
free to be self .69
comfortable .67
pleasant .66
one with surroundings .65
relaxed .65
feels important .64
tranquil .63
on own territory .62
feels powerful .61
in control .60
free of constraints .52


58
Describe the incident you have in mind, and your
feelings at the time, in as much detail as pos
sible. (Refer to Appendix B for complete instruc
tions .)
Forty privacy situations were selected from the 187 col
lected to serve as the experimental stimuli. These 40
situations represented: (1) all four types of privacy
(solitude, anonymity, reserve, and intimacy) and (2) the
most and least private situations for each of the four
types (refer to Appendix B for a description of this se
lection procedure).
Phase 2
Twenty males and 20 females participated in Phase
2 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an intro
ductory psychology class. Groups composed of 5 same-sex
persons working at two, two-hour sessions one week apart
completed the experimental tasks.
The experimenter explained that he was interested in
discovering what caused people to feel private. Subjects
were told that the task they were about to perform would
provide this information. Respondents were given a deck
of 4x6 cards on which were typed the experimental stimuli
(the privacy situations collected in Phase 1) and were first
instructed to familiarize themselves with the descriptions.


30
and the appropriateness of the statistical analyses are but
briefly reviewed. Conflicting findings may be due, there
fore, to a variety of operational, methodological, and an
alytic differences and inadequacies.
Measures of Privacy
A large proportion of the research in the area of pri
vacy has addressed such concerns as personality dispositions
toward privacy and attitudes about privacy. Before review
ing the literature reporting on privacy research it is nec
essary to briefly describe these personality and attitudi-
nal scales for privacy and report on their reliability and
validity.
Marshall (1972, 1974) has developed the most compre
hensive dispositional measure of privacy preferences. The
fifty-six item Privacy Preference Scale (PPS) consists of
six statistically determined factors: Intimacy, Not Neigh
boring, Seclusion, Solitude, Anonymity, and Reserve. While
no reliability level was reported for the scale as a whole,
tests of subscale (factors) item homogeneity using coeffi
cient alpha yielded reliability coefficients ranging from
.80 for Not Neighboring to .56 for Intimacy. The subscale
totals when correlated with the PPS total score ranged from
.47 (Intimacy) to .65 (Not Neighboring). The reported va
lidity for the PPS is based on its correlation with seven
teen predicted relations with behavior. Of these seventeen


108
Proshansky, Ittelson, and Rivlin (1970) and Johnson
(1974) theorize that privacy is primarily a process of con
trol or choice freedom. Privacy results from choice and
privacy enhances choice freedom. The three attributes most
directly applicable to this theory are "the actor is free
to be self," "the actor is in control of events," and "the
actor feels intruded upon." These constitute one component
of the first dimension for solitude. Their role in the ex
perience of privacy, however, receives no support. This
dimension is not related to the privacy scale scores for
solitude. Further these attributes are not defining attri
butes of the higher-order privacy dimensions. This sug
gests that while privacy may be the result of conscious con
trol and may increase choice freedom, privacy may be exter
nally imposed (solitary confinement) and decrease choice
freedom. As a result neither control nor resultant choice
freedom will be related to perceived privacy. The function
assumed by Ittelson, Proshansky, Rivlin, and Winkel (1974)
for privacy is apparently unrelated to the perception of
privacy.
The social-normative theory of Kelvin (1973) receives
much credence from the present findings. He theorizes that
privacy protects behaviors which are prohibited or con
strained by norms and that the subjective experience of
privacy increases with the anti-normativeness of the pro
tected behavior all other conditions being equal. The


42
more when it is occupied by a child of the opposite gender.
While fathers knock on daughter's bedroom doors more than
their son's door, mothers' knocking show no difference be
tween sons and daughters. The greatest increase in the per
centage of girls restricting access to the bathroom was be
tween ten and thirteen but for fathers only. The changes
for boys occurred later (fourteen to seventeen) and was di
rected toward both parents.
Not surprisingly the type of activity influences pri
vacy. The more intimate the bathroom behavior (toilet use,
bathing, dressing, and grooming), the more others are re
stricted access as the child gets older. This restriction
is applied more to parents of the opposite rather than like
gender.
Parke and Sawin (1979) compared the influence of matu
ration with house size and family size. Neither overall
household square footage nor family size were related to
the privacy measures. Family density (space divided by
family size), however, was related to the privacy measures.
As the number of bedrooms in a house increased, more chil
dren kept their bedroom doors closed. It can be hypoth
esized that parents with greater privacy preferences choose
houses with more bedrooms and encourage greater privacy be
haviors in their children. In support of this hypothesis,
the more bathrooms in a house the more likely that children
between two and nine, but not for those between ten and


170
134 We started to build the house in rural Michigan
and by September we were working on the second
story. Winter was on the way and it was raining
every day. We continued with the house through
the rain and we felt as though there was no one
else around.
135 We bought a van and fixed it for camping. We
saved our money and started our trip by driving
west. We had moved out of our apartment and put
our belongings in storage. Aside from seeing the
country, we wanted to find a place to live, some
thing different. We spent quite a bit of the trip
camping in the Rocky Mountains and most of the
spots we stayed were empty.
151 I have recently taken up skydiving and have never
experienced anything like it before. I just float
down and look around and no one is anywhere. I
am so alone and knowing that there is no way that
anyone else can get anywhere near me makes me feel
secure and completely free.
154 I spent a month in Colorado last summer and met an
unbelievable girl. We were perfect. One beauti
ful, sunny day, not a cloud in the sky, we went
on a picnic. I started driving up into the moun
tains and took my truck just off into a big field.
We ended up next to a brook and just sat in awe of
its beauty. Neither of us said a word. We just
laid out next to the brook and watched the water.
We never looked around to see if anyone was watch
ing, we just undressed and made love all afternoon.
We never talked all day, no need to when we were
talking in other ways.
301 I am with a close friend of the opposite sex whom
I have known for a long time. We are naked, alone
separately and together jointly. Two individuals
and the sum total of two individuals at one point
in time.
335 I can't remember why but I was upset about some
thing and I went out to the pier behind my house
that juts out into the river and sat there. I
looked at the stormy sky and the white caps. It
was so fitting for my mood. I have never felt
more alone than I did that afternoon. But it
wasn't bad, it was kind of beautiful.


1
"2
"3
'4
'5
'6
'7
'8
"9
"10
"11
"12
"13
"14
"15
"16
"17
"18
"19
"20
21
'22
'2 3
'24
'2 5
'26
'27
'28
'29
'30
'31
'3 2
33
'34
'35
'36
37
3 8
39
4 0
41
4 2
43
44
45
148
Table 21.
Original, Potential Defining Attributes
actor feels free to be self
actor is on their own territory
people are in actor's way
crowded
actor(s) is excluding others
must cope with too many people at one time
others have access to actor(s)
actor feels uncertain
actor's self-image is threatened
actor feels important
actor(s) feels intruded upon
actor(s) is communicating
actor's talk or action is confidential
occurs over a long period of time
feel emotionally involved
actor is solitary
situation is noisy
feels hostile
actor is visible to others
high physical density
too many people for space available
actor's goals are blocked
feel's shy
free of social constraints
others understand how actor feels
actor(s) is reserved
actor(s) insulated from others
actor is free from observation
actor's feelings are unique
actor is withdrawing from others
actor(s) talks openly about self
feels appreciated
feels claustrophobic
no one bothering actor
feel like an outsider
feelings caused by the presence of others
actor is exposed to others
situation is unpredictable
people too close to me
few people present
situation is impersonal
actor(s) is screening out others
situation is social
actor(s) is undetected
actor is in control of events


117
Affective and behavioral responses to situations and
environments are assumed to be a function of these stimuli
used by people in discriminating one situation or environ
ment from another. To the extent that these stimulus di
mensions are largely consensual or shared within a popula
tion, the identification of such dimensions should both in
crease our understanding of a concept such as privacy and
increase our predictions of peoples' privacy perception in
various situations and social environments.
In order to conduct an MDS study, three components are
required. These include the experimental stimuli, similar
ity-dissimilarity ratings, and stimulus dimensions identi
fication. An overview with supporting theoretical assump
tions will be provided for each.
The experimental stimuli should be characterized by
two qualities: free of theoretical bias and encompassing
extremes of the variable under study (Schopler, 1980).
First, the experimental stimuli should not reflect any the
oretical predilections of the experimenter. Experimental
stimuli constructed according to some theoretical paradigm
are subject to overdetermination. The manipulation of
sets of stimuli by the experimenter in creating the experi
mental stimuli predisposes the results. Any stimulus dimen
sions used by the experimenter in composing discriminable
experimental stimuli can be used for discrimination by the
subjects. The experimenter will derive exactly what he/she


100
Table 16.
Regression of Solitude MDS Dimensions
on Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Solutions
1
2
3
4
5
Stepwise
RSQ
2
.020
.143*
.165*
3
.010
.020
.081
.118
4
.013
.052
.046
.000
.122
5
.023
.036
.090
.000
.022
.160
*p>.05


High Ratings of Situations
for Dimensional Targets
Situation
Quality Desired of
Target
space*
distract
prox
observe
emot
know
com
control
anony
471
88
353
77
135
7 5a
78
013
87
78
335
76
81
462
79
84
78
033
81
89
82
391
82
82
85
031
89
77
80
83
86
041
79
85
053
81
78
82
151
88
81
81
405
84
89
75
032
77
72
80
035
77
78
78
051
86
89
80
024
82
78
86
70
301
79
79
82
77
341
78
85
77
73
482
88
90
82
82
021
86
79
87
90
85
433
86
85
77
80
78
455
84
81
84
88
81
154
78
83
85
79
77
*Explanation of abbreviations: (1) space = a situation characterized by perceived ade
quacy of space; (2) distract = absence of distraction and stimulus overload from others;
(3) prox = absence of close, physical proximity to others; (4) observe = a situation in
which one is free from observation; (5) emot = situation is characterized by close, emo
tional involvement; (6) knows = another person in the situation knows the author's ac
tions, thoughts and/or feelings; (7) com = person voluntarily communicates about self to
others; (8) control = having control over one's own behavior; and (9) anony = a situation
in which the person is an outsider or unknown to others.
140


27
enacting the behavior program. Low scores on both penetra
tion and autonomy indicate that the behavioral program is
receiving high levels of external stimulation and external
interference (decisional influence). Vulnerability results
from this inability to control external stimulation and in
terference .
The conceptual unit in ecological psychology for mea
suring privacy is not the person but rather a behavior set
ting. In the absence of physical boundaries which maintain
privacy for a behavior setting, however, psychological bar
riers must be erected by the setting's occupants to regain
privacy. Since psychological boundaries require the exer
tion of energy beyond that required for the behavior pro
gram, it is considered stressing. Boundary problems are
created by either work settings differing in behavior pro
grams of work settings unrelated in organization being too
close physically.
Functional Theories of Privacy
Proshansky, Ittelson, and Rivlin (1970) have taken a
functional, analytic approach to privacy. Their conceptual
comparison of Westin's (1967) four types of privacy resulted
in their proposition that they all share the common property
of maximizing the individual's freedom of choice by removing
social constraints. The exercise of privacy is the exercise
of power over who shall or shall not control our actions


67
Table 2.
Privacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Defining Attributes
Dimension
Item #
2
r
4
r
1
SOCIAL DENSITY
37
too much going on around -.36
CO

1
actor ^
19
too many people for space -.31
1
o
available ^
38
crowded -.30^
-.38
28
too little privacy -.26
-.34
4
24
actor feels intruded upon
-.31
4
40
actor feels claustrophobic
-.31
4
4
actor wants to escape
-.29
2(2) 1
NORMATIVENESS 3
8
actor's behavior is against 29J
.05
the rules
3
INTERPERSONAL INVOLVEMENT
12
no one knows actor, anonymous
.50
6
another knows actor's thoughts
-.41
and feelings
16
actor is visible
-.45
30
actor is solitary
.42
29
actor's feelings caused by
-.41
presence of others
32
actor is self-revealing
-.44
10
actor is free to be self
.32
13
actor is careful about they say
-.27'
15
others understand how actor
-.33
feels
20
actor trusts others present
-.34
4
PHYSICAL INVOLVEMENT
4 actor wants to escape
9 situation is largely physical
39 situation is sexual
40 actor feels claustrophobic
24 actor feels intruded upon
25 actor's feelings due to
situation
.32
-.29
-.27
+ .28
.26
co ro ro ro


144
"Having control over one's own behavior" was present
at a high degree in twelve situations. The situation (031)
in which it had the highest rating was a situation which
had high ratings on four other factors. In spite of this
fact and because of its vivid description of the desired
quality, it was chosen as the target over other situations
which had high ratings on fewer other qualities.
The non-orthogonality problem characteristic of eight
of the nine targets introduces a potential source of error
variance to the MDS analysis. To the extent that subjects
respond to a target stimulus on salient dimensions other
than the dimensions for which that target was selected, the
amount of error variance (and thus variance which is unac
counted for in the final MDS solution) increases. When a
relatively large proportion of subjects respond on the ba
sis of non-chosen and varied dimensions for the identical
target, it is analogous to a Type II error in the sense
that one accepts the null hypothesis that the dimension
for which the target was selected has no effect on sub
jects' perception of and ranking of privacy. Such a con
clusion would be in error since in fact the dimension tar
geted was inadequately operationalized (non-orthogonality
can be viewed as such as inadequate operationalization of
the construct to be measured) and tested. It is clear,
however, that several theoretically relevant conditions
conducive to the experience of privacy naturally charac
terize real-life privacy situations.


aAn underlined value indicates the situation chosen as the target for that particular
quality.
''Ratings could range from 0 to 90 summed over all ten judges,
included in this table.
Only those above 70 are


6
covers those behaviors for which there is a normative pre
scription that these be performed in nonpublic places free
of observation. Such behaviors include elimination and sex
ual acts.
Through a factor analysis of questionnaire items, Mar- #
shall (1974) identified two additional types of privacy to
those proposed by Westin (1967) These two were seclusion
and 'not neighboring.' An interpretation of the seclusion
factor suggests that it is the state of having one's ter
ritory free from the visual and auditory observation of
others. It is distinguished from solitude by its territori
al locus; solitude is privacy of the person while seclusion
is privacy of one's territory. Seclusion includes solitude
but the inverse relationship does not hold. Not neighbor
ing concerns attitudes toward selective involvement with
neighbors and norms governing visiting.
This profusion of types of privacy and the multi-dimen
sional nature of the existent definitions emphasizes the is
sue of whether privacy is one concept or many. The choice
of a single definition of privacy or selection of one of
the concepts of privacy has implications for the variables
and relationships hypothesized as essential in explaining
that phenomenon. The result could be the appearance of sev
eral seemingly conflicting theories of privacy. Any attempt
to encompass all of the different types and meanings of pri
vacy into a unitary concept will require a much more


90
Table 12.
Regression of Reserve MDS Dimensions on Privacy
Scale Values
Dimensional
Dimensions
RSQ
Stepwise
Solutions
1
2
3
4
5
MRSQ
2
.012
(2) **
.017
(1)
.029
3
.029
(3)
.055
(2)
.063
(1)
.152
4
.036
(3)
. 016
(4)
.039
(2)
.320
(1)
.404
5
.136
(3)
.025
(4)
.215
(2)
.003
(5)
.360*
(1)
.719
*p>. 05
**Designates the order in which the dimension was optimally
entered into the stepwise regression.


137
3. items having both high, medium, and low scale
values (means) were selected;
4. the maximum number of MDS items was forty both
to provide a wide diversity of privacy situations
and to restrict the experimental task to a man
ageable duration;
5. items for which males and females had signifi
cantly different scale means or variances were
included (see Table 17);
6. when several items were within one scale point
distance of one another and had nearly identical
Q-values, items were chosen which were non-redun-
dant to previously selected items in terms of lo
cation and/or activity;
7. when more than one item from criteria six re
sulted, the item was selected randomly.


Table 6.
Intimacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with Defining Attributes
(Two, Four and Five Dimensional Solution)
Dimension
I tern #
DIMENSION LABEL / Item
2-dimens
r
4-dimens
r
5-dimens
r
1
PERSONAL-IMPERSONAL
26
situation is impersonal
.87}
-.88}
-.92}
2
situation is unpredictable
.84}
-.79}
-.70}
32
actor is self-revealing to others
- 73 ?
.77}
.84}
23
situation is public
.66}
.76}
-.73}
34
situation is largely psychological
-.72 J
.71}
.69}
15
others understand how actor feels
.67J
.77}
12
no one knows actor
-. 72
2
FAMILIARITY
18
situation is familiar
.98}
.86}
.84}
29
actor's feelings caused by presence
. 8x
.68J
.72J
of others
3
UNDEFINED
23
situation is public
. 474
.384
16
actor is visible
. 574
4
ACCEPTABILITY OF BEHAVIOR
5
actor's behavior is shameful
.78}
.394
8
actor's behavior is against the rules
.77Z
. 024
5
FREEDOM
10
actor is free to be self
81I
5
actor's behavior is shameful
.68}
13
actor is careful about what they say
-. 673
}p<.005
}p<.01
¡p<.05
p> 05


142
other qualities, then the situations were compared on two
dimensions. First, how did the rating on the to-be-rated
quality compare to the other highly rated qualities? Sec
ond, how clearly and explicitly was the to-be-rated quality
expressed in the situation description? This evaluation
was a subjective one made by the experimenter. Overall,
the selection process was an iterative, successively elim
inating one.
"A situation in which the person is an outsider or un
known to others" was the only hypothesized factor repre
sented by more than one orthogonal, experimental stimuli.
Of the three privacy situations (471, 451, 441) with high
ratings on this quality, item #471 was selected as the tar
get stimuli because it had the highest rating of the three
items.
Only one situation (013) had a high rating on "situa
tion is characterized by close, emotional involvement" and
one other quality. It was therefore selected as the tar
get. "Absence of distraction and stimulus overload from
others" also had only one situation (335) with high ratings
on this quality and one other. For similar reasons, it was
chosen as the target.
Of two situations (135 and 335) with high loadings on
"a situation characterized by perceived adequacy of space"
and only one other quality, item #335 had been previously


10
essential to many animals' survival. Although animals like
the social, colonial insects (bees and ants) apparently
display no privacy, most animal species exhibit some pat
terned social withdrawal (privacy) and/or concealment of
information about their motivational state. Privacy aids
survival by reducing competition for food and reproductive
resources, by providing protection from predators, and by
concealing information about one's motivational state and
intentions from a competitor. An economic model is applied
to predict under what environmental contingencies a species
will evolve privacy behaviors. The costs of attaining and
maintaining a particular form and level of privacy must be
counterbalanced by the benefits resulting from this privacy
in order to enhance survival. Klopfer and Rubenstein (1977)
discuss several classes of contingencies in an animal's phy
sical and animate environment which govern these cost-bene
fit ratios. To the extent that privacy in humans is moti
vated by a desire for 'happiness' rather than survival, pri
vacy becomes a peculiarly human concept.
Although Mehrabian and Russell (1974) do not present a
systematic theory of privacy, their discussion of privacy
suggests certain systemic relations. They formulated a gen
eral approach to understanding the relationships of behav
ior to the environment. Between the environment and any be
havior is an emotional mediating response to the environment.
These emotional responses are in turn grounded on the


92
Table 13.
Solitude MDS Results
Dimension
Stress
RSQ
1
.513
.279
2
.356
.370
3
.274
.466
4
.224
.550
5
.189
.625
6
.164
.682


34
higher on a creativity test than those without privacy.
Rooms which were private were perceived as more stimulating
than non-private ones. Both privacy alone and the inter
action of privacy and territory increased the felt comfor
tableness of the room (Bower, 1979). Territoriality did
not affect room stimulation perception. Territory did, how
ever, increase reports of feelings of possession whereas
the privacy conditions did not. Bower (1978) replicated
this finding with the semantic differential but also found
an interaction between privacy and territoriality on seman
tic differential ratings of possession.
Hill's (1969) use of adaptation level theory relates
present privacy opportunities to perceived privacy. As ac
tual privacy opportunities decrease the preference for pri
vacy should increase with all other things being equal.
The preference for privacy increased as the number of po
tential observers passing by windows outside increased
(Hill, 1969). Marshall (1972) provided additional support
for this hypothesis. Preference for privacy scores on her
PPS scale for the total PPS, Seclusion, Solitude, and Re
serve subscales all decreased as perceived privacy within
the present home increased. Inversely, as perceived crowd
ing within the present home increased, the preference for
Reserve increased. People who perceived their present
house as too crowded (insufficient privacy) reported ob
jective conditions which indicated a lack of actual privacy


22
maintaining intact those rules which would be subverted
by public performance, and (2) a second set of norms which
guarantee privacy through describing who may observe and/
or reveal information about whom and under what highly cir
cumscribed circumstances. Authority typically has the pre
rogative and duty to intrude another's privacy when the pub
lic safety or morality is perceived to be threatened. Sur
veillance i^ legitimated, institutionalized privacy intru
sion (Schwartz, 1968). Simultaneously, authority is gener
ally immune legally from intrusion.
Privacy, as an institutionalized mode of withdrawal,
will reflect the social structure of which the norms are a
part. The set of privacy norms form subsets of norms asso
ciated with respective statuses. Both the privilege and
power to require information (intrude upon) of another are
normative aspects of the status hierarchy. Other norms in
turn govern the use of this power in order to guarantee
some level of confidentiality of the subordinate's infor
mation. To the extent that the social structure is a func
tion of the economic system, privacy will also be a luxury
restricted to those who can purchase it in the forms of se
cluded estates, butlers, answering services, etc.
Group solidarity is enhanced by privacy in two ways.
First, privacy protects self-defaming information from be
coming group knowledge which could result in expulsion or,
potentially worse, create the formation of coalitions


146
Table
20continued
371
.56
391*
.24
402
.34
405
.76
433
.29
441
.32
445
.33
451
. 32
455
.40
462*
.63
471*
.21
482
.04
.49
.00
.06
.14
.28
.03
.66
.00
.30
.07
.38
.05
.36
.04
.23
.05
.46
.01
.55
.00
.16
.20
.05
.81
*These items served as target stimuli; all reliability-
responses were based on item #033 as the target stimulus.
**Twenty-nine of forty subjects completed the reliability
item one week after their original response; eleven com
pleted the reliability item the same day.
***The significance level was computed on the reliability
of all forty cases.


This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty
of the Department of Psychology in the College of Liberal
Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was ac
cepted as partial fulfillment of the reguirements for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
August 1980
Dean, Graduate School


28
(Ittelson, Proshansky, Rivlin, & Winkel, 1974). The psy
chological experience of privacy occurs when the person
perceives and believes that he has the freedom in a given
situation to determine when and how to behave. The desire
or need for privacy arises when the individual is faced
with social constraints or limitations which prevent him
from behaving in ways appropriate to his particular pur
poses. Crowding occurs to the extent that the sheer num
ber of people present restricts freedom of choice in pur
suing one's goals. Territorial behavior is an expression
of a desire for privacy in so far as it decreases crowding
and social constraints.
A conceptual refinement of this functional approach
was provided by Johnson (1974). Freedom of choice is
equated with personal control which was distinguished into
primary and secondary control. Secondary control consists
of those behaviors which create conditions which are pre
requisites or facilitative to primary controlling behaviors
Privacy comprises those behaviors intended to establish sec
ondary control over outcomes. As such privacy does not
function to satisfy any inherent or fundamental need but
rather functions to facilitate the attainment of other
goals. Formally, Johnson defines privacy as "those behav
iors which enhance and maintain one's control over outcomes
indirectly by controlling interactions with others" (1974,
p. 90). Once freedom of choice has been exercised in the


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.
y,
Lawrence J. Severy, Chairman
Associate Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
' 1 ,C ' > 'T-c, y v Y i
Marvin E. Shaw
Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
^\ .-~\¡Acx
Scott A. Miller
Associate Professor of Psychology
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
^-yyLtnvu..
William J. Erpming
Assistant Professor of Psytajiology
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 Philospphy.
/
/
V '
Hernn Vera
Assistant Professor of Sociology


38
(Lawton & Bader, 1970) This privacy preference stabilized
after age forty. Analyses of Marshall's (1970 and 1974)
Privacy Preferency Scale (PPS) scores resulted in several
age related differences. Adults (the parents of the stu
dent respondents) had higher preferences for reserve and
not neighboring while the students had higher preferences
for solitude and intimacy. Attitudes about what content
should be private indicated that older persons are less
concerned than younger persons about others possessing
knowledge of one's interests, values, and social adjust
ment (Rosenbaum, 1973) .
Wolfe and Laufer's (1974) research substantiated the
theoretical predictions by Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe
(1973) that with maturation the concept of privacy should
become more complex and the salience of the defining attrib
utes of privacy should change. The ability to give a def
inition of privacy is a function of age, 53 percent of five-
year-olds could not give a definition even though they
could give examples of private times and places. The ma
jor shift point in this definitional ability occurred be
tween the ages of five and seven. Only 7 percent of seven-
year-olds failed to provide a definition. The complexity
of these definitions as indexed by nonredundant responses
increased with age. The greatest increase in conceptual
complexity occurred between ages eleven and thirteen.


169
053 I do not attend church on a regular basis but I
believe in God. When I pray it makes me realize
and analyze my mistakes. I do it while sleeping
in bed or rather before I sleep. No ritual is in
volved or clasp of hands. But nevertheless I like
to keep it private. First I sit and just pray.
Then I talk and try to rationalize. My parents
never hear this.
055 When my grandfather passed away I just sat in my
bed and cried. I prayed some years would be taken
from my life and given to his.
063 I have always felt the need to be private about my
dreams. One dream in particular is my dream of
being a stage star. I have always wanted to be
in movies but when I even mentioned it to friends,
the jokes would start. So I stopped saying any
thing about my desire to act, slowly I began to
keep all my desires hidden. I disliked being
laughed at, my dreams are too important.
094 I was sitting down just chatting as usual with my
mother. She just all of a sudden asked me about
my sex life. I felt a type of betrayal when her
sister joined in the conversation and interrogated
me. I felt that a person's sex life is personal
and felt hurt when asked these questions by my
mother and aunt.
114 Usually people like to look back and laugh about
situations in which they at one time felt very
stupid and embarrassed, but I won't say anything.
The reason for this is because I don't want others
to know about an event that I made a complete fool
out of myself, even if there was no harm done and
it was done for the heck of it. I get embarrassed
very easily when others find out about it.
115 It is not very easy for me to undress in front of
roommates or try a dress or a pair of pants on in
front of a saleswoman.
121 I usually do well on my grades but I feel that if
I tell people that I'm doing well then if I don't
tell them the next time how I'm doing then they
would figure I'm doing poorly. Mainly when people
ask me how I'm doing in school I give them an in
direct answer. Maybe I'm afraid of failure or
something but it's very important for me to keep
my grades secret.



PAGE 1

7+( 3(5&(37,21 2) 35,9$&< $ 08/7,',0(16,21$/ 6&$/,1* $1$/<6,6 %< *5(*25< + :,/027+ $ ',66(57$7,21 35(6(17(' 72 7+( *5$'8$7( &281&,/ 2) 7+( 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$ ,1 3$57,$/ )8/),//0(17 2) 7+( 5(48,5(0(176 )25 7+( '(*5(( 2) '2&725 2) 3+,/2623+< 81,9(56,7< 2) )/25,'$

PAGE 2

$&.12:/('*(0(176 -XVW DV IHZ LQGLYLGXDOV KDYH WKH UHTXLVLWH NQRZOHGJH DQG VNLOOV IRU VLQJOHKDQGHGO\ FRQVWUXFWLQJ D KRXVH IHZ FDQ FRPSOHWH D GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZLWKRXW DVVLVWDQFH ,Q P\ FDVH PDQ\ LQGLYLGXDOV SURYLGHG NQRZOHGJH VNLOOV ODERU DQG PRUn DO VXSSRUW )LUVW ZLVK WR DFNQRZOHGJH WKH HDJHU SDWLHQW DQG SURIHVVLRQDO JXLGDQFH DQG VXSSRUW UHQGHUHG E\ P\ FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV 'U /DZUHQFH 6HYHU\ DOZD\V RIIHUHG HQFRXUDJHn PHQW IDLWK DQG HVSHFLDOO\ PXFK QHHGHG ODWLWXGH +H JHQn XLQHO\ IDFLOLWDWHG WKH HQWLUH SURMHFW E\ KLV LQVSLUDWLRQ DQG E\ KLV WLPHO\ SURYLVLRQ RI PDWHULDOV DQG UHVRXUFHV QHHGHG WR FDUU\RXW WKH UHVHDUFK &RQFHSWXDO DQG PHWKRGRn ORJLFDO DVVLVWDQFH ZDV SURYLGHG E\ 'U 0DUYLQ ( 6KDZ 'U +HUQ£Q 9HUD UHSHDWHGO\ LQVSLUHG P\ WKLQNLQJ ZLWK KLV RULJn LQDO LQVLJKWV DQG TXHVWLRQV 'U :LOOLDP )URPLQJ HQFRXUn DJHG PH WR GHVLJQ WKH UHVHDUFK WR WHVW ZLGHU LVVXHV WKDQ SULYDF\ 'U 6FRWW 0LOOHU KHOSHG FODULI\ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH PHWKRGRORJ\ WKURXJK KLV SUDFWLFDO VSHFLILF TXHVWLRQV $ERYH DOO HOVH WKH FRPPLWWHH PHPEHUV VKRZHG SDWLHQFH DQG IDLWK LQ P\ OHVV WKDQ RUWKRGR[ H[HFXWLRQ RI WKH GLVVHUWDWLRQ 6HFRQG VSHFLDO WKDQNV DUH GLUHFWHG WR 0LFKDHO &RQOLQ DQG WKH VWDII RI &,5&$ WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD :LWKRXW

PAGE 3

0LFKDHO &RQOLQnV KXPRU SDWLHQFH DQG SURJUDPPLQJ H[SHUWLVH WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZRXOG QRW QRZ EH FRPSOHWH 7KLUG PDQ\ GHVHUYH UHFRJQLWLRQ IRU WKHLU YDOXDEOH ODn ERU 6WDUU 6LOYHU -HII (OOLRWW &KDUOHV *UHHQ 6RQMD 3HWHUVRQ 'DUOHQH 3XFNHWW DQG -LOO 6FKHSOHU DOO VHUYHG DV FRGHUV IRU RQH RU PRUH SKDVHV RI WKH UHVHDUFK 0HUFHGHV GH ORV 6DQWRV
PAGE 4

0\ VLQFHUHVW DSRORJLHV WR DQ\RQH ZKRP KDYH IRUJRWWHQ WR DFNQRZOHGJH ,9

PAGE 5

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

PAGE 6

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

PAGE 7

$EVWUDFW RI 'LVVHUWDWLRQ 3UHVHQWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO RI WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD LQ 3DUWLDO )XOILOOPHQW RI WKH 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH 'HJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ 7+( 3(5&(37,21 2) 35,9$&< $ 08/7,',0(16,21$/ 6&$/,1* $1$/<6,6 %\ *UHJRU\ + :LOPRWK $XJXVW &KDLUPDQ /DZUHQFH 6HYHU\ 0DMRU 'HSDUWPHQW 3V\FKRORJ\ 7KH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO QDWXUH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ ZDV H[SORUHG WKURXJK D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ DQDO\VLV 0'6f RI IRUW\ SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV 7KUHH GLPHQVLRQV ODEHOHG 6Rn FLDO 'HQVLW\ 1RUPDWLYHQHVV DQG ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHn PHQW ZHUH MXGJHG WR EHVW H[SODLQ SULYDF\ 7KHVH GLPHQn VLRQV LQ FRPELQDWLRQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWHG WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV RI WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV 7KH GDWD ZHUH SDUn WLWLRQHG LQWR WKUHH VHWV DFFRUGLQJ WR WKUHH W\SHV RI SULn YDF\ VLWXDWLRQV LQWLPDF\ UHVHUYH DQG VROLWXGHf DQG DQn DO\]HG 7ZR 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO DQG 1RUPDWLYHQHVVf RI IRXU GLPHQVLRQV IRXQG IRU LQWLPDF\ ZHUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHn ODWHG WR WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV $Q (PSDWK\ DQG 6HOI 'LVFORVXUH GLPHQVLRQ DORQJ ZLWK DQ 8QGHILQHG GLPHQVLRQ RI D ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ IRU UHVHUYH DFFRXQWHG IRU VHYn HQW\ SHUFHQW RI WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV DQG ZDV PDUJLQDOO\ 9OO

PAGE 8

VLJQLILFDQW 1R UHOLDEOH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ ZDV REWDLQHG IRU WKH VROLWXGH VLWXDWLRQV 7KH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO 6HOI'LVFORVXUH DQG (PSDWK\ GLPHQVLRQV GHULYHG IURP WKH SDUWLWLRQHG DQDO\VHV VKDUHG GHn ILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV ZLWK WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQn VLRQ 7KLV ZDV LQWHUSUHWHG DV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH ,QWHUn SHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ ZDV D KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ ZLWK WKUHH FRPSRQHQWV ,QWLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH ZHUH GLVWLQFW EDVHG RQ WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH FRPELQDWLRQV RI WKHVH FRPSRQHQW ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV ,QWLPDF\ ZDV IXUWKHU VSHFLILHG E\ WKH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ 7KH UHVXOWV ZHUH HYDOXDWHG DJDLQVW FXUUHQW SULYDF\ WKHn RULHV 7KH GDWD ZHUH VXSSRUWLYH RI $OWPDQnV LQWHUSHUVRQDO ERXQGDU\UHJXODWLRQ WKHRU\ DQG .HOYLQnV VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ 7KHUH ZDV OLWWOH HYLGHQFH VXSSRUWLQJ D WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ DV FRQWURO DQG FKRLFH IUHHGRP $ 8VKDSHG WKUHH GLPHQVLRQDO PRGHO FRQVLVWLQJ RI 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 1RUPDWLYHQHVV DQG ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW ZDV SURSRVHG WR H[SODLQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 7KH PRGHO VSHFLILHV WKDW ERWK KLJK ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW LQWLn PDF\f DQG ORZ ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW VROLWXGHf DUH DVn VRFLDWHG ZLWK KLJK SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ 6ROLWXGH DQG DQRQ\Pn LW\ DUH SULPDULO\ GLVWLQJXLVKHG E\ EHLQJ ORZ DQG KLJK UHn VSHFWLYHO\ RQ WKH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQVLRQ 3HUFHLYHG SULn YDF\ LQFUHDVHV DV 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GHFUHDVHV 7KH 1RUPDWLYHn QHVV GLPHQVLRQ LV VSHFXODWHG WR LQWHUDFW DGGLWLYHO\ ZLWK WKH YLLL

PAGE 9

RWKHU WZR GLPHQVLRQV $V 1RUPDWLYHQHVV RI WKH EHKDYLRU GHn VFULEHG GHFUHDVHV WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHV ,;

PAGE 10

&+$37(5 ,1752'8&7,21 3ULYDF\ KDV EHHQ SURSRVHG DV WKH FRUH LQWHJUDWLQJ FRQVWUXFW LQ HQYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ E\ $OWPDQ f 7KH FODVV RI SUR[HPLF EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGLQJ SHUVRQDO VSDFH LQWHUSHUVRQDO GLVWDQFH LPPHGLDF\ WHUULWRULDOLW\ VRFLDO GHQVLW\ DQG FURZGLQJ DUH DOO H[SODLQHG XVLQJ WKLV FRQVWUXFW %H\RQG SUR[HPLF EHKDYLRUV .HOYLQ f FRQWHQGV WKDW SULYDF\ LV D EDVLF VWDWH UHOHYDQW WR DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI VRn FLDO EHKDYLRU LQ JHQHUDO DQG FUXFLDO WR VRFLDO SV\FKRORJLFDO WKHRU\ RYHUDOO 7KH VRFLRORJLVWV *HRUJ 6LPPHO f (UYLQJ *RIIPDQ f DQG %DUU\ 6FKZDUW] f DOO FRQFHSWXDOL]H SULYDF\ DV WKH LQKHUHQW FRXQWHUSDWWHUQ WR VRn FLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ 7KH nULJKW WR SULYDF\n ZKLFK LV FRQVLGn HUHG D IXQGDPHQWDO YDOXH WR GHPRFUDF\ LV DQ LQFUHDVLQJO\ DGGUHVVHG WRSLF LQ SROLWLFDO VFLHQFH DQG LV D IRFDO FRQFHUQ DPRQJ WKRVH VWXG\LQJ WKH VRFLRSROLWLFDO LPSDFW RI LQIRUPDn WLRQ WHFKQRORJLHV 3DFNDUG 0LOOHU 5XOH 0F$GDP 6WHDUQV t 8JORZ DQG :HVWLQ f ,Q VSLWH RI SULYDF\nV FHQWUDO SRVLWLRQ LQ $OWPDQnV f FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG VRFLDO EHKDYLRU DQG LWV LPSRUWDQFH ZLWKLQ VRFLRORJ\ DQG SRn OLWLFDO VFLHQFH WKHUH LV UHPDUNDEO\ OLWWOH DJUHHPHQW RQ WKH GHILQLWLRQ RI SULYDF\ DQG OLWWOH UHVHDUFK RQ LWV

PAGE 11

GHWHUPLQDQWV DQG FRQVHTXHQFHV *LYHQ WKHVH FLUFXPVWDQFHV VXUURXQGLQJ SULYDF\ LW VHHPV DSSURSULDWH WR XQGHUWDNH DQ HPSLULFDO LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH GLPHQVLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ WKH H[SHULHQFLQJ RI SULYDF\ DV D ILUVW VWHS WRZDUG D PRUH V\Vn WHPDWLF XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI DQ LQFUHDVLQJO\ LPSRUWDQW FRQFHSW 6XFK DQ HQGHDYRU ZRXOG DOVR SURYLGH D VHW RI SDUDPHWHUV WR EH PDQLSXODWHG LQ IXWXUH UHVHDUFK DV ZHOO DV SRVVLEO\ VXJn JHVWLQJ D WD[RQRP\ RI SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV 7KH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH FRQFHSW KDV EHHQ QRWHG E\ 3URVKDQVN\ ,WWHOVRQ DQG 5LYOLQ f DQG RWKHUV VHH /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ t :ROIH DQG :ROIH f $Q HVn VHQWLDO SUHOLPLQDU\ LVVXH FRQFHUQV WKLV FRPSOH[LW\ ,V SULYDF\ DV GHILQHG E\ VRFLRORJLVWV DQWKURSRORJLVWV SROLWn LFDO VFLHQWLVWV DQG VRFLDO DQG HQYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJLVWV RQH FRQFHSW RU PDQ\" 7KH P\ULDG GHILQLWLRQV RI SULYDF\ FDQ EH FDWHJRUL]HG LQWR WKUHH W\SHV 2QH FDWHJRU\ RI GHILQLWLRQ FHQWHUV DURXQG WKH FRQFHSW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ IORZ &RQWURO RU FKRLFH IUHHGRP LV WKH IRFDO HOHPHQW RI D VHFRQG GHILQLWLRQDO W\SH 7KH WKLUG W\SH GHILQHV SULYDF\ ZLWKLQ WKH FRQWH[W RI QRUPDWLYH FRQVWUXFWV 'HILQLWLRQV RI 3ULYDF\ :HVWLQ S f GHILQHG SULYDF\ DV WKH ULJKW RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR GHFLGH ZKDW LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW KLPVHOI

PAGE 12

VKRXOG EH FRPPXQLFDWHG WR RWKHUV DQG XQGHU ZKDW FRQGLWLRQV 7KLV VHPLQDO GHILQLWLRQ KDV EHHQ XVHG E\ 3DVWDODQ D Ef 5REHUWV DQG *UHJRU f DQG 'HUOHJD DQG &KDLNLQ f 7KUHH NH\ HOHPHQWV RI WKLV GHILQLWLRQ LH GHFLn VLRQ DXWRQRP\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VHOI DQG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DUH FHQWUDO WR UHODWHG GHILQLWLRQV %DWHV f VWDWHG WKDW SULYDF\ LV D SHUVRQnV IHHOLQJ WKDW RWKHUV VKRXOG EH H[FOXGHG IURP D VWUXFWXUHG SRUWLRQ RI WKLV WRWDO SKHQRPHQRn ORJLFDO ILHOG 6LPLODUO\ IRU -RXUDUG f SULYDF\ LV DQ RXWFRPH RI D SHUVRQnV ZLVK WR ZLWKKROG IURP RWKHUV FHUWDLQ NQRZOHGJH DERXW KLV SDVW DQG SUHVHQW H[SHULHQFH DQG DFWLRQ DQG KLV LQWHQWLRQV IRU KLV IXWXUH )LQDOO\ %HQQHWW f GHILQHG SULYDF\ DV WKH VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 'HVSLWH WKH FRUH HOHPHQWV VKDUHG E\ HDFK RI WKHVH GHIn LQLWLRQV D XQLILHG FRQFHSW LV QHJDWHG E\ GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH RQWRORJLFDO ORFXV RI SULYDF\ ,Q :HVWLQnV SHUVSHFWLYH SULYDF\ LV D OHJDOSROLWLFDO SUHURJDWLYH DV RSSRVHG WR WKH HPRWLRQDO VWDWH SURSRVHG E\ %DWHV $OWHUQDWLYHO\ SULYDF\ LV DQ LQIRUPDWLRQDO RXWFRPH VWDWH EHWZHHQ VRFLDO DFWRUV UHn VXOWLQJ IURP VHOHFWLYH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ -RXUDUG f 3ULYDF\ GHILQLWLRQV ZKLFK IRFXV H[FOXVLYHO\ RQ WKH DXWRQRP\ FKRLFH IUHHGRPf GLPHQVLRQ WHQG WR FODLP WKH RQWRn ORJLFDO VWDWXV RI SURFHVV UDWKHU WKDQ RI VWDWH $W WKH PRVW LQFOXVLYH OHYHO SULYDF\ LV D FODLP WR LPPXQLW\ IURP LQWUXVLRQ RU FRQWURO E\ RWKHUV 3URVKDQVN\ t ,WWHOVRQ DQG :HLQVWHLQ f 0DUJXOLV DQG XVHG E\ %HUVFKHLG

PAGE 13

ff GHILQHG SULYDF\ DV D SURFHVV RI FRQWUROOLQJ SHUn VRQDO WUDQVDFWLRQV WKURXJK FRQWURO RYHU ERXQGDULHV EHWZHHQ VHOI DQG RWKHUV DQG 0DUVKDOO f GHILQHG LW DV WKH DELOn LW\ WR FRQWURO WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK SHRSOH DQG LQVWLWXWLRQV HQFURDFK XSRQ RQHnV OLIH ,Q $OWPDQnV f SULYDF\ WKHn RU\ SULYDF\ LV GHILQHG DV VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO RI DFFHVV WR WKH VHOI RU WR RQHnV JURXS S f 7KHVH GHILQLWLRQV WHQG WR VKDUH WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLF WKDW SULYDF\ LV D ELGLUHFn WLRQDO SURFHVVf§ERWK LQSXW IURP RWKHUV WR VHOI DQG RXWSXW IURP WKH VHOI WR RWKHUV DUH FRQWUROOHG 'HILQLWLRQV ZKLFK HPSKDVL]H WKH VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWHG DERXW VHOI -RXUDUG :HVWLQ DQG RWKHUVf GR QRW FRQWDLQ WKLV ELGLUHFWLRQDOLW\ GLPHQVLRQ 2QH IXUWKHU GHILQLWLYH GLPHQVLRQ RI SULYDF\ LWV QRU QDWLYHQHVV LV HPSKDVL]HG E\ VRFLRORJLVWV :DUUHQ DQG /DV OHWW f GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ VHFUHF\ DQG SULYDF\ E\ WKH QRUPDWLYH DFFHSWDQFH DQG SURWHFWLRQ RI WKH EHKDYLRU LQ TXHVn WLRQ 3ULYDF\ SURWHFWV WKRVH EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK DUH HLWKHU PRUDOO\ QHXWUDO RU YDOXHG E\ VRFLHW\ WKURXJK FRQVHQVXDO VRFLDO OHJLWLPDWLRQ DQG IXUWKHU VHHQ DV QRQWKUHDWHQLQJ WR RWKHUV 6FKZDUW] f DQG .HOYLQ f DOVR SULPDULO\ GLVFXVVHG WKLV QRUPDWLYH HOHPHQW RI SULYDF\ 1RQH RI WKH SUHYLRXVO\ FLWHG GHILQLWLRQV RI SULYDF\ LQFOXGH WKLV QRUPDn WLYH GLVWLQFWLRQ /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f FRQWHQG WKDW PDQ\ EHKDYLRUV HYHQWV DQG DIIHFWLYH H[SHULHQFHV DUH HQFRPSDVVHG

PAGE 14

LQ WKH ZRUG SULYDF\ 5DWKHU WKDQ DWWHPSWLQJ WR GHILQH SULYDF\ WKH\ KDYH ZRUNHG DW LGHQWLI\LQJ WKH W\SHV RI SKHn QRPHQRQ VXEVXPHG XQGHU WKLV PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQFHSW :HVWLQ f SUHFHGHG WKHP LQ WKLV PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO SHUn VSHFWLYH :HVWLQnV IRXU FDWHJRULHV RI SULYDF\ DUH VROLWXGH DQRQ\PLW\ UHVHUYH DQG LQWLPDF\ 6ROLWXGH H[LVWV ZKHQ D SHUVRQ LV DORQH DQG IUHH IURP REVHUYDWLRQ $QRQ\PLW\ RFn FXUV ZKHQ D SHUVRQ LV LQ D SXEOLF SODFH ZLWK RWKHUV SUHVHQW EXW QRQH RI WKHVH RWKHUV NQRZ KLV LGHQWLW\ 5HVHUYH LV ERWK WKH VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO RYHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VHOI FRPPXQLn FDWHG WR RWKHUV DQG WKH VHOHFWLYH DWWHQWLRQ WR RWKHUVn FRPn PXQLFDWLRQV ,QWLPDF\ LV D VWDWH LQ ZKLFK WZR RU PRUH SHUn VRQV DUH LQ D VLWXDWLRQ RI VROLWXGH IURP WKH REVHUYDWLRQ RI RWKHUV ,QWLPDF\ PD\ EH WKRXJKW RI DV JURXS VROLWXGH 3URVKDQVN\ ,WWHOVRQ DQG 5LYOLQ f KDYH QRWHG WKDW :HVWLQnV W\SHV RI SULYDF\ DUH QRW GHILQHG E\ WKH VDPH GLn PHQVLRQV 1LQH DQDO\WLF GLPHQVLRQV RI SULYDF\ ZHUH GHILQHG E\ /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f RQO\ WKUHH RI ZKLFK TXDOLI\ DV FDWHJRULHV RI SULYDF\ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ VL[ GLPHQn VLRQV UHSUHVHQW IXQFWLRQV DQG SURFHVVHV RI SULYDF\ 7KHVH DUH WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ WDVN DQG ULWXDO SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV ,QWHUDFWLRQ SULYDF\ LV WKH ERXQGDU\FRQWURO SURFHVV RI FRPn LQJ WRJHWKHU DQG ZLWKGUDZLQJ IURP RWKHUV 7DVN SULYDF\ LV UHVWULFWHG WR RQO\ WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WDVN FRPSOHn WLRQ LV HQKDQFHG E\ VHSDUDWLRQ IURP RWKHUV 5LWXDO SULYDF\

PAGE 15

FRYHUV WKRVH EHKDYLRUV IRU ZKLFK WKHUH LV D QRUPDWLYH SUHn VFULSWLRQ WKDW WKHVH EH SHUIRUPHG LQ QRQSXEOLF SODFHV IUHH RI REVHUYDWLRQ 6XFK EHKDYLRUV LQFOXGH HOLPLQDWLRQ DQG VH[n XDO DFWV 7KURXJK D IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI TXHVWLRQQDLUH LWHPV 0DU VKDOO f LGHQWLILHG WZR DGGLWLRQDO W\SHV RI SULYDF\ WR WKRVH SURSRVHG E\ :HVWLQ f 7KHVH WZR ZHUH VHFOXVLRQ DQG nQRW QHLJKERULQJn $Q LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH VHFOXVLRQ IDFWRU VXJJHVWV WKDW LW LV WKH VWDWH RI KDYLQJ RQHnV WHUn ULWRU\ IUHH IURP WKH YLVXDO DQG DXGLWRU\ REVHUYDWLRQ RI RWKHUV ,W LV GLVWLQJXLVKHG IURP VROLWXGH E\ LWV WHUULWRULn DO ORFXV VROLWXGH LV SULYDF\ RI WKH SHUVRQ ZKLOH VHFOXVLRQ LV SULYDF\ RI RQHnV WHUULWRU\ 6HFOXVLRQ LQFOXGHV VROLWXGH EXW WKH LQYHUVH UHODWLRQVKLS GRHV QRW KROG 1RW QHLJKERUn LQJ FRQFHUQV DWWLWXGHV WRZDUG VHOHFWLYH LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK QHLJKERUV DQG QRUPV JRYHUQLQJ YLVLWLQJ 7KLV SURIXVLRQ RI W\SHV RI SULYDF\ DQG WKH PXOWLGLPHQn VLRQDO QDWXUH RI WKH H[LVWHQW GHILQLWLRQV HPSKDVL]HV WKH LVn VXH RI ZKHWKHU SULYDF\ LV RQH FRQFHSW RU PDQ\ 7KH FKRLFH RI D VLQJOH GHILQLWLRQ RI SULYDF\ RU VHOHFWLRQ RI RQH RI WKH FRQFHSWV RI SULYDF\ KDV LPSOLFDWLRQV IRU WKH YDULDEOHV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV K\SRWKHVL]HG DV HVVHQWLDO LQ H[SODLQLQJ WKDW SKHQRPHQRQ 7KH UHVXOW FRXOG EH WKH DSSHDUDQFH RI VHYn HUDO VHHPLQJO\ FRQIOLFWLQJ WKHRULHV RI SULYDF\ $Q\ DWWHPSW WR HQFRPSDVV DOO RI WKH GLIIHUHQW W\SHV DQG PHDQLQJV RI SULn YDF\ LQWR D XQLWDU\ FRQFHSW ZLOO UHTXLUH D PXFK PRUH

PAGE 16

H[WHQVLYH UDQJH RI YDULDEOHV DQG UHODWLRQVKLSV DQG PRUH FRPSOH[ WKHRULHV WR VXFFHVVIXOO\ LQWHJUDWH WKH GLYHUVH SKHn QRPHQD LQYROYHG 7KHRULHV RI 3ULYDF\ *LYHQ WKH YDULHW\ RI FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQV DQG W\SHV RI SULYDF\ WKH H[LVWHQFH RI D ZLGH DQG GLYHUVH UDQJH RI SULn YDF\ WKHRULHV LV WR EH H[SHFWHG 2QH FODVVLILFDWLRQ RI WKHVH WKHRULHV UHVXOWV LQ VRPH VL[ GLVWLQFW RULHQWDWLRQV WRZDUG SULYDF\ ELRORJLFDO GHYHORSPHQWDOOHDUQLQJ LQWHUn SHUVRQDO VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH HFRORJLFDO DQG IXQFWLRQDO 0DQ\ RI WKH WKHRULHV WR EH UHYLHZHG DUH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO LQ FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ DQG WKXV RYHUODS WKHVH VRPHZKDW DUELn WUDU\ FODVVLILFDWLRQV 7KRVH WKHRULHV ZKLFK KRZHYHU DVn VXPH HLWKHU D ELRORJLFDO FDXVDWLRQ JHQHWLFf RU D PHGLDWLQJ ELRORJLFDO SURFHVV HJ DURXVDOf DUH FODVVLILHG DV ELRORJn LFDO UHJDUGOHVV RI WKH SUHVHQFH RI OHDUQLQJ RU VRFLDO IDFn WRUV LQ WKH WKHRULHV 7KHRULHV ZKLFK DUH FRQVWUXFWHG RQ OHDUQLQJ SULQFLSOHV RU OLIHF\FOH PDWXUDWLRQ FKDQJHV DUH LGHQWLILHG DV GHYHORSPHQWDO 2QO\ WKRVH WKHRULHV ZKLFK HPSKDVL]H WKH UHJXODWRU\ QDWXUH RI SULYDF\ DV D SURFHVV LQYROYLQJ DGMXVWPHQWV RI VHOIERXQGDULHV WR SHUPLW YDULRXV OHYHOV RI FRQWDFW ZLWK RWKHUV DUH LQFOXGHG ZLWKLQ WKH LQWHUn SHUVRQDO FDWHJRU\ :KHUH WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDO QDWXUH RI SULn YDF\ LV FHQWUDO WR D WKHRU\ LW LV GLVWLQJXLVKHG DV

PAGE 17

VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH 7KH HFRORJLFDO RULHQWDWLRQ LV UHVHUYHG VROHO\ IRU H[SODQDWLRQV RI SULYDF\ EDVHG RQ %DUNHUnV f DQDO\WLF FRQFHSWV 7KRVH WKHRULHV ZKLFK FRQFHLYH RI SULn YDF\ DV D PHGLDWLQJ SURFHVV WRZDUG WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI D FHUn WDLQ FODVV RI FKRLFH IUHHGRP JRDOV DUH GHPDUFDWHG DV IXQFn WLRQV %LRORJLFDO 7KHRULHV %LRORJLFDO WKHRULHV RI SULYDF\ FDQ EH IXUWKHU VXEGLn YLGHG LQWR WKUHH FODVVHV JHQHWLF DURXVDO PHGLDWLQJ DQG DGDSWDWLRQ WKHRU\ +HOVRQ f GHULYHG *HQHWLF WKHRULHV SRVWXODWH DQ LQQDWH SURSHQVLW\ WRZDUG HLWKHU JUHJDULRXVQHVV +DOPRV f WHUULWRULDOLW\ 3DVWDODQ Df RU VXUYLYDO .ORSIHU t 5XEHQVWHLQ f 0HKUDELDQ DQG 5XVVHOOnV f DURXVDO PHGLDWLRQ WKHRU\ SURSRVHV WKDW WKH XQGHUO\LQJ IXQn GDPHQWDO TXDOLW\ RI DOO VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK HOLFLW D GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ LV WKH HPRWLYH UHVSRQVH RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO WR WKDW VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK LQ WXUQ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH VLWXDn WLRQnV DURXVDO HOLFLWLQJ OHYHO %RWK +LOO f DQG 0DUn VKDOO f H[SODLQ GHVLUHG SULYDF\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI DGDSn WDWLRQ OHYHO SURFHVVHV +DOPRV f SRVWXODWHG WKDW WKH KXPDQ VSHFLHV WKURXJK ELRORJLFDO HYROXWLRQ LV JHQHWLFDOO\ SURJUDPPHG WR EH JUHn JDULRXV 7KLV ELRVRFLDO QHHG KDV EHHQ IUXVWUDWHG DV D UHn VXOW RI DQ LQFUHDVLQJ GLYLVLRQ RI ODERU FRQFRPLWDQW ZLWK FXOWXUDO HYROXWLRQ 3ULPLWLYH VRFLHWLHV DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG

PAGE 18

E\ SULPDU\ UHODWLRQVKLSV *HPHLQVKDIWf DQG LQWLPDF\ ZKLOH SRVWSULPLWLYH VRFLHWLHV DUH GHILQHG E\ VHFRQGDU\ UHODWLRQn VKLSV *HVHOOVKDIWf DQG UHVHUYH 7KH VRFLDO IUDJPHQWDWLRQ UHVXOWLQJ IURP D *HVHOOVKDIW VRFLHW\ FUHDWHV VRFLDO LVRODn WLRQ ZKLFK HQJHQGHUV LQGLYLGXDO DQ[LHW\ ,W LV WKLV DQ[Ln HW\ ZKLFK FDXVHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ $QRn Q\PLW\ LV LPSRVVLEOH H[FHSW SRVVLEO\ LQ VHOHFWHG ULWXDOVf LQ D *HPHLQVKDIW VRFLHW\ 7KH GHVLUH IRU VROLWXGH LV QDWn XUDO WR ERWK W\SHV RI VRFLHW\ DQG IXQFWLRQV WR UHJHQHUDWH VRFLDO OLIH IRU LWV PRUH KDUPRQLRXV OLYLQJ +DOPRV S f 8QOLNH +DOPRV 3DVWDODQ Df GRHV QRW GLUHFWO\ FODLP WHUULWRULDOLW\ WR EH DQ LQKHULWHG GULYH +H GRHV KRZHYHU WUHDW LW DV DQ XQLYHUVDO LQ KXPDQ EHKDYLRU +XPDQ WHUULWRn ULDOLW\ KDV IXUWKHUPRUH XQLTXH EHKDYLRUDO VWDWHV SULn YDF\f ZKLFK KDYH QR FRQFHSWXDO FRXQWHUSDUWV LQ DQLPDO WHUn ULWRULDOLW\ :HVWLQnV f IRXU VWDWHV RI SULYDF\ DQG WKHLU UHODWHG IXQFWLRQV SHUVRQDO DXWRQRP\ HPRWLRQDO UHn OHDVH VHOIHYDOXDWLRQ DQG SURWHFWHG FRPPXQLFDWLRQf KDYH QR SDUDOOHO LQ DQLPDO EHKDYLRU +XPDQ WHUULWRULDOLW\ WKHUHn IRUH KDV VRFLDO GHWHUPLQDQWV VXFK DV WKH VLWXDWLRQDO FRQn WH[W RQHnV SRVLWLRQ LQ D UROH V\VWHP DQG RQHnV HPRWLRQDO JRDOV 7KHVH ZLOO EH H[SOLFDWHG ODWHU LQ UHYLHZLQJ 3DVWD ODQnV Ef RWKHU ZRUN :LWKRXW SURSRVLQJ GLVFUHWH LQVWLQFWV .ORSIHU DQG 5X EHQVWHLQ f DUJXH WKDW VRPH GHJUHH RI SULYDF\ LV

PAGE 19

HVVHQWLDO WR PDQ\ DQLPDOVn VXUYLYDO $OWKRXJK DQLPDOV OLNH WKH VRFLDO FRORQLDO LQVHFWV EHHV DQG DQWVf DSSDUHQWO\ GLVSOD\ QR SULYDF\ PRVW DQLPDO VSHFLHV H[KLELW VRPH SDWn WHUQHG VRFLDO ZLWKGUDZDO SULYDF\f DQGRU FRQFHDOPHQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKHLU PRWLYDWLRQDO VWDWH 3ULYDF\ DLGV VXUYLYDO E\ UHGXFLQJ FRPSHWLWLRQ IRU IRRG DQG UHSURGXFWLYH UHVRXUFHV E\ SURYLGLQJ SURWHFWLRQ IURP SUHGDWRUV DQG E\ FRQFHDOLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW RQHnV PRWLYDWLRQDO VWDWH DQG LQWHQWLRQV IURP D FRPSHWLWRU $Q HFRQRPLF PRGHO LV DSSOLHG WR SUHGLFW XQGHU ZKDW HQYLURQPHQWDO FRQWLQJHQFLHV D VSHFLHV ZLOO HYROYH SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV 7KH FRVWV RI DWWDLQLQJ DQG PDLQWDLQLQJ D SDUWLFXODU IRUP DQG OHYHO RI SULYDF\ PXVW EH FRXQWHUEDODQFHG E\ WKH EHQHILWV UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKLV SULYDF\ LQ RUGHU WR HQKDQFH VXUYLYDO .ORSIHU DQG 5XEHQVWHLQ f GLVFXVV VHYHUDO FODVVHV RI FRQWLQJHQFLHV LQ DQ DQLPDOnV SK\n VLFDO DQG DQLPDWH HQYLURQPHQW ZKLFK JRYHUQ WKHVH FRVWEHQHn ILW UDWLRV 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW SULYDF\ LQ KXPDQV LV PRWLn YDWHG E\ D GHVLUH IRU nKDSSLQHVVn UDWKHU WKDQ VXUYLYDO SULn YDF\ EHFRPHV D SHFXOLDUO\ KXPDQ FRQFHSW $OWKRXJK 0HKUDELDQ DQG 5XVVHOO f GR QRW SUHVHQW D V\VWHPDWLF WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ WKHLU GLVFXVVLRQ RI SULYDF\ VXJJHVWV FHUWDLQ V\VWHPLF UHODWLRQV 7KH\ IRUPXODWHG D JHQn HUDO DSSURDFK WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV RI EHKDYn LRU WR WKH HQYLURQPHQW %HWZHHQ WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG DQ\ EHn KDYLRU LV DQ HPRWLRQDO PHGLDWLQJ UHVSRQVH WR WKH HQYLURQPHQW 7KHVH HPRWLRQDO UHVSRQVHV DUH LQ WXUQ JURXQGHG RQ WKH

PAGE 20

SK\VLRORJLFDO UHVSRQVHV RI DURXVDO SOHDVXUH DQG PXVFXODU WHQVLRQ $FWLYLW\ HYDOXDWLRQ DQG GRPLQDQFH SRWHQF\f DUH WKH HPRWLRQDOFRQQRWDWLYH 2VJRRG 6XFL t 7DQQHQEDXP f UHVSRQVHV FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH UHVSHFWLYH SK\VLRORJLFDO UHn VSRQVHV $URXVDO LV D GLUHFW IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG RI DQ HQYLURQPHQW $Q HQYLURQPHQWnV LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG LV PHDVXUHG E\ LWV QRYHOW\ DQG FRPSOH[LW\ 3ULYDF\ LV HTXDWHG ZLWK ORZ HQYLURQPHQWDO LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG 0HKUDELDQ t 5XVVHOO S f $ SHUVRQ LV LQ D VWDWH RI SULYDF\ WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW KH LV UHFHLYLQJ D ORZ OHYHO RI RXWSXW LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDGf IURP RWKHUV 7KH GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ VKRXOG EH DQ LQYHUVH IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LQn IRUPDWLRQ ORDG WR ZKLFK RQH LV H[SRVHG 5HFLSURFDOO\ WKH UDWH EUHDGWK DQG GHSWK RI LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG IURP WKH VHOI WR RWKHUV GHWHUPLQHV WKH GHJUHH RI SULYDF\ $ ORZ LQIRUPDn WLRQ ORDG IURP VHOI DQRWKHUnV HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXOXVf WR DQRWKHU FRQVWLWXWHV KLJK SULYDF\ 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW HQn YLURQPHQWV HQKDQFH SRVLWLYH SOHDVXUHf IHHOLQJV VHOIGLVn FORVXUH LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG WR RWKHUVf LV DOVR HQKDQFHG 6LQFH HLWKHU DQ H[FHVVLYHO\ KLJK RU ORZ LQIRUPDWLRQ ORDG LV DYHUVLYHO\ DURXVLQJ DQG WKXV XQSOHDVDQW WKH PD[LPXP SUHIHUHQFH IRU HQYLURQPHQWV ZLOO EH VOLJKWO\ GLVFUHSDQW IURP WKH DGDSWDWLRQ OHYHO 3HRSOH ZLOO EH HQJDJHG WKHUHn IRUH LQ DQ HYHU FKDQJLQJ IORZ EHWZHHQ SULYDF\ DQG VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ

PAGE 21

:KHUHDV WKH GLVFUHSDQF\ K\SRWKHVLV LV FHQWUDO WR 0HKUDELDQ DQG 5XVVHOOnV f DSSURDFK DGDSWDWLRQ OHYHO WKHRU\ LV IRFDO IRU +LOO f DQG 0DUVKDOO f $GDSn WDWLRQ OHYHO WKHRU\ KDV EHHQ DSSOLHG GLIIHUHQWO\ E\ +LOO DQG 0DUVKDOO +LOO DSSOLHV WKH WKHRU\ WR WZR GLPHQVLRQV WKH UHODWLRQ RI SHUFHLYHG WR DFWXDO SULYDF\ DQG WKH RSWLPL]DWLRQ RI YLVXDO SULYDF\ UHTXLUHPHQWV ZLWK YLVXDODFFHVVRXWZDUG UHTXLUHPHQWV ,Q QHLWKHU LQVWDQFH LV D IRUPDO V\VWHPDWLF H[SODQDWLRQ SURSRVHG LQ WHUPV RI DGDSWDWLRQ OHYHO WKHRU\ 2QO\ IRFDO VWLPXOL DQG EDFNJURXQG VWLPXOL EXW QRW UHVLGXDO VWLPXOL +HOVRQ f DUH LPSOLHG E\ +LOO 2Q WKH LVVXH RI WKH UHODWLRQ RI SHUFHLYHG WR DFWXDO SULYDF\ +LOO K\SRWKn HVL]HV WKDW DV SHRSOH EHFRPH DZDUH RI WKHLU VXUURXQGLQJ HQYLURQPHQW ERWK SK\VLFDO DQG VRFLDOf VR WKHLU MXGJHPHQWV RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ DUH PRGLILHG DQG DSSURDFK D OHYHO ZKLFK LV URXJKO\ HTXLYDOHQW WR WKH UHDO DPRXQW RI SULYDF\ SUHVHQW LQ D JLYHQ VLWXDWLRQ +LOO S f 7KH ILW EHWZHHQ SDVW SULYDF\ H[SHULHQFH UHVLGXDO VWLPXOLf DQG SUHVHQW SULn YDF\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV DQGRU FRQVWUDLQWV LV QRW GLVFXVVHG 7KH SUREOHP RI RSWLPL]DWLRQ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH LQn KHUHQW ERXQGDU\ SHUPHDELOLW\ LQYROYHG LQ SULYDF\ :KLOH SULYDF\ LV GHVLUHG LVRODWLRQ LV QRW ZKHUH IUHHGRP IURP REVHUYDWLRQ LV VRXJKW WKH FRPSOHWH ODFN RI DFFHVV WR RXWn ZDUG REVHUYDWLRQ LV QRW 7KH SURFHVV RI RSWLPL]DWLRQ EHn WZHHQ WKHVH H[WUHPHV RI YLVLELOLW\ LV DQ DGDSWDWLRQ EDODQFHf EHWZHHQ RXWZDUG DQG LQZDUG YLVLELOLW\ SULYDF\f 7KHUH LV

PAGE 22

KRZHYHU QR VLQJOH VXFK RSWLPL]DWLRQ UDWKHU WKH DFKLHYHG RSWLPL]DWLRQ LV LQIOXHQFHG E\ VXFK IRFDO DQG EDFNJURXQG VWLPXOL DV URRP IXQFWLRQ DQG RXWVLGH YLHZDFWLYLW\ 7KH FRPSURPLVH EHWZHHQ WKH RSSRVLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU RXWZDUG DQG LQZDUG YLVLRQ ZRXOG EH RSWLPL]HG PRUH WRZDUG SULYDF\ IRU D EHGURRP IURQWLQJ RQ WKH VWUHHW DV RSSRVHG WR D NLWFKn HQ IDFLQJ D VHFOXGHG EDFN\DUG 0DUVKDOO f H[SOLFLWO\ WUHDWV WKH UHVLGXDO VWLPn XOL RI FKLOGKRRG KRPH GHQVLW\ DQG FKLOGKRRG QHLJKERUKRRG GHQVLW\ 6KH GHGXFHG WKDW f WKRVH UHDUHG LQ D KLJK GHQVLW\ KRPH ODUJH QXPEHU RI VLEOLQJV DQG ZLWKRXW D URRP RI RQHnV RZQf ZRXOG SUHIHU ORZ OHYHOV RI SULYDF\ DV D UHn VXOW RI DGDSWLQJ WR WKH DWWHQGDQW ODFN RI SULYDF\ LQ WKH FKLOGKRRG KRPH DQG f WKRVH VSHQGLQJ WKHLU FKLOGKRRG LQ FLWLHV DV RSSRVHG WR VPDOO WRZQV ZRXOG SUHIHU PRUH DQRn Q\PLW\ DV D UHVXOW RI DGDSWLQJ WR WKH LQFUHDVHG DYDLODELOn LW\ RI DQRQ\PLW\ LQ WKH FLW\ %RWK DFWXDO GHQVLW\ DQG SHUn FHLYHG FURZGHGQHVV RI FKLOGKRRG HQYLURQPHQWV ZHUH FRQVLGn HUHG %DFNJURXQG VWLPXOL VXFK DV SUHVHQW HQYLURQPHQWDO GHQn VLW\ LQ WKH KRPH DQG QHLJKERUKRRG ZHUH DOVR K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH UHODWHG WR SUHIHUUHG SULYDF\ 0DUVKDOO f $Q LQn GLYLGXDOnV SUHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ UHSUHVHQWV DQ DGDSWDWLRQ WR WKH DPRXQW RI SULYDF\ DYDLODEOH ZLWKLQ RQHnV HQYLURQPHQW 3UHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ VKRXOG EH LQYHUVHO\ UHODWHG WR GHQn VLW\ LQ WKH SUHVHQW KRPH DQG QHLJKERUKRRG HQYLURQPHQW

PAGE 23

3UHGLFWLRQV DERXW WKH W\SH RI SULYDF\ HIIHFWHG E\ KRPH DQG QHLJKERUKRRG GHQVLW\ DUH GLIIHUHQW DQG WKXV WKH GHn VLUHG W\SH RI SULYDF\ DOVR FKDQJHV UHVSHFWLYH WR WKHVH WZR IRUPV RI GHQVLW\ 1RWH WKDW ZKHUHDV 0DUVKDOO DGGUHVVHV WKH DGDSWDWLRQ UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ SUHIHUUHG GHVLUHGf SULn YDF\ DQG HQYLURQPHQWDOO\ DYDLODEOH SULYDF\ +LOO f IRFXVHV RQ WKH UHODWLRQ EHWZHHQ SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ DQG DFKLHYHG SULYDF\ 'HYHORSPHQWDO/HDUQLQJ 7KHRULHV 0DUVKDOOnV f K\SRWKHVHV DERXW WKH HIIHFW RI FKLOGKRRG GHQVLW\ H[SHULHQFHV RQ DGXOW SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV DVVXPHV WKDW H[SHULHQFHV SHUFHLYHG DV HLWKHU SULYDWH LQYDn VLRQV RI SULYDF\ RU FURZGLQJ DUH WKH VDPH LQ ERWK FKLOGn KRRG DQG DGXOWKRRG 'HYHORSPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ FKDOOHQJHV VXFK DVVXPSWLRQV SDUWLDOO\ WKURXJK WKH LPSDFW RI OHDUQLQJ ,WWHOVRQ 3URVKDQVN\ 5LYOLQ DQG .LQNHO f EHOLHYH WKDW RXU FRQFHSWLRQV RI ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV SULYDF\ WKH DUHDV LQ YKLFK SULYDF\ LV DSSURSULDWH WKH VHWWLQJV ZKLFK VXSSRUW LW DQG WKH WHFKQLTXHV DYDLODEOH WR HQIRUFH SULYDF\ DUH OHDUQHG WKURXJK WKH REVHUYDWLRQ RI DGXOWV SULPDULO\ WKURXJK H[SHULHQFLQJ H[FOXVLRQ IURP DGXOWVn OLYHV 7KH HDUOLHVW GHYHORSPHQWDO FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 6PLWK HW DO f IRFXVHG RQ WKH IDPLO\ GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH DV RSSRVHG WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH 'LIIHUHQW VWDJHV RI WKH IDPLO\ F\FOH UHSUHVHQW GLVWLQJXLVKDEOH DFWLYLW\

PAGE 24

SDWWHUQV 7KH SULRULWLHV DZDUGHG WR SULYDF\ DQG LQWHUDFn WLRQ ZLWKLQ WKH KRPH DUH LQIOXHQFHG E\ WKHVH DFWLYLW\ SDWn WHUQV 7KH GHVLUHV IRU VSHFLILF W\SHV RI SULYDF\ WKHUHn IRUH DUH D IXQFWLRQ RI IDPLO\F\FOH VWDJHV )DPLO\ OLIH F\FOH VWDJH LQWHUDFWV ZLWK GZHOOLQJ VL]H DQG DUUDQJHPHQW IDPLO\ VL]H DQG RFFXSDWLRQDO VWDWXV RI WKH SDUHQWV 6L[ GLPHQVLRQV RI GHYHORSPHQW UHOHYDQW WR SULYDF\ ZHUH LGHQWLILHG E\ /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f 7KH ILUVW RI WKHVH HJR GHYHORSPHQW FRQFHUQV LWVHOI ZLWK GHn YHORSPHQW RI LQGHSHQGHQFH DQG DXWRQRP\ %RWK EHKDYLRUV LQn YROYH WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV YROLWLRQ RI IUHHGRP WR FKRRVH EHLQJ DORQH YHUVXV EHLQJ D PHPEHU RI D JURXS &RSLQJ ZLWK IRUFHG DORQHQHVV LVRODWLRQf FKRVHQ DORQHQHVV VROLWXGHf EHLQJ D VWUDQJHU DQRQ\PLW\f IRUFHG LQWLPDF\ LQYDVLRQ RI SULYDF\f DQG FKRVHQ LQWLPDF\ DUH DOO GHYHORSPHQWDO WDVNV LQ WKH PDn WXUDWLRQ RI LQGHSHQGHQFH DXWRQRP\ DQG LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUn GHSHQGHQFH $JLQJ IURP LQIDQF\ WR DGXOWKRRG LQKHUHQWO\ WUDQVIHUV WKH LQGLYLGXDO WKURXJK GLIIHUHQW UROHV LPSRVLQJ GLIIHUHQW GHPDQGV DQG UHTXLUHPHQWV 1HZ FRQFHSWV DQG SDWWHUQV RI SULn YDF\ DUH GHILQHG E\ WKH FKDQJLQJ UROH UHTXLUHPHQWV 1HZ PRGHV RI SULYDF\ ZKLFK DFFRPSDQ\ LQFUHDVHG VWDWXV PXVW EH DGGHG WR WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV EHKDYLRUDO UHSHUWRLUH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR WKH VRFLDOO\ VWUXFWXUHG EHKDYLRUV RI UROHV RWKHU DFWLYLWLHV DQG HQYLURQPHQWV FKDQJH WKURXJK WKH

PAGE 25

OLIH F\FOH 1HZ SK\VLFDO VHWWLQJV VXFK DV VFKRRO SUHVHQW QHZ SUREOHPV IRU SULYDF\ UHTXLULQJ QHZ DGDSWDWLRQV LQ SULn YDF\ EHKDYLRUV $ OHVV REYLRXV GHYHORSPHQWDO WDVN ZKLFK WDNHV RQ SDUn WLFXODU LPSRUWDQFH LQ LQGXVWULDOVHFXODU VRFLHWLHV LV DGDSn WDWLRQ WR VRFLRFXOWXUDO FKDQJH 7KH SDWWHUQV DQG H[SHFWDn WLRQV RI SULYDF\ OHDUQHG LQ SUHDGXOWKRRG PD\ EH LQFRPSDWn LEOH ZLWK UDSLGO\ HPHUJLQJ OLIH VW\OHV PRUHV DQG WHFKQROn RJLHV 6LQFH FRQWURO LV D FULWLFDO HOHPHQW LQ DOO GHILQLWLRQV RI SULYDF\ GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH DZDUHQHVV RI EHLQJ DEOH WR FRQWURO EHFRPHV LPSRUWDQW 7KH ILUVW VXFFHVVIXOO\ FRQFHDOHG EHKDYLRU EHJLQV DZDUHQHVV WKDW RQHnV RZQ WKRXJKWV DQG EHKDYn LRUV DUH QRW NQRZQ XQOHVV WKH\ DUH YROLWLRQDOO\ GLVFORVHG 7KH OHDUQLQJ RI ZKDW WKRXJKWV DQG EHKDYLRUV WR FRQWURO QHLWKHU WR SHUIRUP LQ SXEOLF RU WR PDNH SXEOLFO\ DQQRXQFHGf LV DQ LPSRUWDQW SURFHVV RI VRFLDOL]DWLRQ 2I WKH VL[ GLPHQVLRQV /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ t :ROIH f WKH ODVW LV FRQFHSWXDO FRPSOH[LW\ :LWK PDWXUDWLRQ WKH FRQFHSW RI SULYDF\ VKRXOG EHFRPH ERWK PRUH FRPSOH[ DQG LQWHJUDWHG ZLWK UHODWHG FRQFHSWXDO V\VWHPV OLNH PRUDO UHDVRQn LQJ 7KH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH EHKDYLRUDO UHSHUWRLUH XVHG WR FUHDWH DQG PDLQWDLQ SULYDF\ DQG WKH IXQFWLRQV IRU ZKLFK SULn YDF\ LV HQJDJHG VKRXOG DOVR LQFUHDVH ZLWK DJH /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f UDWKHU WKDQ SUHVHQWLQJ D GHYHOn RSPHQWDO WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ KDYH LGHQWLILHG VL[ DQDO\WLF

PAGE 26

GHYHORSPHQWDO GLPHQVLRQV ZKLFK DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH UHn ODWHG WR SULYDF\ 7KH RQO\ VSHFLILFDOO\ OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ WR DSSHDU LV WKDW RI 6PLWK DQG 6ZDQVRQ f 7KH\ DSSO\ 5RWWHUnV f VRFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ WR SULYDF\ 7KURXJK WKH OHDUQLQJ KLVWRU\ RI WKH LQGLYLGXDO ERWK SUHIHUHQFHV IRU W\SHV RI UHLQIRUFHPHQWV DQG H[SHFWDQFLHV RI UHLQIRUFHn PHQW UHVXOWLQJ IURP YDULRXV DFWLRQV DUH IRUPHG >3@ULYDF\ DV D SURFHVV RI LQWHUDFWLRQDO FRQWURO LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH YDOXH RI VXFK FRQWURO DQG WKH H[SHFWDQF\ RI DFKLHYLQJ VXFK FRQWURO 6PLWK t 6ZDQVRQ S f 7KH LPPHGLDWH DQG HQGXULQJ SV\FKRORJLFDO VLWXDWLRQ LV WKH WKLUG IDFWRU LQIOXHQFLQJ WKH EHKDYLRU SRWHQWLDO WRZDUG SULYDF\ 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO VLWXDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKRVH DVSHFWV RI WKH LQn WHUQDO DQG H[WHUQDO HQYLURQPHQW DV SHUFHLYHG E\ WKH LQGLn YLGXDO 7KH SULPDU\ K\SRWKHVLV VWDWHV WKDW LQGLYLGXDO QRn WLRQV RI SULYDF\ YDU\ DV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKHLU HQYLURQPHQW 6PLWK t 6ZDQVRQ S f 2Q WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO OHYn HO WKH HQYLURQPHQW LQIOXHQFHV EHKDYLRU SRWHQWLDO QRW WKURXJK FKDQJLQJ YDOXHV EXW WKURXJK LPSDFWLQJ H[SHFWDQFLHV WKDW SRWHQWLDO EHKDYLRUV ZLOO EH UHLQIRUFHG ([SHFWDQFLHV VKRXOG EH REMHFW DQG VLWXDWLRQVSHFLILF ZKHUHDV YDOXHV DUH LQWUDLQGLYLGXDO HQWLWLHV WUDQVFHQGLQJ VLWXDWLRQDO VSHFLILFV )DLOXUH WR DFKLHYH SULYDF\ ZLOO EH PRUH DYHUVLYH DV WKH H[n SHFWDQF\ IRU DWWDLQPHQW DQG YDOXH RI DWWDLQPHQW LQFUHDVH

PAGE 27

6RFLDO OHDUQLQJ WKHRU\ VXJJHVWV D PRGHO RI UHDFWLRQV WR LQn YDVLRQ RI SULYDF\ ZKLFK 6PLWK DQG 6ZDQVRQ f GR QRW GHn YHORS ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 7KHRULHV 6RPH RI WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO GLPHQVLRQV SUHVHQWHG E\ /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f FRQIURQW WKH LQWHUSHUn VRQDO VRFLDO QDWXUH RI SULYDF\ -RXUDUG f PRVW NQRZQ IRU KLV WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK RQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO VHOIGLVFORVXUH KDV FOHDUO\ FRQFHLYHG RI SULYDF\ DV RQH H[WUHPH RI WKH VHOIGLVFORVXUH SURFHVV +H IUDPHV VHOIn GLVFORVXUH DQG FRQFHDOPHQW SULYDF\f DV ELSRODU RSSRVLWHV -RXUDUGnV f GHILQLWLRQV RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH DQG SULYDF\ DUH FRQFHSWXDOO\ LQWHUGHSHQGHQW SULYDF\ LV WKH DFKLHYHG FRQFHDOPHQW RI NQRZOHGJH DERXW VHOI ZKLOH VHOIn GLVFORVXUH LV WKH UHYHDOPHQW RI NQRZOHGJH DERXW VHOI 6HOIn GLVFORVXUH LV D SURFHVV WKDW FKDQJHV WKH VWDWH RI SULYDF\ H[LVWLQJ EHWZHHQ WZR SHRSOH ,QWLPDF\ LV ERWK DFKLHYHG E\ DQG D VWDWH RI KLJK VHOIGLVFORVXUH ,Q :HVWLQnV f IUHTXHQWO\ FLWHG W\SHV RI SULYDF\ LQWLPDF\ LV WKH SRODU RSSRVLWH RI VROLWXGH 7KH SV\FKRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQV DWWULEXWHG WR SULYDF\ -RXUDUG DQG $OWPDQ f DUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH FODLPHG IRU VHOIGLVFORVXUH -RXUDUG f 7KDW ZKLFK FRQVWLWXWHV WKH FRQWHQW RI SULYDF\ LV FRQFHSWXDOO\ HTXLYDn OHQW WR WKDW RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH FHQWUDOLW\ WR WKH SHUVRQnV

PAGE 28

VRFLDO LGHQWLW\ 7KH LQWHUSHUVRQDO HQYLURQPHQWDO DQG SV\FKRORJLFDO FRQGLWLRQV FRQGXFLYH WR VHOIGLVFORVXUH DUH WKH VDPH DV WKRVH IRU WKH SULYDF\ VWDWH RI LQWLPDF\ 'HU OHJD t &KDLNLQ f 6ROLWXGH DQRQ\PLW\ DQG UHVHUYH DOO IXQFWLRQ WR FRQFHDO NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH VHOI -RXUDUG f QRWHV WKDW VROLWXGH DQG DQRQ\PLW\ FRQFHDO EHKDYLRUDO NQRZOHGJH DERXW WKH VHOI ZKLOH UHVHUYH WKH RSSRVLWH RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH"f FRQFHDOV SV\FKRORJLFDO DWWLWXGHV LQn WHQWLRQV HPRWLRQV HWFf NQRZOHGJH IURP RWKHUV 6HOI GLVFORVXUH LV FKDPSLRQHG -RXUDUG f DV WKH FXUH WR LVRODWLRQ IRUFHG SULYDF\f DQG DOLHQDWLRQ ZKHUHDV SULYDF\ LV FKDPSLRQHG -RXUDUG f DV WKH FXUH WR FRQVWDQW SXEn OLF VFUXWLQ\ DQG DOLHQDWLRQ $OWPDQnV f WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ RZHV D KHDY\ LQWHOn OHFWXDO GHEW WR -RXUDUGnV VHOIGLVFORVXUH ZRUN $OWPDQ DQG 7D\ORU f H[SDQGHG WKH VHOIGLVFORVXUH SURFHVV LQWR D nVRFLDO SHQHWUDWLRQn SURFHVV 3ULYDF\ HPHUJHV DV WKH VXn SUHPH VHOIRWKHU LQWHUSHUVRQDO ERXQGDU\UHJXODWLRQ SURFHVV $OWPDQ f $Q LPSRUWDQW DVSHFW RI $OWPDQnV WKHRU\ LV KLV FRQWHQWLRQ WKDW SULYDF\ LV D GLDOHFWLF SURFHVV DV RSn SRVHG WR D SHUVRQDO GLVSRVLWLRQ RU VLWXDWLRQDO FRQWLQJHQF\ $V D ERXQGDU\UHJXODWLRQ SURFHVV SULYDF\ LV D FRQVWDQWO\ VKLIWLQJ EDODQFH EHWZHHQ EHLQJ DFFHVVLEOH WR RWKHUV VRn FLDO SHQHWUDWLRQf DQG EHLQJ FORVHG WR RWKHUV SULYDF\f 7KLV VKLIWLQJ EDODQFH PDQLIHVWV WKH LQKHUHQW QDWXUH RI SULn YDF\ WRZDUG RSWLPL]DWLRQ 7KH LQGLYLGXDO GHVLUHV D VSHFLILF

PAGE 29

OHYHO RI SULYDF\LQWHUDFWLRQ HLWKHU D GHILFLW RU DQ H[n FHVV DFWLYDWHV EHKDYLRUV WR UHVWDWH WKH RSWLPL]DWLRQ EDOn DQFH %RWK LQSXWV IURP RWKHUV DQG RXWSXWV WR RWKHUV DUH JRYHUQHG E\ WKLV ERXQGDU\UHJXODWLRQ SURFHVV $OWPDQnV WKHRU\ KDV FRQFHSWXDO DSSHDO GXH WR WKH IDFW WKDW WKH FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI FURZGLQJ DQG LVRODWLRQ FDQ EH GHULYHG IURP WKH SULYDF\ WKHRU\ &URZGLQJ H[LVWV ZKHQ GHn VLUHG SULYDF\ LV KLJK DQG LQSXWV IURP RWKHUV DUH VLPXOWDQHn RXVO\ KLJK :KHQ WKH GHVLUH IRU VRFLDO FRQWDFW LV KLJK ORZ GHVLUHG SULYDF\f DQG DFWXDO FRQWDFW RXWSXW WR RWKHUVf LV ORZ WKHQ LVRODWLRQ LV H[SHULHQFHG 7KH PRWLYDWLRQDO HOHPHQW GHVLUHG SULYDF\f RI WKH WKHRU\ LQWURGXFHV WKH FHQn WUDO FRQFHSW RI FRQWURO :KHWKHU LQWLPDF\ RU LQYDVLRQ RI SULYDF\ RFFXUV LV GHWHUPLQHG E\ ZKHWKHU WKH FRQWDFW LV FKRn VHQ &KRLFH LV WKH YROLWLRQDO DVSHFW RI FRQWURO 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW SULYDF\ LV RSWLPL]HG FRQWURO KDV EHHQ VXFFHVVn IXOO\ DFKLHYHG $Q DFKLHYHG SULYDF\ ZKLFK LV GLVFUHSDQW IURP WKH GHVLUHG SULYDF\ PRWLYDWHV WKH UHH[HUWLRQ RI FRQn WURO :KHUHDV -RXUDUG f UHVWULFWV SULYDF\ WR WKH FRQWURO H[HUFLVHG RYHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW VHOI $OWPDQ f HQFRPSDVVHV WKH FRQWURO RYHU DOO VHOIRWKHU FRQWDFWV ZLWKLQ SULYDF\ 7KH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI WKLV GLVWLQFWLRQ DUH LPSRUn WDQW LQ -RXUDUGnV FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ WKHUH LV D VLQJOH HVVHQWLDO PRWLYDWLRQ IRU SULYDF\ WKH FRQFHDOPHQW RI NQRZOn HGJH DERXW VHOI LQ $OWPDQnV WKHRU\ WKHUH FDQ EH PXOWLSOH

PAGE 30

PRWLYDWLRQV IRU SULYDF\ RWKHU WKDQ WKH FRQFHDOPHQW RI VHOI VXFK DV WDVN FRPSOHWLRQ UHVWRUDWLRQ RI VOHHS HWF 7KH SULQFLSOHV JRYHUQLQJ DQG GLPHQVLRQV RI $OWPDQnV SULYDF\ VKRXOG EH PRUH QXPHURXV GLYHUVH DQG FRPSOH[ WKDQ WKRVH DSSO\LQJ WR -RXUDUGnV SULYDF\ 6RFLDO1RUPDWLYH 7KHRULHV $Q HPSKDVLV RQ PRWLYDWLRQDO VWDWHV LQ H[SODLQLQJ SULn YDF\ VXIIHUV IURP WKH GDQJHU RI QRW VHHLQJ WKH ZLGHU VRn FLDO PDWUL[ LQ ZKLFK ERWK PRWLYDWLRQ DQG SULYDF\ H[LVW ,Q VSLWH RI WKH SURRI RI LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV PRVW EHKDYn LRU LV SUHGLFWDEOH IURP NQRZLQJ WKH VRFLDO JURXS WR ZKLFK D SHUVRQ EHORQJV DQG WKH VRFLDO VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKDW SHUn VRQ LV IRXQG 3ULYDF\ DV D IRUP RI VRFLDO EHKDYLRU LV WKHRUL]HG WR EH VWUXFWXUHG DQG LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG OLNH RWKHU VRFLDO EHKDYLRUV 7KLV QRUPDWLYH WKHRUHWLFDO SHUVSHFWLYH LV H[HPSOLILHG E\ 6FKZDUW] f .HOYLQ f DQG 3DV WDODQ 6RFLDO OLIH LV D FRQVWDQW IORZ LQWR FRQWDFW ZLWK RWKHUV DQG HEEV IURP VXFK FRQWDFW 7KLV HEE DQG IORZ LV DOO RI D VLQJOH ZKROH -XVW DV VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ LV JRYHUQHG E\ LQn VWLWXWLRQDOL]HG H[SHFWDWLRQV QRUPVf VR VRFLDO ZLWKGUDZDO LV DOVR JXLGHG E\ QRUPV 6FKZDUW] f 1RUPV IRU SULYDF\ IXQFWLRQ LGHQWLFDOO\ DV GR QRUPV IRU VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ WR VWDELOL]H WKH VRFLDO RUGHU 7KHVH QRUPV VWDELOL]H WKH VRFLDO RUGHU LQ WZR ZD\V f RQH VHW RI QRUPV SUHVFULEH ZKDW EHKDYLRUV PXVW EH SHUIRUPHG LQ SULYDWH WKHUHE\

PAGE 31

PDLQWDLQLQJ LQWDFW WKRVH UXOHV ZKLFK ZRXOG EH VXEYHUWHG E\ SXEOLF SHUIRUPDQFH DQG f D VHFRQG VHW RI QRUPV ZKLFK JXDUDQWHH SULYDF\ WKURXJK GHVFULELQJ ZKR PD\ REVHUYH DQG RU UHYHDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW ZKRP DQG XQGHU ZKDW KLJKO\ FLUn FXPVFULEHG FLUFXPVWDQFHV $XWKRULW\ W\SLFDOO\ KDV WKH SUHn URJDWLYH DQG GXW\ WR LQWUXGH DQRWKHUnV SULYDF\ ZKHQ WKH SXEn OLF VDIHW\ RU PRUDOLW\ LV SHUFHLYHG WR EH WKUHDWHQHG 6XUn YHLOODQFH LA OHJLWLPDWHG LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG SULYDF\ LQWUXn VLRQ 6FKZDUW] f 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ DXWKRULW\ LV JHQHUn DOO\ LPPXQH OHJDOO\ IURP LQWUXVLRQ 3ULYDF\ DV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG PRGH RI ZLWKGUDZDO ZLOO UHIOHFW WKH VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH RI ZKLFK WKH QRUPV DUH D SDUW 7KH VHW RI SULYDF\ QRUPV IRUP VXEVHWV RI QRUPV DVVRn FLDWHG ZLWK UHVSHFWLYH VWDWXVHV %RWK WKH SULYLOHJH DQG SRZHU WR UHTXLUH LQIRUPDWLRQ LQWUXGH XSRQf RI DQRWKHU DUH QRUPDWLYH DVSHFWV RI WKH VWDWXV KLHUDUFK\ 2WKHU QRUPV LQ WXUQ JRYHUQ WKH XVH RI WKLV SRZHU LQ RUGHU WR JXDUDQWHH VRPH OHYHO RI FRQILGHQWLDOLW\ RI WKH VXERUGLQDWHnV LQIRUn PDWLRQ 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH LV D IXQFn WLRQ RI WKH HFRQRPLF V\VWHP SULYDF\ ZLOO DOVR EH D OX[XU\ UHVWULFWHG WR WKRVH ZKR FDQ SXUFKDVH LW LQ WKH IRUPV RI VHn FOXGHG HVWDWHV EXWOHUV DQVZHULQJ VHUYLFHV HWF *URXS VROLGDULW\ LV HQKDQFHG E\ SULYDF\ LQ WZR ZD\V )LUVW SULYDF\ SURWHFWV VHOIGHIDPLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ IURP EHn FRPLQJ JURXS NQRZOHGJH ZKLFK FRXOG UHVXOW LQ H[SXOVLRQ RU SRWHQWLDOO\ ZRUVH FUHDWH WKH IRUPDWLRQ RI FRDOLWLRQV

PAGE 32

VSOLQWHULQJ WKH JURXS 6HFRQG SULYDF\ DOORZV IRU WKH VRn FLDO ZLWKGUDZDO IURP WKH JURXS QHFHVVDU\ WR SUHYHQW WKH KRV WLOLW\ ZKLFK LV OLNHO\ WR DULVH IURP WRR PXFK JURXS LQWLn PDF\ 6FKZDUW] f 5ROH SHUIRUPDQFH LV SXEOLF SHUIRUPDQFH ZLWK LWV FRQn FRPLWDQW VXUYHLOODQFH WKHUHE\ HQIRUFLQJ FRQIRUPLW\ 7KLV FRQVWDQW FRQIRUPLW\ UHVWULFWV WKH H[SUHVVLRQ RI LQGLYLGXDO GLIIHUHQFHV DQG LQ WXUQ VXSSUHVVHV WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV LGHQn WLW\ 3ULYDF\ SURYLGHV DQ LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG RXWOHW IRU HQn DFWPHQW RI QRQUROH EHKDYLRU DQG KHOSV SUHYHQW WKH HJR IURP LGHQWLI\LQJ LWVHOI WRR FORVHO\ ZLWK RU ORRVLQJ LWVHOI LQ SXEOLFf UROHV 6FKZDUW] S f )LQDOO\ SULYDF\ LV LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG LQ DUFKLWHFWXUH 6SDFHV PXVW EH LQFOXGHG IRU SUHVFULEHG SULYDWH EHKDYLRU EDWKURRPVf DQG WKH SULYLOHJHG SULYDF\ FRQQHFWHG ZLWK VWDWn XV PXVW EH SURYLGHG DQG FRQVWUXFWHG WR V\PEROL]H VWDWXV 3DVWDODQ Ef XQOLNH 6FKZDUW] VSHFLILFDOO\ IRn FXVHG RQ UROH WKHRU\ PRGHO IRU GHVLUHG SULYDF\ $V PHPEHUV RI D VRFLHW\ LQGLYLGXDOV RFFXS\ D QXPEHU RI UROHV LQ WKH VRFLDO RUGHU &KDUDFWHULVWLFV RI RQHnV UROH FRPSOH[ DFW DV FRQWLQJHQFLHV FRQGXFLYH WR HOLFLWLQJ GHVLUHV IRU SULYDF\ 7KH FXPXODWLYH GHPDQGV RI PXOWLSOH UROHV PD\ EH VWUHVV SURn GXFLQJ SULYDF\ LQ WKH IRUP RI VROLWDULQHVV PD\ EH GHVLUHG WR HVFDSH IURP WKLV VWUHVV DQG WR UHFXSHUDWH PHQWDO HPRn WLRQDO DQG SK\VLFDO HQHUJLHV 5ROH EHKDYLRU LV ERWK SUHn VFULEHG EHKDYLRU DQG SXEOLF EHKDYLRU WKHUHIRUH LW LV

PAGE 33

FRQIRUPLW\ FRQVWUDLQHG EHKDYLRU DQG FRQVWDQWO\ RSHQ WR VDQFWLRQ 8QGHU WKHVH FRQGLWLRQV SULYDF\ LV GHVLUHG DV ERWK DQ HVFDSH IRU SHUVRQDO H[SUHVVLRQ DQG DQ HVFDSH IURP WKH VDQFWLRQV LQKHUHQW ZLWK VXUYHLOODQFH ,Q DGGLWLRQ WR FXPXODWLYH GHPDQGV RI PXOWLSOH UROHV WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV RI VRPH UROHV PD\ FRQIOLFW ZLWK WKH VXFFHVVIXO SHUIRUPDQFH RI UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU RWKHU UROHV 7KH VWUHVV HQJHQGHUHG E\ WKLV UROH FRQIOLFW FDQ EH UHGXFHG E\ NHHSLQJ WKH LQFRPSDWn LEOH UROHV VHSDUDWH ZKLFK PD\ EH YLHZHG DV WKH IRUP RI VHn OHFWLYH WDVN SULYDF\ 3ULYDF\ ZLOO EH DOVR GHVLUHG LQ RUGHU WR PDLQWDLQ WKH HQDFWPHQW RI LQFRPSDWLEOH UROHV ZKLFK ZRXOG QRW EH DEOH WR EH ERWK HQDFWHG LI RQH VWDWXV V\VWHP NQHZ RI WKLV GXDO LQFRPSDWLEOH UROH HQDFWPHQW ,Q VWDWHV ZKHUH D SHUVRQ PD\ QRW EH D PHPEHU RI WKH &RPPXQLVW SDUW\ DQG D WHDFKHU LQ WKH SXEOLF VFKRROV SULYDF\ IXQFWLRQV WR FRQFHDO LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW SHUIRUPLQJ WKHVH LQFRPSDWLEOH UROHV IURP WKRVH LQ WKH SXEOLF HGXFDWLRQ VWDWXV V\VWHP .HOYLQ f SUHVHQWHG D VRFLDO SV\FKRORJLFDO WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ DV RSSRVHG WR WKH VWULFWO\ VRFLRORJLFDO WKHRULHV RI 6FKZDUW] DQG 3DVWDODQ 3ULYDF\ LV D VXEMHFWLYH VWDWH LW LV SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ .HOYLQ f 7KH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH SRWHQWLDO YXOQHUDELOLW\ H[n SHFWHG LQ DQ LPPHGLDWH VLWXDWLRQ IURP WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV $V WKLV IHHOLQJ RI YXOQHUDELOLW\ LQFUHDVHV WKH SUREDELOLW\ WKDW RQHnV DFWLRQV DUH FKDQJHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI DQRWKHU LQFUHDVHV DQG SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ GHFUHDVHV

PAGE 34

3ULYDF\ LV DQ DVSHFW RI D UHODWLRQVKLS LW LV WKH QHJDWLRQ RI SRWHQWLDO SRZHU UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ VHOI DQG RWKHUV 7KH PDMRU VRXUFH RI DQRWKHUnV SRZHU LV D UHVXOW RI QRUPV WKH SUHVHQFH RI QRUPV OHJLWLPL]HV DQRWKHUnV QHJDWLYH VDQFWLRQLQJ RI RXU EHKDYLRU WKURXJK FULWLFLVP UHEXNH ULGn LFXOH HWF 6SHFLILF QRUPV SUHVFULELQJ SULYDF\ IXQFWLRQ WR SURWHFW DQ LQGLYLGXDOnV LQGHSHQGHQFH LQ VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUVRQ ZRXOG EH YXOQHUDEOH E\ DQRWKHUnV VXUYHLOODQFH 7KHVH SULYDF\ QRUPV DUH KLJKHURUGHU QRUPV ZKLFK FRXQWHUn PDQG RWKHU QRUPV ,W LV WKHVH RWKHU QRUPV ZKLFK FUHDWH WKH YXOQHUDELOLW\ 6LQFH QRUPV FRQVWUDLQ EHKDYLRU FKRLFHV WKURXJK WKHLU SUHVFULSWLRQV DQG SURVFULSWLRQV SULYDF\ QRUPV SURYLGH IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH LQ WKHVH FRXQWHUPDQGHG SURWHFWHG EHKDYLRUDO FRQWHQW DUHDV 3ULYDF\ QRUPV FRQVWUDLQ WKH OLPn LWLQJ SRZHU RI VRFLDO QRUPV $PELJXLW\ DULVHV IURP WKLV QRUPDWLYH FRQIOLFW ZKLFK LQ WXUQ FUHDWHV LQWUDSV\FKLF DQ[n LHW\ ZKLFK LV D VRXUFH RI WKH GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ .HOYLQ f SRVWXODWHV WKDW SULYDF\ QRUPV DULVH LQ WKRVH DUHDV RI EHKDYLRU ZKLFK DUH LQ WUDQVLWLRQ IURP ULJLG QRUPDWLYH FRQWURO WR SXEOLF SHUPLVVLYHQHVV ,Q VLWXDWLRQV RI SHUPLVVLYHQHVV RXU LQGHSHQGHQFH LV QRW YXOQHUDEOH WR RWKHUVn VRFLDOO\ VDQFWLRQHG SRZHU &KDQJHV LQ WHFKQRORJ\ VRFLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ VWDQGDUG RI OLYLQJ HWF HIIHFW DWWLn WXGHV WRZDUG QRUPV DQG SHUPLVVLYHQHVV

PAGE 35

(FRORJLFDO 7KHRU\ RI 3ULYDF\ (FRORJLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ %DUNHU f LQWHJUDWHV WKH FRQVWUXFWV RI QRUPV DQG UROHV LQWR WKH EXLOW HQYLURQPHQW %HKDYLRU VHWWLQJV DUH GHILQHG E\ :LFNHU f VFRUHV ZKLFK PHDVXUH YDULRXV DVSHFWV SHQHWUDWLRQ DQG DXWRQRP\ DUH WZRf RI WKH QRUPDWLYH UROH SDWWHUQV LQ VSHFLILDEOH VSDFLR WHPSRUDO VLWHV %HKDYLRU SURJUDPV DUH WKH SDUWLFXODU UROH DFWLRQ SDWWHUQV RI D EHKDYLRU VHWWLQJ %HFKWHO f KDV DSSOLHG HFRORJLFDO WKHRU\ WR WKH GLVFXVVLRQ RI SULYDF\ %HKDYLRU VHWWLQJV UHTXLUH ERXQn GDULHV WR FRQWURO DFFHVV RI RWKHUV DQG RXWVLGH VWLPXODWLRQ ZKLFK ZRXOG GLVUXSW WKH VHWWLQJnV EHKDYLRU SURJUDP 7KH GHWHUPLQDQWV RI SULYDF\ QHHGV DUH WKH FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH VSHFLILF EHKDYLRU SURJUDP 5HTXLUHPHQWV IRU SULYDF\ YDU\ ZLWK HDFK GLIIHUHQW EHKDYLRU SURJUDP $Q\WKLQJ WKDW LQWHUUXSWV RU LQIOXHQFHV WKH HQDFWPHQW RI D EHKDYLRU SURn JUDP LV DQ LQYDVLRQ RI SULYDF\ 7KLV LV XVXDOO\ VRPH H[n WUDQHRXV VRXUFH RI VWLPXODWLRQ ZKLFK LQWHUIHUHV ZLWK WDVN SHUIRUPDQFH 9XOQHUDELOLW\ DQG D ODFN RI SULYDF\ H[LVW ZKHQ WKH SHQn HWUDWLRQ DQG DXWRQRP\ OHYHOV RI D EHKDYLRU VHWWLQJ DUH WRR ORZ 3HQHWUDWLRQ LV WKH DPRXQW RI SRSXODWLRQ LQWHUGHSHQn GHQFH DFURVV VHWWLQJV $ ORZ SHQHWUDWLRQ VFRUH LQGLFDWHV WKDW PDQ\ SHRSOH RWKHU WKDQ WKRVH HQDFWLQJ WKH EHKDYLRU SURn JUDP HQWHU WKDW EHKDYLRU VHWWLQJ 7KH DXWRQRP\ VFRUH PHDn VXUHV WKH DPRXQW RI GHFLVLRQ PDNLQJ SRVVHVVHG E\ WKRVH

PAGE 36

HQDFWLQJ WKH EHKDYLRU SURJUDP /RZ VFRUHV RQ ERWK SHQHWUDn WLRQ DQG DXWRQRP\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH EHKDYLRUDO SURJUDP LV UHFHLYLQJ KLJK OHYHOV RI H[WHUQDO VWLPXODWLRQ DQG H[WHUQDO LQWHUIHUHQFH GHFLVLRQDO LQIOXHQFHf 9XOQHUDELOLW\ UHVXOWV IURP WKLV LQDELOLW\ WR FRQWURO H[WHUQDO VWLPXODWLRQ DQG LQn WHUIHUHQFH 7KH FRQFHSWXDO XQLW LQ HFRORJLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ IRU PHDn VXULQJ SULYDF\ LV QRW WKH SHUVRQ EXW UDWKHU D EHKDYLRU VHWn WLQJ ,Q WKH DEVHQFH RI SK\VLFDO ERXQGDULHV ZKLFK PDLQWDLQ SULYDF\ IRU D EHKDYLRU VHWWLQJ KRZHYHU SV\FKRORJLFDO EDUn ULHUV PXVW EH HUHFWHG E\ WKH VHWWLQJnV RFFXSDQWV WR UHJDLQ SULYDF\ 6LQFH SV\FKRORJLFDO ERXQGDULHV UHTXLUH WKH H[HUn WLRQ RI HQHUJ\ EH\RQG WKDW UHTXLUHG IRU WKH EHKDYLRU SURn JUDP LW LV FRQVLGHUHG VWUHVVLQJ %RXQGDU\ SUREOHPV DUH FUHDWHG E\ HLWKHU ZRUN VHWWLQJV GLIIHULQJ LQ EHKDYLRU SURn JUDPV RI ZRUN VHWWLQJV XQUHODWHG LQ RUJDQL]DWLRQ EHLQJ WRR FORVH SK\VLFDOO\ )XQFWLRQDO 7KHRULHV RI 3ULYDF\ 3URVKDQVN\ ,WWHOVRQ DQG 5LYOLQ f KDYH WDNHQ D IXQFWLRQDO DQDO\WLF DSSURDFK WR SULYDF\ 7KHLU FRQFHSWXDO FRPSDULVRQ RI :HVWLQnV f IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ UHVXOWHG LQ WKHLU SURSRVLWLRQ WKDW WKH\ DOO VKDUH WKH FRPPRQ SURSHUW\ RI PD[LPL]LQJ WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH E\ UHPRYLQJ VRFLDO FRQVWUDLQWV 7KH H[HUFLVH RI SULYDF\ LV WKH H[HUFLVH RI SRZHU RYHU ZKR VKDOO RU VKDOO QRW FRQWURO RXU DFWLRQV

PAGE 37

,WWHOVRQ 3URVKDQVN\ 5LYOLQ t :LQNHO f 7KH SV\n FKRORJLFDO H[SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ RFFXUV ZKHQ WKH SHUVRQ SHUFHLYHV DQG EHOLHYHV WKDW KH KDV WKH IUHHGRP LQ D JLYHQ VLWXDWLRQ WR GHWHUPLQH ZKHQ DQG KRZ WR EHKDYH 7KH GHVLUH RU QHHG IRU SULYDF\ DULVHV ZKHQ WKH LQGLYLGXDO LV IDFHG ZLWK VRFLDO FRQVWUDLQWV RU OLPLWDWLRQV ZKLFK SUHYHQW KLP IURP EHKDYLQJ LQ ZD\V DSSURSULDWH WR KLV SDUWLFXODU SXUn SRVHV &URZGLQJ RFFXUV WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKH VKHHU QXPn EHU RI SHRSOH SUHVHQW UHVWULFWV IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH LQ SXUn VXLQJ RQHnV JRDOV 7HUULWRULDO EHKDYLRU LV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI D GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ LQ VR IDU DV LW GHFUHDVHV FURZGLQJ DQG VRFLDO FRQVWUDLQWV $ FRQFHSWXDO UHILQHPHQW RI WKLV IXQFWLRQDO DSSURDFK ZDV SURYLGHG E\ -RKQVRQ f )UHHGRP RI FKRLFH LV HTXDWHG ZLWK SHUVRQDO FRQWURO ZKLFK ZDV GLVWLQJXLVKHG LQWR SULPDU\ DQG VHFRQGDU\ FRQWURO 6HFRQGDU\ FRQWURO FRQVLVWV RI WKRVH EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK FUHDWH FRQGLWLRQV ZKLFK DUH SUHn UHTXLVLWHV RU IDFLOLWDWLYH WR SULPDU\ FRQWUROOLQJ EHKDYLRUV 3ULYDF\ FRPSULVHV WKRVH EHKDYLRUV LQWHQGHG WR HVWDEOLVK VHF RQGDU\ FRQWURO RYHU RXWFRPHV $V VXFK SULYDF\ GRHV QRW IXQFWLRQ WR VDWLVI\ DQ\ LQKHUHQW RU IXQGDPHQWDO QHHG EXW UDWKHU IXQFWLRQV WR IDFLOLWDWH WKH DWWDLQPHQW RI RWKHU JRDOV )RUPDOO\ -RKQVRQ GHILQHV SULYDF\ DV WKRVH EHKDYn LRUV ZKLFK HQKDQFH DQG PDLQWDLQ RQHnV FRQWURO RYHU RXWFRPHV LQGLUHFWO\ E\ FRQWUROOLQJ LQWHUDFWLRQV ZLWK RWKHUV S f 2QFH IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH KDV EHHQ H[HUFLVHG LQ WKH

PAGE 38

VHOHFWLRQ RI D JRDO IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH LV SHUIRUPHG LQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI EHKDYLRUV H[SHFWHG WR OHDG WR WKDW JRDO 3ULn YDF\ LV WKLV EHKDYLRU VHOHFWLRQ FRQWURO GHVLJQHG WR DWWDLQ SUHVHOHFWHG JRDOV 3ULYDF\ WKHUHIRUH LV QRW DQ RXWFRPH EXW D EHKDYLRU FRQGXFLYH WR DQ RXWFRPH :KHWKHU SULYDF\ LV VDWLVI\LQJ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI WKH H[n WHQW WR ZKLFK LW DFKLHYHV WKH GHVLUHG RXWFRPH 7KH VHOHFn WLRQ RI SULYDF\ EHKDYLRU DXWRPDWLFDOO\ OHDGV WR PXOWLSOH FRQVHTXHQFHV LQ WKH IRUP RI HOLPLQDWHG RSWLRQV LQ DGGLWLRQ WR WKH LQWHQGHG FRQVHTXHQFH $PELYDOHQFH WKHQ LV IUHn TXHQWO\ H[SHULHQFHG ZLWK SULYDF\ 6LQFH VHFRQGDU\ FRQWURO LV GLVWDO IURP WKH GHVLUHG RXWFRPH WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHn WZHHQ SULYDF\ DQG RXWFRPHV PD\ EH KLJKO\ XQFHUWDLQ 7KLV XQFHUWDLQW\ LQ WXUQ LV D VRXUFH RI VWUHVV DQG DQ[LHW\ DVVRn FLDWHG ZLWK SULYDF\ 5HVHDUFK RQ 3ULYDF\ $V WKLV UHYLHZ RI SULYDF\ WKHRULHV KDV LQGLFDWHG SULn YDF\ LV D FRPSOH[ FRQVWUXFW 7KH UHVHDUFK RQ SULYDF\ PLUn URUV WKLV FRPSOH[LW\ $W WKH SUHVHQW HPEU\RQLF VWDJH RI WKHRU\ DQG LWV WHVWLQJ D GHWDLOHG FULWLTXH RI SULYDF\ UHn VHDUFK GHVLJQ DQG PHWKRGRORJ\ VHHPV SUHPDWXUH ,QVWHDG RQO\ WKH ILQGLQJV UHSRUWHG DV VLJQLILFDQW ZLOO EH SUHVHQWHG 7KXV WKH ZRUG nVLJQLILFDQWn LV QRW UHSHDWHG IRU HDFK ILQGn LQJ 7KH PHWKRGRORJLFDO VRXQGQHVV RI WKH UHSRUWHG UHVHDUFK

PAGE 39

DQG WKH DSSURSULDWHQHVV RI WKH VWDWLVWLFDO DQDO\VHV DUH EXW EULHIO\ UHYLHZHG &RQIOLFWLQJ ILQGLQJV PD\ EH GXH WKHUHn IRUH WR D YDULHW\ RI RSHUDWLRQDO PHWKRGRORJLFDO DQG DQn DO\WLF GLIIHUHQFHV DQG LQDGHTXDFLHV 0HDVXUHV RI 3ULYDF\ $ ODUJH SURSRUWLRQ RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQ WKH DUHD RI SULn YDF\ KDV DGGUHVVHG VXFK FRQFHUQV DV SHUVRQDOLW\ GLVSRVLWLRQV WRZDUG SULYDF\ DQG DWWLWXGHV DERXW SULYDF\ %HIRUH UHYLHZn LQJ WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHSRUWLQJ RQ SULYDF\ UHVHDUFK LW LV QHFn HVVDU\ WR EULHIO\ GHVFULEH WKHVH SHUVRQDOLW\ DQG DWWLWXGL QDO VFDOHV IRU SULYDF\ DQG UHSRUW RQ WKHLU UHOLDELOLW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ 0DUVKDOO f KDV GHYHORSHG WKH PRVW FRPSUHn KHQVLYH GLVSRVLWLRQDO PHDVXUH RI SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV 7KH ILIW\VL[ LWHP 3ULYDF\ 3UHIHUHQFH 6FDOH 336f FRQVLVWV RI VL[ VWDWLVWLFDOO\ GHWHUPLQHG IDFWRUV ,QWLPDF\ 1RW 1HLJKn ERULQJ 6HFOXVLRQ 6ROLWXGH $QRQ\PLW\ DQG 5HVHUYH :KLOH QR UHOLDELOLW\ OHYHO ZDV UHSRUWHG IRU WKH VFDOH DV D ZKROH WHVWV RI VXEVFDOH IDFWRUVf LWHP KRPRJHQHLW\ XVLQJ FRHIILn FLHQW DOSKD \LHOGHG UHOLDELOLW\ FRHIILFLHQWV UDQJLQJ IURP IRU 1RW 1HLJKERULQJ WR IRU ,QWLPDF\ 7KH VXEVFDOH WRWDOV ZKHQ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH 336 WRWDO VFRUH UDQJHG IURP ,QWLPDF\f WR 1RW 1HLJKERULQJf 7KH UHSRUWHG YDn OLGLW\ IRU WKH 336 LV EDVHG RQ LWV FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK VHYHQn WHHQ SUHGLFWHG UHODWLRQV ZLWK EHKDYLRU 2I WKHVH VHYHQWHHQ

PAGE 40

K\SRWKHVHV QLQH RI WKHP ZHUH FRQILUPHG 2QO\ RQH UHODWLRQn VKLS RI WKLUW\VHYHQ QRQSUHGLFWHG K\SRWKHVHV ZDV VLJQLIn LFDQW 7KH 1HHGIRU3ULYDF\ 6XEVFDOH 136f RI 0F.HFKQLHnV f (QYLURQPHQWDO 5HVSRQVH ,QYHQWRU\ (5,f LV D JHQHUn DOL]HG PHDVXUH ZLWK QR GLVWLQFWLYH IDFWRUV 7KH PDMRU WKHPHV RI WKH VXEVFDOH DUH WKH QHHG IRU SK\VLFDO LVRODWLRQ IURP VWLPXODWLRQ QHHG IRU IUHHGRP IURP GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG GLVOLNH RI QHLJKERULQJ 7KH RQO\ SXEOLVKHG VFDOH UHOLDELOn LW\ DQG YDOLGLW\ LQIRUPDWLRQ DSSHDUV LQ WKH VFDOHnV PDQXDO ZKLFK LV DYDLODEOH RQO\ WKURXJK SXUFKDVH 7KH (QYLURQPHQWDO 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH (36 :LQGOH\ f ZDV GHYHORSHG WR DVVHVV SUHIHUHQFHV WR FRQWURO DFFHVV WR RWKHUV E\ XVLQJ IHDWXUHV RI WKH SK\VLFDO HQYLURQPHQW 7KH UHOLDELOLW\ LWHP KRPRJHQHLW\f IRU WKLV VFDOH ZDV LQWROHUn DEO\ ORZ DW LQGLFDWLQJ KLJK PHDVXUHPHQW HUURU %HFDXVH RI WKLV ORZ UHOLDELOLW\ QR YDOLGLW\ GDWD ZDUH UHSRUWHG IRU WKH (36 5HVHDUFK 5HODWHG WR %LRORJLFDO 7KHRULHV 7KHUH LV QR GLUHFWO\ UHOHYDQW UHVHDUFK RQ SULYDF\ DSn SOLFDEOH WR +DOPRVn f ELRVRFLDO QHHG WKHRU\ 0HKUDELDQ DQG 5XVVHOOnV f VHPDQWLF DURXVDO PHGLDWLRQ WKHRU\ RU %HFKWHOnV f HFRORJLFDO WKHRU\ 5HVHDUFK LV DYDLODEOH RQ WHUULWRULDO WKHRULHV .ORSIHU t 5XEHQVWHLQ DQG 3DVWDODQ Ef DQG RQ DGDSWDWLRQ WKHRULHV +LOO DQG 0DUVKDOO f RI SULYDF\

PAGE 41

6RPPHU f KDV GLVWLQJXLVKHG WZR VWUDWHJLHV RI WHUn ULWRULDO GHIHQVH WR SURWHFW SULYDF\ RU DWWDLQ SULYDF\ DYRLGDQFH DQG RIIHQVLYH GLVSOD\ ,Q WDVN VLWXDWLRQV IUHHn GRP IURP GLVWUDFWLRQ FDQ EH DWWDLQHG HLWKHU E\ EHLQJ SK\Vn LFDOO\ UHPRYHG IURP RWKHUV DYRLGDQFHf RU E\ OD\LQJ HIIHFn WLYH FODLP WR D ODUJH ZRUN DUHD RIIHQVLYH GLVSOD\f $W OLEUDU\ VWXG\ WDEOHV WKH DYRLGDQFH VWUDWHJ\ IRU SULYDF\ UHVXOWHG LQ D VLJQLILFDQWO\ JUHDWHU FKRLFH RI HQG FKDLUV DW WDEOHV &KDLUV DW WKH PLGGOH RI WDEOHV ZHUH FKRVHQ PRUH IRU WKH RIIHQVLYH GLVSOD\ VWUDWHJ\ 7KH DYRLGDQFH VWUDWHJ\ ZDV XVHG PRUH WKDQ RIIHQVLYH GLVSOD\V 6RPPHU K\SRWKHVL]HG EXW GLG QRW WHVW WKDW WKH HIIHFWLYHQHVV RI WKH RIIHQVLYH GLVSOD\ VWUDWHJ\ GHFUHDVHV DV VRFLDO GHQVLW\ DQG VL]H RI WKH DUHD FODLPHG LQFUHDVHV %DUULHUV WR LQWHUDFWLRQ DUH GHIHQVLYH WHUULWRULDO PDUNn HUV IHQFLQJ LV DQ H[DPSOH RI WKLV WHUULWRULDO VWUDWHJ\ 0DUVKDOO f IRXQG WKDW SHUVRQV VFRULQJ KLJK RQ WKH 336 5HVHUYH VXEVFDOH KDG D JUHDWHU DPRXQW RI IHQFLQJ DURXQG WKHLU KRPHV :LWKLQ WKH KRPH 5RVHQEODWW DQG %XGG f REWDLQHG GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH XVH RI WHUULWRU\ IRU SULYDF\ EHWZHHQ PDUn ULHG DQG XQPDUULHG FRXSOHV 8QPDUULHG FRXSOHV ZHUH VLJQLIn LFDQWO\ PRUH OLNHO\ WKDQ PDUULHG FRXSOHV WR KDYH DQ DUHD ZLWKLQ WKHLU UHVLGHQFH IRU EHLQJ DORQH 0DUULHG FRXSOHV KRZHYHU KDG PRUH VHSDUDWH VWRUDJH DUHDV WKDQ XQPDUULHG FRXSOHV

PAGE 42

:KLOH WHUULWRU\ LV RQH VWUDWHJ\ WR DWWDLQ SULYDF\ WHUULWRULDOLW\ DQG SULYDF\ KDYH GLIIHUHQW SV\FKRORJLFDO HIIHFWV (GQH\ t %XGD f 6WXGHQWV SUHIHUUHG D VLWXn DWLRQ ZKLFK ZDV ERWK LQ WKHLU WHUULWRU\ DQG DIIRUGHG SULn YDF\ IRU D ZLGH UDQJH RI DFWLYLWLHV f SHUVRQDO DFWLYn LWLHV WDNLQJ FDUH RI SHUVRQDO EXVLQHVV SHUVRQDO KREE\ DQG ZULWLQJ D ERRN DERXW VHOI f ZRUN DFWLYLWLHV VWXG\n LQJ UHDGLQJ DQG FUHDWLYH ZULWLQJ f EDVLF ELRORJLFDO IXQFWLRQV VH[ DQG WRLOHWJURRPLQJ DQG f WKLQNLQJ DERXW DQ\WKLQJ DQG VLQJLQJ RXW ORXG 7HUULWRU\ ZLWKRXW SULYDF\ ZDV PRUH SUHIHUUHG IRU UHOD[DWLRQ DFWLYLWLHV ZDWFKLQJ 79 nMXVW UHOD[LQJEHLQJ \RXUVHOIn FDVXDO FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZLWK RQH IULHQG DQG HDWLQJ EXW QRW IRU UHOD[LQJ DIWHU D KDUG GD\ )RU GULQNLQJ DQG nGRLQJ VRPHWKLQJ YHU\ GLIIHUHQW DQG XQFRQYHQWLRQDOn VXEMHFWV SUHIHUUHG QR WHUULWRU\ DQG QR SULn YDF\ $FURVV DOO VHYHQWHHQ DFWLYLWLHV D PDMRULW\ RI SHRn SOH SUHIHUUHG WHUULWRU\ ZLWKRXW SULYDF\ LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW SHRn SOH GLVWLQJXLVK EHWZHHQ SULYDF\ DQG WHUULWRU\ (GQH\ DQG %XGD f DQG %RZHU f DOVR IRXQG WKDW WHUULWRU\ DQG SULYDF\ GLIIHUHQWLDOO\ DIIHFW DWWULEXWLRQ FUHDWLYLW\ SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH HQYLURQPHQW DQG VHOISHUFHSn WLRQ 6XEMHFWV ZLWKRXW SULYDF\ DQG WKRVH ZLWKRXW WHUULWRU\ DWWULEXWHG WKHLU EHKDYLRU PRUH WR WKH LQIOXHQFH RI RWKHUV %RZHU f ZDV XQDEOH WR UHSOLFDWH WKLV ILQGLQJ IRU WKH WHUULWRU\ FRQGLWLRQ EXW GLG UHSOLFDWH WKH SULYDF\ HIIHFW RQ DWWULEXWLRQ 6XEMHFWV LQ SULYDF\ EXW QRW WHUULWRU\ VFRUHG

PAGE 43

KLJKHU RQ D FUHDWLYLW\ WHVW WKDQ WKRVH ZLWKRXW SULYDF\ 5RRPV ZKLFK ZHUH SULYDWH ZHUH SHUFHLYHG DV PRUH VWLPXODWLQJ WKDQ QRQSULYDWH RQHV %RWK SULYDF\ DORQH DQG WKH LQWHUn DFWLRQ RI SULYDF\ DQG WHUULWRU\ LQFUHDVHG WKH IHOW FRPIRUn WDEOHQHVV RI WKH URRP %RZHU f 7HUULWRULDOLW\ GLG QRW DIIHFW URRP VWLPXODWLRQ SHUFHSWLRQ 7HUULWRU\ GLG KRZn HYHU LQFUHDVH UHSRUWV RI IHHOLQJV RI SRVVHVVLRQ ZKHUHDV WKH SULYDF\ FRQGLWLRQV GLG QRW %RZHU f UHSOLFDWHG WKLV ILQGLQJ ZLWK WKH VHPDQWLF GLIIHUHQWLDO EXW DOVR IRXQG DQ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHWZHHQ SULYDF\ DQG WHUULWRULDOLW\ RQ VHPDQn WLF GLIIHUHQWLDO UDWLQJV RI SRVVHVVLRQ +LOOnV f XVH RI DGDSWDWLRQ OHYHO WKHRU\ UHODWHV SUHVHQW SULYDF\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV WR SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ $V DFn WXDO SULYDF\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV GHFUHDVH WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU SULn YDF\ VKRXOG LQFUHDVH ZLWK DOO RWKHU WKLQJV EHLQJ HTXDO 7KH SUHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHG DV WKH QXPEHU RI SRn WHQWLDO REVHUYHUV SDVVLQJ E\ ZLQGRZV RXWVLGH LQFUHDVHG +LOO f 0DUVKDOO f SURYLGHG DGGLWLRQDO VXSSRUW IRU WKLV K\SRWKHVLV 3UHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ VFRUHV RQ KHU 336 VFDOH IRU WKH WRWDO 336 6HFOXVLRQ 6ROLWXGH DQG 5Hn VHUYH VXEVFDOHV DOO GHFUHDVHG DV SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ ZLWKLQ WKH SUHVHQW KRPH LQFUHDVHG ,QYHUVHO\ DV SHUFHLYHG FURZGn LQJ ZLWKLQ WKH SUHVHQW KRPH LQFUHDVHG WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU 5HVHUYH LQFUHDVHG 3HRSOH ZKR SHUFHLYHG WKHLU SUHVHQW KRXVH DV WRR FURZGHG LQVXIILFLHQW SULYDF\f UHSRUWHG REn MHFWLYH FRQGLWLRQV ZKLFK LQGLFDWHG D ODFN RI DFWXDO SULYDF\

PAGE 44

RSSRUWXQLWLHV f PRUH SHUVRQV SHU URRP f OHVV DGHn TXDWH LQVXODWLRQ EHWZHHQ QRLV\ DQG TXLHW DFWLYLWLHV LQ WKH KRPH f PRUH DEOH WR RYHUKHDU QHLJKERUV f DQG PRUH KRXVHV YLVLEOH IURP WKH OLYLQJ URRP ZLQGRZV 7KRVH ZKR SHUn FHLYHG WKHLU KRPHV DV VXIILFLHQWO\ SULYDWH KDG PRUH DFWXDO LQVXODWLRQ EHWZHHQ QRLV\ DQG TXLHW DFWLYLWLHV KDG IHZHU KRXVHV YLVLEOH IURP WKHLU OLYLQJ URRP ZLQGRZV DQG OLYHG IXUWKHU DZD\ IURP QHLJKERUV 3HRSOH LQFUHDVHG WKH XVH RI GUDSHV GUDZQ FORVHG GXULQJ WKH GD\ DV WKHLU SHUFHLYHG SULn YDF\ IURP QHLJKERUV GHFUHDVHG 0DUVKDOO f &RQWUDU\ WR WKH DGDSWDWLRQ K\SRWKHVLV RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ SHUn FHLYHG SULYDF\ IURP QHLJKERUV LQFUHDVHG DV UHSRUWHG QRLVH IURP WUDIILF DQG IURP QHLJKERUV LQFUHDVHG 0DUVKDOO f 3DVWDODQ f UHSRUWHG WKDW 336 VFRUHV GHFUHDVHG IRU QXUVLQJ KRPH UHVLGHQWV ZKR PRYHG WR D QHZ QXUVLQJ KRPH ZKLFK SURYLGHG PRUH DFWXDO RSSRUWXQLWLHV IRU SULYDF\ SULn YDWH URRPVf 7KRVH SDWLHQWV UHSRUWLQJ KDYLQJ D VXFFHVVIXO VWUDWHJ\ IRU DWWDLQLQJ SULYDF\ KDG ORZHU SUHIHUHQFHV IRU VROLWXGH 7KH GHVLUH IRU ,QWLPDF\ 336 VXEVFDOHf ZDV PRVW FOHDUO\ UHODWHG WR FKDQJHV LQ DFWXDO OHYHOV RI SULYDF\ 7KH SUHIHUHQFH IRU UHVHUYH 336 VXEVFDOHf KRZHYHU ZDV QRW UHODWHG WR FKDQJHV LQ DFWXDO UHVHUYH 5HVXOWV UHSRUWHG E\ /DZWRQ DQG %DGHU f DWWHQXDWH +LOOnV DGDSWDWLRQ K\SRWKHVLV 5HJDUGOHVV RI DFWXDO SULYDF\ RSSRUWXQLWLHV WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK DJH DQG VRFLRHFRQRPLF VWDWXV

PAGE 45

+LOOnV f RWKHU DGDSWDWLRQ K\SRWKHVLV GHDOW ZLWK WKH RSWLPL]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ DQG ERXQGDU\ SHUPHDELOLW\ 3ULYDF\ ERXQGDULHV IXQFWLRQ WR FRQWURO LQWHUDFWLRQ DQG DFn FHVV QRW WR HOLPLQDWH WKHVH 7KHUH LV D IXQFWLRQDO EDOn DQFH EHWZHHQ SULYDF\ DFFHVV WR VHOIf DQG YLVLELOLW\ DFn FHVV WR RWKHUVf +LOO IRXQG WKLV RSWLPL]DWLRQ SURFHVV DV WKH GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHG WKH YLVXDO DFFHVV E\ WKH UHVLGHQW WR RWKHUV RXWVLGH WKH KRPH GHFUHDVHG 5DWKHU WKDQ LQWHUSUHWLQJ DGDSWDWLRQ OHYHO WKHRU\ LQ WHUPV RI SUHVHQW SULYDF\ FRQGLWLRQV 0DUVKDOO f IRFXVHV RQ WKH LPSDFW RI FKLOGKRRG SULYDF\ FRQGLWLRQV RQ DGXOW SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV 7KRVH SHRSOH H[SHULHQFLQJ OLWn WOH SULYDF\ LQ FKLOGKRRG ZLOO GHYHORS D ORZ SUHIHUHQFH IRU SULYDF\ DV DGXOWV 7KHLU DGXOW SUHIHUHQFHV DUH D UHVXOW RI FKLOGKRRG DGDSWDWLRQV 0DUVKDOO f KRZHYHU IRXQG PLQLPDO UHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH GHQVLW\ RI FKLOGKRRG HQYLURQPHQWV DQG DGXOW SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV 7KHUH ZHUH QR VLJQLILFDQW UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ WKH FKLOGKRRG GHQVLW\ PHDVXUHV DQG SUHIHUHQFH IRU VHFOXVLRQ RU VROLWXGH 336 VXEVFDOH VFRUHVf 3ULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFH WRWDO 336 VFRUHf ZDV QRW VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR FKLOGKRRG SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ QXPEHU RI VLEOLQJV FKLOGKRRG SHUFHLYHG FURZGLQJ KDYLQJ RZQ URRP DPLFDELOLW\ RI VLEOLQJV DPRXQW RI RSHQ VSDFH LQ FKLOGKRRG QHLJKERUKRRGV FKLOGKRRG WRZQ VL]H DQG FKLOGKRRG VSDWLDO PRELOLW\

PAGE 46

6RPH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ FHUWDLQ FKLOGKRRG GHQVLW\ YDULDEOHV DQG LVRODWHG 336 VXEVFDOHV ZHUH IRXQG 3UHIHUn HQFH IRU DQRQ\PLW\ LQFUHDVHG DV WKH VL]H RI WKH WRZQ RQH KDG JURZQXS LQ LQFUHDVHG $Q LQFUHDVLQJ VL]H RI FKLOGKRRG WRZQ LQFUHDVHG WKH SUHIHUHQFH IRU DGXOW LQWLPDF\ 7KH GHn VLUH IRU LQWLPDF\ ZDV KLJKHU DPRQJVW WKRVH DGXOWV ZKR KDG OLYHG LQ VLQJOH IDPLO\ UHVLGHQFHV DV FKLOGUHQ :KLOH VKDUn LQJ D URRP DV D FKLOG KDYLQJ PDQ\ VLEOLQJV DQG KDYLQJ RSHQ VSDFH DURXQG WKH FKLOGKRRG KRPH ZHUH QRW UHODWHG WR DGXOW SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV WKHVH YDULDEOHV ZHUH UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG FURZGLQJ RI WKH FKLOGKRRG KRPH 7KRVH DGXOWV ZKR LQ WXUQ UHPHPEHUHG WKHLU FKLOGKRRG KRPHV DV FURZGHG SUHIHUUHG ERWK DQRQ\PLW\ LQWLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH 'HYHORSPHQWDO 5HVHDUFK 'HYHORSPHQWDO UHVHDUFK RQ SULYDF\ FDQ EH GLYLGHG LQWR IRXU FDWHJRULHV f UHVHDUFK RQ FKDQJHV LQ SULYDF\ DWWLn WXGHV RYHU WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH f UHVHDUFK RQ FKDQJHV LQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI SULYDF\ RYHU WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH f UHVHDUFK RQ FKDQJHV LQ KRXVHKROG SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV DQG WKHLU VRFLDOL]DWLRQ FRUUHODWHV RYHU WKH GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH DQG f UHVHDUFK RQ FKDQJHV LQ KRXVHKROG SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV RYHU WKH VWDJHV RI WKH IDPLO\ F\FOH 7KHVH ZLOO EH UHYLHZHG LQ WXUQ 9LHZLQJ SUHIHUHQFH DV DQ DWWLWXGH SUHIHUHQFH IRU D SULYDWH URRP LQFUHDVHV ZLWK DJH IURP \HDUV WHQ WKURXJK IRUW\

PAGE 47

/DZWRQ t %DGHU f 7KLV SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFH VWDELOL]HG DIWHU DJH IRUW\ $QDO\VHV RI 0DUVKDOOnV DQG f 3ULYDF\ 3UHIHUHQF\ 6FDOH 336f VFRUHV UHVXOWHG LQ VHYHUDO DJH UHODWHG GLIIHUHQFHV $GXOWV WKH SDUHQWV RI WKH VWXn GHQW UHVSRQGHQWVf KDG KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFHV IRU UHVHUYH DQG QRW QHLJKERULQJ ZKLOH WKH VWXGHQWV KDG KLJKHU SUHIHUHQFHV IRU VROLWXGH DQG LQWLPDF\ $WWLWXGHV DERXW ZKDW FRQWHQW VKRXOG EH SULYDWH LQGLFDWHG WKDW ROGHU SHUVRQV DUH OHVV FRQFHUQHG WKDQ \RXQJHU SHUVRQV DERXW RWKHUV SRVVHVVLQJ NQRZOHGJH RI RQHnV LQWHUHVWV YDOXHV DQG VRFLDO DGMXVWn PHQW 5RVHQEDXP f :ROIH DQG /DXIHUnV f UHVHDUFK VXEVWDQWLDWHG WKH WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLFWLRQV E\ /DXIHU 3URVKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f WKDW ZLWK PDWXUDWLRQ WKH FRQFHSW RI SULYDF\ VKRXOG EHFRPH PRUH FRPSOH[ DQG WKH VDOLHQFH RI WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEn XWHV RI SULYDF\ VKRXOG FKDQJH 7KH DELOLW\ WR JLYH D GHIn LQLWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LV D IXQFWLRQ RI DJH SHUFHQW RI ILYH \HDUROGV FRXOG QRW JLYH D GHILQLWLRQ HYHQ WKRXJK WKH\ FRXOG JLYH H[DPSOHV RI SULYDWH WLPHV DQG SODFHV 7KH PDn MRU VKLIW SRLQW LQ WKLV GHILQLWLRQDO DELOLW\ RFFXUUHG EHn WZHHQ WKH DJHV RI ILYH DQG VHYHQ 2QO\ SHUFHQW RI VHYHQ \HDUROGV IDLOHG WR SURYLGH D GHILQLWLRQ 7KH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKHVH GHILQLWLRQV DV LQGH[HG E\ QRQUHGXQGDQW UHVSRQVHV LQFUHDVHG ZLWK DJH 7KH JUHDWHVW LQFUHDVH LQ FRQFHSWXDO FRPSOH[LW\ RFFXUUHG EHWZHHQ DJHV HOHYHQ DQG WKLUWHHQ

PAGE 48

7KH VDOLHQW PHDQLQJV RI SULYDF\ FKDQJHG IUHTXHQWO\ EHWZHHQ \HDUV ILYH DQG VHYHQWHHQ )LYH PHDQLQJV ZHUH VDn OLHQW DW DOO WKHVH DJHV DORQH GRLQJ ZKDW \RX ZDQW ZLWKn RXW EHLQJ ERWKHUHG TXLHW DORQH ZLWK VRPHERG\ DQG FRQn WUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQ 7KHVH FRUUHVSRQG WR VROn LWXGH FRQWURO WDVN SULYDF\ LQWLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH 7KH PRVW VDOLHQW GLPHQVLRQ DW DJH ILYH LV TXLHW &RQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR VSDFHV EHLQJ DZD\ IURP SHRSOH GRLQJ DQG WKLQNn LQJ DORQH DQG QR RQH ERWKHULQJ PH ZHUH QRW JLYHQ E\ ILYH \HDUROGV EXW ZHUH JLYHQ E\ ROGHU FKLOGUHQ 7KH PRVW VDn OLHQW PHDQLQJ DW DJH VHYHQ ZDV nFRQWUROOLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQn 7KH VDOLHQFH RI FRQWUROOLQJ LQWHUDFWLRQ EHLQJ DORQH ZKHQ \RX ZDQW WRf DV D SULYDF\ PHDQLQJ RFFXUUHG IRU DOO DJHV QLQH DQG DERYH &RQWUROOLQJ LQGLYLGXDO DFWLYLW\ LH DXWRQRP\ EHLQJ DEOH WR GR ZKDW \RX ZDQWf LV D VDOLHQW PHDQn LQJ IRU FKLOGUHQ HOHYHQ DQG ROGHU 7KH DJH SRLQWV DW ZKLFK WKH VDOLHQFH IRU YDULRXV PHDQn LQJV FKDQJH YDU\ E\ VSHFLILF PHDQLQJ 7KH LQFUHDVH IRU WKH VDOLHQFH RI nQR RQH ERWKHULQJ PHn RFFXUV EHWZHHQ DJHV VHYHQ DQG QLQH f IRU nDORQHn EHWZHHQ VHYHQ DQG HOHYHQ DQG f IRU nFRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQn EHWZHHQ WKLUWHHQ DQG VHYHQWHHQ n&RQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQn GHFUHDVHG IURP DJH VHYHQ WR WKLUWHHQ DQG nFRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR VSDFHVn GHFUHDVHG EHWZHHQ HOHYHQ DQG WKLUWHHQ &RPSDULQJ WKH VDOLHQFH RI DOWHUQDWLYH PHDQLQJV DFURVV DJH JURXSV UHYHDOHG D FRPSOH[ SDWWHUQ RI UHVXOWV

PAGE 49

&RQWUROOLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ ZDV HPLWWHG PRUH WKDQ DORQH IRU RQO\ VHYHQ\HDUROGV WKDQ QR RQH ERWKHULQJ PH IRU DOO DJHV H[FHSW WKLUWHHQ\HDUROGV DQG WKDQ FRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR VSDFHV E\ DOO DJHV 7KH PHDQLQJ DORQH ZDV JLYHQ E\ D JUHDWHU SHUFHQWDJH RI FKLOGUHQ WKDQ QR RQH ERWKHULQJ PH DW DOO DJHV H[FHSW VHYHQ DQG PRUH WKDQ FRQn WUROOLQJ VSDFHV DW DOO DJHV H[FHSW VHYHQ DQG QLQH 2QO\ FKLOGUHQ DW DJH WKLUWHHQ JDYH QR RQH ERWKHULQJ PH PRUH WKDQ FRQWUROOLQJ VSDFHV 0RUH FKLOGUHQ DW DOO DJHV JDYH DORQH DQG FRQWUROOLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ WKDQ QR RQH ERWKHUn LQJ PH DQG FRQWURO RYHU VSDFHV 7KH SHUFHQW RI FKLOn GUHQ XVLQJ ZKHQ \RX ZDQW WR DV SDUW RI WKH PHDQLQJ IRU SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK DJH DQG LV XVHG PRUH RIWHQ DIWHU DJH ILIWHHQ $YHUDJHG DFURVV DOO DJHV WKH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ SURn YLGHG PHDQLQJV IRU SULYDF\ ZHUH f FRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQ bf f DORQH bf f QR RQH ERWKHUn LQJ PH DQG f FRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR VSDFHV 7KHVH IRXU FDWHJRULHV RI PHDQ ZHUH JLYHQ E\ IRXU ODUJHO\ LQGHSHQGHQW JURXSV RI FKLOGUHQ FRQWUROOLQJ IRU DJH 7KLV UHVXOW LQGLn FDWHV WKDW FRQWURO SHU VH FDQQRW EH YLHZHG H[SHULHQWLDOO\ DV XQLGLPHQVLRQDOO\ .QRZOHGJH DERXW SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUDO FKDQJHV DQG WKH VRn FLDOL]DWLRQ LQIOXHQFHV RQ WKHVH FKDQJHV LV SURYLGHG 3DUNH DQG 6DZLQnV f UHVHDUFK 7KH\ IRXQG WKDW WKH XVH RI SK\VLFDO SULYDF\ PDUNHUV DQG SULYDF\ UXOHV ERWK LQFUHDVHG

PAGE 50

ZLWK WKH FKLOGnV DJH %RWK RI WKHVH GHYHORSPHQWDO WUHQGV ZHUH IRFXVHG DURXQG WZR KRXVHKROG DUHDV WKH EDWKURRP DQG WKH FKLOGnV EHGURRP 7KH SULPDU\ SULYDF\ PDUNHU ZDV WKH FORVHG GRRU DQG WKH PRVW SURPLQHQW SULYDF\ UXOH ZDV NQRFNn LQJ RQ FORVHG GRRUV $ FORVHG GRRU VLJQDOOHG UHVWULFWHG DFFHVV WR WKH URRP $V WKH DJH RI WKH FKLOG LQFUHDVHG ERWK SDUHQWV DQG VLEOLQJV ZHUH PRUH UHVWULFWHG LQ WKHLU DFFHVV WR WKH EDWKURRP RFFXSLHG E\ WKH FKLOG 7KH ODUJHVW VKLIW LQFUHDVHf LQ WKH FKLOG UHVWULFWLQJ DFFHVV WR RWKHUV RFFXUUHG GXULQJ HDUO\ DGROHVFHQFH $GROHVFHQWV RI WKH VDPH DJH ZKR ZHUH PRUH SK\VLFDOO\ PDWXUH DV PHDVXUHG E\ DQ REn MHFWLYH LQGH[ ZHUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR NHHS WKH EDWKURRP GRRU FORVHG DQG WR UHVWULFW DFFHVV WR RWKHU IDPLO\ PHPEHUV HYHQ DIWHU WKH\ NQRFNHG 9LHZLQJ WKH IDPLO\ DV D VRFLDO V\VWHP WKH H[HUFLVH RI SULYDF\ E\ RQH PHPEHU LV ODUJHO\ FRQWLQJHQW RQ WKH FRn RSHUDWLYH EHKDYLRU RI WKH UHPDLQLQJ IDPLO\ PHPEHUV $V D UHVXOW QRW RQO\ DUH SDUHQWV DQG VLEOLQJV LQFUHDVLQJO\ UHn VWULFWHG LQ DFFHVV WR WKH EDWKURRP DV WKH FKLOG DJHV EXW SDUHQWV NQRFN PRUH RQ ERWK WKH EDWKURRP DQG EHGURRP GRRUV RI ROGHU FKLOGUHQ 7KHVH PXWXDOO\ FRQWLQJHQW EHKDYLRUV DUH VWURQJO\ DWWHQXDWHG E\ WKH JHQGHU FRPSRVLWLRQ RI LQWHUn DFWDQWV DQG E\ WKH DFWLYLW\ EHLQJ HQJDJHG LQ E\ WKH SULn YDF\VHHNLQJ PHPEHU 7KH FKLOGnV UHVWULFWLRQ RI DFFHVV WR RWKHUV LV OHVV IRU VDPH VH[ YHUVXV RSSRVLWH VH[ SDUHQWV DQG VLEOLQJV ,QYHUVHO\ SDUHQWV NQRFN RQ WKH EDWKURRP GRRU

PAGE 51

PRUH ZKHQ LW LV RFFXSLHG E\ D FKLOG RI WKH RSSRVLWH JHQGHU :KLOH IDWKHUV NQRFN RQ GDXJKWHUnV EHGURRP GRRUV PRUH WKDQ WKHLU VRQnV GRRU PRWKHUVn NQRFNLQJ VKRZ QR GLIIHUHQFH EHn WZHHQ VRQV DQG GDXJKWHUV 7KH JUHDWHVW LQFUHDVH LQ WKH SHUn FHQWDJH RI JLUOV UHVWULFWLQJ DFFHVV WR WKH EDWKURRP ZDV EHn WZHHQ WHQ DQG WKLUWHHQ EXW IRU IDWKHUV RQO\ 7KH FKDQJHV IRU ER\V RFFXUUHG ODWHU IRXUWHHQ WR VHYHQWHHQf DQG ZDV GLn UHFWHG WRZDUG ERWK SDUHQWV 1RW VXUSULVLQJO\ WKH W\SH RI DFWLYLW\ LQIOXHQFHV SULn YDF\ 7KH PRUH LQWLPDWH WKH EDWKURRP EHKDYLRU WRLOHW XVH EDWKLQJ GUHVVLQJ DQG JURRPLQJf WKH PRUH RWKHUV DUH UHn VWULFWHG DFFHVV DV WKH FKLOG JHWV ROGHU 7KLV UHVWULFWLRQ LV DSSOLHG PRUH WR SDUHQWV RI WKH RSSRVLWH UDWKHU WKDQ OLNH JHQGHU 3DUNH DQG 6DZLQ f FRPSDUHG WKH LQIOXHQFH RI PDWXn UDWLRQ ZLWK KRXVH VL]H DQG IDPLO\ VL]H 1HLWKHU RYHUDOO KRXVHKROG VTXDUH IRRWDJH QRU IDPLO\ VL]H ZHUH UHODWHG WR WKH SULYDF\ PHDVXUHV )DPLO\ GHQVLW\ VSDFH GLYLGHG E\ IDPLO\ VL]Hf KRZHYHU ZDV UHODWHG WR WKH SULYDF\ PHDVXUHV $V WKH QXPEHU RI EHGURRPV LQ D KRXVH LQFUHDVHG PRUH FKLOn GUHQ NHSW WKHLU EHGURRP GRRUV FORVHG ,W FDQ EH K\SRWKn HVL]HG WKDW SDUHQWV ZLWK JUHDWHU SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV FKRRVH KRXVHV ZLWK PRUH EHGURRPV DQG HQFRXUDJH JUHDWHU SULYDF\ EHn KDYLRUV LQ WKHLU FKLOGUHQ ,Q VXSSRUW RI WKLV K\SRWKHVLV WKH PRUH EDWKURRPV LQ D KRXVH WKH PRUH OLNHO\ WKDW FKLOGUHQ EHWZHHQ WZR DQG QLQH EXW QRW IRU WKRVH EHWZHHQ WHQ DQG

PAGE 52

VHYHQWHHQ D FHLOLQJ HIIHFW SRVVLEO\ IRU WKLV ODWWHU JURXS"f FORVHG WKH EDWKURRP GRRU )DPLO\ GHQVLW\ ZDV FXUYLOLQHDUO\ UHODWHG WR ERWK VLEOLQJ DFFHVV UHVWULFWLRQ WR EDWKURRPV DQG SDUHQWDO NQRFNLQJ RQ EDWKURRP GRRUV %RWK WKHVH EHKDYLRUV ZHUH KLJK LQ ORZ DQG KLJK GHQVLW\ KRPHV $ QXPEHU RI PDWHUQDO VRFLDOL]DWLRQ SUDFWLFHV LPSDFWHG RQ FKLOGUHQnV SULYDF\ DQG FKLOGUHQnV SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV 5HVWULFWLYH DQG FRHUFLYH PRWKHUV H[HUFLVH PRUH FRQWURO RYHU WKHLU FKLOGUHQnV SULYDF\ KDELWV &KLOGUHQnV EHGURRP GRRUV ZHUH NHSW RSHQ PRUH GXULQJ UHFUHDWLRQDO SHULRGV DQG ZKLOH HQWHUWDLQLQJ IULHQGV LQ KRPHV ZKHUH WKH PRWKHUV ZHUH PRUH SURWHFWLYH LPSRVHG PRUH UHVWULFWLYH UHJXODWLRQV FODUn LILHG DQG HQIRUFHG KRXVHKROG UXOHV PRUH DQG PDGH PRUH FRn HUFLYH VXJJHVWLRQV &KLOGUHQ RI VXFK PRWKHUV VRXJKW PRUH SULYDF\ DV LQGLFDWHG E\ NHHSLQJ WKH EDWKURRP GRRU FORVHG PRUH $IIHFWLRQDWH DQG DSSURYLQJ PRWKHUV SHUPLW PRUH SULYDWH EHKDYLRUV E\ WKHLU FKLOGUHQ DQG KDYH FKLOGUHQ ZKR VHHN OHVV SULYDF\ &KLOGUHQ RI PRWKHUV ZKR ZHUH PRUH DIIHFWLRQDWH DQG PRUH DSSURYLQJ LQ WKHLU FULWLFDO DSSUDLVDOV NHSW WKH EDWKURRP RSHQ PRUH YKLOH JURRPLQJ DQG GUHVVLQJ 3DUNH t 6DZLQ f 'HYHORSPHQWDO FKDQJHV LQ SULYDF\ FRQWLQXH EH\RQG FKLOGn KRRG DQG DGROHVFHQFH 5HODWLRQVKLSV DQG IDPLOLHV DOVR PRYH WKURXJK D GHYHORSPHQWDO F\FOH 8QPDUULHG FRUHVLGLQJ FRXn SOHV H[HUFLVH GLIIHUHQW SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV WKDQ VLPLODU

PAGE 53

PDUULHG FRXSOHV 5RVHQEODWW t %XGG f :KLOH PDUULHG FRXSOHV DUH PRUH OLNHO\ WR KDYH D SODFH LQ WKHLU UHVLGHQFH WR EH DORQH WKDQ PDUULHG FRXSOHV PDUULHG FRXSOHV KDYH PRUH VHSDUDWH VWRUDJH DUHDV 1HLWKHU W\SH RI FRXSOH VKRZHG D GLIIHUHQFH LQ DFFHVV UHVWULFWLYHQHVV WRZDUG WKHLU SDUWQHU ZKHQ RFFXS\LQJ WKH EDWKURRP &RXSOHV ZKR FRUHVLGHG EHIRUH PDUULDJH ZHUH OHVV WHUULWRULDO VHSDUDWH VWRUDJH DUHDVf WKDQ FRXSOHV PDUULHG ZLWKRXW SULRU FRUHVLGHQFH 5RVHQEODWW t %XGG f 2QFH D PDUULHG FRXSOH KDV FKLOGUHQ IXUWKHU PRGLILFDn WLRQV LQ SULYDF\ EHKDYLRU RFFXU 0RWKHUV ZLWK FKLOGUHQ KDYH OHVV WLPH DORQH LQ WKH KRXVH DQG OHVV WLPH DORQH ZLWK JXHVWV 6PLWK HW DO f 7KHUH ZDV QR GLIIHUHQFH KRZn HYHU LQ WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH PRWKHUV DQG QRQPRWKHUV VSHQW LQ WKH KRPH 7KRVH ZLWK SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ KDYH OHVV SULYDF\ WKDQ WKRVH PRWKHUV ZLWK RQO\ VFKRRO DJH FKLOGUHQ 0RUH SURn WHFWLYH PRWKHUV WKRVH ZKR DOZD\V DFFRPSDQ\ WKHLU FKLOGUHQ RXWVLGH DQG UHTXLUH WKH FKLOG WR SOD\ LQ WKH VDPH URRP LQ ZKLFK WKH PRWKHU LV ZRUNLQJf KDYH OHVV SULYDF\ $OWHUQDn WLYHO\ WKRVH PRWKHUV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWH PRUH LQ WKHLU FKLOn GUHQnV SOD\ DQG HQFRXUDJH WKHLU FKLOGUHQ WR KHOS PRUH LQ KRXVHKROG FKRUHV KDYH OHVV SULYDF\ +RXVHKROG UXOHV DOVR DIIHFW WKH PRWKHUnV SULYDF\ :KHQ RQH URRP LV WKH FKLOn GUHQnV SOD\ DUHD DQG RWKHU URRPV DUH RII OLPLWV DQG ZKHQ DOO WKH SUHVFKRRO FKLOGUHQ DUH UHTXLUHG WR QDS DW WKH VDPH WLPH WKH PRWKHU KDV PRUH SULYDF\

PAGE 54

)DWKHUV KDYH OHVV SULYDF\ WLPH DORQH LQ WKH KRPHf WKDQ KXVEDQGV ZLWKRXW FKLOGUHQ 0HQ ZLWK FKLOGUHQ DFKLHYHG SULYDF\ E\ VSHQGLQJ OHVV WLPH LQ WKH KRPH WKDQ GLG WKRVH ZLWKRXW FKLOGUHQ ZKR DFTXLUHG WKHLU SULYDF\ E\ KDYLQJ D VHSDUDWH URRP LQ WKH KRPH IRU WKHPVHOYHV $OWKRXJK IDWKHUV VSHQW OHVV WLPH LQ WKH KRPH WKDQ KXVEDQGV ZLWKRXW FKLOGUHQ WKH DPRXQW RI WLPH WKH\ VSHQW LQ LQWHUDFWLRQ ZLWK RWKHU PHPn EHUV RI WKH IDPLO\ GLG QRW YDU\ DFURVV IDPLO\ VWDJHV 6PLWK HW DO f )DPLO\ VWDJH DOVR DIIHFWV WKH DPRXQW RI FKLOGUHQnV SULYDF\ 7KH \RXQJHVW SUHVFKRRO FKLOG KDV PRUH SULYDF\ WKDQ RWKHU DJH FKLOGUHQ GXH WR QDS WLPH ZKLFK PD\ QRW DOn ZD\V EH VSHQW LQ VOHHS &KLOGUHQ ZLWK SULYDWH EHGURRPV ZHUH DEOH WR FKRRVH PRUH SULYDF\ DQG KDG PRUH SULYDF\ WKDQ WKRVH ZKR VKDUHG EHGURRPV 6PLWK HW DO f 2Q D FRJn QLWLYH OHYHO KRZHYHU :ROIH DQG /DXIHU f IRXQG QR UHn OLDEOH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ WKH VDOLHQFH RI SULYDF\ PHDQLQJV EHn WZHHQ FKLOGUHQ VKDULQJ DQG QRW VKDULQJ EHGURRPV 5HVHDUFK RQ ,QWHUSHUVRQDO 7KHRULHV RI 3ULYDF\ :KHQ SULYDF\ LV FRQFHSWXDOL]HG DV FRQWURO RYHU ZKHQ DQG WR ZKRP WR WUDQVPLW LQIRUPDWLRQ WKHQ UHVHDUFK RQ VHOIGLVn FORVXUH EHFRPHV UHOHYDQW WR SULYDF\ -RXUDUG f KDV H[SOLFLWO\ UHODWHG WKHVH WZR UHVHDUFK DUHDV DV SRLQWV DORQJ WKH VDPH FRQWLQXXP RI VHOIFRPPXQLFDWLRQ ,Q ERWK WKH SULYDF\ :HVWLQ f DQG VHOIGLVFORVXUH OLWHUDWXUH

PAGE 55

LQWLPDF\ LV D NH\ FRQFHSW 7KH PHDQLQJ RI WKH FRQFHSW LV QRW WKH VDPH KRZHYHU LQ ERWK FRQWH[WV $V D VWDWH RI SULYDF\ LQWLPDF\ LV WKH FKRVHQ VHFOXVLRQ RI D G\DG RU JURXS :HVWLQ f ,QWLPDF\ LQ VHOIGLVFORVXUH UHIHUV WR WKH VHOIFHQWUDOLW\ RI WKH LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWHG 'HUOHJD t &KDLNLQ f $OWKRXJK WKH SULYDF\ VWDWH RI LQWLPDF\ PD\ LPSO\ D GHSWK RI GLVFORVXUH EHWZHHQ WKH SDUn WLHV WKLV GLVFORVXUH GHSWK LV QRW DQ H[SOLFLW GHILQLWLRQDO FRPSRQHQW 7KH WHUP LQWLPDF\ ZLOO EH XVHG VXEVHTXHQWO\ LQ WKLV SDSHU WR UHIHU RQO\ WR WKH GHSWK RI GLVFORVXUH DQG QRW WR :HVWLQnV f VWDWH RI SULYDF\ IRU ZKLFK nJURXS VHFOXn VLRQn ZLOO EH VXEVWLWXWHG 5HVHUYH ZKLFK LV RQH RI :HVWLQnV SULYDF\ VWDWHV UDWKHU WKDQ :HVWLQnV LQWLPDF\ LV FRQFHSWXDOO\ PRUH VLPn LODU WR VHOIGLVFORVXUH LQWLPDF\ 'HILQHG DV D SV\FKRn ORJLFDO EDUULHU DJDLQVW XQZDQWHG LQWUXVLRQ :HVWLQ S f :HVWLQ XQIRUWXQDWHO\ LQFOXGHV WKUHH GLVFUHWH W\SHV RI EHKDYLRU XQGHU UHVHUYH f ZLWKKROGLQJ GLVFORVXUH f GLVFUHWLRQ E\ WKH UHFLSLHQW RI GLVFORVXUH DQG f VHn OHFWLYH DWWHQWLRQ WR RWKHUV WXQLQJ RWKHUV RXWf 5HVHUYH DV ZLWKKROGLQJ GLVFORVXUH LV FOHDUO\ UHODWHG WR WKH VHOIn GLVFORVXUH UHVHDUFK 7KLV UHVHDUFK 'HUOHJD t &KDLNLQ f KDV VKRZQ WKDW RQHnV OHYHO RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH LV SDUn WLDOO\ GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKH GLVFORVHUnV WUXVW LQ WKH UHFLSLn HQWnV GLVFUHWLRQ

PAGE 56

7KH LPSOLFLW QRWLRQ WKDW nJURXS VHFOXVLRQn :HVWLQnV LQWLPDF\f LV D IDFLOLWDWLQJ FRQGLWLRQ IRU VHOIGLVFORVXUH LQWLPDF\ KDV EHHQ VXSSRUWHG E\ +RODKDQ DQG 6OHLNLQ f :KHQ SK\VLFDOHQYLURQPHQWDO EDUULHUV ZHUH QRW DYDLODEOH IRU SULYDF\ WKH SV\FKRORJLFDO EDUULHU RI UHVHUYH EHFDPH RSHUn DWLYH DV GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ WKH UHGXFHG OHYHO RI VHOIGLVFORn VXUH $OWPDQ f WKHRUL]HV WKDW SULYDF\ LV D GLDOHFWLF SURFHVV WKHUH LV D VKLIWLQJ EDODQFH EHWZHHQ VRFLDO FRQn WDFW SHQHWUDWLRQf DQG ZLWKGUDZDO SULYDF\f 6HOIGLVFORn VXUH RSHUDWHV DV D GLDOHFWLF SURFHVV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRU RI WKH OHYHO RI LQWLPDF\ % ZLOO XVH LQ GLVFORVLQJ WR $ LV WKH OHYHO RI LQWLPDF\ ZLWK ZKLFK $ LQLWLDWHG WKH FRPPXQLFDn WLRQ 'HUOHJD t &KDLNLQ S f 7KH LQWLPDF\ RI FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHWZHHQ PHPEHUV RI D G\DG WHQGV WR VWDELOL]H DW WKH OHYHO DW ZKLFK RQH PHPEHU VWRSV UHFLSURFDWLQJ WKH OHYHO RI LQWLPDF\ $OWPDQ t 7D\ORU f 5HVHDUFK 5HODWHG WR 6RFLDO1RUPDWLYH 7KHRULHV &KDLNLQ DQG 'HUOHJD f DQG 'HUOHJD DQG &KDLNLQ f KDYH LGHQWLILHG VHYHUDO QRUPV FXUUHQW LQ $PHULFDQ VRFLHW\ WKDW UHJXODWH WKH DPRXQW DQG OHYHO RI VHOIGLVFORn VXUH 7KHVH QRUPV VHUYH DV RQH IRUP RI WKH LQVWLWXWLRQDOn L]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 6XFK LQVWLWXWLRQDOL]HG SULYDF\ PRGHV DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR UHIOHFW DQG H[SUHVV WKH VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH SRZHU KLHUDUFKLHVf 1RW RQO\ DUH ZRPHQ H[SHFWHG WR

PAGE 57

GLVFORVH PRUH WKDQ PHQ WKH\ LQ IDFW GR GLVFORVH PRUH DQG WKH FRQWHQW RI WKLV LQFUHDVHG GLVFORVXUH H[SRVHV WKHLU ZHDNn QHVVHV 'HUOHJD t &KDLNLQ f 7KH FRQWHQW RI PHQnV VHOIGLVFORVXUH FRQVLVWV PRUH RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DWWHVWLQJ WR WKHLU VWUHQJWKV 6RFLDO GRPLQDQFH E\ PHQ LV PDQLIHVW ERWK E\ WKH DPRXQW OHVVf DQG FRQWHQW RI WKHLU VHOIGLVFORVXUH :KHQ RQH SHUVRQ RU JURXS NQRZV PRUH DERXW DQRWKHU SHUVRQ RU JURXS WKDW SHUVRQ RU JURXS LV LQ D SRVLWLRQ WR LQIOXHQFH RU H[SORLW WKH RWKHU &RQWURO RYHU ZKHQ ZKHUH KRZ DQG E\ ZKRP RQHnV ERG\ LV WRXFKHG LV DQRWKHU IRUP RI SULYDF\ 5HVHDUFK VKRZV WKDW D WRXFKHG SHUVRQ LV PRUH OLNHO\ WR EH RI D ORZHU RFFXSDn WLRQDO VWDWXV WKDQ WKH WRXFKHU +HQOH\ f $QRWKHU LQVWDQFH RI PDOH GRPLQDQFH DQG SULYDF\ LV WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW PHQ LQLWLDWH WRXFK ZLWK IHPDOHV PRUH WKDQ YLFH YHUVD +HQn OH\ Df ,I LQFUHDVLQJ DJH FRQIHUV LQFUHDVLQJ VWDWXV LW LV FRQVLVWHQW WKDW D WRXFKHG SHUVRQ LV \RXQJHU WKDQ WKH WRXFKHU +HQOH\ f +HQOH\ f FRQFOXGHG WKDW SHUVRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ IORZV RSSRVLWH WR WKH FKDLQ RI DXWKRUn LW\ 7KH SUHURJDWLYH RI HOLFLWLQJ SHUVRQDO LQIRUPDWLRQ KRZHYHU LV LQ OLQH ZLWK WKH DXWKRULW\ KLHUDUFK\ .HOYLQ f .HOYLQ f WKHRUL]HG WKDW SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ GHn FUHDVHV DV RQHnV YXOQHUDELOLW\ LQFUHDVHV 7KH SHUFHSWLRQ RI YXOQHUDELOLW\ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK WKH SRZHU GLIIHUHQWLDO EHn WZHHQ WKH VHOI DQG WKH RWKHU 7KH VSHFLILF LQIRUPDWLRQ

PAGE 58

WKDW SODFHV RQH LQ D SRVLWLRQ RI YXOQHUDELOLW\ LV GHWHUn PLQHG E\ QRUPV DQG WKH UHIHUHQFH JURXS LQ ZKLFK RQH LV IXQFWLRQLQJ $Q[LHW\ DFFRPSDQLHV WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI YXOQHUn DELOLW\ 6HOIGLVFORVXUH LV PXFK OHVV LQ WKRVH FRQWHQW DUHDV WKDW SURYRNH DQ[LHW\ 'HUOHJD t &KDLNLQ f $OWPDQ DQG 7D\ORU f IRXQG HYLGHQFH WKDW SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV QHJDWLYHO\ YDOXHG E\ WKH VHOI DQG WKRVH VRFLDOO\ IRUELGGHQ E\ RQHnV UHIHUHQFH JURXSV ZHUH VFDOHG DV PRUH LQWLPDWH 7KHVH DWWULEXWHV ZHUH DOVR SHUFHLYHG DV KDYLQJ KLJKHU FRVWV YXOQHUDELOLW\f 2QH RI ILYH IDFWRUV IRXQG IRU TXHVWLRQV MXGJHG WR EH VHQVLWLYH WR SULYDF\ LQYDVLRQ ZDV nVRFLDO DGn MXVWPHQWn 5RVHQEDXP f ,WHPV RI WKLV IDFWRU GHDOW ZLWK QHJDWLYHO\ YDOXHG SHUVRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFV VXFK DV GUXJ DQG DOFRKRO XVH DQG SV\FKLDWULF KLVWRU\ 7KRVH JURXSV ORZHU LQ WKH VRFLDO VWUXFWXUH ZRPHQ \RXQJHU UHVSRQGHQWV WKH OHVV HGXFDWHG DQG WKRVH ZLWK ORZHU LQFRPHf ZHUH PRUH VHQVLWLYH WR TXHVWLRQV DERXW VRFLDO DGMXVWPHQW 4XHVWLRQV LQTXLULQJ DERXW ILQDQFHV DQG IDPLO\ EDFNn JURXQG LQFOXGLQJ UHOLJLRQ DQG UDFHf ZHUH UDWHG DV WKH PRVW YXOQHUDEOH WR SULYDF\ LQYDVLRQ 5RVHQEDXP f 5Hn OLJLRQ ZDV DOVR DQ REMHFWLRQDO FRQWHQW DUHD LQ 003, TXHVn WLRQV *\QWKHU f 'RPLQDQW JURXSV PDOHV DQG WKRVH ZLWK PRUH LQFRPHf ZHUH PRUH VHQVLWLYH WR ILQDQFLDO TXHVWLRQV $Q H[FHSWLRQ WR WKLV UHVXOW ZDV WKDW ORZHU HGXFDWHG SHUVRQV UDWHG WKHVH LWHPV DV PRUH SULYDWH 2QO\ WKH OHVV HGXFDWHG

PAGE 59

DQG WKRVH IURP XUEDQ DUHDV ZHUH PRUH FRQFHUQHG DERXW TXHVn WLRQV GHOYLQJ LQWR IDPLO\ EDFNJURXQG ,Q D UXUDO VHWWLQJ RQHnV IDPLO\ EDFNJURXQG LV DOUHDG\ SXEOLF NQRZOHGJH 3ULYDF\ QRUPV IXQFWLRQ WR SURWHFW WKRVH EHKDYLRUV SURn VFULEHG WR SULYDWH SHUIRUPDQFH .HOYLQ f 7KH WZR FRQ WHQW DUHDV RI WKH 003, ZLWK WKH PRVW LWHPV MXGJHG DV LQWUXG LQJ RQ SULYDF\ ZHUH WKRVH GHDOLQJ ZLWK VH[ DQG HOLPLQDWLRQ SURFHVVHV *\QWKHU f 1R UHVHDUFK ZDV IRXQG EHDULQJ RQ 3DVWDODQnV Ef WKHRU\ RI UROH FRPSOH[LW\ UROH LQFRPSDWLELOLW\ DQG SULn YDF\ 1HLWKHU KDV UHVHDUFK EHHQ FRQGXFWHG WR WHVW %HFKWHOn f SULYDF\ WKHRU\ ZKLFK LV GHULYHG IURP HFRORJLFDO SV\n FKRORJ\ 5HVHDUFK RQ )XQFWLRQDO 7KHRULHV RI 3ULYDF\ :KLOH WKH VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH WKHRULHV IRFXV RQ WKH HIn IHFWV RI SRZHU RQ SULYDF\ WKH IXQFWLRQDO WKHRULHV HPSKDn VL]H WKH FRQWURO QDWXUH RI SULYDF\ 3ULYDF\ IXQFWLRQV WR IDFLOLWDWH IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH DQG WR UHGXFH VRFLDO FRQn VWUDLQWV RQ EHKDYLRU 7KH RQO\ UHSRUWHG UHVHDUFK UHOHYDQW WR WKHVH LVVXHV LQYHVWLJDWHG FRJQLWLYH DQG HPRWLRQDO GLPHQn VLRQV RI FRQWURO 7KH PHDQLQJV nFRQWUROOLQJ DFFHVV WR LQIRUPDWLRQn DQG nGRLQJ ZKDW \RX ZDQW ZLWKRXW EHLQJ ERWKHUHGn ZHUH VDOLHQW IRU DOO DJH JURXSV IURP ILYH WR VHYHQWHHQ :ROIH t /DXIHU f ZKLOH nFRQWUROOLQJ VSDFHVn ZDV VDOLHQW IRU DOO WKRVH DERYH DJH VL[ &RQWURO RYHU LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG RYHU VSDFHV

PAGE 60

ZHUH VDOLHQW WR GLVWLQFW JURXSV RI FKLOGUHQ :ROIH DQG /DXIHU f LQWHUSUHWHG WKLV ILQGLQJ DV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW ZKLOH WKH QRWLRQ RI FRQWURO PD\ EH FHQWUDO WR PHDQLQJV RI SULYDF\ WKH EHKDYLRUV RYHU ZKLFK FRQWURO LV LQFRUSRUDWHG LQWR WKH PHDQLQJ RI SULYDF\ YDU\ EHWZHHQ JURXSV $ VWXG\ +DUPRQ t %HWDN f RI SULYDF\ FRQVWUXFWV UHODWHG WR KRXVLQJ VKRZHG WKDW WKH YDOXH RI SULYDF\ ZDV LQ FRQWUROOLQJ LQWUXVLRQ IURP QHLJKERUV $Q DQDO\VLV RI WKHVH SULYDF\ FRQVWUXFWV OHG WR WKH FRQFOXVLRQ WKDW IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH ZDV D VXSHURUGLQDWH FRQVWUXFW XQLI\LQJ WKH SULYDF\ FRQVWUXFWV $ PDMRU FRQFHUQ HOLFLWHG IURP HOGHUO\ UHV GHQWV DERXW QHLJKERUKRRG GHVLJQV ZDV WKH SULYDF\ FRQFHUQ IRU DXWRQRP\ RU IUHHGRP RI FKRLFH RYHU LQYROYHPHQW ZLWK FKLOGUHQ LQ SDUWLFXODU 6WHLQIHOG f )LQDOO\ VXEn MHFWV LQ D SULYDF\ YHUVXV QRQSULYDF\ FRQGLWLRQ UHSRUWHG IHHOLQJ PRUH IUHHGRP (GQH\ t %XGD DQG %RZHU f DQG FRQWURO %RZHU f 7KH FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ UHPDLQV D FUXFLDO LVn VXH 7KH FKRLFH RI RQH GHILQLWLRQ UDWKHU WKDQ DQRWKHU UHn VXOWV LQ GLIIHUHQW WKHRULHV SURJUDPV RI UHVHDUFK DQG HPn SLULFDO UHVXOWV $V D ILUVW DWWHPSW DW FODULI\LQJ WKLV LVn VXH WZR W\SHV RI GHILQLWLRQV DUH FRQVLGHUHG IRUPDO DQG VXEMHFWLYH )RUPDO GHILQLWLRQ LV RQH ZKLFK FRQVLVWV RI D VHW RI SURSHUWLHV H[WHUQDO WR WKH RUJDQLVP 7KH RFFXUUHQFH RI WKLV VHW RI SURSHUWLHV FRQVWLWXWHV DQ LQVWDQFH RI WKH UHIHUHQW 7KH GHILQLWLRQ RI UHLQIRUFHPHQW LQ EHKDYLRULVP

PAGE 61

LV VXFK D IRUPDO GHILQLWLRQ -RXUDUGnV f FRQFHSWXDOn L]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ DV DQ LQIRUPDWLRQDO RXWFRPH VWDWH H[LVWn LQJ EHWZHHQ LQWHUDFWDQWV LV DQRWKHU IRUPDO GHILQLWLRQ $Q\ FRQGLWLRQ ZKLFK FKDQJHV WKH LQIRUPDWLRQDO IORZ EHWZHHQ WZR LQGLYLGXDOV ZRXOG EH D YDULDEOH LPSDFWLQJ SULYDF\ 3RWHQn WLDOO\ LQGHSHQGHQW RI WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQDO H[FKDQJH LV WKH SHUVRQnV HPRWLRQDO H[SHULHQFH RI nSULYDF\n $ VXEMHFWLYH GHILQLWLRQ WKHUHIRUH LV RQH ZKRVH UHIHUHQW LV VRPH LQWHUn QDO VWDWH RI WKH RUJDQLVP LQ WKLV FDVH DQ HPRWLRQDO VWDWH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH OLQJXLVWLF ODEHOnSULYDF\n ,W LV VXE MHFWLYH SUHFLVHO\ LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH OH[n HPH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH HPRWLRQDO VWDWH FKDQJHV ZLWK DJH :ROIH t /DXIHU f DQG DFURVV FXOWXUH 5REHUWV t *UHJRU f DQG KLVWRU\ )ODKHUW\ f 7KH W\SHV RI WKHRULHV UHTXLUHG WR GHDO ZLWK VXEMHFWLYH SULYDF\ PXVW DGGUHVV ERWK PHDQLQJ DQG OHDUQLQJ $ WKHRU\ RI PHDQLQJ VKRXOG SURYLGH DQ H[SODQDWLRQ RI WKH VHPDQWLF FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH UHIHUHQW nSULYDF\n 6XFK D WKHRU\ VKRXOG ORFDWH WKH FRQFHSW ZLWKLQ D VHPDQWLF GRPDLQ DW D VSHFLILHG OHYHO RI KLHUDUFKLFDO LQFOXVLRQ 3ULYDF\ LV QRW DQ LVRn ODWHG FRQFHSW EXW UDWKHU RQH ZLWKLQ DQ LQWHUORFNLQJ QHWZRUN RI FRQFHSWV 8VLQJ WKH OH[HPH nZRPDQn DV DQ H[DPSOH ZRPDQ ZKLFK LV D XQLW LQ WKH GRPDLQ nKXPDQVn LV DQ DGXOW DQG D IHPDOH RI WKH VSHFLHV (YLGHQFH DOUHDG\ H[LVWV GHPRQVWUDWn LQJ WKDW WKH PHDQLQJ RI SULYDF\ FKDQJHV ZLWK DJH :ROIH t /DXIHU f 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW VRPH DVSHFW HLWKHU

PAGE 62

FRPSRQHQWV RU VWUXFWXUHf RI WKH GRPDLQ LQ ZKLFK SULYDF\ LV DQ HOHPHQW LV FKDQJLQJ $Q H[SODQDWLRQ RI VXEMHFWLYH SULn YDF\ WKHUHIRUH ZLOO UHTXLUH VRPH WKHRU\ RI OHDUQLQJ WR DFFRXQW IRU WKHVH VHPDQWLF FKDQJHV :ROIH DQG /DXIHU f FRQFOXGH WKDW WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI WKH PHDQLQJ RI SULYDF\ LQn FUHDVHV ZLWK DJH WKXV LQGLFDWLQJ WKDW WKH HQYLURQPHQWDO VWLPXOL HOLFLWLQJ WKH HPRWLRQDO VWDWH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH FRJQLWLYHOLQJXLVWLF FDWHJRU\ nSULYDF\n EHFRPH PRUH GLYHUVH :KDW DUH WKH GLPHQVLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ WKHVH GLYHUVH FRPSOH[ VWLPXOL ZKLFK HOLFLW WKH IHHOLQJ RI SULYDF\" :KDW H[SODLQV YDULDWLRQV LQ WKHVH XQGHUO\LQJ GLPHQVLRQV DFURVV DJH DQG FXOWXUHV" $ SURJUDP RI UHVHDUFK RQ VXEMHFWLYH SULYDF\ VKRXOG FRQn VLVW RI H[SORUDWLRQV LQWR PHDQLQJ VXFK DV WKDW E\ :ROIH DQG /DXIHU f DQG PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO DQDO\VLV RI VLWXDWLRQV WR LGHQWLI\ WKH GLPHQVLRQV XQGHUO\LQJ SULYDF\ DFURVV D ZLGH UDQJH RI HQYLURQPHQWDO ERWK SK\VLFDO VRFLDO DQG FRQDWLYHf FRQWLQJHQFLHV 5HVHDUFK VKRXOG DOVR EH GLUHFWHG WRZDUG WKH UROH RI VRFLDOL]DWLRQ OHDUQLQJf RQ WKH PHDQLQJ RI SULYDF\ 3DUNH DQG 6DZLQ f KDYH H[DPLQHG SULYDF\ EHKDYLRUV LQ OLJKW RI VRFLDOL]DWLRQ SUDFWLFHV EXW KDYH QRW \HW DGGUHVVHG WKH GLIIHUHQFHV LQ PHDQLQJ WKDW SULYDF\ WDNHV RQ XQGHU WKHVH YDU\LQJ W\SHV RI VRFLDOL]DWLRQ %RWK WKH UHIHUHQWV RI OLQJXLVWLF FDWHJRULHV DQG WKH H[SHULHQFLQJ RI HPRWLRQV DUH ODUJHO\ FRQVHQVXDO ZLWKLQ D VRFLDO JURXS RU FXOWXUH 2QH PDQLIHVWDWLRQ RI WKLV FRQVHQVXV LV WKH SUHVHQFH RI QRUPV

PAGE 63

1RUPV DUH D JLYHQ H[LVWLQJ EHIRUH DQ LQIDQWnV ELUWK DQG FRQVWLWXWH D SDUW RI WKH LQIDQWnV VRFLDOL]DWLRQ 7KHVH ODUJHU FRQWH[WV RI SULYDF\ PHDQLQJ PXVW EH LQYHVWLJDWHG IRU DQ DGHTXDWH WKHRU\ RI VXEMHFWLYH SULYDF\ $V DQ LQLWLDO DSSUR[LPDWLRQ WR XQGHUVWDQGLQJ SULYDF\ WKH SURSRVHG UHVHDUFK LQYHVWLJDWHV VXEMHFWLYH RU SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ ,Q WKLV LQVWDQFH VXEMHFWV ZLOO WKHPVHOYHV GHFLGH ZKDW LV SULYDWH E\ UHVSRQGLQJ WR DQ HOLFLWDWLRQ IUDPH LQn VWUXFWLQJ WKHP WR GHVFULEH D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH\ IHOW SULYDWH :LWKLQ WKLV FRQFHSWXDO FRQWH[W DQG IROORZLQJ WKH UHDVRQLQJ RI 6FKRSOHU HW DO f WKLV UHVHDUFK DVNV :KDW DUH WKH FRJQLWLYH DQG VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV WKDW GHWHUn PLQH SHRSOHVn SHUFHSWLRQV RI EHLQJ SULYDWH" 7KH SUHFHGn LQJ UHYLHZ RI WKH SULYDF\ OLWHUDWXUH LQGLFDWHV D ZLGH GLn YHUJHQFH DERXW ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV WKH QHFHVVDU\ DQG VXIILFLHQW FRQGLWLRQV IRU HOLFLWLQJ WKH VWDWH RI IHHOLQJ SULYDWH 1LQH PDMRU FRQGLWLRQV FDQ EH LGHQWLILHG LQ WKH OLWHUDWXUH DQG WKHVH DUH WKH GLPHQVLRQV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH WKH GHWHUPLn QDQWV RI WKH H[SHULHQFH RI IHHOLQJ SULYDWH D SK\VLFDO VLWXDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH DEVHQFH RI RWKHUV VROLWXGHf :HVWLQ f DQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO VLWXDWLRQ LQYROYLQJ OLPLWHG VRn FLDO VWLPXODWLRQ WKH DEVHQFH RI GLVWUDFWLRQf %HFKWHO f DQG 0HKUDELDQ DQG 5XVVHOO f DQG WKH DEVHQFH RI VWLPXOXV RYHUORDGf $OWPDQ f

PAGE 64

WKH VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO WR ZKLFK RWKHUV HQFURDFK XSRQ RQHnV OLIH SHUVRQDO FRQWUROf 3URVKDQVN\ ,WWHOVRQ t 5LYOLQ f WKH VHOHFWLYH FRQWURO RI LQIRUPDWLRQ FRPPXQLFDWHG DERXW VHOI UHVHUYHf -RXUDUG f :HVWLQ f DQG &KDLNLQ DQG 'HUOHJD f D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUVRQ LV DQ RXWVLGHU RU XQNQRZQ WR RWKHUV DQRQ\PRXVf :HVWLQ f D VLWXDWLRQ RI GHVLUHG SK\VLFDO DQGRU SV\FKRORJn LFDO LPPHGLDF\ EHWZHHQ WZR RU PRUH SHRSOH LQWLn PDF\f :HVWLQ f D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK RQH LV IUHH IURP REVHUYDWLRQ 6KDZ f D VLWXDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ SHUFHLYHG DGHTXDF\ RI VSDFH %HFKWHO f 6RPPHU f DQG 6WRNR,V f WKH DPRXQW RI LQIRUPDWLRQ RQH SHUVRQ SRVVHVVHV DERXW DQRWKHU 2WKHU FRQGLWLRQV KDYH EHHQ SRVLWHG DV OHDGLQJ WR WKH GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ $Q H[DPSOH LV WKH HQDFWPHQW RI DQWLQRUPDWLYH EHKDYLRUV .HOYLQ f 7KH VWXG\ RI WKH YDULDEOHV FRQn GXFLYH WR HOLFLWLQJ D GHVLUH IRU SULYDF\ LV KRZHYHU DQn RWKHU LVVXH IURP WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULn YDF\ %XW DOWKRXJK WKHRUHWLFDOO\ WKHUH VKRXOG EH D V\VWHn PDWLF UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH WZR VHWV RI YDULDEOHV EXW

PAGE 65

WKH LQYHVWLJDWLRQ RI PRWLYDWLRQDO GHWHUPLQDQWV LV EH\RQG WKH VFRSH RI WKLV UHVHDUFK SURSRVDO 7KH VDPH FDYHDW DSSOLHV IRU WKH FRQVHTXHQFHV RI SULYDF\ *LYHQ WKH IRUPDWLYH VWDJH RI WKHRU\ DQG UHVHDUFK RQ SULYDF\ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI D UHVHDUFK VWUDWHJ\ ZKLFK VDPSOHV D ODUJH YDULHW\ RI VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK SHRSOH PD\ H[SHULn HQFH SULYDF\ DQG ZKLFK LV LQGHSHQGHQW RI DQ\ RQH WKHRU\ DQGRU FRQFHSWXDOL]DWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LV GHVLUDEOH 6XFK D SURPLVLQJ H[SORUDWRU\ PHWKRGRORJ\ LV PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOn LQJ 6KHSDUG 5RPQH\ t 1HUORYH f 7KLV PHWKRGRORJ\ KDV EHHQ JDLQIXOO\ DSSOLHG WR WKH FRQFHSW RI FURZGLQJ E\ 6FKRSOHU HW DO f DQG 6WRFNGDOH HW DO f DQG ZDV DGRSWHG IRU WKLV VWXG\ VHH $SSHQGL[ $ IRU D FRQFHSWXDO H[SODQDWLRQ RI PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJf

PAGE 66

&+$37(5 ,, 0(7+2' 7KH VWXG\ FRQVLVWHG RI WKUHH SKDVHV 7KH ILUVW SKDVH LQYROYHG FROOHFWLQJ SDUDJUDSKV GHVFULELQJ VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK VWXGHQWV IHOW SULYDWH 7KHVH VHUYHG DV WKH H[SHULn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n WLYH DSSHQGLFHV QRWHG 3KDVH 3DUDJUDSKV GHVFULELQJ SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH FROOHFWHG IURP XQGHUJUDGXDWHV IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI )ORULGD 6XEn MHFWV UHFHLYHG FODVV FUHGLWV IRU UHVSRQGLQJ ILYH WLPHV WR WKH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH YKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ SULYDWH

PAGE 67

'HVFULEH WKH LQFLGHQW \RX KDYH LQ PLQG DQG \RXU IHHOLQJV DW WKH WLPH LQ DV PXFK GHWDLO DV SRVn VLEOH 5HIHU WR $SSHQGL[ % IRU FRPSOHWH LQVWUXFn WLRQV f )RUW\ SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH VHOHFWHG IURP WKH FROn OHFWHG WR VHUYH DV WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL 7KHVH VLWXDWLRQV UHSUHVHQWHG f DOO IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ VROLWXGH DQRQ\PLW\ UHVHUYH DQG LQWLPDF\f DQG f WKH PRVW DQG OHDVW SULYDWH VLWXDWLRQV IRU HDFK RI WKH IRXU W\SHV UHIHU WR $SSHQGL[ % IRU D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKLV VHn OHFWLRQ SURFHGXUHf 3KDVH 7ZHQW\ PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV SDUWLFLSDWHG LQ 3KDVH LQ SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU DQ LQWURn GXFWRU\ SV\FKRORJ\ FODVV *URXSV FRPSRVHG RI VDPHVH[ SHUVRQV ZRUNLQJ DW WZR WZRKRXU VHVVLRQV RQH ZHHN DSDUW FRPSOHWHG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO WDVNV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU H[SODLQHG WKDW KH ZDV LQWHUHVWHG LQ GLVFRYHULQJ ZKDW FDXVHG SHRSOH WR IHHO SULYDWH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WROG WKDW WKH WDVN WKH\ ZHUH DERXW WR SHUIRUP ZRXOG SURYLGH WKLV LQIRUPDWLRQ 5HVSRQGHQWV ZHUH JLYHQ D GHFN RI [ FDUGV RQ ZKLFK ZHUH W\SHG WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV FROOHFWHG LQ 3KDVH f DQG ZHUH ILUVW LQVWUXFWHG WR IDPLOLDUL]H WKHPVHOYHV ZLWK WKH GHVFULSWLRQV

PAGE 68

6XEVHTXHQWO\ WKH VXEMHFWV ZHUH SUHVHQWHG UHVSRQVH ERRNOHWV $W WKH WRS RI HDFK SDJH RI WKH ERRNOHW ZDV D WDUJHW VLWXn DWLRQ DQG VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UDQN RUGHU DOO RI WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV LQ WHUPV RI WKHLU VLPLODULW\ LQ WKH H[SHULHQFH RI EHLQJ SULYDWH WR HDFK WDUJHW 7KH QLQH VHSn DUDWH WDUJHW VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH PHPEHUV RI WKH H[SHULn PHQWDO VWLPXOL DQG ZHUH VHOHFWHG WR UHSUHVHQW HDFK RI WKH QLQH K\SRWKHVL]HG FRQGLWLRQV FDXVLQJ WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHn ULHQFH RI SULYDF\ VHH $SSHQGL[ & IRU D GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKLV VHOHFWLRQ SURFHGXUHf 2UGHU RI WDUJHWV ZDV UDQGRPL]HG RYHU VXEMHFWV 2QH WDUJHW ZDV UHSHDWHG WR SURYLGH D UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWH UHIHU WR $SSHQGL[ &f 3KDVH 7KH GLPHQVLRQV FRQVWLWXWLQJ WKH H[SHULHQFH RI VXEMHFn WLYH SULYDF\ ZHUH GHWHUPLQHG E\ DQDO\VLQJ WKH GDWD REWDLQHG LQ 3KDVH YLD 6$6 $/6&$/
PAGE 69

VXEMHFW UHFHLYHG D ERRNOHW FRQWDLQLQJ SDJHV HDFK RI ZKLFK FRQWDLQHG D SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ DQG OLVWHG UHOHn YDQW TXDOLWLHV RQ ZKLFK WR EH UDWHG 6HH $SSHQGL[ IRU WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKH IRUW\ TXDOLWLHVf 7KHVH TXDOLWLHV UHIOHFWHG K\SRWKHVHV DERXW WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI VXEMHFWLYH SULYDF\ 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UDWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH DFWRUV RQ D WHQSRLQW VFDOH DQG WR UHFRUG WKHLU UHVSRQVHV RQ FRPSXWHUVFRUHG DQVZHU VKHHWV %RWK WKH RUn GHU RI TXDOLWLHV DQG VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH UDQGRPO\ GHWHUPLQHG 7KH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RUGHU RI WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZDV SURn JUHVVLYHO\ VWDJJHUHG RYHU WKH WHQ ERRNOHWV VXFK WKDW IDn WLJXH HIIHFWV ZHUH GLVWULEXWHG HTXDOO\ RYHU DOO H[SHUn LPHQWDO VWLPXOL VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f 2QH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPn XOXV ZDV UHSHDWHG DW WKH HQG RI WKH ERRNOHW WR SURYLGH D UHVSRQVH UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWH VHH $SSHQGL[ 'f

PAGE 70

&+$37(5 ,,, 5(68/76 7KH UDQNLQJ GDWD FROOHFWHG LQ 3KDVH ZHUH DQDO\]HG ZLWK 6$6$/6&$/
PAGE 71

VRXUFHV RI LQIRUPDWLRQ DUH UHVRUWHG WR LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH DQG LOOXPLQDWLQJ GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ )LUVW FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQDO FRRUGLQDWHV RI HDFK VROXWLRQ DQG WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH UDWLQJV DUH H[DPn LQHG DQG UHSRUWHG 6HFRQG FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH GLPHQn VLRQDO FRRUGLQDWHV RI HDFK VROXWLRQ DQG WKH SULYDF\ XQLGLn PHQVLRQDO VFDOH YDOXHV REWDLQHG LQ 3KDVH DUH H[DPLQHG DQG UHSRUWHG 7KLV WULDQJXODWLRQ RI GDWD VRPHWLPHV FRQYHUJHV WR FODULI\ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV DQG DW RWKHU WLPHV VXJJHVWV QRQFRQJUXHQW DOWHUQDWLYH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO 3ULYDF\ 5HVXOWV 7KH VWUHVV YDOXHV DQG UVTXDUH YDOXHV IRU WKH RQH WKURXJK VL[ GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH UHGXFWLRQ LQ VWUHVV YDOXHV GXH WR WKH JHQHUDWLRQ RI WKH WKLUG DQG VXEVHTXHQW GLPHQVLRQV LV VPDOO 7KLV VXJJHVWV WKDW D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV DGHTXDWH 6XEVHTXHQW H[n SORUDWRU\ DQDO\VHV RI WKH WKUHH WKURXJK ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV QRWHZRUWK\ 7KXV ERWK WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO DQG IRXUGLPHQn VLRQDO DQDO\VHV DUH SUHVHQWHG 7KH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ WKUHH DWWULEXWHV 7KH DWWULEXWH WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ DURXQG WKH DFWRU LV WKH RQO\ RQH DFKLHYLQJ DQ DFFHSWHG OHYHO RI VLJQLILFDQFH U S f 7KH RWKHU WZR

PAGE 72

7DEOH 3ULYDF\ 0'6 5HVXOWV 'LPHQVLRQ 6WUHVV 564

PAGE 73

DWWULEXWHV WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH DYDLODEOH U S DQG FURZGHG U S f DUH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLIn LFDQW 7RJHWKHU WKHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH LQWHUSUHWHG DV 6Rn FLDO 'HQVLW\ DQG WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV WKXV ODEHOHG 7KH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ KDV RQH DWWULEXWH ZKLFK LV FRUUHODWHG DW D OHYHO RI PDUJLQn DO VLJQLILFDQFH 7KH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV U S f LV FDXWLRXVO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DV D 1RUn PDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV XQLTXH WR WKLV VRn OXWLRQ QRW UHDSSHDULQJ LQ DQ\ RWKHU GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KLV DUJXHV IRU \HW LQFUHDVHG FDXWLRQ 7KH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ IXUWKHU HODERUDWHV WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ SUHYLRXVO\ GLVFXVVHG 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV RI WKH DWWULEXWHV WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ DURXQG WKH DFWRU U S f DQG WKH DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF U S f DUH DOVR QRZ VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKLV GLPHQVLRQ 7KH RQH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW DWWULEXWH WKH DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH U S ff DOVR VHHPV UHOHYDQW WR WKH LQWHUn SUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ UHSUHVHQWV D FRQWLQXXP IURP FURZGHG WR QRW FURZGHG )RXU FRQVHTXHQFHV DUH DSSDUHQWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKLV FURZGLQJ FRQWLQXXP 7KH DPRXQW RI VWLPXODWLRQ LPSLQJLQJ RQ WKH DFWRU WKH GHJUHH RI SULYDF\ DYDLODEOH WKH PRWLYDWLRQ WR HVFDSH WKH VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH IHHOLQJ RI FODXVWURSKRELD DOO YDU\ DORQJ WKH VDPH GLPHQVLRQ DV FURZGLQJ

PAGE 74

1R DWWULEXWH LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ RU PDUJLQDOO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KH DWWULEXWH GHILQLQJ WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLn PHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV RQO\ FRUUHODWHG U ZLWK WKLV GLPHQn VLRQ 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV XQLQWHUSUHWDEOH DQG WKXV XQODEHOHG 7KH QLQH DWWULEXWHV GHILQLQJ WKH WKLUG GLPHQVLRQ LQGLn FDWH WKDW LW LV D FRPSOH[ RQH ,Q RUGHU RI FRUUHODWLRQDO PDJQLWXGH WKH QLQH DUH f QR RQH NQRZV WKH DFWRU DQRQn \PRXV U S f f WKH DFWRU LV YLVLEOH U S f f WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ U S f f WKH DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ S f f DQRWKHU NQRZV WKH DFWRUnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV U S f f WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH FDXVHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV U S f f WKH DFWRU WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW U S f f RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ WKH DFWRU IHHOV U S f DQG f WKH DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI S f 7KH DWWULEXWH WKH DFWRU LV FDUHIXO DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VD\ U S f LV PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW $ VLQJOH UXEULF ZKLFK HQFRPSDVVHV DOO RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV LV QRW LPPHGLDWHO\ REYLRXV 3ULYDF\ VXJJHVWV LWVHOI DV RQH FDQGLGDWH 2QH HQG RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV DQFKRUHG E\ WZR W\SHV RI SULYDF\ LH DQRQ\PLW\ DQG VROLWXGH 7KH RWKHU HQG KRZHYHU LV PDUNHG E\ WZR DWWULEXWHV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ DQG EHLQJ FDUHn IXO DERXW ZKDW LV VDLGf ZKLFK DUH IUHTXHQWO\ EHOLHYHG WR FUHn DWH WZR RWKHU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ LH LQWLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH

PAGE 75

UHVSHFWLYHO\ 3DUWLDOO\ IRU WKLV UHDVRQ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV QRW LQWHUSUHWHG DV SULYDF\ :KDW LV GHVLUHG LV D FRQVWUXFW ZKLFK HQFRPSDVVHV DOO RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV ZLWKRXW FRQWUDGLFWLRQ RU H[FHSWLRQ $ FDUHIXO GHWDLOHG H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH DWWULEXWHV YDU\LQJ DORQJ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ VXJJHVWV VXFK D FRQVWUXFW $V RQH DSn SURDFKHV WKH HQG RI WKH GLPHQVLRQ DQFKRUHG E\ DQRQ\PLW\ VROLWXGH DQG IUHHGRP WR EH RQHVHOI WKH IROORZLQJ FKDQJHV RFFXU RWKHUnV NQRZOHGJH RI VHOI GHFUHDVHV RQHnV YLVLELOn LW\ GHFUHDVHV RQHnV VHOIUHYHDOLQJQHVV GHFUHDVHV RWKHUnV XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI RQHnV IHHOLQJV GHFUHDVHV RQHnV WUXVW RI RWKHUV GHFUHDVHV RQHnV JXDUGHGQHVV RYHU ZKDW LV VDLG GHn FUHDVHV DQG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK RQHnV IHHOLQJV DUH FDXVHG E\ RWKHUV GHFUHDVHV 0RYLQJ DZD\ IURP WKLV DQFKRU SRLQW DQRQ\PLW\ RU LJQRUDQFH RI RQHnV LGHQWLW\ ERWK QDPH DQG VHOIn KRRGf GHFUHDVHV VROLWXGH RU ZLWKGUDZDO IURP RWKHUV GHn FUHDVHV DQG IUHHGRP WR EH RQHVHOI LQWHUSUHWHG KHUH DV VSRQWDQHLW\f GHFUHDVHV 7KHVH SURFHVVHV VXJJHVW D PRYHPHQW WRZDUG RU DZD\ IURP HQJDJLQJ RWKHUV DQG EHLQJ LQYROYHG ZLWK RWKHUV 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV WKHUHIRUH LQWHUSUHWHG DQG ODn EHOHG DV ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW 7KH IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQ VKDUHV WKUHH DWWULEXWHV DQG f ZLWK WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH SRODU RSSRVLWH RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV LV KRZHYHU GLIIHUHQW LQ WKH WZR GLPHQn VLRQV 2QO\ WKH DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH U S f LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR WKLV GLPHQVLRQ 7KH DWWULEXWHV

PAGE 76

7DEOH 3ULYDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 'LPHQVLRQ ,WHP U U 62&,$/ '(16,7< WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ DURXQG &2 f DFWRU A WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH R DYDLODEOH A FURZGHG A WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH f 1250$7,9(1(66 DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV ,17(53(5621$/ ,192/9(0(17 QR RQH NQRZV DFWRU DQRQ\PRXV DQRWKHU NQRZV DFWRUnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV DFWRU LV YLVLEOH DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV FDXVHG E\ SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI DFWRU LV FDUHIXO DERXW WKH\ VD\ n RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV DFWRU WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW 3+<6,&$/ ,192/9(0(17 DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SK\VLFDO VLWXDWLRQ LV VH[XDO DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ FR UR UR UR

PAGE 77

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG 'LPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GLVWLQFW IURP GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ ZKLFK LV XQGHILQHG &RUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 3UREDELOLW\ LV JUHDWHU WKDQ DQG OHVV WKDQ &RUUHODWLRQ FRHIILFLHQWV IRU WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ

PAGE 78

WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SK\VLFDO U S f WKH DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF U S f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV VH[XDO U S f DQG WKH DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ U S f DUH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW 7KLV FRQn WLQXXP UDQJHV IURP D VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK LV VH[XDO DQG SK\VLFDO WR QRQVH[XDO DQG QRQSK\VLFDO 6LPXOWDQHRXVO\ WKH FRQWLQXXP FRYHUV ERWK WKH GHVLUH WR HVFDSH DYRLGDQFHf DQG WKH IHHOn LQJ RI LQWUXVLRQ DQG FODXVWURSKRELD RQ RQH HQG WR WKH GHn VLUH WR QRW HVFDSH DSSURDFKf DQG WKH DEVHQFH RI IHHOLQJ LQWUXGHG XSRQ DQG FODXVWURSKRELF ,Q WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ WKH DWWULEXWHV FRPPRQ WR ERWK GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK FURZGHGQHVV EXW LQ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ WKH\ DUH UHODWHG WR VH[XDOLW\ $ FDXWLRXV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH WHQXRXV PDUn JLQDOf UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ DSSURDFKDYRLGDQFH HVFDSHf DQG VH[XDOLW\ LV 3K\VLFDO ,QYROYHPHQW 7KH ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV VLPLODU WR WKH IRXUn GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KLV VROXWLRQ LV QRW LQVLJKWIXO VLQFH QR DWWULEXWH LV UHODWHG WR WKH GLPHQVLRQ DQG LW DGGV QRWKLQJ WR WKH YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU LQ D VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQDO FRRUGLQDWHV RQWR WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV 7R ZKDW H[WHQW DUH WKH GLPHQVLRQV XVHG E\ VXEMHFWV LQ GLVFULPLQDWLQJ SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV UHODWHG WR WKH SHUFHLYHG GHJUHH RI SULYDF\ LQ WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV" 7R DQVZHU WKLV TXHVn WLRQ FRUUHODWLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQ FRRUGLQDWHV IRU HDFK SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ DQG WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH YDOXHV IRU HDFK SULn YDF\ VLWXDWLRQ ZHUH FRPSXWHG 7DEOH SUHVHQWV WKH UHVXOWV

PAGE 79

7DEOH 3ULYDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQ 'LPHQVLRQ r r'LPHQVLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ GLVWLQFW DWWULEXWHV LQ VROXWLRQ YHUVXV VROXWLRQV DQG S S S!

PAGE 80

'LPHQVLRQ 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\f LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH GHJUHH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ 7KH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ f LV DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ )LQDOO\ WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ 125n 0$7,9(1(66f RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV FRUUHODWHG U S f DW D PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW OHYHO 3K\Vn LFDO ,QYROYHPHQW VKRZV QR UHODWLRQVKLS WR SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ 7KH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LQGLFDWHV WKDW ERWK GLPHQVLRQV WRJHWKHU VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHn GLFH )f S f WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV (DFK GLPHQVLRQ DFFRXQWV IRU RQHKDOI RI WKH H[SODLQHG YDULDQFH UVT f 7KH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ DOVR VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHn GLFWV WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV :KHQ GLPHQVLRQ LV HQn WHUHG ILUVW LQWR WKH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IROORZHG E\ WKH LQFOXVLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQ SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV LV SUHGLFWHG )f S f $OWKRXJK WKH )YDOXH )f S f IRU DOO IRXU GLPHQVLRQV HQWHUHG LQWR WKH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ LV VLJQLIn LFDQW OHVV WKDQ SHUFHQW RI H[SODLQHG YDULDQFH LV DGGHG 1RWH WKDW GLPHQVLRQ LQ WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GLVWLQFWO\ GLIIHUHQW IURP WKH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ :KLOH WKH DERYH DQDO\VHV DGG VXSSRUW WR WKH YLHZ WKDW SULYDF\ LV D VLQJOH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQVWUXFW D PRUH DWRPLVWLF DQDO\VLV PLJKW SURYLGH IXUWKHU HYLGHQFH

PAGE 81

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ RI 3ULYDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV RQ 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 'LPHQVLRQ 564 6WHSZLVH 6ROXWLRQ r 0564 f f f f f f f f f f r'LPHQVLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ GLVWLQFW DWWULEXWHV LQ VROXWLRQ YHUVXV VROXWLRQV DQG S S S!

PAGE 82

GHPRQVWUDWLQJ WKH VSHFLILF GLPHQVLRQDO FRPELQDWLRQV DQG SURSHUWLHV RI WKH IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ 7KH PXOWLGLPHQn VLRQDO GDWD VHW ZDV WKHUHIRUH VXEVHTXHQWO\ SDUWLWLRQHG LQWR VXEVHWV FRQWDLQLQJ GDWD IRU WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV SUHYLRXVO\ FRGHG LQWR WKH IRXU W\SHV 7KUHH XVDEOH VXEVHWV UHVXOWHG 7RR IHZ VWLPXOL H[LVWHG IRU SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK ZHUH DQRQ\PRXV WR EH IXUWKHU DQDO\]HG 7KH UHVXOWV IRU WKH UHPDLQLQJ WKUHH SULYDF\ W\SHV DUH UHSRUWHG LQ DOn SKDEHWLFDO RUGHU 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO ,QWLPDF\ 5HVXOWV 7KH 0'6 VWUHVV YDOXHV DQG UVTXDUH YDOXHV IRU RQH WKURXJK ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV DSSHDU LQ 7DEOH 7KH LQVXEVWDQWLDO LQFUHDVH LQ WKH VWUHVV DQG UVTXDUH YDOXHV EHn WZHHQ WKH WZR DQG WKUHH DQG IRXU DQG ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQV VXJJHVWV WKDW HLWKHU D WZR RU IRXU GLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQ LV RSWLPDO %RWK VROXWLRQV DUH WKHUHIRUH H[SORUHG YLD WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH GDWD 7KH ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQ LV DOVR GLVFXVVHG GXH WR LWV SRWHQWLDOO\ LQWHUHVWLQJ UHODWLRQVKLS WR WKH SULYDF\ VFRUHV 7KH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ VL[ DWWULEXWHV VHH 7DEOH f LQ RUGHU RI WKHLU FRUUHODWLRQDO PDJQLWXGH WKH\ DUH f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV LPn SHUVRQDO U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHGLFWn DEOH U S f WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ WR RWKHUV

PAGE 83

7DEOH ,QWLPDF\ 0'6 5HVXOWV 'LPHQVLRQ 6WUHVV 564

PAGE 84

U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJn LFDO U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV FRPIRUWDEOH U S f DQG f RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ WKH DFWRU IHHOV U S f 7KH PRVW VDOLHQW DWWULEXWH FRQWLQXXP DORQJ ZKLFK VXEMHFWV GLVFULPLQDWH LQWLPDF\ VLWXDWLRQV LV WKH GHn JUHH WR ZKLFK WKH LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQ LV SHUVRQDO RU LPSHUVRQDO $Q LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV SHUVRQDOLPSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ LV VXJJHVWHG E\ WKUHH DWWULEXWHV 7KH PRUH WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ DQG WKH PRUH RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV WKH PRUH SHUVRQDO LV WKH VLWXDWLRQ 'LVn FORVLQJ IHHOLQJV DQG KDYLQJ RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG RQHnV IHHOn LQJV PDNHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ PRUH SV\FKRORJLFDO UDWKHU WKDQ PXQGDQH ,QWHUDFWLRQ LV PXQGDQH WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW LW IRn FXVHV RQ WDVN RU H[WHUQDO FRQWHQW $SSDUHQWO\ D SURPLQHQW DIIHFW DFFRPSDQ\LQJ WKLV SHUVRQDOLPSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ LV HPRWLRQDO FRPIRUW )HOW FRPIRUW GHFUHDVHV DORQJ WKLV GLn PHQVLRQ DV WKH VLWXDWLRQ EHFRPHV PRUH SHUVRQDO 7KH H[WHQW WR ZKLFQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ WKH RWKHUnV EHKDYLRU DQG RQHnV RYQ"f LV SUHGLFWDEOH LQFUHDVHV DV WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ EHFRPHV PRUH SHUVRQDO 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKH DWWULEXWH ORDGLQJV DQG FRPELQDWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKDW DQ DSSURSULDWH ODEHOLQJ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO 2QO\ WZR DWWULEXWHV FRUUHODWH VLJQLILFDQWO\ ZLWK WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KHVH DUH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV IDPLOLDU U S f DQG WKH DFWRUVn IHHOLQJV DUH FDXVHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV

PAGE 85

U S f 7KH GLPHQVLRQ LV FOHDUO\ D IDPLOLDULW\ RQH EXW LW LV XQFOHDU ZKDW FRQVWLWXWHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ 7ZR DOWHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQV DUH WKDW f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV WKH SK\VLFDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG f WKH VLWn XDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH RWKHU SHUVRQV SUHVHQW 2QH K\SRWKHVLV WKHUHIRUH LV WKDW DV WKH SK\VLFDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO HQYLURQn PHQW EHFRPHV PRUH IDPLOLDU WKH DFWRUnV HPRWLRQV DUH D IXQFn WLRQ RI WKH RWKHUV SUHVHQW WKH PRUH QRYHO DQG XQIDPLOLDU WKH VLWXDWLRQ WKH PRUH WKH DFWRUnV HPRWLRQV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKH SK\VLFDO DQG EHKDYLRUDO HQYLURQPHQW DQG OHVV ZLWK WKH RWKHUV SUHVHQW $Q DOWHUQDWLYH K\SRWKHVLV UHVXOWV ZKHQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ UHIHUV WR WKH RWKHU SHRSOH SUHVHQW ,Q WKLV FDVH WKH PRUH IDPLOLDU DUH WKH RWKHU SHRSOH SUHVHQW WKH PRUH WKH DFWRUnV HPRWLRQV DUH DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHVH SHRSOH DQG WKH OHVV WKH HPRWLRQV DUH UHODWHG WR HLWKHU WKH DFWRUnV LQn WHUQDO PRWLYDWLRQV RU WR WKH H[WHUQDO SK\VLFDO QRQKXPDQ HQYLURQPHQW 5HJDUGOHVV RI ZKLFK RI WKHVH DOWHUQDWLYHV RU RWKHUV LV FRUUHFW WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV ODEHOHG DV IDPLOLDUn LW\ 7KH ILUVW WZR GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQ DUH HVVHQWLDOO\ WKH VDPH LQ WKHLU GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV DV WKRVH RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 6HYHQ DWWULEXWHV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KHVH DUH f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHn GLFWDEOH U S f f WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ

PAGE 86

7DEOH ,QWLPDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 7ZR )RXU DQG )LYH 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQf 'LPHQVLRQ WHUQ ',0(16,21 /$%(/ ,WHP GLPHQV U GLPHQV U GLPHQV U 3(5621$/,03(5621$/ VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO ` ` ` VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHGLFWDEOH ` ` ` DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ WR RWKHUV f " ` ` VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF ` ` ` VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO ` ` RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV ` QR RQH NQRZV DFWRU )$0,/,$5,7< VLWXDWLRQ LV IDPLOLDU ` ` ` DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV FDXVHG E\ SUHVHQFH [ RI RWKHUV 81'(),1(' VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF DFWRU LV YLVLEOH $&&(37$%,/,7< 2) %(+$9,25 DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO ` DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV = )5(('20 DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI f, DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO ` DFWRU LV FDUHIXO DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VD\ `S `S cS S!

PAGE 87

WR RWKHUV U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV FRPIRUWDEOH U S f DQG f RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ WKH DFWRU IHHOV U S f 7KH RQO\ FKDQJH LQ WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR DQG IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV LV WKH DGn GLWLRQ RI WKH DWWULEXWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF 7KLV DWWULEXWH LV PDUJLQDOO\ S f VLJQLILFDQW IRU WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KH PRUH LPSHUVRQDO WKH VLWXDWLRQ WKH PRUH SXEOLF LW LV 7KH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQn VLRQ UHPDLQV WKH VDPH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO 7KH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV LGHQWLFDO WR WKDW IRU WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ H[n FHSW WKDW WKH PDJQLWXGHV RI WKH VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHODWLRQV LV UHGXFHG 7KH IDPLOLDULW\ DWWULEXWH UHPDLQV WKH PRVW SURPn LQHQW GHILQLQJ RQH 1R DWWULEXWH LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH WKLUG RI WKH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV 7KH DWWULEXWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF U S f ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW FRUUHODWLRQ RQ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 1R LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV SRVVLEOH RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ 7KLV ILQGLQJ SRWHQWLDOO\ DUJXHV IRU D WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQ DV PRVW SDUVLPRQLRXV WR WKH GDWD 7KH IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQ LV KRZHYHU GHILQHG E\ WZR DWn WULEXWHV ZKLFK DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LW %RWK DWWULEXWHV FRQFHUQ WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU RQH HYDOXDWHV LW

PAGE 88

ZKLOH WKH RWKHU FRPSDUHV LW DJDLQVW QRUPV 7KHVH DWWULn EXWHV DUH WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO U S f DQG WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV U S f 2QH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV WKDW WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYn LRU LQ LQWLPDWH VLWXDWLRQV LV GLVFULPLQDWHG DORQJ D FRQn WLQXXP RI EHLQJ VKDPHIXO DSSDUHQWO\ LQ DVVRFLDWLRQ ZLWK WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH EHKDYLRU FRQIRUPV WR WKH UXOHV 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV WKHUHIRUH LQWHUSUHWHG DV 1RUPDWLYHQHVV *LYHQ WKDW SHRSOH FDQ GLVFULPLQDWH VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK DUH LQWLPDWH DORQJ D QXPEHU RI GLPHQVLRQV ZKLFK RI WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV RU FRPELQDWLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQV LV PRVW UHODWHG WR WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\" 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV VHH 7DEOH f EHWZHHQ WKH GLPHQVLRQDO FRRUGLQDWHV RI HDFK LQWLPDF\ VLWXn DWLRQ DQG WKHLU SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUH LQGLFDWH WKDW RQO\ WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG U DQG UHVSHFWLYHO\ S f ZLWK WKH SULYDF\ VFRUHV 7KH GLUHFWLRQ RI WKLV UHODWLRQVKLS LV VXFK WKDW DV WKH VLWXDWLRQ EHFRPHV PRUH SHUVRQDO WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI WKH DPRXQW RI SULn YDF\ SUHVHQW LQFUHDVHV 5HJUHVVLRQ DQDO\VHV VHH 7DEOH f IXUWKHU VKRZ WKDW WKH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ SUHn GLFWV RYHU SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV 7KH DGGLWLRQ RI WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ UHVXOWV LQ QHLWKHU D VLJQLILFDQW PXOWLYDULDWH ) QRU D VXEVWDQWLDO LQn FUHDVH LQ WKH YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU ,Q VSLWH RI WKH VWUHQJWK DQG FODULW\ RI WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ LW SOD\V OLWn WOH UROH LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 7KH VDPH LV WUXH RI

PAGE 89

7DEOH ,QWLPDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXH 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQ 'LPHQVLRQ r r r r rS

PAGE 90

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ RI ,QWLPDF\ 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV RQ 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQV 'LPHQVLRQV 6WHSZLVH 0564 r f rr f r f f f r r f f f f r f f f f f rS rr'HVLJQDWHV WKH RUGHU LQ ZKLFK WKH GLPHQVLRQ ZDV RSWLPDOO\ HQWHUHG LQWR WKH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ

PAGE 91

WKLUG GLPHQVLRQ (QWHULQJ WKH IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQ LQWR D VHWSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ IROORZLQJ WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ UHVXOWV KRZHYHU LQ ERWK D VLJQLILFDQW SUHGLFWLRQ ) f S f DQG DQ LQFUHDVH RI SHUFHQW RI YDULDQFH DFFRXQWHG IRU RYHU WKDW IRU WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ DORQH 7KH PRUH QRUPDWLYH DQG OHVV VKDPHIXO WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU WKH OHVV SULYDWH LV WKH LQWLPDF\ VLWXDWLRQ SHUFHLYHG 7KHVH WZR GLPHQVLRQV RI 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO DQG 1RUPDWLYHQHVV FRPELQHG DFFRXQW IRU HLJKW\RQH SHUFHQW RI WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUH YDULDQFH 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO 5HVHUYH 5HVXOWV 7DEOH VKRZV WKH VWUHVV YDOXHV DQG UVTXDUH YDOXHV IRU RQH WKURXJK ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV 7KH DGGLWLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQ WZR VXEVWDQWLDOO\ UHGXFHV WKH VWUHVV YDOXH DQG LQFUHDVHV WKH UVTXDUH 7KH VWUHVV UHGXFWLRQ GXH WR WKH LQn FOXVLRQ RI WKH WKLUG DQG IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQV LV PRUH PRGHVW :KLOH WZR GLPHQVLRQV LV WKH PLQLPXP QXPEHU RI GLPHQVLRQV WKH PD[LPXP QXPEHU LV XQFHUWDLQ $OWKRXJK WKH ILYH GLPHQn VLRQDO VROXWLRQ UHVXOWV LQ D VPDOO GHFUHDVH LQ WKH VWUHVV YDOXH WKLV VROXWLRQ RIIHUV WKH EHVW SUHGLFWLRQ RI WKH SULn YDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV )RU WKLV UHDVRQ ERWK WKH WZR DQG ILYHn GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV DUH LQWHUSUHWHG EDVHG RQ WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH GDWD

PAGE 92

7DEOH 5HVHUYH 0'6 5HVXOWV 'LPHQVLRQ 6WUHVV 564

PAGE 93

7KH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV DQ DQRPDO\ $OWKRXJK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ KDV WKH OHDVW GLVn SHUVLRQ RI DFWXDO VFRUHV IURP WKH FRPSXWHG GLPHQVLRQ QR DWWULEXWH LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK LW 7ZR DWWULn EXWHV DUH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW LQ WKHLU FRUUHODWLRQ ZLWK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ 7KH DWWULEXWHV DUH WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHn YHDOLQJ WR RWKHU U S f DQG WKH DFWRUnV IHHOn LQJV DUH GXH WR VHOI U S f $ FDXWLRXV LQWHUn SUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV 6HOI'LVFORVXUH 6XEMHFWV GLVFULPLQDWH VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK DUH UHVHUYHG WR WKH H[WHQW WKDW VHOIGLVFORVXUH LV SUHVHQW 6XFK DQ LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV FRQFHSWXDOO\ UHOHYDQW WR WKH FRQVWUXFW UHVHUYHG $SSDUn HQWO\ WKH OHYHO RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH RFFXUULQJ DQG WKH H[WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR LQWHUQDO PRWLYDn WLRQV DUH DVVRFLDWHG 7KH PRUH LQKLELWHG WKH DFWRU IHHOV DERXW VHOIGLVFORVLQJ WKH PRUH WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR KLVKHU RZQ PRWLYDWLRQV DQG FRQFHUQV 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDn WLRQ DOEHLW EDVHG RQ TXHVWLRQDEOH VWDWLVWLFDO VLJQLILFDQFH LV FRQFHSWXDOO\ UHDVRQDEOH )LYH DWWULEXWHV GHILQH WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ ,Q GHVFHQGLQJ RUGHU RI FRUUHODWLRQDO PDJQLWXGH WKH\ DUH f WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH DYDLOn DEOH U S f f WKH DFWRU LV YLVLEOH U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF U U f f RWKHUV DUH WRR FORVH WR DFWRU U S f DQG f WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ U S f )RXU RWKHU DWWULEXWHV

PAGE 94

DUH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW WKH\ DUH f DFWRU LV VROLn WDU\ U S f f RWKHUV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK RU EORFN WKH DFWRU U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV DQ[LRXV U S f DQG f FURZGHG U S f 2YHUDOO IRXU DWWULEXWHV DQG f VXJJHVW WKDW WKLV GLn PHQVLRQ SULPDULO\ UHSUHVHQWV D FRQWLQXXP RI VRFLDO GHQVLW\ $QRWKHU DWWULEXWH f KDV EHHQ K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH D FDXVH RI IHHOLQJ FURZGHG 9LVLELOLW\ LV FORVHO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DQG WKXV ZLWK FURZGLQJ )XUWKHU UHODWHG WR WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV LQDGHTXDWH SULYDF\ %DVHG RQ WKH SUHSRQn GHUDQFH RI DWWULEXWHV GHQRWLQJ DQG LPSO\LQJ FURZGLQJ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV ODEHOHG nn6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ )RU WKH ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ RQO\ WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ DWWULEXWH LV PDUJLQDOO\ FRUUHODWHG U S f ZLWK WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH FDXWLRXV LQWHUSUHWDn WLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DV 6HOI'LVFORVXUH LV PDLQWDLQHG 7KH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ QLQH DWWULEXWHV DQG f ,WHPV DQG VHH 7DEOH f DUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH IRU WKH WZR GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KH QHZ DWWULEXWH ZKLFK LV DGGHG WR WKH GHILQLn WLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH FDXVHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV U S f 7KLV GRHV QRW FKDQJH WKH RULJLQDO LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ DQG ODEHOLQJ RI WKLV GLn PHQVLRQ DV 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ ,W GRHV VXJJHVW WKDW DV FURZGn LQJ LQFUHDVHV WKH DFWRUnV HPRWLRQV DUH PRUH UHODWHG WR WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV

PAGE 95

7DRLH 8 5HVHUYH 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 7ZR DQG )LYH 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQVf 'LPHQVLRQ ,WHP ',0(16,21$/ /$%(/ ,WHP 'LP U 'LP U 6(/)',6&/2685( DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ f  IHHOLQJV GXH WR VHOI 62&,$/ '(16,7< WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH U DFWRU LV YLVLEOH DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF RWKHUV DUH WRR FORVH f_ WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ RWKHUV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK DFWRU fL DFWRU IHHOV DQ[LRXV A FURZGHG IHHOLQJV FDXVHG E\ SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI  DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ ] 6+$0( DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO 6,78$7,21$/ $775,%87,21 2) (027,216 DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO f f J DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV ; (03$7+< RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV S S S!

PAGE 96

'LPHQVLRQ KDV WZR DWWULEXWHV ZLWK VLJQLILFDQW FRUUHn ODWLRQV 7KH\ DUH WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO U S f DQG WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF U S f $Qn RWKHU DWWULEXWH WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO U S f LV PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW 7KHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH FRQn VLVWHQW ZLWK 6FKQHLGHUnV f FRQFHSWLRQ RI VKDPH WKXV WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV ODEHOHG DV 6KDPH 7KH IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ WKUHH DWWULEXWHV f WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ U S f f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO U f S f DQG f WKH DFn WRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV U S f 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ VHHPV WR EHVW UHSUHVHQW WKH OHYHO RI VLWXDWLRQDOO\ PRWLYDWHG IHHOLQJV $W RQH HQG RI WKH FRQWLQXXP FKDUDFWHUn LVWLFV RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ ODUJHO\ LQIOXHQFH WKH DFWRUnV HPRn WLRQV ZKLOH DW WKH RWKHU H[WUHPH RI WKH FRQWLQXXP WKH DFn WRUnV HPRWLRQV DUH PRVWO\ XQUHODWHG WR FKDUDFWHULVWLFV RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ $ORQJ WKLV VDPH GLPHQVLRQ EXW LQ WKH RSSRn VLWH GLUHFWLRQ LV WKH GHJUHH WR ZKLFK WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SV\n FKRORJLFDO 7KH PRUH WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR VLWn XDWLRQDO FRQWLQJHQFLHV WKH OHVV SV\FKRORJLFDO LV WKH VLWXDn WLRQ 6LPLODUO\ WKH PRUH WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ WKH OHVV WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV 7KH FRQMXQFWLRQ RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV VXJJHVWV WKH DFWRU LV PDNLQJ DQ DWWULEXWLRQ RI H[WHUQDO FDXVDWLRQ IRU KLVKHU HPRWLRQV 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ WKHUHIRUH LV LQWHUSUHWHG DV 6LWXDWLRQDO $WWULEXWLRQ RI (PRWLRQV

PAGE 97

2QO\ RQH DWWULEXWH SRWHQWLDOO\ GHILQHV WKH ILIWK GLn PHQVLRQ 7KH DWWULEXWH RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ WKH DFWRU IHHOV U S f LV PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW ZKHQ FRUn UHODWHG ZLWK GLPHQVLRQ 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV FDXWLRXVO\ LQWHUSUHWHG DV (PSDWK\ 2I WKH ILYH GLPHQVLRQV RQO\ WKH ODVW RQH LV PDUJLQn DOO\ FRUUHODWHG U S f ZLWK WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV IRU WKH UHVHUYH VLWXDWLRQV 7KH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULn YDF\ IRU VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK SHRSOH IHOW UHVHUYHG LQFUHDVHV DV WKH HPRWLRQDO HPSDWK\ RI WKH RWKHUV SUHVHQW GHFUHDVHV $ VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ RI DOO ILYH GLPHQVLRQV RQWR WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV DJDLQ UHYHDOV PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV 'LPHQVLRQ DFFRXQWV IRU SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SULYDF\ VFRUHV ) f Sf 7KH LQFOXVLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQ QH[W LQFUHDVHV WKH UVTXDUH WR )f S f 7KH DGGLWLRQ RI GLPHQVLRQ LV WKH ODVW LQFOXVLRQ WR D VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ ZKLFK UHVXOWV f P D VXEVWDQWLDO LQFUHDVH LQ UVTXDUH U f DQG LV VWLOO PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW )f S f $OWKRXJK EDVHG RQ PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW ILQGLQJV WKLV UHVXOW FDXn WLRXVO\ VXJJHVWV WKDW UHVHUYHG VLWXDWLRQV DUH SHUFHLYHG DV PRUH SULYDWH DV WKH\ DUH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ LQFUHDVLQJ HPRn WLRQDO HPSDWK\ IURP RWKHUV E\ WKH LQFUHDVLQJO\ SHUVRQDO QDn WXUH RI WKH FRQWHQW RI LQWHUDFWLRQ E\ WKH LQFUHDVLQJ H[n WHQW WR ZKLFK WKH FRQWHQW LV QRW SXEOLF NQRZOHGJH DQG E\

PAGE 98

7DEOH 5HVHUYH &RUUHODWLRQV ZLWK 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQV 'LPHQVLRQV f r rS

PAGE 99

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ RI 5HVHUYH 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV RQ 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 'LPHQVLRQV 564 6WHSZLVH 6ROXWLRQV 0564 f rr f f f f f f f f f f f f r f rS! rr'HVLJQDWHV WKH RUGHU LQ ZKLFK WKH GLPHQVLRQ ZDV RSWLPDOO\ HQWHUHG LQWR WKH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ

PAGE 100

GHFUHDVLQJ VHOIGLVFORVXUH :KLOH WKLV LV VXJJHVWLYH DW EHVW WKHVH ILQGLQJV DUH FRQVLVWHQW ZLWK YDULRXV WKHRULHV RI SULYDF\ 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO 6ROLWXGH 5HVXOWV 7KH RQH WKURXJK VL[ GLPHQVLRQDO VWUHVV DQG UVTXDUH YDOXHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH DGGLWLRQ RI WKH IRXUWK GLPHQVLRQ UHVXOWV LQ D VPDOO GHFUHDVH LQ VWUHVV WKXV WKH WKUHH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV FRQVLGHUHG WKH PRVW DFFXn UDWH DQG SDUVLPRQLRXV 7KLV GHFLVLRQ LV SDUWLDOO\ VXSn SRUWHG E\ WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH DQDO\VLV $Q H[DPLQDWLRQ RI WKH DWWULEXWHV KLJKO\ FRUUHODWLQJ ZLWK HDFK GLPHQVLRQ IRU WKH WKUHH IRXU DQG ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV UHYHDOV WKDW RQO\ WKRVH IRU WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ LQ HDFK DQDO\VLV DUH VLPLODU *LYHQ WKH XQVWDEOH QDWXUH RI WKHVH UHODWLRQn VKLSV LW VHHPV WKDW WKUHH GLPHQVLRQV LV WKH PD[LPXP UHOLn DEOH $ WRWDO RI VL[WHHQ DWWULEXWHV GHILQH WKH ILUVW GLPHQn VLRQ RI WKH WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ )RXU RI WKH VL[ DWWULEXWHV ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW FRUUHODWLRQV ZLWK WKLV GLPHQn VLRQ FRQFHUQ WKH DFWRUnV DIIHFW 7KHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV FRPIRUWDEOH U Sf f WKH DFWRU IHHOV GLVWUHVVHG U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV KHOSOHVV U S f DQG f WKH DFWRU IHHOV DQ[LRXV U S f 2QH DVSHFW RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DORQJ ZKLFK

PAGE 101

7DEOH 6ROLWXGH 0'6 5HVXOWV 'LPHQVLRQ 6WUHVV 564

PAGE 102

VXEMHFWV GLVFULPLQDWH VROLWDU\ VLWXDWLRQV LV KRZ SOHDVDQW DQG VWUHVVIXO WKH\ DUH 2QH H[WUHPH RI VROLWDU\ RFFDVLRQV LV WKRVH WKDW DUH XQFRPIRUWDEOH VWUHVVIXO DQG SURGXFH DQ[LHW\ DQG IHHOLQJV RI YXOQHUDELOLW\ 7KH RWKHU H[WUHPH LV VLPSO\ WKH RSSRVLWH RI WKHVH DIIHFWLYH VWDWHV $QRWKHU DVSHFW RI WKLV FRPSOH[ GLPHQVLRQ LV LQGLFDWHG E\ WKUHH DWWULEXWHV ZKLFK DUH f WKH DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI U S f f WKH DFWRU LV LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV U S f DQG f WKH DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ U S f 7KLV FRPSRQHQW FRQVWLWXWHV D FRQWLQXn XP IURP EHLQJ IUHH LQ FRQWURO DQG QRW LQWUXGHG XSRQ WR EHLQJ FRQVWUDLQHG QRW LQ FRQWURO DQG EHLQJ LQWUXGHG XSRQ 7KH ODWWHU H[WUHPH ORJLFDOO\ WHUPLQDWHV WKH VROLWDU\ VWDWH 7ZR DWWULEXWHV DQFKRU D WKLUG IDFHW RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ $W RQH HQG WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH QRW GXH WR WKH VHOI U S f ZKLOH DW WKH RWKHU WHUPLQXV WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ U S f ,W VHHPV FRQVLVWHQW WKDW LI WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR VHOI WKHQ WKH DFWRUnV DWWHQWLRQ ZLOO EH IRFXVHG RQ VHOI U S2Of ZLWK WKH RSSRVLWH WUXH ZKHQ WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ &RQFHSWXDOO\ UHODWHG DUH WKUHH DWWULEXWHV EHDULQJ RQ WKH NQRZOHGJH RWKHUV KDYH DERXW WKH DFWRU 7KHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH f QR RQH NQRZV WKH DFWRU KHVKH LV DQRQ\PRXV U S f f WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ U S f DQG f DQRWKHU NQRZV WKH DFWRUnV WKRXJKWV DQG

PAGE 103

IHHOLQJV U S f 2WKHUV NQRZ WKH DFWRUnV LGHQWLW\ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV DW RQH H[WUHPH RI WKLV FRQWLQXXP DQG NQRZ QRWKLQJ DERXW WKH DFWRU DW WKH RWKHU H[WUHPH $ UHVLGXH RI WKUHH DWWULEXWHV ZKLFK DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG WR WKLV GLPHQVLRQ UHPDLQV DIWHU WKLV FRQFHSWXDO DQDO\VLV 2QH WKH DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ U S f PD\ EH WKRXJKW RI DV D PDQLSXODWLRQ FKHFN 6XEMHFWV GLG SHUn FHLYH WKDW WKH\ ZHUH UHVSRQGLQJ WR LQFLGHQWV RI VROLWXGH $QRWKHU WKH DFWRU IHHOV OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU U S f LV RSHQ WR VSHFXODWLRQ )LQDOO\ WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO U S f LV DOVR DYDLODEOH IRU VHYn HUDO DOWHUQDWLYH K\SRWKHVHV $V D ZKROH WKLV ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ LV PXOWLIDFHWHG $ KRVW RI DWWULEXWHV LV LQWHUUHODWHG DQG DUH FRYDU\LQJ DORQJ WKLV VLQJOH GLPHQVLRQ )LJXUH RUJDQL]HV WKHVH DWWULn EXWHV DORQJ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ :KLOH DSSO\LQJ D VLQJOH ODEHO WR VXFK D FRPSOH[ GLPHQVLRQ LV ULVN\ LW LV LQWHUSUHWHG DV SOHDVDQWQHVV 7KH QRQDIIHFWLYH DWWULEXWHV DUH K\SRWKn HVL]HG WR EH UHODWHG WR H[SHULHQFLQJ YDU\LQJ OHYHOV RI SOHDVXUH LQ VROLWXGH 1R DWWULEXWH LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ RU IRU WKH ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQf 7KUHH DWWULEXWHV DUH FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DW PDUJLQDO VLJQLILFDQFH f WKH DFWRU IHHOV OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU U S f f WKH DFWRU IHHOV KHOSOHVV U S f DQG f WKH DFWRUnV DWWHQWLRQ LV

PAGE 104

/RZ )HHOV FRPIRUWDEOH )UHH WR EH VHOI $FWRU LV LQ FRQWURO $FWRU LV VROLWDU\ $FWRU LV DQRQ\PRXV )HHOLQJV GXH WR VHOI $WWHQWLRQ IRFXVHG RQ VHOI )LJXUH 3OHDVDQWQHVV 'LPHQVLRQ +LJK )HHOV GLVWUHVVHG )HHOV DQ[LRXV )HHOV KHOSOHVV )HHOV OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU )HHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ )HHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ $FWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ $QRWKHU NQRZV DFWRUnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV 6LWXDWLRQ LV SV\FKRORJLFDO 8

PAGE 105

7DEOH 6ROLWXGH 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 7KUHH 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQf 'LPHQVLRQ ,WHP ',0(16,21$/ /$%(/ ,WHP U 3/($6$171(66 FRPIRUWDEOH IUHH WR EH VHOI LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV DFWRU IHHOV GLVWUHVVHG DFWRU IHHOV KHOSOHVV 81'(),1(' IHHOV OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU IHHOV KHOSOHVV )$0,/,$5,7< IDPLOLDU WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ S S S!

PAGE 106

IRFXVHG RQ VHOI U S f $OO RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 7KLV GLn PHQVLRQ LV WKHUHIRUH FRQVLGHUHG XQGHILQHG 1R VSHFXODn WLRQ FRQFHUQLQJ WKH FRRFFXUUHQFH RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV RQ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV RIIHUHG 7KH WKLUG GLPHQVLRQ LV EHWWHU DOWKRXJK QRW FOHDUO\ GHILQHG 7KUHH DWWULEXWHV PDUN WKLV GLPHQVLRQ f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV IDPLOLDU U S f f WKH DFWRU WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW U S f DQG f WKH DFWRU LV VHOI UHYHDOLQJ U S f 7ZR DGGLWLRQDO DWWULEXWHV DUH PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLILFDQW WKH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH GXH WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ S f DQG WKH DFWRU LV YLVLEOH U S f $WWULEXWHV DQG DOVR GHn ILQH WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 6LQFH VRPH RI WKHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH DQRPDOLHV WKLV GLPHQVLRQ LV OHIW XQGHILQHG ,I WKH DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ WKHQ WKHUH VKRXOG EH QR RQH DYDLODEOH WR WUXVW DQG QR RQH WR ZKRP WR EH YLVLEOH 7KH DWWULEXWHV DVn VRFLDWHG ZLWK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH DVVRn FLDWHG ZLWK WKLV GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH ILYH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXn WLRQ ZLWK WKH VHFRQG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VRn OXWLRQ DQG ZLWK WKH WKLUG GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH IRXUGLPHQn VLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KHVH RWKHU VROXWLRQV WKHUHIRUH GR QRW DLG LQ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ *LYHQ WKH FRPSOH[LW\ DQG QHEXORXVQHVV RI WKH VROLWXGH GLPHQVLRQV LW LV QRW XQH[SHFWHG WKDW QRQH RI WKHVH GLPHQn VLRQV DUH VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV

PAGE 107

7DEOH 6ROLWXGH 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV &RUUHODWHG ZLWK 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQV r rS!

PAGE 108

VHH 7DEOH f 2QO\ GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH WZRGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV FRUUHODWHG U S f DW D PDUJLQDOO\ VLJn QLILFDQW OHYHO ZLWK WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV )XUWKHU QR FRPELQDWLRQ RI RQH WKURXJK ILYH GLPHQVLRQV HQWHUHG LQWR D VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ SURGXFHV D VLJQLILFDQW UHVXOW VHH 7DEOH f

PAGE 109

7DEOH 5HJUHVVLRQ RI 6ROLWXGH 0'6 'LPHQVLRQV RQ 3ULYDF\ 6FDOH 9DOXHV 'LPHQVLRQDO 6ROXWLRQV 6WHSZLVH 564 r r rS!

PAGE 110

&+$37(5 ,9 ',6&866,21 7KH UHVXOWV LQGLFDWH D QXPEHU RI VXJJHVWLYH EXW QRW FRQFOXVLYH H[SODQDWLRQV RI WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ 7KH PRVW VXEVWDQWLDWHG FRQFOXVLRQ IURP WKLV UHn VHDUFK LV WKDW SULYDF\ LV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO FRQVWUXFW 7KH ILQGLQJV DOVR HYLGHQFH WKDW WKH VSHFLILF W\SHV RI SULn YDF\ DUH GLVFULPLQDWHG DORQJ VXEVHWV RI GLPHQVLRQV FRQWDLQn LQJ ERWK VKDUHG DQG XQLTXH GLPHQVLRQV 7KHVH WZR GLUHFn WLRQV RI ILQGLQJV DUH GLVFXVVHG LQ PRUH GHSWK &RPSDULVRQ RI 'LPHQVLRQV $FURVV 7\SHV RI 3ULYDF\ :KHQ WKH GDWD IURP DOO IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ DUH DQDn O\]HG WRJHWKHU VXEMHFWV XVHG IRXU GLPHQVLRQV LQ PDNLQJ WKHLU UDQNLQJV RI VLPLODULW\ 7KHVH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV DUH LQn WHUSUHWHG DV 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 1RUPDWLYHQHVV ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW DQG 3K\VLFDO ,QYROYHPHQW $SSUR[LPDWHO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH VLPLODULW\ GDWD LV H[SODLQHG E\ WKHVH IRXU GLPHQVLRQV &RPSXWLQJ WKH PD[LPXP QXPEHU RI GLn PHQVLRQV VL[f SHUPLVVLEOH ZLWK 6$6 $/6&$/ VWLOO DFFRXQWV IRU OHVV WKDQ SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH (LWKHU RI WZR DOWHUQDWLYHV LV SODXVLEOH )LUVW D ODUJH SURSRUWLRQ RI WKH VLPLODULW\ GDWD YDULDQFH LV HLWKHU PHWKRGRORJLFDOHUURU

PAGE 111

YDULDQFH RU LGLRV\QFUDWLFVXEMHFWHUURU YDULDQFH 6HFRQG SULYDF\ PD\ EH VXFK D GLIIXVH FRQVWUXFW WKDW PDQ\ PRUH WKDQ VL[ GLPHQVLRQV DUH QHFHVVDU\ 2QH OLQH RI HYLGHQFH DUJXLQJ DJDLQVW WKH HUURU YDULDQFH DOWHUQDWLYH LV WKH VXEVWDQWLDO JRRGQHVV RI ILW IRU WKH GLPHQVLRQV ZKHQ WKH LQWLPDF\ VLWXDn WLRQV DUH DQDO\]HG VHSDUDWHO\ 6XSSRUWLQJ WKH VHFRQG DOn WHUQDWLYH H[SODQDWLRQ LV WKH KLJK QXPEHU RI GLPHQVLRQV UHn VXOWLQJ IRU WKH LQGLYLGXDO W\SHV RI SULYDF\ ZKLFK DUH GLVn WLQFW IURP WKRVH GLPHQVLRQV IRXQG IRU SULYDF\ DV D ZKROH 7KHVH XQLTXH DQG VKDUHG GLPHQVLRQV DUH H[SOLFDWHG QH[W )RXU GLPHQVLRQV EHVW GHSLFW WKH LQWLPDF\ GDWD 2I WKHVH IRXU 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO )DPLOLDULW\ 8QGHILQHG DQG 1RUPDWLYHQHVVf RQO\ WKH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ LV RQH RI WKH SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV ,W LV K\SRWKHVL]HG KRZHYHU WKDW WKH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ LV D VSHFLDO FDVH RU VXEVHW RI WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW SULYDF\ GLPHQn VLRQ 7KH DWWULEXWHV GHILQLQJ WKH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO GLn PHQVLRQ FRQVWLWXWH D UHDVRQDEOH VXEVHW RI WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV $ ILYHGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ LV FKRVHQ DV WKH PRVW DFn FXUDWH PRGHO IRU UHVHUYH 7KH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQVLRQ LV SUHVHQW LQ ERWK WKH SULYDF\ DQG UHVHUYH VROXWLRQV 7ZR RI WKH UHVHUYH GLPHQVLRQV QDPHO\ 6HOI'LVFORVXUH DQG (PSDWK\ DJDLQ DUH VSHFXODWHG WR EH VSHFLDO SDUWLDO FRPSRQHQWV RI WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH VKDUHG LWHPV EHWZHHQ WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV DGG FUHGHQFH WR WKLV K\SRWKHVLV

PAGE 112

7KH GLPHQVLRQV 6LWXDWLRQDO $WWULEXWLRQ RI (PRWLRQV DQG 8QGHILQHG FRPSOHWH WKH GLPHQVLRQDO PRGHO RI UHVHUYH 6ROLWXGH LV SRRUO\ H[SOLFDWHG E\ WKH FXUUHQW PXOWLGLn PHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ 7KH GLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQV DFFRXQW IRU PRGHVW DPRXQWV RI YDULDQFH DUH XQVWDEOH DFURVV VROXWLRQV DQG DUH PRVWO\ XQLQWHUSUHWDEOH 3OHDVDQWQHVV LV WKH RQO\ FOHDUO\ ODEHOHG GLPHQVLRQ DQG LV QRW RQH RI WKH SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV 2QH K\SRWKHVLV LV RIIHUHG IRU WKHVH UHVXOWV &RQFHSWXDOO\ WKH SULYDF\ VWDWH RI VROLWXGH LV D GLFKRWRPRXV VWDWH $ SHUVRQ LV HLWKHU VROLWDU\ RU QRW ,W LV K\SRWKn HVL]HG WKDW VROLWXGH LV QRW D FRQWLQXRXV YDULDEOH DQG WKDW D GLPHQVLRQ OLNH 3OHDVDQWQHVV LV DERXW WKH RQO\ GLPHQVLRQ DORQJ ZKLFK VXEMHFWV FDQ GLVFULPLQDWH VROLWDU\ VLWXDWLRQV $FFRUGLQJ WR WKH VSHFXODWLRQV SURIIHUUHG DERYH FRPSDUn LQJ WKH GLPHQVLRQV RI SULYDF\ DQG W\SHV RI SULYDF\ WKH WKUHH SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV RI 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 1RUPDWLYHQHVV DQG ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW DUH WKH KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQn VLRQV RI SULYDF\ (DFK W\SH RI SULYDF\ LV WKHQ FRPSRVHG RI D ORZHURUGHU VHW RI GLPHQVLRQV ,QWLPDF\ PD\ EH YLHZHG DV FRQVLVWLQJ RI RQH KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ 1RUPDWLYHQHVVf DQG RQH ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO ZKLFK LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH D ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ RI ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQWf 5HVHUYH RQ WKH RWKHU KDQG LV GHHPHG WR EH FRPSULVHG RI D GLIIHUHQW KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ 6RFLDO 'HQn VLW\f DQG WZR ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV 6HOI'LVFORVXUH DQG

PAGE 113

(PSDWK\ ZKLFK DUH EHOLHYHG WR EH FRPSRQHQW GLPHQVLRQV RI ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQWf 'LPHQVLRQV 3UHGLFWLYH RI 3HUFHLYHG 3ULYDF\ +DYLQJ GHWHUPLQHG WKH GLPHQVLRQDO VWUXFWXUH RI SULYDF\ DQG LWV W\SHV WKH FRQWULEXWLRQ RI HDFK GLPHQVLRQ WR WKH SHUFHLYHG OHYHO RI SULYDF\ ZDV H[DPLQHG WKURXJK PXOWLSOH VWHSZLVH UHJUHVVLRQ 7KUHH SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV DUH SUHGLFn WLYH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ DV DVVHVVHG E\ WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV $OWKRXJK 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 1RUPDWLYHQHVV DQG ,QWHUn SHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW HDFK DFFRXQW IRU URXJKO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ HQWHUV ILUVW LQWR WKH PXOn WLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ ,W DSSHDUV WKDW WKH 3K\VLFDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ LV LUUHOHYDQW WR SHRSOHnV SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 7KH SUHGLFWLRQ RI SHUFHLYHG LQWLPDF\ LV PDQLIHVWO\ EHWWHU WKDQ IRU SULYDF\ RYHUDOO 7KH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO DQG 1RUPDWLYH GLPHQVLRQV SUHGLFW SHUFHQW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ ZKLFK FRPSDUHV WR DQ HVWLPDWHG WKLUW\ SHUFHQW IRU WKH SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV 2YHU KDOI RI WKH YDULDQFH LV DFFRXQWHG E\ WKH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ $JDLQ RQH GLPHQVLRQ )DPLOLDULW\ LV XQUHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ 7KH UHVHUYH GLPHQVLRQV ZKLOH RQO\ PDUJLQDOO\ VLJQLIn LFDQW LQ SUHGLFWLQJ SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ DUH VXJJHVWLYH 7KH (PSDWK\ GLPHQVLRQ H[SODLQV SHUFHQW RI SHUFHLYHG

PAGE 114

SULYDF\ 7KH 6KDPH GLPHQVLRQ f DFFRXQWV IRU WKH QH[W ODUJHVW SHUFHQWDJH RI YDULDQFH )LQDOO\ WKH 6HOI 'LVFORVXUH GLPHQVLRQ UDLVHV SUHGLFWHG YDULDQFH WR SHUFHQW 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ ZKLFK LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH D KLJKHURUGHU SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQ LV QRW SUHGLFWLYH RI SHUn FHLYHG UHVHUYH HLWKHU LQGLYLGXDOO\ RU LQ FRPELQDWLRQ ZLWK WKH RWKHU GLPHQVLRQV 7KH GLPHQVLRQV H[WUDFWHG IRU VROLWXGH DUH PDQLIHVWO\ XQVXFFHVVIXO LQ SUHGLFWLQJ SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ %RWK WKH XQn VWDEOH XQGHILQHG GLPHQVLRQV DQG WKH WUXQFDWHG SULYDF\ VFDOH YDOXHV IRU VROLWXGH PD\ H[SODLQ WKLV IDLOXUH 7KH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ LV D VWURQJ SUHGLFWRU RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ RYHU DOO W\SHV RI SULYDF\ 7KH SULPDF\ RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ WR WKH H[SODQDn WLRQ RI SULYDF\ LV IXUWKHU VXSSRUWHG LI WKH 3HUVRQDO,Pn SHUVRQDO 6HOI'LVFORVXUH DQG (PSDWK\ GLPHQVLRQV DUH FRQn VLGHUHG DV ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV RI ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHn PHQW 7KHVH GLPHQVLRQV DUH WKH EHVW SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUn FHLYHG SULYDF\ IRU LQWLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH UHVSHFWLYHO\ $OWKRXJK WKH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQVLRQ RFFXUV LQ ERWK WKH SULYDF\ DQG UHVHUYH VROXWLRQV LW LV QRW SUHGLFWLYH RI UHVHUYH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV KRZHYHU LV SUHGLFWLYH RI ERWK SHUn FHLYHG SULYDF\ DQG SHUFHLYHG LQWLPDF\

PAGE 115

7HVWLQJ 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO 0RGHOV 3UHYLRXV DXWKRUV 6FKRROHU HW DO DQG 6WRFNGDOH HW DO f RI PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ VWXGLHV KDYH DVn VXPHG WKDW WKH GLPHQVLRQV GHULYHG ZHUH DOO UHODWHG WR WKH SKHQRPHQD XQGHU LQYHVWLJDWLRQ )RU H[DPSOH 6FKRSOHU HW DO f FKRVH D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO PRGHO )DPLOLDULW\ 3K\VLFDO3V\FKRORJLFDO DQG 6WUHVVf WR H[SODLQ WKH VXEMHFn WLYH H[SHULHQFH RI FURZGLQJ :LWKRXW DQ LQGHSHQGHQW PHDn VXUH RI WKH SKHQRPHQD ZKHWKHU FURZGLQJ RU SULYDF\f EHLQJ VWXGLHG LW LV HDV\ WR DVVXPH DQG E\ SRVWKRF UHDVRQLQJ WR DUJXH WKDW HYHU\ GLPHQVLRQ RI WKH VROXWLRQ LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH SKHQRPHQD ,W VHHPV UHDVRQDEOH WR DUJXH WKDW SHRSOH GLVFULPLQDWH REMHFWV DQG VLWXDWLRQV DORQJ D PXOWLWXGH RI GLPHQVLRQV RQO\ D IHZ RI ZKLFK DUH SHUWLQHQW WR DQ\ SDUWLFXODU MXGJPHQW RU UHVSRQVH 7KXV D PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VROXWLRQ PD\ FRQWDLQ GLn PHQVLRQV ERWK UHOHYDQW DQG LUUHOHYDQW WR FURZGLQJ RU SULYDF\ %\ LQFRUSRUDWLQJ DQ LQGHSHQGHQW PHDVXUH RI WKH GHSHQn GHQW YDULDEOH VXEMHFWLYH RU SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\f LQ WKH FXUn UHQW PHWKRGRORJ\ WKLV VWXG\ LV DEOH WR DFWXDOO\ WHVW WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKH GHULYHG GLPHQVLRQV WR IHOW SULYDF\ 7KLV WHVW VKRZV WKDW D YHU\ VDOLHQW GLPHQVLRQ VXFK DV )DPLOn LDULW\ LV XQUHODWHG WR H[SHULHQFHG SULYDF\ $QRWKHU IUHn TXHQWO\ FLWHG 0HKUDELDQ t 5XVVHOO f JHQHUDO GLPHQVLRQ 3OHDVDQWQHVVf DOVR IDLOV WR EH UHODWHG WR WKH GHSHQGHQW

PAGE 116

YDULDEOH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ )XWXUH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ UHVHDUFK ZRXOG EH HQKDQFHG E\ WKLV PHWKRGRORJLFDO LPSURYHPHQW &RPSDULVRQ RI 5HVXOWV WR 3ULYDF\ 7KHRULHV :KLOH WKLV UHVHDUFK LV QRW D WHVW RI DOWHUQDWLYH WKHn RULHV RI SULYDF\ LW GRHV SURYLGH VRPH HYLGHQFH ZKLFK FDQ EH SHUWLQHQW WR WKHVH WKHRULHV %HQQHWW f -RXUDUG f DQG :HVWLQ f HPSKDVL]H WKH FHQWUDO UROH RI FRQn WUROOHG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ LQ SULYDF\ 7KH WZR DWWULEXWHV PRVW UHODWHG WR WKLV YLHZ DUH WKH DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ DQG WKH DFWRU LV FDUHIXO DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VD\ 7KHVH WZR DWn WULEXWHV DQG D QXPEHU RI RWKHUV DQG f ZKLFK FRQn FHUQ KDYLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ DERXW WKH DFWRU DUH GHILQLWLYH RI WKH KLJKHURUGHU ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO DQG 6HOI'LVFORVXUH ORZHURUGHU GLPHQn VLRQV DOVR FRQWDLQ DVSHFWV RI WKLV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ HPSKDVLV 7KH FXUUHQW DQDO\VLV GRHV QRW DQVZHU KRZHYHU ZKHWKHU SULn YDF\ LV D FRQVHTXHQFH RI FKDQJHV LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ RU FKDQJHV LQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DFFRPSDQ\ FKDQJHV LQ LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQYROYHn PHQW ZKLFK UHVXOWV LQ FKDQJHG OHYHOV RI SULYDF\ 5HJDUGOHVV YDULRXV FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DVSHFWV VHHP VLJQLILFDQWO\ UHODWHG WR H[SHULHQFHG SULYDF\ 7KH SUHVHQW ILQGLQJV JLYH VXSSRUW WR D FRPPXQLFDWLRQ WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\

PAGE 117

3URVKDQVN\ ,WWHOVRQ DQG 5LYOLQ f DQG -RKQVRQ f WKHRUL]H WKDW SULYDF\ LV SULPDULO\ D SURFHVV RI FRQn WURO RU FKRLFH IUHHGRP 3ULYDF\ UHVXOWV IURP FKRLFH DQG SULYDF\ HQKDQFHV FKRLFH IUHHGRP 7KH WKUHH DWWULEXWHV PRVW GLUHFWO\ DSSOLFDEOH WR WKLV WKHRU\ DUH WKH DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI WKH DFWRU LV LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV DQG WKH DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ 7KHVH FRQVWLWXWH RQH FRPSRQHQW RI WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ IRU VROLWXGH 7KHLU UROH LQ WKH H[n SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ KRZHYHU UHFHLYHV QR VXSSRUW 7KLV GLPHQVLRQ LV QRW UHODWHG WR WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH VFRUHV IRU VROLWXGH )XUWKHU WKHVH DWWULEXWHV DUH QRW GHILQLQJ DWWULn EXWHV RI WKH KLJKHURUGHU SULYDF\ GLPHQVLRQV 7KLV VXJn JHVWV WKDW ZKLOH SULYDF\ PD\ EH WKH UHVXOW RI FRQVFLRXV FRQn WURO DQG PD\ LQFUHDVH FKRLFH IUHHGRP SULYDF\ PD\ EH H[WHUn QDOO\ LPSRVHG VROLWDU\ FRQILQHPHQWf DQG GHFUHDVH FKRLFH IUHHGRP $V D UHVXOW QHLWKHU FRQWURO QRU UHVXOWDQW FKRLFH IUHHGRP ZLOO EH UHODWHG WR SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ 7KH IXQFWLRQ DVVXPHG E\ ,WWHOVRQ 3URVKDQVN\ 5LYOLQ DQG :LQNHO f IRU SULYDF\ LV DSSDUHQWO\ XQUHODWHG WR WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ 7KH VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH WKHRU\ RI .HOYLQ f UHFHLYHV PXFK FUHGHQFH IURP WKH SUHVHQW ILQGLQJV +H WKHRUL]HV WKDW SULYDF\ SURWHFWV EHKDYLRUV ZKLFK DUH SURKLELWHG RU FRQn VWUDLQHG E\ QRUPV DQG WKDW WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ LQFUHDVHV ZLWK WKH DQWLQRUPDWLYHQHVV RI WKH SURn WHFWHG EHKDYLRU DOO RWKHU FRQGLWLRQV EHLQJ HTXDO 7KH

PAGE 118

1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ LV ERWK D KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQ DQG LV VLJQLILFDQWO\ SUHGLFWLYH RI WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ )XWXUH UHVHDUFK DORQJ WKHVH OLQHV SURPLVHV WR EH SURILWDEOH ,Q FRQWUDVW WR .HOYLQnV VRFLDOQRUPDWLYH WKHRU\ 6FKQHLGHU f SURSRVHV WKDW VKDPH LV WKH EDVLV RI SULn YDF\ 5DWKHU WKDQ SULYDF\ H[LVWLQJ WR SURWHFW EHKDYLRUV SURKLELWHG RU FRQVWUDLQHG E\ QRUPV SULYDF\ DV D FRQVHTXHQFH RI VKDPH IXQFWLRQV WR SURWHFW WKH LQGLYLGXDOnV LQWHJULW\ DQG WR DYRLG GHSHUVRQDOL]DWLRQ 6KDPH PD\ DULVH IURP WKH GUHDG RI KDYLQJ D SHUVRQDOO\ DOWKRXJK QRW QHFHVVDULO\ VRn FLDOO\f GLVYDOXHG RU XQGHVLUDEOH TXDOLW\ H[SRVHG 6FKQHLGHU IXUWKHU FRQWHQGV WKDW WKH PHDQLQJ RI VRPH EHKDYLRUV TXDOn LWDWLYHO\ FKDQJHV ZLWK SXEOLF GLVSOD\ $Q LQWLPDWH VH[XDO DFW LQ SULYDF\ LV WKUHDWHQHG E\ GHSHUVRQDOL]DWLRQ ZKHQ H[n SRVHG ,Q OLJKW RI 6FKQHLGHUnV f VKDPH WKHRU\ WKH GLPHQn VLRQ ODEHOHG QRUPDWLYHQHVV PD\ DOVR EH LQWHUSUHWHG DV )HDU RI ([SRVXUH LQVWHDG 2QH LWHP WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHVf ZDV FKRVHQ WR UHSUHVHQW 1RUPDWLYHn QHVV DQG RQH LWHP WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXOf WR UHSUHVHQW VKDPH 7KHVH WZR LWHPV IRUP YDU\LQJ FRPELQDWLRQV ZKHQ GHILQLQJ GLPHQVLRQV )RU WKH SULYDF\ UHVXOWV RQO\ WKH LWHP WKH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV GHn ILQHV WKH GLPHQVLRQ 7KH VQDPH DQG QRUPDWLYHQHVV LWHPV WRn JHWKHU GHILQH RQH RI WKH LQWLPDF\ GLPHQVLRQV 2QH RI WKH UHVHUYH GLPHQVLRQV LV GHILQHG E\ WKUHH LWHPV WKH DFWRUnV

PAGE 119

EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO U f WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF U f DQG WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO U f 6KDPH DQG QRUPDWLYHQHVV DUH QRW WKHUHIRUH LQKHUHQWO\ UHODWHG )RU SULYDF\ DQG LQWLPDF\ WKH GLPHQVLRQ LQ TXHVn WLRQ DSSHDUV WR EH EHVW GHILQHG DV 1RUPDWLYHQHVV )HDU RI H[SRVXUH DQG VKDPH DOVR GHILQH WKLV GLPHQVLRQ IRU LQWLn PDF\ 7KH UHVHUYH UHVXOWV PRUH FOHDUO\ LQGLFDWH WKDW WKH UHOHYDQW GLPHQVLRQ LV PRUH DOLJQHG ZLWK 6FKQHLGHUnV f VKDPH DQG IHDU RI H[SRVXUH WKHRU\ 7KH ORZ HQG RI WKLV GLPHQVLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HV D VLWXDWLRQ ZKLFK LV SXEOLF LPSHUn VRQDO DQG VKDPHIXO 7KLV ILWV WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ WKDW WR H[SRVH FHUWDLQ LQIRUPDWLRQ RU EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO DQG GHn SHUVRQDOL]LQJ 0RUH UHVHDUFK LV QHHGHG WR IXUWKHU H[SORUH WKH UHODWLRQ RI QRUPDWLYHQHVV DQG VKDPH WR HDFK RWKHU DQG WR SULYDF\ DQG LWV W\SHV 7KH UHVXOWV SURYLGH PL[HG VXSSRUW IRU $OWPDQnV f LQWHUSHUVRQDO WKHRU\ RI SULYDF\ $OWPDQ YLHZV SULYDF\ DV WKH TXLQWHVVHQWLDO VHOIRWKHU LQWHUSHUVRQDO ERXQGDU\UHJXn ODWRU\ SURFHVV )RU $OWPDQ SULYDF\ LV D VKLIWLQJ EDODQFH EHWZHHQ EHLQJ DFFHVVLEOH WR RWKHUV VRFLDO SHQHWUDWLRQf DQG EHLQJ FORVHG WR RWKHUV SULYDF\f 7KH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ FORVHO\ DSSUR[LPDWHV WKLV FRQFHSWXDOn L]DWLRQ 7KLV KLJKHU RUGHU GLPHQVLRQ LV GHILQHG E\ ERWK FRPSOHWH VRFLDO ZLWKGUDZDO VROLWXGHf DQG E\ D QXPEHU DQG f RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQWHUDFWLRQ DWWULn EXWHV 7KUHH GLPHQVLRQV 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO LQWLPDF\f

PAGE 120

,OO (PSDWK\ DQG 6HOI'LVFORVXUH UHVHUYHf DUH K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV RI WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHn PHQW GLPHQVLRQ $GGLWLRQDO VXSSRUW FRPHV IURP WKH ILQGLQJ WKDW WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ DQG LWV K\SRWKn HVL]HG FRPSRQHQW GLPHQVLRQV DUH VWURQJ SUHGLFWRUV RI SHUn FHLYHG SULYDF\ IRU LQWLPDF\ UHVHUYH DQG RYHUDOO SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ ,W LV RSHQ WR GHEDWH DV WR ZKHWKHU LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQYROYHPHQW GHWHUPLQHV SULYDF\ ZKHWKHU SULYDF\ GHWHUPLQHV LQWHUSHUVRQDO LQYROYHPHQW RU ZKHWKHU ERWK DUH DVSHFWV RI WKH VDPH ,Q $OWPDQnV WKHRU\ SULYDF\ H[LVWV ZKHQ GHVLUHG VRn FLDO FRQWDFW LV ORZ DQG ZKHQ DFWXDO VRFLDO LQWHUDFWLRQ LV VLPXOWDQHRXVO\ ORZ :KHQ DFFHVV WR RWKHUV LV GHVLUHG KRZn HYHU DQG DFKLHYHG FRQWDFW ZLWK RWKHUV LV XQIXOILOOHG ORQHn OLQHVV UDWKHU WKDQ SULYDF\ LV SHUFHLYHG DQG H[SHULHQFHG 7KLV LPSOLHV WKDW ERWK PRWLYDWLRQ DQG FRQWURO DUH QHFHVVDU\ IRU WKH SHUFHSWLRQ DQG IHHOLQJ RI SULYDF\ 1HLWKHU RI WKHVH FRPSRQHQWV RI $OWPDQnV WKHRU\ UHFHLYHV VWURQJ VXSSRUW IURP WKLV VWXG\ )LUVW WKH PRWLYDWLRQDO HOHPHQW LV DVn VHVVHG E\ RQO\ RQH LWHP WKH DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH 7KLV LWHP LV RQO\ PDUJLQDOO\ FRUUHODWHG ZLWK WKH ILUVW GLPHQVLRQ 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\f RI WKH IRXUGLPHQVLRQDO SULYDF\ VROXWLRQ 6HFRQG FRQWURO GRHV QRW HPHUJH DV D GLPHQVLRQ LQ DQ\ VROXn WLRQ 7KHVH ILQGLQJV VXJJHVW WKDW SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ LV GHn SHQGHQW XSRQ QHLWKHU WKH DFWRUnV PRWLYDWLRQ IRU SULYDF\ QRU

PAGE 121

WKH DFWRUnV FRQWURO LQ DFKLHYLQJ SULYDF\ 7KH SULYDF\ VLWn XDWLRQV GHVFULEHG E\ VXEMHFWV GHPRQVWUDWH WKDW XQGHVLUHG VRFLDO LVRODWLRQ VHH VWRU\ f PD\ EH ODEHOHG DV ERWK SULYDWH DQG ORQHO\ 7KHVH DUH QRW H[FOXVLYH VWDWHV DV K\n SRWKHVL]HG E\ $OWPDQ f 7KH PRWLYDWLRQ IRU SULYDF\ GRHV QRW DSSHDU WR EH LPSRUWDQW LQ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ ,Q DGGLWLRQ UHJDUGOHVV RI ZKHWKHU SULYDF\ LV GHVLUHG RU QRW WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LV QRW GHWHUPLQHG E\ ZKHWKHU LWV DFKLHYHPHQW LV GXH WR SHUVRQDO FRQWURO RU H[WHUQDO LPSRVLWLRQ 7RZDUG D 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO 0RGHO RI 3ULYDF\ 7KH WKUHH KLJKHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV SURGXFHG IURP WKH PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ DQDO\VLV VHUYH DV SRWHQWLDO FRQn FHSWXDO EXLOGLQJ EORFNV LQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI D PRGHO RI SULYDF\ 6XFK D PRGHO LV DGPLWWHGO\ VSHFXODWLYH DQG UHVWV RQ D IRXQGDWLRQ RI OHVV WKDQ LGHDO VWDWLVWLFDO UHVXOWV $OWKRXJK EDVLFDOO\ D WKUHHGLPHQVLRQDO PRGHO LV SURn SRVHG ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV DUH LQFOXGHG 5DWKHU WKDQ D VLPSOH FXEH KRZHYHU WKH PRGHO WDNHV WKH VKDSH RI D 8VKDSHG UHFWDQJOH 7KH 8VKDSHG SODQH LV WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHn PHQW GLPHQVLRQ DQG UHSUHVHQWV D FXUYLOLQHDU UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKLV GLPHQVLRQ DQG SULYDF\ %RWK KLJK DQG ORZ ,QWHUn SHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW LQFUHDVH SULYDF\ 2QH RI WKH OLQHDU SODQHV LV WKH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQVLRQ ZKLOH WKH RWKHU OLQn HDU GLPHQVLRQ LV WKH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ $V 6RFLDO

PAGE 122

'HQVLW\ LQFUHDVHV DQG 1RUPDWLYHQHVV LQFUHDVHV SULYDF\ GHn FUHDVHV $FFRUGLQJ WR WKLV PRGHO VROLWXGH DQG DQRQ\PLW\ RFFXS\ UHODWLYHO\ WKH VDPH ORFDWLRQ ORZf RQ WKH ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,Qn YROYHPHQW GLPHQVLRQ 7KH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH VWUXFWXUH IRU WKLV GLPHQVLRQ ORFDWHV ERWK W\SHV RI SULYDF\ DW WKH ORZ HQG RI WKH GLPHQVLRQ 5HPHPEHULQJ KRZHYHU WKDW WKH VROLWXGH VLWXDWLRQV KDYH WUXQFDWHG SULYDF\ VFDOH YDOXHV DW WKH KLJK HQG RI SULYDF\ DQG WKH DQRQ\PRXV VLWXDWLRQV KDYH WUXQFDWHG YDOXHV DW WKH ORZ HQG RI WKH SULYDF\ VFDOH DQRWKHU GLPHQn VLRQ LV UHTXLUHG WR H[SODLQ WKHVH GLYHUJHQW SULYDF\ VFRUHV 7KLV GLVFULPLQDWLQJ GLPHQVLRQ LV WKH 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQn VLRQ %HLQJ DQRQ\PRXV LV DW WKH KLJK HQG RI 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ ZKLOH VROLWXGH LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ ORZ 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 7KH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV GLPHQVLRQ DGGV DQRWKHU VRXUFH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ YDULDQFH 7KH OHVV QRUPDWLYH WKH EHKDYLRU RFFXUn ULQJ LQ VROLWDU\ DQG DQRQ\PRXV VLWXDWLRQV WKH PRUH WKDW SULYDF\ LV SHUFHLYHG ,Q FRQWUDVW WR VROLWXGH DQG DQRQ\PLW\ LQWLPDF\ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ KLJK ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW ,QWLPDF\ LV VLPLODU WR VROLWXGH LQ WKDW LW LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH ORZ RQ 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ 2QH IDFWRU K\SRWKHVL]HG WR FDXVH LQWLn PDF\ WR EH UDWHG DFURVV D ZLGH UDQJH RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ YDOXHV LV WKH 1RUPDWLYHQHVV RI WKH LQWLPDWH EHKDYLRU %XW WKLV LV QRW H[SHFWHG WR DFFRXQW IRU DOO RU HYHQ PRVW RI WKH YDULDQFH LQ SULYDF\ VFRUHV IRU LQWLPDF\ 7KH PRGHO EHFRPHV

PAGE 123

PRUH FRPSOH[ DW WKLV SRLQW EHFDXVH KHUH WKH ORZHURUGHU GLn PHQVLRQV RI ,QWHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW DUH LQWURGXFHG 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW LQWLPDF\ LV VLPSO\ JURXS VROLWXGH DQG LV QRUPDWLYH D PRGHUDWH OHYHO RI SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ LV K\SRWKHVL]HG 3HUFHLYHG SULYDF\ JLYHQ WKLV VWDWH KRZHYHU ZLOO LQFUHDVH DV 6HOI'LVFORVXUH LQFUHDVHV (PSDWK\ LQn FUHDVHV DQG WKH LQWHUDFWLRQ LV PRUH SHUVRQDO ,W LV YDULDn WLRQ RQ WKHVH WKUHH ORZHURUGHU GLPHQVLRQV WKDW LV K\SRWK H[L]HG WR DFFRXQW IRU LQFUHDVHV RU GHFUHDVHV LQ SHUFHLYHG SULYDF\ IRU QRUPDWLYH LQWLPDWH VLWXDWLRQV 5HVHUYHG VLWXDWLRQV RFFXS\ D PLGGOH JURXQG RQ WKH ,Qn WHUSHUVRQDO ,QYROYHPHQW DQG 6RFLDO 'HQVLW\ GLPHQVLRQV /LNH LQWLPDF\ WKH SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ LQ UHVHUYHG VLWXDWLRQV LV K\SRWKHVL]HG WR EH ODUJHO\ D PDWWHU RI LWV SRVLWLRQ RQ WKH 3HUVRQDO,PSHUVRQDO GLPHQVLRQ 7KH PRUH SHUVRQDO WKH FRQWHQW ZLWKKHOG WKH PRUH SULYDWH LV WKH VLWXDWLRQ SHUn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

PAGE 124

PXOWLGLPHQVLRQDO QDWXUH RI SULYDF\ )XWXUH UHVHDUFK LV UHn TXLUHG WR WHVW WKH SURSRVHG PRGHO

PAGE 125

$33(1',; $ &21&(378$/ (;3/$1$7,21 2) 08/7,',0(16,21$/ 6&$/,1* 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ 0'6f LV D VHW RI UHODWHG DQDO\WLF SURFHGXUHV ZKLFK ERWK GHWHUPLQHV WKH QXPEHU RI GLPHQVLRQV DORQJ ZKLFK VXEMHFWV GLVFULPLQDWH VWLPXOL DQG LGHQWLILHV RU ODEHOV WKHVH GLPHQVLRQV 7KH 0'6 SURFHGXUH LV IUHH IURP WKHRUHWLFDO ELDVHV DQG GRHV QRW UHTXLUH WKDW WKH GLPHQVLRQV EH UHJLVWHUHG LQ WKH FRQVFLRXV YHUEDOL]DEOH DZDUHQHVV RI WKH UHVSRQGHQW 7KH DEVHQFH RI WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLOHFWLRQV SHUPLWV D FRPSDUDWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ RI WKHRULHV %\ QRW UHTXLULQJ VXEMHFWV WR FRQMHFWXUH DERXW WKHLU FRJn QLWLYH SURFHVVHV WKH SURFHGXUH DYRLGV WKH SUREOHPV UHn ODWHG WR UHSRUWLQJ WKHVH SURFHVVHV DFFXUDWHO\ +LVEHWW t :LOVRQ f 0XOWLGLPHQVLRQDO VFDOLQJ LV DQ H[WHQVLRQ RI SV\FKRn SK\VLFDO VFDOLQJ 6KHSDUG 5RPQH\ t 1HUORYH f ZKLFK LV WKHRUHWLFDOO\ EDVHG RQ VWLPXOXV GLVFULPLQDWLRQ %\ UHn TXLULQJ VXEMHFWV WR UHSRUW WKH DPRXQW RI VLPLODULW\ RU GLVn VLPLODULW\ EHWZHHQ VWLPXOL WKH SURFHVV RI VWLPXOXV GLVFULPn LQDWLRQ LV HQJDJHG 7KH UHVXOWDQW SUREOHP LV WR WKHQ LGHQn WLI\ WKH VWLPXOXV RU VWLPXOL LQ WKH FDVH RI 0'6f DORQJ ZKLFK WKH VXEMHFWV DUH GLVFULPLQDWLQJ 7KLV FDQ EH DFFRPn SOLVKHG WKURXJK D YDULHW\ RI WHFKQLTXHV VHH 6KHSDUG 5RPn QH\ t 1HUORYH f

PAGE 126

$IIHFWLYH DQG EHKDYLRUDO UHVSRQVHV WR VLWXDWLRQV DQG HQYLURQPHQWV DUH DVVXPHG WR EH D IXQFWLRQ RI WKHVH VWLPXOL XVHG E\ SHRSOH LQ GLVFULPLQDWLQJ RQH VLWXDWLRQ RU HQYLURQn PHQW IURP DQRWKHU 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW WKHVH VWLPXOXV GLn PHQVLRQV DUH ODUJHO\ FRQVHQVXDO RU VKDUHG ZLWKLQ D SRSXODn WLRQ WKH LGHQWLILFDWLRQ RI VXFK GLPHQVLRQV VKRXOG ERWK LQn FUHDVH RXU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI D FRQFHSW VXFK DV SULYDF\ DQG LQFUHDVH RXU SUHGLFWLRQV RI SHRSOHVn SULYDF\ SHUFHSWLRQ LQ YDULRXV VLWXDWLRQV DQG VRFLDO HQYLURQPHQWV ,Q RUGHU WR FRQGXFW DQ 0'6 VWXG\ WKUHH FRPSRQHQWV DUH UHTXLUHG 7KHVH LQFOXGH WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL VLPLODUn LW\GLVVLPLODULW\ UDWLQJV DQG VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV LGHQWLn ILFDWLRQ $Q RYHUYLHZ ZLWK VXSSRUWLQJ WKHRUHWLFDO DVVXPSn WLRQV ZLOO EH SURYLGHG IRU HDFK 7KH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL VKRXOG EH FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WZR TXDOLWLHV IUHH RI WKHRUHWLFDO ELDV DQG HQFRPSDVVLQJ H[WUHPHV RI WKH YDULDEOH XQGHU VWXG\ 6FKRSOHU f )LUVW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL VKRXOG QRW UHIOHFW DQ\ WKHn RUHWLFDO SUHGLOHFWLRQV RI WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ([SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL FRQVWUXFWHG DFFRUGLQJ WR VRPH WKHRUHWLFDO SDUDGLJP DUH VXEMHFW WR RYHUGHWHUPLQDWLRQ 7KH PDQLSXODWLRQ RI VHWV RI VWLPXOL E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQ FUHDWLQJ WKH H[SHULn PHQWDO VWLPXOL SUHGLVSRVHV WKH UHVXOWV $Q\ VWLPXOXV GLPHQn VLRQV XVHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQ FRPSRVLQJ GLVFULPLQDEOH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL FDQ EH XVHG IRU GLVFULPLQDWLRQ E\ WKH VXEMHFWV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU ZLOO GHULYH H[DFWO\ ZKDW KHVKH

PAGE 127

FRQVWUXFWHG DQG WKH UHVXOWV ZRXOG RQO\ EH D IRUP RI PDQLSXn ODWLRQ FKHFN LQGLFDWLQJ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUnV VNLOO DW FUHDWn LQJ GLVFULPLQDEOH VLWXDWLRQV ,Q WKH SUHVHQW SURSRVDO RQH WKHRUHWLFDO ELDV LV LQn WURGXFHG E\ WKH HOLFLWDWLRQ IUDPH ,QVWUXFWLQJ SHRSOH WR GHVFULEH VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH\ IHOW SULYDWH DVVXPHV WKDW SULYDWH VLWXDWLRQV DUH GLVFUHWH IURP QRQSULYDWH VLWn XDWLRQV ,W PD\ EH WKH FDVH DV LPSOLHG E\ $OWPDQ f DQG PDLQWDLQHG E\ 9HUD f WKDW SULYDF\ LV D FKDUDFWHUn LVWLF RI DOO KXPDQ EHKDYLRU DQG YDULHV RQO\ LQ GHJUHH IURP VLWXDWLRQ WR VLWXDWLRQ WKDW LV LW LV D FRQWLQXRXV YDULn DEOH 7R DYRLG H[SHULPHQWHU ELDV LQ JHQHUDO WKH H[SHULPHQn WDO VWLPXOL VKRXOG EH JHQHUDWHG E\ D VDPSOH RI WKH SRSXODn WLRQ ZKR ZLOO EH SHUIRUPLQJ WKH 0'6 WDVNV $ VWDQGDUG WHFKn QLTXH IRU GRLQJ WKLV LV WR SURYLGH VXEMHFWV ZLWK D UHFDOO UHVSRQVH IUDPH LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UHPHPEHU DQ RFFDVLRQ RQ ZKLFK WKH\ IHOW nFURZGHGn IRU H[DPSOH 6FKRS OHU HW DO f DQG WR GHVFULEH WKDW LQFLGHQW LQ GHWDLO ,W LV DVVXPHG XVLQJ LQIRUPDWLRQ SURFHVVLQJ PRGHOV .ODW]N\ f WKDW LQ SHUIRUPLQJ WKLV WDVN VXEMHFWV ZLOO DFFHVV DQ /70 VWRUDJH FDWHJRU\ DSSURSULDWH WR WKH LQVWUXFWLRQV DQG UHWULHYH H[DPSOHV RI RFFDVLRQV ILWWLQJ WKDW FDWHJRU\ 7KH GHWDLOV UHFRUGHG IRU WKRVH RFFDVLRQV E\ WKH VXEMHFW DUH DVn VXPHG WR LQFOXGH DVSHFWV VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQVf RI WKDW RFn FDVLRQ FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH GHILQLQJ IHDWXUHV RI WKDW /70

PAGE 128

FDWHJRU\ 6PLWK 6KREHQ t 5LSV f 7KHVH GLPHQVLRQV VKRXOG EH PRVW VDOLHQW WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO ZKHQ UHFDOOLQJ DQG GHVFULELQJ WKH RFFDVLRQ 2WKHU GLPHQVLRQV HLWKHU LGLRn V\QFUDWLF WR D VSHFLILF RFFDVLRQ RU WR WKH LQGLYLGXDO PD\ DOVR EH LQFOXGHG LQ WKH VXEMHFWnV GHWDLOHG GHVFULSWLRQ $V VXFK WKHVH LGLRV\QFUDWLF GLPHQVLRQV VKRXOG QRW IXQFWLRQ DV VWLPXOL ZKLFK ZRXOG GLVFULPLQDWH V\VWHPDWLFDOO\ DFURVV DOO RFFDVLRQV H[HPSOLI\LQJ D FDWHJRU\ RI RFFDVLRQV 7KXV WKH\ ZRXOG QRW DSSHDU DV UHVXOWV RI WKH 0'6 VWXG\ 7KH VHFRQG TXDOLW\ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL LV WKDW WKHVH VWLPXOL VKRXOG FRYHU D UDQJH IURP KLJK WR ORZ H[DPSODUV RI WKH HOLFLWLQJ FDWHJRU\ LH SULYDF\f 7KLV LQVXUHV WKDW WKH XQGHUO\LQJ VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV FRQWDLQHG LQ WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL DUH HDVLO\ GLVFULPLQDEOH E\ VXEMHFWV 6LQFH WKH 0'6 VLPLODULW\GLVVLPLODULW\ WDVN FRQn VLVWV RI PDNLQJ GLVFULPLQDWLRQV D ORZ UDQJH RI YDOXHV IRU WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL ZRXOG UHVXOW LQ WUXQFDWHG UDWLQJV RQ WKH VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV DQG D IDLOXUH WR LGHQWLI\ WKH XQGHUO\LQJ GLPHQVLRQV 7KLV IDLOXUH UHVXOWV IURP WKH IDFW WKDW WKH 0'6 OHDVWVTXDUHV DOJRUK\WKPV PD[LPL]H WKH GLVSHUn VLRQ UDQJH RI VLPLODULW\GLVVLPLODULW\ VFRUHV 7KH JUHDWHU WKH UDQJH WKH EHWWHU WKH ILW $ YDULHW\ RI PHWKRGV IRU DFKLHYLQJ WKLV VHFRQG TXDOLW\ RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL H[LVWV VHH 6FKRSOHU HW DO DQG 6WRFNGDOH HW DO IRU WZR VXFK PHWKRGVf 7KH UHVHDUFK GHVFULEHG LQ WKLV SURSRVDO ZLOO DWWHPSW D QHZ

PAGE 129

PHWKRG ZKHUHLQ WKH FROOHFWHG H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL ZLOO EH VFDOHG E\ VXEMHFWV UHOHYDQW WR WKH HOLFLWLQJ FDWHJRU\ LH SULYDF\f 7KH QH[W SKDVH RI 0'6 UHVHDUFK LQYROYHV WKH VLPLODUn LW\GLVVLPLODULW\ SURFHGXUH $JDLQ D YDULHW\ RI WHFKn QLTXHV DUH DYDLODEOH IRU JHQHUDWLQJ WKHVH VFRUHV 7KH SURn SRVHG UHVHDUFK FKRRVHV D UDQN RUGHULQJ PHWKRG UDWKHU WKDQ D UDWLQJ PHWKRG EHFDXVH LW SURYLGHV WKH ZLGHVW UDQJH RI VFRUHV IRU FRPSXWDWLRQ 2I WKH WKUHH PRVW IUHTXHQWO\ XVHG SURFHGXUHV LH DOO SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQV SODQQHG SDUn WLDO FRPSDULVRQV DQG WDUJHW FRPSDULVRQVf WKH WDUJHW FRPn SDULVRQV SURFHGXUH LV VHOHFWHG 7KH WDUJHW FRPSDULVRQ SURn FHGXUH LV VHOHFWHG EHFDXVH LW JHQHUDOO\ SURYLGHV PRUH FOHDU FXW LQWHUSUHWDEOH UHVXOWV WKDQ GRHV HLWKHU WKH SDLUZLVH FRPSDULVRQ RU SODQQHG SDUWLDO FRPSDULVRQ SURFHGXUHV %HFKn WHO f 7DUJHWV DUH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL FKRVHQ EDVHG RQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUnV WKHRUHWLFDO GLVSRVLWLRQV WR UHSUHVHQW K\n SRWKHVL]HG GLVFULPLQDWLQJ VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV 1RWH WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWHUnV WKHRUHWLFDO SUHGLFWLRQV GR HQWHU DW WKLV SKDVH RI WKH UHVHDUFK LQ KLVKHU VHOHFWLRQ RI WDUJHW GLPHQn VLRQV ,Q RUGHU WR SUHYHQW GLUHFWO\ GHWHUPLQLQJ WKH VXEn MHFWVn UHVSRQVHV WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LV UHTXLUHG WR VHOHFW H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL GHVFULSWLRQV RI VLWXDWLRQVf ZKLFK KH VKH EHOLHYHV EHVW FKDUDFWHUL]H WKH K\SRWKHVL]HG GLPHQVLRQ 7KH VXEMHFWV KRZHYHU ZKHQ UHVSRQGLQJ DUH EOLQG WR WKH

PAGE 130

SUHGLFWHG GLPHQVLRQ DQG PD\ UHVSRQG RQ WKH EDVLV RI VWLPn XOXV GLPHQVLRQV FRQWDLQHG ZLWKLQ WKH GHVFULEHG VLWXDWLRQ RWKHU WKDQ WKDW XSRQ ZKLFK WKH H[SHULPHQWHU FKRVH WKDW VLWXDWLRQ 6XEVHTXHQWO\ WKLV UHTXLUHV DQRWKHU SKDVH RI UHVHDUFK WR LGHQWLI\ DQG ODEHO WKH VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQ DFn WXDOO\ XVHG E\ VXEMHFWV ZKHQ WKH\ UHVSRQGHG ,W LV ILQDOO\ DW WKLV VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQ LGHQWLILFDn WLRQ SKDVH WKDW WKH H[SHULPHQWHU FDQ WHVW KLVKHU SUHGLFn WLRQV 7KH H[SHULPHQWHU GRHV WKLV E\ VHOHFWLQJ D VHW RI ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHV ZKLFK KHVKH EHOLHYHV FKDUDFWHUL]HV WKH SUHGLFWHG VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQV ,Q WKH FDVH RI SULYDF\ D VHW RI RQH KXQGUHG ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHV SRWHQWLDOO\ GHVFULSn WLYH RI WKH QLQH WKHRULHV HDUOLHU HQXPHUDWHG VHH SDJH f ZHUH VHOHFWHG IURP D UHYLHZ RI WKH SULYDF\ DQG FURZGLQJ OLWHUDWXUH VHH 7DEOH f 7R KDYH VXEMHFWV UDWH DOO H[n SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL RQ WKHVH RQH KXQGUHG GHVFULSWRUV ZRXOG EH SURKLELWLYH $ SLORW VWXG\ WR UHGXFH WKLV ODUJH VHW WR D PRUH PDQDJHDEOH VHW E\ IDFWRU DQDO\VLV ZDV SHUIRUPHG VHH $SSHQGL[ IRU GHWDLOVf 6XEMHFWV DUH QRZ GLUHFWO\ HYDOXDWLQJ WKH GHVFULEHG VLWXDWLRQ H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOLf RQ YDULDEOHV ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHVf UHIOHFWLQJ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUnV SUHGLFWLRQV 7KH DGHTXDF\ RI WKHVH UHVXOWV RI WKLV SKDVH DQG WKH SULRU SKDVH RI UHVHDUFK DUH FRQWLQJHQW XSRQ WKH H[SHULPHQWHUnV FRPSUHn KHQVLYHQHVV LQ SUHGLFWLQJ DOO UHOHYDQW WKHRUHWLFDO YDULDEOHV 7KH RPLVVLRQ RI D SHUWLQHQW YDULDEOH LQ HLWKHU RI WKHVH

PAGE 131

ILQDO WZR SKDVHV ZLOO UHVXOW LQ DQ XQGHWHUPLQHG VROXWLRQ WKDW LV D YDULDEOH VWLPXOXV GLPHQVLRQf DFWXDOO\ FRQWULEn XWLQJ WR WKH H[SHULHQFLQJ DQG SHUFHSWLRQ RI SULYDF\ ZLOO EH QHJOHFWHG DQG WKXV WKH SKHQRPHQRQ RI SULYDF\ LQFRPn SOHWHO\ XQGHUVWRRG :LWK MXGLFLRXV FRQFHUQ IRU PHWKRGRORJLFDO DQG WKHRn UHWLFDO LVVXHV DW DOO VWDJHV RI 0'6 UHVHDUFK 0'6 UHVHDUFK FDQ VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRQWULEXWH WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI SV\n FKRORJLFDO SURFHVVHV OLNH SULYDF\ 7KH UHOHYDQW PHWKRGRn ORJLFDO LVVXHV DUH DGGUHVVHG LQ $SSHQGLFHV % & DQG '

PAGE 132

$33(1',; % &2//(&7,21 $1' 6(/(&7,21 2) (;3(5,0(17$/ 67,08/, ,Q RUGHU WR FROOHFW D UHSUHVHQWDWLYH VDPSOH RI VLWXDn WLRQV LQ ZKLFK FROOHJH VWXGHQWV IHOW SULYDWH VHYHQWHHQ XQGHUJUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV HLJKW PDOHV DQG QLQH IHPDOHVf FRPn SOHWHG D ERRNOHW SURYLGHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU (DFK RI ILYH SDJHV LQVWUXFWHG WKH VXEMHFW WR 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ SULYDWH 'HVFULEH WKH LQFLGHQW \RX KDYH LQ PLQG DQG \RXU IHHOLQJV DW WKH WLPH LQ DV PXFK GHWDLO DV SRVVLEOH 7KHVH LQVWUXFWLRQV DUH LGHQWLFDO WR WKRVH XVHG E\ 6FKRSOHU HW DO f H[FHSW IRU WKH VXEVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH ZRUG nSULYDWHn IRU nFURZGHGn $ WRWDO RI HLJKW\IRXU XVDEOH VWRULHV ZHUH REWDLQHG $ XVDEOH VWRU\ ZDV RQH ZKLFK ZDV JUDPPDWLFDOO\ LQWHOOLJLEOH 7KLV SURFHGXUH LV FRQVLGHUHG SUHIHUDEOH WR RQH LQ ZKLFK RQH KXQGUHG VWXGHQWV HDFK SURYLGH RQH VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH\ IHOW SULYDWH 7KH SUHIHUHQFH LV EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH SULRU SURFHGXUH ZLOO UHVXOW LQ VLWXDn WLRQV FRYHULQJ D JUHDWHU UDQJH RI H[SHULHQFHG SULYDF\ *LYLQJ RQO\ RQH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ PD\ HOLFLW RQO\ WKH PRVW VDOLHQW DQG WKXV RQO\ WKH PRVW H[WUHPH KLJK SULYDF\ VLWXDn WLRQV DQG IHZ LI DQ\ ORZ RQHV $ ZLGH UDQJH RI H[SHULHQFHG SULYDF\ LV UHTXLUHG IRU WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 0'6 VWLPXOXV VHW

PAGE 133

6LQFH LW ZDV SUHGLFWHG WKDW WKH IUHTXHQFLHV IRU HDFK RI WKH IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ :HVWLQ f ZRXOG EH ZLGHO\ GLVFUHSDQW UHVXOWLQJ LQ H[WUHPHO\ ORZ QXPEHUV LQ VRPH W\SHV D VHFRQG VHW RI VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH HOLFLWHG IURP D VHFRQG JURXS RI VWXGHQWV 1LQHWHHQ VWXGHQWV WHQ PDOHV DQG QLQH IHPDOHVf FRPSOHWHG D ERRNOHW RI VL[ SDJHV $ WRWDO RI RQH KXQGUHG DQG WKUHH XVDEOH VWRULHV ZHUH REWDLQHG (DFK SDJH LQVWUXFWHG WKH VXEMHFW WR GHVFULEH D VSHFLILF W\SH RI SULn YDF\ ZKLFK ZDV GHILQHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU EDVHG RQ :HVWLQnV f GHILQLWLRQV )RU H[SORUDWRU\ SXUSRVHV WKUHH GHIn LQLWLRQV RI nLQWLPDWHn ZHUH FRQVWUXFWHG E\ PDQLSXODWLQJ WZR WKHRUHWLFDO GLPHQVLRQV 7KHVH GLPHQVLRQV ZHUH JURXS VHFOXn VLRQ :HVWLQ f DQG VHOIGLVFORVXUH -RXUDUG f 7KH VL[ VHW RI LQVWUXFWLRQV ZLWK GHILQLWLRQV IROORZV 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ DQRQ\PRXV %HLQJ DQRQ\PRXV PHDQV EHLQJ XQNQRZQ WR DQ\RQH LQ D JURXS 'HVFULEH VDPH DV LQ RULJLQDO LQVWUXFWLRQVf 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ VROLWDU\ %HLQJ VROLWDU\ PHDQV EHLQJ DORQH QRW ZLWK RWKHU SHRSOH 'HVFULEH 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ UHVHUYHG %HLQJ UHVHUYHG PHDQV XVLQJ UHVWUDLQW LQ H[SUHVVLQJ RQHnV WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV RU DFWLRQV 'HVFULEH

PAGE 134

3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ LQWLPDWH %HLQJ LQWLPDWH PHDQV EHLQJ DORQH ZLWK DQRWKHU SHUVRQ 'HVFULEH 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ LQWLPDWH %HLQJ LQWLPDWH PHDQV H[SUHVVLQJ \RXU WKRXJKWV IHHOLQJV DQG DFWLRQV WR DQRWKHU SHUVRQ 'HVFULEH 3OHDVH WKLQN RI D WLPH LQ \RXU OLIH ZKHQ \RX IHOW YHU\ LQWLPDWH %HLQJ LQWLPDWH PHDQV EHLQJ DORQH ZLWK DQRWKHU DQG H[SUHVVLQJ RQHnV WKRXJKWV IHHOn LQJV DQG DFWLRQV WR DQRWKHU 'HVFULEH 7KH ERRNOHWV ZHUH DVVHPEOHG LQ VXFK D IDVKLRQ WKDW WKH RUGHU RI W\SHV RI SULYDF\ YDULHG FUHDWLQJ VL[ GLIIHUHQW RUn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n VWUXFWLRQV DW WKH WRS RI HDFK SDJH 3OHDVH ZULWH OHJLEO\ DQG JUDPPDWLFDOO\
PAGE 135

6XEMHFWVn SULYDF\ ZDV IXUWKHU LQVXUHG E\ DOORZLQJ WKHP WR SODFH WKHLU FRPSOHWHG ERRNOHWV LQ D ER[ LQ WKH EDFN RI WKH URRP UHVKXIIOLQJ WKH RUGHU RI ERRNOHWV LI WKH\ VR GHn VLUHG 7KH ERRNOHWV ZHUH WKHQ NHSW VHFXUH DQG FRQILGHQWLDO &RGLQJ RI 3ULYDF\ 6LWXDWLRQV 7KH IUHTXHQF\ ZLWK ZKLFK VLWXDWLRQV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ WKH IRXU GLIIHUHQW W\SHV RI SULYDF\ ZHUH HPLWWHG LQ ERWK VWXGLHV ZDV GHWHUPLQHG E\ WKUHH WUDLQHG FRGHUV 7KH SULQn FLSOH LQYHVWLJDWRU DQG WZR DGGLWLRQDO VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV VHUYHG DV FRGHUV 7KH WZR JUDGXDWH VWXn GHQWV ZHUH VHOHFWHG DQG WUDLQHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU 7UDLQn LQJ FRQVLVWHG RI f H[SRVXUH WR :HVWLQnV f GHILQLn WLRQV RI WKH IRXU SULYDF\ W\SHV f FODULILFDWLRQ DQG GLVn FULPLQDWLRQ RI WKH GHILQLWLRQV DQG f SUDFWLFH LQ DSSO\n LQJ WKH GHILQLWLRQV WR VLWXDWLRQV 2QO\ WKRVH GHVFULSWLRQV ZHUH XVHG LQ WKH IXWXUH VWDJHV RI UHVHDUFK RQ ZKLFK DOO WKUHH MXGJHV DVVLJQHG WKH VDPH FRGH ,QWHUFRGHU 5HOLDELOLW\ $OO WKUHH FRGHUV DJUHHG LQ WKHLU SULYDF\ W\SH FRGLQJ IRU ILIW\ILYH RI WKH HLJKW\IRXU RSHQHQGHGHOLFLWHG SULn YDF\ VWRULHV SHUFHQWf 7ZR RI WKH WKUHH FRGHUV DJUHHG RQ WZHQW\ILYH DGGLWLRQDO SULYDF\ VWRULHV SHUn FHQWf 2Q RQO\ IRXU SHUFHQWf RI WKH VWRULHV GLG QRQH RI WKH MXGJHV DJUHH 2XW RI D WRWDO RI SDLUV RI

PAGE 136

UHVSRQVHV UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKUHH SDLULQJV RI UHVSRQVHV EHn WZHHQ WKH WKUHH MXGJHV IRU HLJKW\IRXU VWRULHV SHUFHQW RI WKH FRGLQJ UHVSRQVH SDLUV DJUHHG RI SDLUVf )RU WKH VHFRQG SUHGHILQHGHOLFLWHG SULYDF\ VWRULHV DOO WKUHH MXGJHV DJUHHG RQ SHUFHQW VHYHQW\HLJKW RI VWRULHVf RI WKH VWRULHV 7ZR RI WKH WKUHH FRGHUV DJUHHG RQ DQRWKHU SHUFHQW RI f RI WKH SULYDF\ VWRULHV 2QO\ WKUHH RI VWRULHV SHUFHQWf IDLOHG WR UHFHLYH DQ\ FRQVHQVXV IURP WKH WKUHH FRGHUV 2XW RI D WRWDO RI WRn WDO SDLUV RI UHVSRQVHV DFURVV DOO VWRULHV DQG FRGHUV SHUFHQW FRQVLVWHG RI LGHQWLFDO FRGHV RW SDLUVf &RPELQLQJ ERWK VHWV RI SULYDF\ VWRULHV WKH IROORZLQJ DJUHHPHQW UDWHV REWDLQHG DOO WKUHH MXGJHV DJUHHG RQ RI SHUFHQWf VWRULHV WZR FRGHUV DJUHHG RQ IRUW\ HLJKW RI SHUFHQWf DGGLWLRQDO VWRULHV ZKLOH QR FRGHUV DJUHHG RQ VHYHQ RI SHUFHQWf VWRULHV 7KH FRGHUV DJUHHG RQ SHUFHQW RI DOO SRVVLEOH SDLUV RI FODVn VLILFDWLRQV RI f 'LVWULEXWLRQ RI 3ULYDF\ 7\SHV 2I WKH ILIW\ SULYDF\ VWRULHV IURP WKH RSHQHQGHG HOLFn LWDWLRQ VWXG\ RQ ZKLFK DOO WKUHH FRGHUV DJUHHG VROLWXGH DFFRXQWHG IRU RYHU KDOI RI WKH VWRULHV SHUFHQWf ,Qn WLPDF\ DQG UHVHUYH KDG LGHQWLFDO IUHTXHQFLHV RI HOHYHQ SHUFHQW HDFKf 2QO\ SHUFHQW RI WKH VWRULHV ZHUH VLWXDn WLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUVRQ IHOW DQRQ\PRXV 7KHVH SHUFHQWDJHV

PAGE 137

IRU HDFK W\SH RI SULYDF\ SUHVFULEHG WKH SHUFHQWDJH RI W\SH LQ WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH ILQDO 0'6 VWLPXOXV VHW 6FDOLQJ RI 3ULYDF\ 6LWXDWLRQV 7R VHOHFW D VWLPXOXV VHW ZLWK LWHPV UHSUHVHQWLQJ WKH H[WUHPHV RI IHOW SULYDF\ $WWQHDYHnV f PHWKRG RI JUDGHG GLFKRWRPLHV ZDV XVHG WR VFDOH WKH JHQHUDWHG VLWXDn WLRQV RQ WKHLU GHJUHH RI SULYDWHQHVV $OO WKRVH GHVFULSn WLRQV ZLWK LQWHUFRGHU DJUHHPHQW IURP WKH RSHQ HQGHG FROn OHFWLRQ SKDVH ZHUH XVHG $GGLWLRQDO GHVFULSWLRQV RI VLWXn DWLRQV HOLFLWHG LQ WKH GHILQHG FROOHFWLRQ SKDVH ZLWK LQWHU FRGHU DJUHHPHQW ZHUH VHOHFWHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU 7KHVH DGGLWLRQDO LWHPV VHUYHG WR LQFUHDVH WKH QXPEHU RI VWLPXOL IRU HDFK W\SH RI SULYDF\ LQ DQ HIIRUW WR LQVXUH WKDW D VXI ILFLHQW QXPEHU H[LVWHG WR SURYLGH LWHPV ZLWK DFFHSWDEOH 4 YDOXHV 7RUJHUVRQ f DQG ERWK KLJK DQG ORZ VFDOH YDOn XHV PHDQVf $QRWKHU FULWHULRQ LQ WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI WKHVH DGGLWLRQDO LWHPV ZDV QRQUHGXQGDQF\ LQ WKH ORFDWLRQ DQGRU DFWLYLW\ RI WKH VLWXDWLRQ LQ FRPSDULVRQ WR WKH RSHQHQGHG LWHPV $ ILQDO VHW RI QLQHW\ SULYDF\ GHVFULSWLRQV FRQVWLn WXWHG WKH VWLPXOXV VHW IRU WKH VFDOLQJ SKDVH $ VWDQGDUGL]HG IRUPDW ZDV IROORZHG IRU WKH JUDGHG GLn FKRWRPLHV VFDOLQJ )LUVW VLQFH VRPH RI WKH VLPXOXV LWHPV ZHUH IHPDOH VSHFLILF WKDW LV FRQFHUQHG ZLWK PHQVWUXDWLRQ VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UHVSRQG DV WKH\ EHOLHYHG PRVW

PAGE 138

SHRSOH ZRXOG IHHO 7KLV SURFHGXUH ZDV IROORZHG EHFDXVH PDOHV PLJKW KDYH GLIILFXOW\ DSSURSULDWHO\ UHVSRQGLQJ LI WKH\ ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UHVSRQG DV \RX ZRXOG IHHO 6HFn RQG WKH nPRVWn DQG nPRUHn SLOH ODEHO FDUGV ZHUH DOZD\V SODFHG IDFLQJ WKH VXEMHFWVn OHIWKDQG VLGH )LQDOO\ LQ HDFK VXEVHTXHQW VRUWLQJ VXEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR VWDUW ZLWK WKH nPRVWn DQG nPRUHn SLOHV ILUVW 7ZHQW\ PDOHV DQG WZHQW\ IHPDOHV SHUIRUPHG WKH VFDOLQJ WDVN 7DVN FRPSOHWLRQ ZDV LQ VDPHVH[ JURXSV RI ILYH ZLWK HDFK VXEMHFW ZRUNLQJ DW D VHSDUDWH WDEOH 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQIRUPHG WKDW WKH VRUWLQJ WDVN WKH\ ZHUH WR FRPSOHWH ZRXOG SURYLGH D PHDVXUH RI KRZ PXFK SULYDF\ H[LVWHG LQ HDFK VLWn XDWLRQ (DFK VLWXDWLRQ ZDV W\SHG RQ D [ FDUG %HIRUH HDFK VHVVLRQ WKH GHFN RI VWLPXOXV FDUGV ZDV VKXIIOHG E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU LQ D UDQGRP PDQQHU 3UHFHGLQJ WKH GLVn WULEXWLRQ RI WKH VWLPXOXV GHFN WR VXEMHFWV WKH\ ZHUH UHDG WKH IROORZLQJ LQVWUXFWLRQV DP LQWHUHVWHG LQ LGHQWLI\LQJ ZKDW FDXVHV SHRSOH WR IHHO SULYDWH %HIRUH FDQ DFFRPSOLVK WKLV ILUVW PXVW EH DEOH WR PHDVXUH KRZ PXFK SULYDF\ SHRSOH H[SHULHQFH LQ D VLWXDWLRQ 7KH VRUWLQJ WDVN \RX DUH DERXW WR SHUIRUP ZLOO SURYLGH PH ZLWK WKLV PHDVXUHPHQW RI SULYDF\
PAGE 139


PAGE 140

ZLOO SODFH WKH nOHDVW SULYDWHn SLOH DVLGH XQWLO ODWHU (YHQ WKRXJK \RX KDYH GLYLGHG WKH VLWXDWLRQV LQWR nPRVWn DQG nOHDVWn SULYDWH SLOHV \RX SUREDEO\ IHHO WKDW VRPH DUH VWLOO PRUH SULYDWH WKDQ RWKHUV 7KDW LV ZKDW ZDQW \RX WR GR QRZ VRUW WKLV SLOH RI nPRVW SULYDWHn FDUGV LQn WR WZR SLOHV RI nPRUHn DQG nOHVVn SULYDWH H[SHULPHQWHU SODFHV WZR ODEHOHG FDUGV RQ WKH WDEOHf LQ WKH VDPH PDQn QHU DV \RX SUHYLRXVO\ GLG WKDW LV DV \RX EHOLHYH PRVW SHRSOH ZRXOG IHHO :KHQ \RX ILQLVK WKLV VRUWLQJ SOHDVH QRWLI\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU 6XEMHFW QRWLILHV H[SHULPHQWHUf 1RZ ZDQW WR JHW HYHQ ILQHU GLVFULPLQDWLRQV RI KRZ PXFK SULYDF\ LV SUHVHQW LQ HDFK VLWXDWLRQ 7KLV SURYLGHV PH ZLWK D ILQHU PHDVXUHn PHQW RI SULYDF\ 7R GR WKLV ZDQW \RX WR GLYLGH HDFK SLOH EHIRUH \RX LQWR nPRUHn DQG nOHVVn SULYDWH 3OHDVH VRUW WKH nPRUH SULYDWHn SLOH ILUVW H[SHULPHQWHU SRLQWV WR WKH SUHYLRXV PRUH SULYDWH SLOHf :KHQ \RX DUH ILQLVKHG ZLWK WKHVH VRUWLQJV \RX ZLOO EH ILQLVKHG ZLWK WKHVH VLWXn DWLRQV 3OHDVH QRWLI\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU ZKHQ \RX ILQLVK 6XEMHFW QRWLILHV H[SHULPHQWHUf
PAGE 141

LQWR WZR SLOHV DV \RX GLG EHIRUH 3OHDVH QRWLI\ WKH H[n SHULPHQWHU ZKHQ \RX ILQLVK 6XEMHFW QRWLILHV H[SHULPHQWHUf $JDLQ ZDQW WR JHW D ILQHU PHDVXUHPHQW RI SULYDF\ DQG OLNH EHIRUH ZDQW \RX WR VRUW HDFK RI WKHVH WZR SLOHV LQWR WZR SLOHV UHVXOWLQJ LQ IRXU SLOHV ([SHULPHQWHU SODFHV WZR VHWV RI nPRUHn DQG nOHVVn SULYDWH FDUGV LQ IURQW RI VXEMHFWf $V EHIRUH SOHDVH VWDUW ZLWK WKLV nPRUHn SULYDWH SLOH H[SHULPHQWHU SRLQWV WR SLOHf 3ULYDF\ 6FDOLQJ 5HVXOWV 7KH GDWD IURP WKH VFDOLQJ WDVN ZHUH DQDO\VHG WR GHn WHUPLQH f VFDOH YDOXH f LWHP DPELJXLW\ DQG f JHQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV E\ LWHP (DFK DQDO\VLV LV GHVFULEHG LQ WXUQ 6FDOH YDOXHV FDQ EH FRPSXWHG LQ D QXPEHU RI ZD\V VHH 7RUJHUVRQ f IRU WKH SXUSRVHV RI WKLV VWXG\ WKH PHDQ YDOXH RI WKH JUDGHGGLFKRWRPLHV VFRUHV VHUYHG DV WKH VFDOH YDOXH 7KHVH PHDQV ZHUH FRPSXWHG E\ WKH 6$6 81,9$5,$7( URXWLQH 7KXUVWRQH DQG &KDYHnV f 4YDOXH ZDV FKRVHQ DV WKH PRVW DSSURSULDWH PHDVXUH RI LWHP DPELJXLW\ 4 HTXDOV WKH VFRUH GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH VFRUH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH VHYHQW\ILIWK TXDUWLOH DQG WKH VFRUH FRUUHVSRQGLQJ WR WKH WZHQW\ILIWK TXDUWLOH 7KH 6$6 81,9$5,$7( +HOZLJ t &RXQn FLO f URXWLQH SURYLGHG WKLV YDOXH

PAGE 142

*HQGHU GLIIHUHQFHV RI WZR W\SHV ZHUH LQYHVWLJDWHG )LUVW GLIIHUHQFHV EHWZHHQ WKH JURXS PHDQ YDOXHV IRU PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV IRU HDFK LWHP ZHUH DQDO\]HG 7KH 6366 77(67 1LH -HQNLQV 6WHLQEUHQQHU t %HQW f URXWLQH FDOFXn ODWHG WKHVH JURXS PHDQ GLIIHUHQFHV 6HFRQG WKH JURXS YDULDQFH E\ JHQGHU ZDV DQDO\]HG IRU VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUn HQFHV XVLQJ +DUWOH\nV f )PD[ WHVW 7KH PHDQV RQ WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV UDQJHG IURP D ORZ RI WR D KLJK RI 2QH DQG HLJKW ZHUH WKH PLQLPXP DQG PD[LPXP SRVVLEOH PHDQV UHVSHFWLYHO\ 7KH VLWXDWLRQ ZLWK WKH KLJKHVW VFDOHG SULYDF\ ZDV RQH LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUn VRQ ZDV VROLWDU\ ZKLOH WKH ORZHVW SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ ZDV RQH RI UHVHUYH 7KH FRPSOHWH OLVW RI IRUW\ LWHPV FKRVHQ IRU WKH 0'6 SKDVH ZLWK WKHLU UHVSHFWLYH PHDQV DQG 4YDOXHV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7DEOH FRPSDUHV WKH IRXU W\SHV RI SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV DFURVV WKUHH VFDOH UDQJHV 1RWH WKDW RQO\ UHVHUYH DQG LQWLPDF\ KDYH PHDQV HQFRPSDVVLQJ WKH IXOO UDQJH RI VFDOH YDOXHV IURP ORZ WKUHH RU EHORZf WR KLJK VL[ RU DERYHf 1R VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK D SHUVRQ ZDV DQRQ\PRXV SRVVHVVHG D KLJK VFDOH YDOXH &RQYHUVHO\ QR VROLWDU\ VLWXDWLRQ KDG D VFRUH LQ WKH ORZHU WKLUG VFDOH YDOXHV 6HYHQWHHQ SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV KDG D 4YDOXH RI WZR RU OHVV 2QO\ RQH VLWXDWLRQ UHVHUYH W\SHf KDG D 4YDOXH RI ]HUR DQG WKDW LWHP KDG WKH RYHUDOO ORZHVW VFDOH YDOXH 7KUHH VLWXDWLRQV KDG 4YDOXHV RI RQH 7KH VLWXDWLRQ ZLWK

PAGE 143

7DEOH 6FDOH 9DOXHV DQG 49DOXHV RI 0'6 3ULYDF\ 6LWXDWLRQV ,WHP 7\SHr 6FDOH 9DOXH 49DOXH $D $ 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 ,D , , , , 6D 2LO VE V VDE VE V V V V V VDE V V V V V V V V V 1RWHV $ 6 $QRQ\PRXV 6ROLWDU\ 5 5HVHUYHG ,QWLPDF\ nDn VLJQLILFDQW VH[ GLIIHUHQFH LQ JURXS YDULDQFH E\ nEn VLJQLILFDQW GLIIHUHQFH LQ JURXS PHDQV E\ VH

PAGE 144

7DEOH &RPSDULVRQ RI 3ULYDF\ 7\SHV E\ 7ULSDUWLWH 6FDOH 9DOXHV 3ULYDF\ 7\SH 6FDOH 9DOXH /RZ 0LG +LJK ,QWLPDF\ r r 5HVHUYH r r $QRQ\PRXV r r 6ROLWDU\ r r 1RWH %DVHG RQ VFDOH YDOXHV IRU SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZLWK D 4YDOXH RI RU OHVV r 5HSUHVHQWV WKH H[WUHPH KLJK RU ORZ VFDOH YDOXH IRU WKDW W\SH RI SULYDF\

PAGE 145

WKH KLJKHVW VFDOH YDOXH ZDV RQH RI WKH WKUHH $ 4YDOXH RI WKUHH ZDV REWDLQHG IRU WZHQW\VL[ VLWXDWLRQV ZKLOH WZR VLWXDWLRQV KDG 4YDOXHV RI 7KLUW\WKUHH DGGLWLRQDO VLWXDWLRQV KDG D 4YDOXH RI IRXU $OWKRXJK WKLUW\IRXU SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH RI WKH W\SH nVROLWDU\n RQO\ RQH VROLWDU\ VLWXDWLRQ KDG D 4YDOXH RI WZR RU OHVV DQG WKDW VLWXDWLRQ KDG WKH KLJKHVW RI DOO VFDOH YDOXHV 2I QLQH VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH DFWRU ZDV DQRQ\PRXV WKUHH KDG 4YDOXHV RI WZR RU OHVV 6L[ RI VHYHQWHHQ UHVHUYHG VLWXDWLRQV KDG 4YDOXHV RI WZR RU EHn ORZ :KLOH QR VLWXDWLRQ LQYROYLQJ LQWLPDF\ SRVVHVVHG D 4YDOXH EHORZ WZR VHYHQ RI HLJKWHHQ VXFK VLWXDWLRQV KDG D 4YDOXH RI WZR &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 0'6 6WLPXOXV 6HW 7KH LQIRUPDWLRQ UHVXOWLQJ IURP WKH VWXGLHV GHVFULEHG DERYH SURYLGHG WKH EDVLV IRU VHOHFWLQJ LWHPV XVHG DV WKH 0'6 H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL &RQVWUXFWLRQ RI WKH 0'6 VWLPXOXV VHW FRQIRUPHG WR VHYHQ GHFLVLRQ FULWHULD WKH SURSRUWLRQ RI 0'6 LWHPV UHSUHVHQWLQJ HDFK RI :HVWLQnV f SULYDF\ W\SHV FRLQFLGHG ZLWK WKH SURSRUWLRQV GHWHUPLQHG LQ WKH RSHQHQGHG SULYDF\ FROOHFWLRQ VWXG\ LWHPV ZHUH VHOHFWHG ZKLFK KDG WKH ORZHVW 4YDOXHV ZLWKLQ HDFK RI WKH UHPDLQLQJ FULWHULD

PAGE 146

LWHPV KDYLQJ ERWK KLJK PHGLXP DQG ORZ VFDOH YDOXHV PHDQVf ZHUH VHOHFWHG WKH PD[LPXP QXPEHU RI 0'6 LWHPV ZDV IRUW\ ERWK WR SURYLGH D ZLGH GLYHUVLW\ RI SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV DQG WR UHVWULFW WKH H[SHULPHQWDO WDVN WR D PDQn DJHDEOH GXUDWLRQ LWHPV IRU ZKLFK PDOHV DQG IHPDOHV KDG VLJQLILn FDQWO\ GLIIHUHQW VFDOH PHDQV RU YDULDQFHV ZHUH LQFOXGHG VHH 7DEOH f ZKHQ VHYHUDO LWHPV ZHUH ZLWKLQ RQH VFDOH SRLQW GLVWDQFH RI RQH DQRWKHU DQG KDG QHDUO\ LGHQWLFDO 4YDOXHV LWHPV ZHUH FKRVHQ ZKLFK ZHUH QRQUHGXQ GDQW WR SUHYLRXVO\ VHOHFWHG LWHPV LQ WHUPV RI ORn FDWLRQ DQGRU DFWLYLW\ ZKHQ PRUH WKDQ RQH LWHP IURP FULWHULD VL[ UHn VXOWHG WKH LWHP ZDV VHOHFWHG UDQGRPO\

PAGE 147

$33(1',; & 6(/(&7,21 2) 7+( 0'6 7$5*(7 67,08/, 6LQFH QLQH FRQGLWLRQV KDG EHHQ LGHQWLILHG IURP WKH OLWHUDWXUH DV PRVW SODXVLEO\ DFFRXQWLQJ IRU WKH VXEMHFWLYH H[SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ VHH SDJH IRU WKHVH QLQH IDFWRUVf QLQH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL ZHUH UHTXLUHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH UHVSHFWLYH FRQGLWLRQV ,QVWHDG RI UHO\LQJ RQ WKH H[SHULn PHQWHUnV VXEMHFWLYH HYDOXDWLRQ LQ FKRRVLQJ WKHVH WDUJHW VWLPXOL DV LQ SUHYLRXV UHVHDUFK 6FKRSOHU HW DO f WHQ MXGJHV UDWHG HDFK SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ RQ DOO QLQH K\n SRWKHVL]HG FRQGLWLRQV 7KH WHQ MXGJHV FRQVLVWHG RI VHYHQ VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ JUDGXDWH VWXGHQWV DQG WKUHH XQGHUJUDGXDWH UHVHDUFK DVVLVn WDQWV 7KH\ ZHUH SUHVHQWHG D UHVSRQVH ERRNOHW LQ ZKLFK RQH FRQGLWLRQ FDOOHG D nTXDOLW\n LQ WKH ERRNOHWf DSSHDUHG RQ HDFK SDJH IROORZHG E\ HDFK H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL -XGJHV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UDWH HDFK SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ LQ WHUPV RI +RZ PXFK LV HDFK VLWXDWLRQ QXPEHUHG EHORZ FKDUn DFWHUL]HG E\ WKH DERYH TXDOLW\" 5HVSRQVH RSWLRQV UDQJHG IURP QRW FKDUDFWHULVWLF DW DOO WR FRPSOHWHO\ FKDUDFWHUn L]HV $ EDU FRQWLQXXP IROORZHG ZLWK WHQ UHVSRQVH LQWHUn YDOV IURP SHUFHQW WR SHUFHQW $Q LGHDO PHWKRGRORJLFDO WDUJHW ZRXOG EH RQH ZKLFK RUWKRJRQDOO\ UHSUHVHQWV D SDUWLFXODU TXDOLW\ WR EH HYDOXDWHG

PAGE 148

7KH WDUJHW VKRXOG EH SUHLPPLQHQWO\ VDOLHQW RQ RQO\ RQH TXDOLW\ RI WKH VHW RI TXDOLWLHV EHLQJ LQYHVWLJDWHG ,Q WKH SUHVHQW FDVH DQ LGHDO WDUJHW ZRXOG EH RQH ZKLFK UDWHV KLJKO\ RQ RQO\ RQH RI WKH QLQH K\SRWKHVL]HG SULYDF\LQGXFn LQJ FRQGLWLRQV 8QIRUWXQDWHO\ RQO\ WKUHH SULYDF\ VLWXDn WLRQV ZHUH KLJKO\ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ RQO\ RQH IDFWRU DQG DOO WKUHH RI WKHVH DQG f UHSUHVHQWHG WKH LGHQn WLFDO IDFWRU DQRQ\PLW\ 6HYHUDO SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV DQG f VHH 7DEOH fSRVVHVVHG KLJK UDWn LQJV RQ ILYH RU PRUH K\SRWKHVL]HG TXDOLWLHV ,Q WKHVH LQn VWDQFHV ZKHUH QR RQH TXDOLW\ LV SUHLPPLQHQWO\ VDOLHQW UHVSRQGHQWV KDYH DQ DOPRVW HTXDO SUREDELOLW\ RI UHVSRQGn LQJ WR WKH VLWXDWLRQ RQ DQ\ RI WKH KLJK ORDGLQJ TXDOLWLHV DQG QRW WKH VLQJOH TXDOLW\ IRU ZKLFK WKH VLWXDWLRQ PD\ KDYH EHHQ VHOHFWHG WR UHSUHVHQW 2QH VROXWLRQ WR WKLV SUREOHP LV WR FKRRVH DV WDUJHWV WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV ZKLFK KDYH KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WKH IHZHVW K\n SRWKHVL]HG TXDOLWLHV 7KLV WDFWLF DVVXPHV WKDW WKH OLNHn OLKRRG WKDW UHVSRQGHQWV ZLOO PDNH UHVSRQVHV RQ WKH GHVLUHG RU WREHUHSUHVHQWHG TXDOLW\ LQFUHDVHV DV WKH QXPEHU RI KLJKO\ VDOLHQW FRPSHWLQJ TXDOLWLHV ORDGLQJ RQ WKDW VLWXDn WLRQ GHFUHDVHV 7KH SURFHGXUH LQYROYHG LGHQWLI\LQJ WKRVH VLWXDWLRQV IRU D SDUWLFXODU WREHUHSUHVHQWHG TXDOLW\ WKDW KDG WKH IHZHVW KLJK VFRUHV RQ RWKHU TXDOLWLHV :KHUH WZR RU PRUH VLWXDWLRQV KDG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WKH VDPH WREHUHSn UHVHQWHG TXDOLW\ DQG WKH VDPH QXPEHU RI KLJK UDWLQJV RQ

PAGE 149

+LJK 5DWLQJV RI 6LWXDWLRQV IRU 'LPHQVLRQDO 7DUJHWV 6LWXDWLRQ 4XDOLW\ 'HVLUHG RI 7DUJHW VSDFHr GLVWUDFW SUR[ REVHUYH HPRW NQRZ FRP FRQWURO DQRQ\ D r([SODQDWLRQ RI DEEUHYLDWLRQV f VSDFH D VLWXDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ SHUFHLYHG DGHn TXDF\ RI VSDFH f GLVWUDFW DEVHQFH RI GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG VWLPXOXV RYHUORDG IURP RWKHUV f SUR[ DEVHQFH RI FORVH SK\VLFDO SUR[LPLW\ WR RWKHUV f REVHUYH D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK RQH LV IUHH IURP REVHUYDWLRQ f HPRW VLWXDWLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ FORVH HPRn WLRQDO LQYROYHPHQW f NQRZV DQRWKHU SHUVRQ LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ NQRZV WKH DXWKRUnV DFn WLRQV WKRXJKWV DQGRU IHHOLQJV f FRP SHUVRQ YROXQWDULO\ FRPPXQLFDWHV DERXW VHOI WR RWKHUV f FRQWURO KDYLQJ FRQWURO RYHU RQHnV RZQ EHKDYLRU DQG f DQRQ\ D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUVRQ LV DQ RXWVLGHU RU XQNQRZQ WR RWKHUV

PAGE 150

D$Q XQGHUOLQHG YDOXH LQGLFDWHV WKH VLWXDWLRQ FKRVHQ DV WKH WDUJHW IRU WKDW SDUWLFXODU TXDOLW\ ‘nn5DWLQJV FRXOG UDQJH IURP WR VXPPHG RYHU DOO WHQ MXGJHV LQFOXGHG LQ WKLV WDEOH 2QO\ WKRVH DERYH DUH

PAGE 151

RWKHU TXDOLWLHV WKHQ WKH VLWXDWLRQV ZHUH FRPSDUHG RQ WZR GLPHQVLRQV )LUVW KRZ GLG WKH UDWLQJ RQ WKH WREHUDWHG TXDOLW\ FRPSDUH WR WKH RWKHU KLJKO\ UDWHG TXDOLWLHV" 6HFn RQG KRZ FOHDUO\ DQG H[SOLFLWO\ ZDV WKH WREHUDWHG TXDOLW\ H[SUHVVHG LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ GHVFULSWLRQ" 7KLV HYDOXDWLRQ ZDV D VXEMHFWLYH RQH PDGH E\ WKH H[SHULPHQWHU 2YHUDOO WKH VHOHFWLRQ SURFHVV ZDV DQ LWHUDWLYH VXFFHVVLYHO\ HOLPn LQDWLQJ RQH $ VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH SHUVRQ LV DQ RXWVLGHU RU XQn NQRZQ WR RWKHUV ZDV WKH RQO\ K\SRWKHVL]HG IDFWRU UHSUHn VHQWHG E\ PRUH WKDQ RQH RUWKRJRQDO H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL 2I WKH WKUHH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV f ZLWK KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WKLV TXDOLW\ LWHP ZDV VHOHFWHG DV WKH WDUn JHW VWLPXOL EHFDXVH LW KDG WKH KLJKHVW UDWLQJ RI WKH WKUHH LWHPV 2QO\ RQH VLWXDWLRQ f KDG D KLJK UDWLQJ RQ VLWXDn WLRQ LV FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ FORVH HPRWLRQDO LQYROYHPHQW DQG RQH RWKHU TXDOLW\ ,W ZDV WKHUHIRUH VHOHFWHG DV WKH WDUn JHW $EVHQFH RI GLVWUDFWLRQ DQG VWLPXOXV RYHUORDG IURP RWKHUV DOVR KDG RQO\ RQH VLWXDWLRQ f ZLWK KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WKLV TXDOLW\ DQG RQH RWKHU )RU VLPLODU UHDVRQV LW ZDV FKRVHQ DV WKH WDUJHW 2I WZR VLWXDWLRQV DQG f ZLWK KLJK ORDGLQJV RQ D VLWXDWLRQ FKDUDFWHUL]HG E\ SHUFHLYHG DGHTXDF\ RI VSDFH DQG RQO\ RQH RWKHU TXDOLW\ LWHP KDG EHHQ SUHYLRXVO\

PAGE 152

VHOHFWHG DV D WDUJHW IRU DQRWKHU TXDOLW\ WKHUHE\ OHDYLQJ LWHP DV WKH WDUJHW IRU WKH VSDFH TXDOLW\ 7ZR VLWXDWLRQV DQG f KDG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ D VLWXDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK RQH LV IUHH IURP REVHUYDWLRQ DQG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ RQO\ RQH RWKHU IDFWRU ,WHP ZDV FKRVHQ DV WKH WDUJHW VWLPXOL WR UHSUHVHQW WKLV TXDOLW\ EDVHG RQ LWV FODULW\ RI GHVFULSWLRQ 7KH IDFWRU SHUVRQ YROXQWDUn LO\ FRPPXQLFDWHV DERXW VHOI WR RWKHUV DOVR KDG RQO\ WZR VLWXDWLRQV DQG f ZLWK KLJK ORDGLQJV RQ WKLV TXDOn LW\ DQG RQO\ RQH RWKHU TXDOLW\ 7KH VHOHFWHG WDUJHW ZDV LWHP EHFDXVH LWV UDWLQJ RQ WKH WREHUHSUHVHQWHG TXDOn LW\ ZDV KLJKHU WKDQ LWHP 7KUHH VLWXDWLRQV DQG f KDG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WKH TXDOLW\ DQRWKHU SHUVRQ LQ WKH VLWXDWLRQ NQRZV WKH DXWKRUnV DFWLRQV WKRXJKWV DQGRU IHHOLQJV 7KHVH VLWXn DWLRQV DOVR KDG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WZR RWKHU TXDOLWLHV ,WHP ZDV HOLPLQDWHG DV WKH WDUJHW EHFDXVH LW KDG SUHYLRXVO\ EHHQ VHOHFWHG DV D WDUJHW IRU DQRWKHU TXDOLW\ ,WHP ZDV FKRVHQ DV WKH WDUJHW EHFDXVH LWV GHVFULSWLRQ ZDV PRVW H[SOLFLWO\ UHODWHG WR WKH WREHUHSUHVHQWHG TXDOLW\ $EVHQFH RI FORVH SK\VLFDO SUR[LPLW\ WR RWKHUV KDG KLJK UDWLQJV RQ WHQ LWHPV ,Q RQH VLWXDWLRQ f WKHUH ZDV D KLJK ORDGLQJ RQ RQO\ RQH RWKHU TXDOLW\ ,Q RWKHU VLWXDWLRQV f KLJK UDWLQJV RFFXUUHG RQ WZR DGGLWLRQDO TXDOLWLHV ,WHP ZDV VHOHFWHG DV WKH WDUJHW EHFDXVH LW PRVW H[SOLFLWO\ GHVFULEHG WKH WREHUDWHG TXDOLW\

PAGE 153

+DYLQJ FRQWURO RYHU RQHnV RZQ EHKDYLRU ZDV SUHVHQW DW D KLJK GHJUHH LQ WZHOYH VLWXDWLRQV 7KH VLWXDWLRQ f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n FRXQWHG IRU LQ WKH ILQDO 0'6 VROXWLRQf LQFUHDVHV :KHQ D UHODWLYHO\ ODUJH SURSRUWLRQ RI VXEMHFWV UHVSRQG RQ WKH EDn VLV RI QRQFKRVHQ DQG YDULHG GLPHQVLRQV IRU WKH LGHQWLFDO WDUJHW LW LV DQDORJRXV WR D 7\SH ,, HUURU LQ WKH VHQVH WKDW RQH DFFHSWV WKH QXOO K\SRWKHVLV WKDW WKH GLPHQVLRQ IRU ZKLFK WKH WDUJHW ZDV VHOHFWHG KDV QR HIIHFW RQ VXEn MHFWVn SHUFHSWLRQ RI DQG UDQNLQJ RI SULYDF\ 6XFK D FRQn FOXVLRQ ZRXOG EH LQ HUURU VLQFH LQ IDFW WKH GLPHQVLRQ WDUn JHWHG ZDV LQDGHTXDWHO\ RSHUDWLRQDOL]HG QRQRUWKRJRQDOLW\ FDQ EH YLHZHG DV VXFK DV LQDGHTXDWH RSHUDWLRQDOL]DWLRQ RI WKH FRQVWUXFW WR EH PHDVXUHGf DQG WHVWHG ,W LV FOHDU KRZHYHU WKDW VHYHUDO WKHRUHWLFDOO\ UHOHYDQW FRQGLWLRQV FRQGXFLYH WR WKH H[SHULHQFH RI SULYDF\ QDWXUDOO\ FKDUDFn WHUL]H UHDOOLIH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV

PAGE 154

6WRU\ 2LO r r r r r r 7DEOH 3ULYDF\ 0'6 5HOLDELOLW\ 5HOLDELOLW\ 6LJQLILFDQFH $OO &DVHV 2QH :HHN 5HWHVWrr /HYHO 7DUJHW 7DUJHW

PAGE 155

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG r r r r7KHVH LWHPV VHUYHG DV WDUJHW VWLPXOL DOO UHOLDELOLW\ UHVSRQVHV ZHUH EDVHG RQ LWHP DV WKH WDUJHW VWLPXOXV rr7ZHQW\QLQH RI IRUW\ VXEMHFWV FRPSOHWHG WKH UHOLDELOLW\ LWHP RQH ZHHN DIWHU WKHLU RULJLQDO UHVSRQVH HOHYHQ FRPn SOHWHG WKH UHOLDELOLW\ LWHP WKH VDPH GD\ rrr7KH VLJQLILFDQFH OHYHO ZDV FRPSXWHG RQ WKH UHOLDELOLW\ RI DOO IRUW\ FDVHV

PAGE 156

$33(1',; 6(/(&7,21 2) '(),1,1* $775,%87(6 $1' '(),1,1* $775,%87( 352&('85( 7R LGHQWLI\ WKH GLPHQVLRQV XQFRYHUHG E\ WKH 0'6 DQDOn \VLV D VHW RI GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV WR EH XVHG LQ UDWLQJ WKH VLWXDWLRQV LV UHTXLUHG $ OLVW RI RQH KXQGUHG ZRUGV DQG SKUDVHV ZKLFK DUH SRWHQWLDOO\ DWWULEXWHV RI SULYDF\ VLWXDn WLRQV ZDV H[WUDFWHG IURP WKH SULYDF\ DQG FURZGLQJ OLWHUDn WXUH VHH 7DEOH f 7R GLVWLOO WKHP LQWR D PDQDJHDEOH QXPEHU DQG WR HOLPLQDWH UHGXQGDQW KLJKO\ FRUUHODWHGf DWn WULEXWHV D IDFWRU DQDO\VLV VWXG\ ZDV SHUIRUPHG 7R WKH H[WHQW WKDW UHGXQGDQW DWWULEXWHV H[LVW LQ WKH DWWULEXWH VHW ZKLFK ZLOO EH VXEMHFWHG WR D PXOWLSOH UHJUHVVLRQ RQWR WKH 0'6 GLPHQVLRQ FRRUGLQDWHV WKH SUREOHP RI PXOWLFROOLQ HDULW\ ZLOO REWDLQ DQG WKHUHE\ UHGXFH WKH FODULW\ RI WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI UHVXOWV 5DWLQJV RQ WKH RQH KXQGUHG DWWULEXWHV ZHUH REWDLQHG E\ KDYLQJ VXEMHFWV UDWH HDFK RI WHQ VLWXDWLRQV RQ DOO RQH KXQn GUHG DWWULEXWHV 7KHVH VLWXDWLRQV FRQVLVWHG RI VHYHQ SULn YDF\ VLWXDWLRQV VHOHFWHG IURP WKH 0'6 VWLPXOXV VHW DQG WKUHH FURZGLQJ VLWXDWLRQV WR EH XVHG LQ D VXEVHTXHQW PXOWLGLPHQn VLRQDO VFDOLQJ DQDO\VLV RI FURZGLQJ 7KH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV LQFOXGHG ERWK D KLJK DQG ORZ VFDOH YDOXH LWHP IRU LQWLPDF\ DQG f VROLWXGH DQG f DQG UHVHUYH

PAGE 157

n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n 7DEOH 2ULJLQDO 3RWHQWLDO 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV DFWRU IHHOV IUHH WR EH VHOI DFWRU LV RQ WKHLU RZQ WHUULWRU\ SHRSOH DUH LQ DFWRUnV ZD\ FURZGHG DFWRUVf LV H[FOXGLQJ RWKHUV PXVW FRSH ZLWK WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH DW RQH WLPH RWKHUV KDYH DFFHVV WR DFWRUVf DFWRU IHHOV XQFHUWDLQ DFWRUnV VHOILPDJH LV WKUHDWHQHG DFWRU IHHOV LPSRUWDQW DFWRUVf IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ DFWRUVf LV FRPPXQLFDWLQJ DFWRUnV WDON RU DFWLRQ LV FRQILGHQWLDO RFFXUV RYHU D ORQJ SHULRG RI WLPH IHHO HPRWLRQDOO\ LQYROYHG DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ VLWXDWLRQ LV QRLV\ IHHOV KRVWLOH DFWRU LV YLVLEOH WR RWKHUV KLJK SK\VLFDO GHQVLW\ WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH DYDLODEOH DFWRUnV JRDOV DUH EORFNHG IHHOnV VK\ IUHH RI VRFLDO FRQVWUDLQWV RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV DFWRUVf LV UHVHUYHG DFWRUVf LQVXODWHG IURP RWKHUV DFWRU LV IUHH IURP REVHUYDWLRQ DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH XQLTXH DFWRU LV ZLWKGUDZLQJ IURP RWKHUV DFWRUVf WDONV RSHQO\ DERXW VHOI IHHOV DSSUHFLDWHG IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF QR RQH ERWKHULQJ DFWRU IHHO OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU IHHOLQJV FDXVHG E\ WKH SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV DFWRU LV H[SRVHG WR RWKHUV VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHGLFWDEOH SHRSOH WRR FORVH WR PH IHZ SHRSOH SUHVHQW VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO DFWRUVf LV VFUHHQLQJ RXW RWKHUV VLWXDWLRQ LV VRFLDO DFWRUVf LV XQGHWHFWHG DFWRU LV LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV

PAGE 158

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG n n n n n n n n nOO nOO ,6 n n DFWRU LV UHYHDOLQJ DFWRU LV FRQFHDOHG DFWRU KDV WR ILJKW IRU ZKDW KHVKH ZDQWV VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO DFWRU GRHV QRW IHHO IUHH WR GR DV KHVKH FKRRVHV DFWRUVf YROXQWDULO\ H[SRVHV VHOI WR RWKHUV WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW DFWRU IHHOV SRZHUIXO SOHDVDQW IHHOV VWUHVV DFWRUVf LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ QR FRPPXQLFDWLRQ EHWZHHQ DFWRUV VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ DURXQG DFWRU DFWRUVf LV ZLOOLQJ WR WDON DERXW VHOI RWKHUV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK RU EORFN DFWRU DFWRUVf LV SK\VLFDOO\ VHSDUDWHG IURP RWKHUV DFWRUV DUH LQWLPDWH IHHOV KHOSOHVV IHHOLQJV GXH WR VHOI IHHOV WUDQTXLO DWWHQWLRQ LV IRFXVHG RQ VHOI DFWRU GRHV QRW IHHO LQYROYHG DFWRUVf LV XQGHU VXUYHLOODQFH DFWRUVf IHHOV DW HDVHUHOD[HG ZRXOG QRW ZDQW RWKHUV WR NQRZ ZKDW WKH\ DUH GRLQJ RU WKLQNLQJ DFWRU LV DORRI DFWRU LV LQWUXGLQJ RQ DQRWKHU DFWRUVf LV DQRQ\PRXV WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ DFWRUVf LV FDUHIXO DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VD\ DFWRUVf LV VHFOXGHG DFWRU IHHOV GLVWUHVVHG VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SK\VLFDO IHHOV YXOQHUDEOH FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WRR PDQ\ LQSXWV IHHOV DW RQH ZLWK VXUURXQGLQJV PDQ\ RSWLRQV DYDLODEOH DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH WRR PXFK SK\VLFDO VWLPXODWLRQ IDPLOLDU IHHOV XQGHU VFUXWLQ\ RWKHUnV DFWLRQV WRZDUG DFWRU DUH LQWHQWLRQDO DFWRUVf LV GLVWUDFWHG QR RQH NQRZV DFWRU

PAGE 159

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG DFWRU GRHV QRW IHHO KHVKH EHORQJV RWKHU LV FROG DFWRU LV EHKDYLQJ DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV WRR PXFK VRFLDO VWLPXODWLRQ IHHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ IHHOLQJV DUH VKDUHG E\ RWKHUV IHHOV DQ[LRXV IHHOV DQJU\ IHHOV FRPIRUWDEOH DFWRU GRHV QRW NQRZ KRZ WR DFW

PAGE 160

DQG f 2QO\ D ORZ VFDOH YDOXH LWHP ZDV VHOHFWHG IRU DQRQ\PLW\ f 7ZR KLJK VFDOH YDOXH LWHPV DQG RQH ORZ VFDOH YDOXH LWHP ZHUH VHOHFWHG IRU WKH FURZGLQJ VLWXDWLRQV DQG f $ VWDQGDUGL]HG WHVWLQJ IRUPDW ZDV XVHG )LUVW WKH RUGHU RI WKH DWWULEXWHV LQ WKH LQVWUXPHQW ZDV UDQGRPO\ GHWHUPLQHG 6HFRQG ILIW\ DWWULEXWHV DSSHDUHG SHU SDJH 7KXV HDFK SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ DSSHDUHG WZLFH RQ VHSDUDWH SDJHV ZLWK RQHKDOI ILIW\f RI WKH DWWULEXWHV 7KLUG WKH RUGHU RI WKHVH WZHQW\ SDJHV ZDV UDQGRPO\ DVVLJQHG $QG IRXUWK WR EDODQFH IDWLJXH HIIHFWV KDOI WKH ERRNOHWV EHJDQ ZLWK WKH ILUVW WHQ VLWXDWLRQE\DWWULEXWH SDJHV DQG KDOI EHJDQ ZLWK WKH ODVW WHQ VLWXDWLRQE\DWWULEXWH SDJHV 6XEMHFWV FRQVLVWHG RI VHYHQW\ PDOH DQG VHYHQW\RQH IHPDOH VWXGHQWV ZKR SDUWLFLSDWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI DQ LQWURGXFWRU\ SV\FKRORJ\ FRXUVH 7KH\ ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG WR UDWH HDFK DWWULEXWH E\ KRZ ZHOO LW GHVFULEHG WKH VLWXDn WLRQ RU IHHOLQJV RI WKH DFWRU $ WHQSRLQW VFDOH ZDV SURn YLGHG UDQJLQJ IURP GRHV QRW GHVFULEH DW DOO SHUn FHQW GHVFULEHVf WR FRPSOHWHO\ GHVFULEHV SHUFHQW GHVFULEHVf (DFK VXEMHFWE\VLWXDWLRQ ZDV WUHDWHG DV DQ REVHUYDWLRQ UHVXOWLQJ LQ REVHUYDWLRQV IRU HDFK DWWULn EXWH WKXV H[FHHGLQJ D PLQLPXP FULWHULD RI WHQ WLPHV WKH QXPEHU RI REVHUYDWLRQV DV YDULDEOHV DWWULEXWHVf LQ WKH IDFWRU DQDO\VLV *RUVXFK f $Q HVWLPDWH RI UHVSRQVH UHOLDELOLW\ ZDV SURYLGHG E\ KDYLQJ RQH KXQGUHG VXEMHFWV

PAGE 161

UHVSRQG WR RQH VLWXDWLRQE\DWWULEXWH SDJH WZLFH 7KLV UHn OLDELOLW\ SDJH ZDV WKH ODVW SDJH RI WKH ERRNOHW 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQVWUXFWHG QRW WR ORRN EDFN WR WKH RULJLQDO SDJH $ SULQFLSDO FRPSRQHQWV IDFWRU DQDO\VLV ZLWK 9DULPD[ URn WDWLRQ ZDV SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH UDWLQJ GDWD 7ZHOYH IDFWRUV ZLWK DQ HLJHQYDOXH JUHDWHU WKDQ UHVXOWHG 2QO\ VHYHQ IDFWRUV KRZHYHU SRVVHVVHG LWHPV ORDGLQJ DERYH WKH SUHn VHOHFWHG LQFOXVLRQ YDOXH RI 7KLUW\WKUHH LWHPV ORDGHG RQ WKH ILUVW IDFWRU DW RU DERYH 7KHVH LWHPV ZHUH QRW FOHDUO\ LQWHUSUHWDEOH DV D VLQJOH IDFWRU DQG ZHUH VXEMHFWHG WR D VXEVHTXHQW IDFWRU DQDO\VLV WR EHWWHU UHYHDO WKHLU IDFn WRU VWUXFWXUH 7KLV VHFRQGDU\ DQDO\VLV LV UHSRUWHG IROORZn LQJ WKH SUHVHQWDWLRQ RI WKH UHVXOWV IRU WKH UHPDLQLQJ VL[ IDFWRUV LQ WKH LQLWLDO IDFWRU VROXWLRQ 7KH VHFRQG IDFWRU ZDV UHSUHVHQWHG E\ WKLUWHHQ LWHPV VHH 7DEOH f 7KLV IDFWRU VHHPV EHVW LQWHUSUHWHG DV VLPXOn WDQHRXVO\ FURZGHG DQG SXEOLF $ IXUWKHU LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV IDFWRU VXJJHVWV WKDW LW LQFOXGHV WKH QRWLRQ RI VHFn RQGDU\ *HVHOOVKDIWf UHODWLRQVKLSV 7KLV LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ LV VXSSRUWHG E\ WKH LWHPV WKH VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO DQG IHHO HPRWLRQDOO\ LQYROYHG D QHJDWLYH ORDGLQJf 6ROLWXGH RQH RI :HVWLQnV f SULYDF\ W\SHV VHHPV WR EHVW HQFRPSDVV WKH LWHPV ORDGLQJ RQ WKH WKLUG IDFWRU %RWK SK\VLFDO DQG YLVXDO VHSDUDWLRQ IURP RWKHUV FRPSRVH ERWK WKLV IDFWRU DQG WKH FRQGLWLRQV RI VROLWXGH 7KLV IDFn WRU ZDV WKHUHIRUH ODEHOHG 6ROLWXGH DQG 6HSDUDWLRQ

PAGE 162

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r rS

PAGE 163

7DEOH ,QLWLDO )DFWRU 6WUXFWXUH IRU 3RWHQWLDO 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV )DFWRU )DFWRU /DEHO ,WHP /RDGLQJ )DFWRU r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

PAGE 164

7DEOH FRQWLQXHG )DFWRU (03$7+,& 6,78$7,21 RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV IHHOLQJV VKDUHG E\ RWKHUV )DFWRU 6(/)&216&,2861(66 DWWHQWLRQ IRFXVHG RQ VHOI r,WHPV ORDGLQJ RQ WKLV IDFWRU ZHUH VXEMHFWHG WR D VXEVHn TXHQW IDFWRU DQDO\VLV WR FODULI\ WKH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQ RI WKLV IDFWRU VHH 7DEOH f

PAGE 165

$QRWKHU RI :HVWLQnV f SULYDF\ W\SHV VHOIGLVFORn VXUH ZDV FOHDUO\ LQWHUSUHWDEOH IURP WKH ILYH LWHPV ORDGLQJ RQ WKH IRXUWK IDFWRU 7KHVH LWHPV LQGLFDWHG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DERXW WKH VHOI ZKLFK ZDV UHYHDOLQJ 5HVHUYH \HW DQRWKHU W\SH RI SULYDF\ :HVWLQ f ZDV LQGLFDWLYH RI WKH LWHPV FRPSULVLQJ WKH ILIWK IDFWRU 7KH LWHPV VXJJHVWHG LQKLELWHG FRPPXQLFDWLRQ DERXW WKH VHOI 7KH VL[WK IDFWRU FRQVLVWHG RI WZR LWHPV 7KHVH LWHPV ERWK FRQFHUQHG WKH FRUUHVSRQGHQFH RI DIIHFW EHWZHHQ DFWRUV HLWKHU PXWXDO XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI WKH RWKHUVn DIIHFW RU PXWXDO VKDULQJ RI IHHOLQJV 7KLV IDFWRU ZDV WKHUHIRUH LQWHUn SUHWHG DQG ODEHOHG DV GHQRWLQJ DQ HPSDWKHWLF VLWXDWLRQ )LQDOO\ VHOIFRQVFLRXVQHVV VHHPHG WR EHVW LQWHUSUHW WKH VLQJOH LWHP RI WKH VHYHQWK IDFWRU 7KLV LWHP ZDV ZRUGHG DWWHQWLRQ LV IRFXVHG RQ VHOI 6XFK DQ DWWHQWLRQDO EDVLV ZDV K\SRWKHVL]HG E\ )LVFKHU f DV WKH SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO SURFHVV XQGHUO\LQJ SULYDF\ 5HWXUQLQJ WR WKH ILUVW IDFWRU RI WKH LQLWLDO VROXWLRQ WKH VXEVHTXHQW IDFWRU DQDO\VLV RI LWV LWHPV UHYHDOHG WKUHH VHSDUDWH IDFWRUV VHH 7DEOH f 7KH ILUVW IDFWRU VWLOO FDSWXUHG D ODUJH QXPEHU RI LWHPV WZHQW\ILYHf EXW ZDV QRZ LQWHUSUHWDEOH DV DQ DIIHFWLYH IDFWRU 6LQFH ERWK SRVLWLYH DQG QHJDWLYH VWDWHV ORDGHG RQ WKLV IDFWRU LW ZDV LQWHUn SUHWHG DV D JHQHUDO DIIHFWLYH IDFWRU 7KLV IDFWRU DSSHDUHG WR EH D JHQHUDO DIIHFWLYH IDFWRU LQ DQRWKHU ZD\ VLQFH LW LQn FOXGHG LWHPV ZKLFK FRXOG EH H[SHFWHG WR EH VRXUFHV RI

PAGE 166

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nV DFWLRQV LQWHQWLRQDO RWKHU LV FROG IHHOV XQFHUWDLQ GRHV QRW NQRZ KRZ WR DFW )DFWRU &21752/ $1' )5(('20 )520 &21675$,17 IUHH WR EH VHOI FRPIRUWDEOH SOHDVDQW RQH ZLWK VXUURXQGLQJV UHOD[HG IHHOV LPSRUWDQW WUDQTXLO RQ RZQ WHUULWRU\ IHHOV SRZHUIXO LQ FRQWURO IUHH RI FRQVWUDLQWV

PAGE 167

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG )DFWRU $121<0286 XQGHWHFWHG QR RQH NQRZV DFWRU

PAGE 168

DIIHFW 7KLV IDFWRU ZDV ODEHOHG WKHUHIRUH DV $IIHFW DQG 6RXUFHV RI $IIHFW :KLOH WKH VHFRQG IDFWRU WR HPHUJH IURP WKH VHFRQGDU\ DQDO\VLV FRQWDLQHG IRXU DIIHFWLYHW\SH LWHPV WKH UHPDLQn LQJ VHYHQ LWHPV ZHUH LQWHUSUHWHG DV FRQWURO DQG IUHHGRP IURP FRQWUDLQW %HLQJ RQ RQHnV RZQ WHUULWRU\ VHHPHG WR SURYLGH WKH SK\VLFDO EDVLV IRU WKHVH VWDWHV 7KH WKLUG DQG ILQDO IDFWRU FRQVLVWHG RI WZR LWHPV WKH DFWRU LV XQGHWHFWHG DQG QR RQH NQRZV WKH DFWRU :KLOH VRPHZKDW DPELJXRXV WKHVH LWHPV ZHUH LQWHUSUHWHG DV DQRQ\PLW\ $ UHVLGXH RI WKLUW\WKUHH LWHPV IDLOHG WR DFKLHYH WKH FULWHULRQ ORDGLQJ RQ DQ\ RI WKH IDFWRUV LQ WKH LQLWLDO DQG VHFRQGDU\ IDFWRU DQDO\VHV 7KXV WKHVH LWHPV ZHUH FRQVLGn HUHG XQLTXH LWHPV VHH 7DEOH f 7KUHH FRQVLGHUDWLRQV JXLGHG WKH VHOHFWLRQ RI LWHPV IRU WKH ILQDO GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH SKDVH RI WKH VWXG\ )LUVW LWHPV ZHUH VHOHFWHG WR UHSUHVHQW WKH QLQH IDFWRUV GHVLUHG VL[ LQ WKH LQLWLDO VROXWLRQ DQG WKUHH IRU WKH VXEVHTXHQW VROXWLRQVf 6HFRQG WKHUH ZDV D GHVLUH WR LQFOXGH WKRVH LWHPV XVHG LQ SUHYLRXV FURZGLQJ 0'6 VWXGLHV 6FKRSOHU HW DO DQG 6WRFNGDOH HW DO VHH 7DEOH f $QG WKLUG WKH QXPEHU RI LWHPV ILQDOO\ FKRVHQ KDG WR EH IHZ HQRXJK WR SUHYHQW VHYHUH IDWLJXH HIIHFWV LQ VXEMHFWVn UHn VSRQGLQJ

PAGE 169

7DEOH 8QLTXH 9DULDEOHV 5HPDLQLQJ $IWHU WKH )DFWRU $QDO\VLV RI 3RWHQWLDO 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV ,WHP r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nV WDON RU DFWLRQ LV FRQILGHQWLDO RFFXUV RYHU D ORQJ SHULRG RI WLPH IHHOV KRVWLOH DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH XQLTXH DFWRU LV ZLWKGUDZLQJ QR RQH ERWKHULQJ DFWRU IHHO OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU IHHOLQJV FDXVHG E\ SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHGLFWDEOH DFWRU LV VFUHHQLQJ RXW RWKHUV VLWXDWLRQ LV VRFLDO DFWRU LV FRQFHDOHG VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO r,QGLFDWHV WKH LWHP QXPEHU LQ WKH ILQDO IRUW\ GHILQLQJ DWn WULEXWHV XVHG LQ 3KDVH QR QXPEHU PHDQV WKDW WKH LWHP ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ 3KDVH

PAGE 170

7DEOH 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 8VHG LQ 3UHYLRXV &URZGLQJ 0'6 5HVHDUFK 6WXG\ WHUQ rr 6FKRSOHU HW DOr ,WHP ` W 6WRFNGDOH HW DOr IHHOLQJV GXH WR VHOI SHRSOH LQ P\ ZD\ IHHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH SOHDVDQW SHRSOH WRR FORVH IDPLOLDU FRSH ZLWK WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH KLJK SK\VLFDO GHQVLW\ IHHO FODXVWURSKRELF GLVWUHVVHG RWKHUnV DFWLRQV LQWHQWLRQDO WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ KDYH WR ILJKW IRU ZKDW ZDQWHG IHHO OLNH RXWVLGHU ZDQW WR HVFDSH IHHO LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV GR QRW IHHO IUHH WR FKRRVH RWKHUV LQWHUIHUH DQG EORFN DFWRU KHOSOHVV IHHOLQJV GXH WR RWKHUV WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ FRQIURQWHG ZLWK WRR PDQ\ LQSXWV IHZ SHRSOH SUHVHQW DQ[LRXV KRVWLOH ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO IDFWRUV VWUHVV ODUJHO\ SK\VLFDO IDFWRUV IHHOLQJV XQLTXH QRW VKDUHG DQJU\ GR QRW IHHO EHORQJ GR QRW IHHO LQYROYHG FURZGHG r5HIHUHQFHV 6FKRSOHU 5XVEXOW & t 0F&DOOXP 5 &RQFHSWXDO GLPHQVLRQV RI FURZGn LQJ $ 1RUWK &DUROLQD 6WXG\ -RXUQDO RI 3RSXODWLRQ DQG 6WRFNGDOH :LWWPDQ / -RQHV / t *UHDYHV &RQFHSWXDO GLPHQVLRQV RI FURZGLQJ $ /RQGRQ (QJODQGf VWXG\ -RXUQDO RI 3RSXODWLRQ rr,QGLFDWHV WKH LWHP QXPEHU LQ WKH ILQDO IRUW\ GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV XVHG LQ 3KDVH QR QXPn EHU PHDQV WKDW WKH LWHP ZDV QRW LQFOXGHG LQ 3KDVH

PAGE 171

$V D UHVXOW RI WKHVH FRQVLGHUDWLRQV IRUW\ LWHPV VHH 7DEOH f ZHUH ILQDOO\ VHOHFWHG 7ZR LWHPV VLWXDWLRQ LV VH[XDO DQG DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXOf ZHUH QRW LQ WKH RULJLQDO LWHP SRRO IDFWRU DQDO\]HG EXW ZHUH DGGHG DV SRWHQn WLDOO\ LQWHUHVWLQJ 6H[XDO EHKDYLRU ZDV PHQWLRQHG LQ VHYn HUDO RI WKH H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQVf )XUWKHUPRUH ULWXDO SULYDF\ DV GHVFULEHG E\ /DXIHU 3UR VKDQVN\ DQG :ROIH f LQFOXGHV VH[XDO EHKDYLRU 6FKQHLGHU f KDV DUJXHG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ VKDPH DQG SULYDF\ 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWH 3URFHGXUH ,Q RUGHU WR LGHQWLI\ DQG ODEHO WKH GLPHQVLRQV UHVXOWn LQJ IURP WKH 0'6 DQDO\VLV DQ LQGHSHQGHQW VDPSOH RI IRUW\ ILYH VWXGHQWV WZHQW\ILYH PDOHV DQG WZHQW\ IHPDOHVf UDWHG HDFK SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ XVHG LQ WKH 0'6 SKDVH RQ DOO IRUW\ GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH LWHPV 6XEMHFWV SDUWLFLSDWHG IRU SDUn WLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH FRXUVH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU DQ LQWURn GXFWRU\ SV\FKRORJ\ FODVV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH WHVWHG LQ VDPH VH[ JURXSV RI WHQ 7KH GDWD IURP WKUHH VXEMHFWV ZHUH HOLPn LQDWHG GXH WR LQFRUUHFWO\ FRPSOHWLQJ WKH WDVN (DFK VXEMHFW ZDV SUHVHQWHG D ERRNOHW FRQWDLQLQJ IRUW\ RQH SDJHV (DFK SDJH FRQWDLQHG RQH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ IROn ORZHG E\ WKH IRUW\ GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV $ WHQSRLQW /LNHUW W\SH UHVSRQVH IRUPDW ZDV XVHG VHH WKH GHVFULSWLRQ RI WKH

PAGE 172

UHVSRQVH IRUPDW XVHG LQ WKH IDFWRU DQDO\VLV VWXG\f 7KH UHVSRQVH FRQWLQXXP UDQJHG IURP GRHV QRW FKDUDFWHUL]H DW DOO WR FRPSOHWHO\ FKDUDFWHUL]HV 6XEMHFWV ZHUH LQn VWUXFWHG IRU HDFK GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWH WR UHVSRQG WR WKH IUDPH KRZ ZHOO GRHV WKLV FKDUDFWHUL]HGHVFULEH WKH LQFLn GHQW RU DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV" 7KH ODVW SDJH RI WKH ERRNOHW UHSHDWHG RQH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQ f WR SURYLGH D UHVSRQVH UHOLDELOLW\ HVWLPDWH 7KH RUGHU RI WKH GHILQLQJ DWWULEXWHV ZDV LGHQWLFDO IRU DOO SDJHV DQG WKLV RUGHU ZDV UDQGRPO\ GHWHUPLQHG 7KH RUn GHU RI WKH SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQV LQ WKH ERRNOHW ZDV DOVR UDQn GRP ,Q RUGHU WR GLVWULEXWH HLWKHU UHVSRQVH VHW RU UHVSRQVH IDWLJXH HIIHFWV HTXDOO\ DFURVV DOO H[SHULPHQWDO VWLPXOL SULYDF\ VLWXDWLRQVf WKH ERRNOHW SDJHV ZHUH SURJUHVVLYHO\ VWDJJHUHG DFURVV WKH WHQ ERRNOHWV 7KH ILUVW ERRNOHW EHJDQ ZLWK SDJH RQH DQG FRQWLQXHG WKURXJK SDJH IRUW\ ZKLOH WKH WHQWK ERRNOHW EHJDQ ZLWK SDJH WKLUW\VL[ (DFK ERRNOHW EHn JDQ ZLWK D SDJH IRXU JUHDWHU WKDQ WKH SUHFHGLQJ ERRNOHW 6XEMHFWV UHVSRQGHG RQ FRPSXWHUVFRUHG DQVZHU VKHHWV 7KH DYHUDJH WLPH IRU WDVN FRPSOHWLRQ RI IRUW\ LWHPV IRU HDFK RI IRUW\ VLWXDWLRQV ZDV WKUHH KRXUV 5HOLDELOLW\ RI 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV $Q HVWLPDWH RI UHVSRQVH UHOLDELOLW\ IRU GHILQLQJ DWn WULEXWH UDWLQJV ZDV REWDLQHG E\ KDYLQJ VXEMHFWV UDWH RQH

PAGE 173

7DEOH 'HILQLQJ $WWULEXWHV 7HVW5HWHVW 5HOLDELOLWLHVr ,WHP ,WHP U r r DFWRU IHHOV FRPIRUWDEOH VLWXDWLRQ LV XQSUHGLFWDEOH DFWRUnV VHOILPDJH LV WKUHDWHQHG DFWRU ZDQWV WR HVFDSH DFWRUnV EHKDYLRU LV VKDPHIXO DQRWKHU NQRZV DFWRUnV WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOLQJV RWKHUV DUH WRR FORVH WR DFWRU RWKHUnV EHKDYLRU LV DJDLQVW WKH UXOHV VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SK\VLFDO DFWRU LV IUHH WR EH VHOI DFWRUnV DWWHQWLRQ LV IRFXVHG RQ VHOI QR RQH NQRZV DFWRU DFWRU LV DQRQ\PRXV DFWRU LV FDUHIXO DERXW ZKDW WKH\ VD\ WRR PXFK VRFLDO VWLPXODWLRQ RWKHUV XQGHUVWDQG KRZ DFWRU IHHOV DFWRU LV YLVLEOH WR RWKHUV DFWRUV DUH LQWLPDWH VLWXDWLRQ LV IDPLOLDU WR DFWRU WRR PDQ\ SHRSOH IRU VSDFH DYDLODEOH DFWRU WUXVWV RWKHUV SUHVHQW DFWRU LV LQ FRQWURO RI HYHQWV DFWRU IHHOV DQ[LRXV VLWXDWLRQ LV SXEOLF DFWRU IHHOV LQWUXGHG XSRQ DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV GXH WR VLWXDWLRQ VLWXDWLRQ LV LPSHUVRQDO DFWRU IHHOV KHOSOHVV WRR OLWWOH SULYDF\ DFWRUnV IHHOLQJV DUH FDXVHG E\ SUHVHQFH RI RWKHUV DFWRU LV VROLWDU\ DFWRU IHHOV GLVWUHVVHG DFWRU LV VHOIUHYHDOLQJ WR RWKHUV LQ VLWXDWLRQ RWKHUV LQWHUIHUH ZLWK RU EORFN DFWRU VLWXDWLRQ LV ODUJHO\ SV\FKRORJLFDO DFWRU IHHOV OLNH DQ RXWVLGHU IHHOLQJV GXH WR VHOI WRR PXFK JRLQJ RQ DURXQG DFWRU FURZGHG VLWXDWLRQ LV VH[XDO DFWRU IHHOV FODXVWURSKRELF

PAGE 174

7DEOH f§FRQWLQXHG r7KH WHVWUHWHVW ZDV FRQGXFWHG XVLQJ SULYDF\ VLWXDn WLRQ DV WKH VLWXDWLRQ EHLQJ UDWHG rr:KHQ UB WKHQ S ZKHQ Ue WKHQ S ZKHQ U WKHQ S! Q f

PAGE 175

VWRU\ f WZLFH RQFH GXULQJ WKH WDVN VHVVLRQ DQG DJDLQ DW WKH FRPSOHWLRQ RI WKH WDVN $ 3HDUVRQ FRUUHODWLRQ ZDV FRPSXWHG EHWZHHQ UDWLQJV IRU WLPH RQH DQG WLPH WZR 7KHVH FRUUHODWLRQV DUH SUHVHQWHG LQ 7DEOH 7KH FRUUHODWLRQV UDQJHG IURP D KLJK RI U f WR D ORZ RI U f 7ZR DWWULEXWHV DQG f IDLOHG WR EH VLJQLILFDQWO\ FRUUHODWHG EHWZHHQ WHVW DQG UHWHVW 7ZHQW\ILYH DWWULn EXWHV KDG D WHVWUHWHVW UHOLDELOLW\ VLJQLILFDQW DW WKH OHYHO

PAGE 176

$33(1',; ( (;3(5,0(17$/ 67,08/, 6WRU\ 3ULYDF\ 6LWXDWLRQV 2LO OLNH WR H[SUHVV P\ IHHOLQJV WKURXJK ZULWLQJ SRHWU\f DQG GXULQJ WKHVH WLPHV OLNH WR EH OHIW DORQH DP DEOH WR JDWKHU P\ WKRXJKWV DQG IHHOn LQJV PXFK EHWWHU ZKHQ DP DORQH KDYH DOZD\V EHHQ D YHU\ SULYDWH SHUVRQ DQG GR QRW RSHQ XS WR SHRSOH HDVLO\ DP WKH RQO\ SHUVRQ ZKRP KDYH NQRZQ WKDW KDV QHYHU IDLOHG PH DQG WKLV WHQGV WR PDNH PH ZDQW WR EH LVRODWHG FDQ DOVR WKLQN DERXW RWKHUVn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nV KRXVH ZKHQ ZH ZRXOG MXVW VLW DQG WDON LQ WKH OLYLQJURRP :H ZRXOG SOD\ FDUGV RU EDFNJDPPRQ IRU KRXUV ZLWKRXW EHLQJ LQWHUUXSWHG 2QO\ ZKHQ KLV URRPPDWH ZDV RXW RI WRZQ ,Q P\ FDU ZKHQ ZRXOG GULYH KRPH IURP ZRUN DW $0 EHFDXVH KDG WKH ODWH VKLIW ZRUNHG DW 'LVQH\ DQG LW WRRN PH DERXW D KDOI KRXU WR JHW KRPH 7KH UHDGV ZHUH YHU\ GHVHUWHG DQG IHOW OLNH ZDV WKH RQO\ SHUVRQ DURXQG

PAGE 177

0\ IDPLO\ KDV D FRQGRPLQLXP RQ WKH EHDFK DQG RQH ZHHNHQG IHOW OLNH KDG WR JHW RXW RI WRZQ VR ZHQW RYHU WKHUH UHDOO\ HQMR\HG EHLQJ DORQH DQG GRLQJ ZKDWHYHU ZDQWHG ZKHQHYHU ZDQWHG IHOW YHU\ UHVWHG DQG XQSUHVVXUHG ,W JDYH PH DQ HQHUJ\ WR JHW PRWLYDWHG DJDLQ DOZD\V MRJ E\ P\VHOI ,W JLYHV PH D WLPH WR UHn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nP QRW XOWUDUHOLJLRXV IHHO YHU\ SHDFHIXO EHn FDXVH ,nP RXWVLGH DQG WKLQN DERXW ZKDWHYHU LV ERWKHULQJ PH KDYH DOZD\V GRQH WKLV DQG SUREn DEO\ ZLOO IRUHYHU ZDV DORQH LQ P\ GRUP URRP ZDV YHU\ XSVHW DQG QHHGHG WR EH DORQH 7KHUH ZHUH RWKHU SHRSOH LQ WKH GRUP WKDW FRXOG KHDU LQ WKH KDOO DQG PXVLF LQ WKH FRXUW\DUG KDG P\ RZQ VWHUHR RQ DQG WKH VKDGHV GRZQ ,W ZDV DW QLJKW ZKLFK PDGH PH IHHO HYHQ PRUH SULYDWH ,WnV OLNH WKH GDUNQHVV LV D EODQNHW WKDW VHSDUDWHV \RX IURP WKH UHVW RI WKH ZRUOG 7KDW DORQJ ZLWK WKH IDFW WKDW WKHUH ZDV PXVLF RWKHU WKDQ P\ RZQ SOD\LQJ DQG SHRSOH LQ WKH GRUP EXW WKH\ FRXOGQnW UHDFK PH WKH\ ZHUH WRWDOO\ DSDUW IURP PH E\ P\ FKRLFH PDGH PH IHHO SULYDWH :KHQ ,nP PDVWXUEDWLQJ IHHO SULYDWH ,Q P\ RSLQn LRQ QRW RQO\ H[SUHVV VHOI DFFHSWDQFH EXW WKH IDFW WKDW SHUIRUP LW PDNHV PH IHHO KXPDQ GHULYH PXFK SOHDVXUH IURP LW DQG LW GRHV QRW UHIOHFW RQ HLWKHU IDLOXUH RU VXFFHVV RQ KHWHURVH[XDO DFWLYn LWLHV FDUHVV P\VHOI DQG IHHO QR JXLOW 0D\EH E\ P\ DWWLWXGH VKRXOG QRW KLGH LW %XW VHFUHF\ LV SHUKDSV ZKDW DGGV WR WKH SOHDVXUH :KLOH IRQGOLQJ VRPHWLPHV IDQWDVL]H DERXW D FHUWDLQ ZRPDQ XQWLO FOLPD[

PAGE 178

, GR QRW DWWHQG FKXUFK RQ D UHJXODU EDVLV EXW EHOLHYH LQ *RG :KHQ SUD\ LW PDNHV PH UHDOL]H DQG DQDO\]H P\ PLVWDNHV GR LW ZKLOH VOHHSLQJ LQ EHG RU UDWKHU EHIRUH VOHHS 1R ULWXDO LV LQn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n WKLQJ DERXW P\ GHVLUH WR DFW VORZO\ EHJDQ WR NHHS DOO P\ GHVLUHV KLGGHQ GLVOLNHG EHLQJ ODXJKHG DW P\ GUHDPV DUH WRR LPSRUWDQW ZDV VLWWLQJ GRZQ MXVW FKDWWLQJ DV XVXDO ZLWK P\ PRWKHU 6KH MXVW DOO RI D VXGGHQ DVNHG PH DERXW P\ VH[ OLIH IHOW D W\SH RI EHWUD\DO ZKHQ KHU VLVWHU MRLQHG LQ WKH FRQYHUVDWLRQ DQG LQWHUURJDWHG PH IHOW WKDW D SHUVRQnV VH[ OLIH LV SHUVRQDO DQG IHOW KXUW ZKHQ DVNHG WKHVH TXHVWLRQV E\ P\ PRWKHU DQG DXQW 8VXDOO\ SHRSOH OLNH WR ORRN EDFN DQG ODXJK DERXW VLWXDWLRQV LQ ZKLFK WKH\ DW RQH WLPH IHOW YHU\ VWXSLG DQG HPEDUUDVVHG EXW ZRQnW VD\ DQ\WKLQJ 7KH UHDVRQ IRU WKLV LV EHFDXVH GRQnW ZDQW RWKHUV WR NQRZ DERXW DQ HYHQW WKDW PDGH D FRPSOHWH IRRO RXW RI P\VHOI HYHQ LI WKHUH ZDV QR KDUP GRQH DQG LW ZDV GRQH IRU WKH KHFN RI LW JHW HPEDUUDVVHG YHU\ HDVLO\ ZKHQ RWKHUV ILQG RXW DERXW LW ,W LV QRW YHU\ HDV\ IRU PH WR XQGUHVV LQ IURQW RI URRPPDWHV RU WU\ D GUHVV RU D SDLU RI SDQWV RQ LQ IURQW RI D VDOHVZRPDQ XVXDOO\ GR ZHOO RQ P\ JUDGHV EXW IHHO WKDW LI WHOO SHRSOH WKDW ,nP GRLQJ ZHOO WKHQ LI GRQnW WHOO WKHP WKH QH[W WLPH KRZ ,nP GRLQJ WKHQ WKH\ ZRXOG ILJXUH ,nP GRLQJ SRRUO\ 0DLQO\ ZKHQ SHRSOH DVN PH KRZ ,nP GRLQJ LQ VFKRRO JLYH WKHP DQ LQn GLUHFW DQVZHU 0D\EH ,nP DIUDLG RI IDLOXUH RU VRPHWKLQJ EXW LWnV YHU\ LPSRUWDQW IRU PH WR NHHS P\ JUDGHV VHFUHW

PAGE 179

:H VWDUWHG WR EXLOG WKH KRXVH LQ UXUDO 0LFKLJDQ DQG E\ 6HSWHPEHU ZH ZHUH ZRUNLQJ RQ WKH VHFRQG VWRU\ :LQWHU ZDV RQ WKH ZD\ DQG LW ZDV UDLQLQJ HYHU\ GD\ :H FRQWLQXHG ZLWK WKH KRXVH WKURXJK WKH UDLQ DQG ZH IHOW DV WKRXJK WKHUH ZDV QR RQH HOVH DURXQG :H ERXJKW D YDQ DQG IL[HG LW IRU FDPSLQJ :H VDYHG RXU PRQH\ DQG VWDUWHG RXU WULS E\ GULYLQJ ZHVW :H KDG PRYHG RXW RI RXU DSDUWPHQW DQG SXW RXU EHORQJLQJV LQ VWRUDJH $VLGH IURP VHHLQJ WKH FRXQWU\ ZH ZDQWHG WR ILQG D SODFH WR OLYH VRPHn WKLQJ GLIIHUHQW :H VSHQW TXLWH D ELW RI WKH WULS FDPSLQJ LQ WKH 5RFN\ 0RXQWDLQV DQG PRVW RI WKH VSRWV ZH VWD\HG ZHUH HPSW\ KDYH UHFHQWO\ WDNHQ XS VN\GLYLQJ DQG KDYH QHYHU H[SHULHQFHG DQ\WKLQJ OLNH LW EHIRUH MXVW IORDW GRZQ DQG ORRN DURXQG DQG QR RQH LV DQ\ZKHUH DP VR DORQH DQG NQRZLQJ WKDW WKHUH LV QR ZD\ WKDW DQ\RQH HOVH FDQ JHW DQ\ZKHUH QHDU PH PDNHV PH IHHO VHFXUH DQG FRPSOHWHO\ IUHH VSHQW D PRQWK LQ &RORUDGR ODVW VXPPHU DQG PHW DQ XQEHOLHYDEOH JLUO :H ZHUH SHUIHFW 2QH EHDXWLn IXO VXQQ\ GD\ QRW D FORXG LQ WKH VN\ ZH ZHQW RQ D SLFQLF VWDUWHG GULYLQJ XS LQWR WKH PRXQn WDLQV DQG WRRN P\ WUXFN MXVW RII LQWR D ELJ ILHOG :H HQGHG XS QH[W WR D EURRN DQG MXVW VDW LQ DZH RI LWV EHDXW\ 1HLWKHU RI XV VDLG D ZRUG :H MXVW ODLG RXW QH[W WR WKH EURRN DQG ZDWFKHG WKH ZDWHU :H QHYHU ORRNHG DURXQG WR VHH LI DQ\RQH ZDV ZDWFKn LQJ ZH MXVW XQGUHVVHG DQG PDGH ORYH DOO DIWHUQRRQ :H QHYHU WDONHG DOO GD\ QR QHHG WR ZKHQ ZH ZHUH WDONLQJ LQ RWKHU ZD\V DP ZLWK D FORVH IULHQG RI WKH RSSRVLWH VH[ ZKRP KDYH NQRZQ IRU D ORQJ WLPH :H DUH QDNHG DORQH VHSDUDWHO\ DQG WRJHWKHU MRLQWO\ 7ZR LQGLYLGXDOV DQG WKH VXP WRWDO RI WZR LQGLYLGXDOV DW RQH SRLQW LQ WLPH FDQnW UHPHPEHU ZK\ EXW ZDV XSVHW DERXW VRPHn WKLQJ DQG ZHQW RXW WR WKH SLHU EHKLQG P\ KRXVH WKDW MXWV RXW LQWR WKH ULYHU DQG VDW WKHUH ORRNHG DW WKH VWRUP\ VN\ DQG WKH ZKLWH FDSV ,W ZDV VR ILWWLQJ IRU P\ PRRG KDYH QHYHU IHOW PRUH DORQH WKDQ GLG WKDW DIWHUQRRQ %XW LW ZDVQnW EDG LW ZDV NLQG RI EHDXWLIXO

PAGE 180

:KHQ FDPH WR WKH XQLYHUVLW\ KDG QHYHU EHHQ DZD\ IURP KRPH KDG P\ RZQ DSDUWPHQW KDG QR RQH WR GLVWXUE PH LQ DQ\ ZD\ FRPH IURP D ODUJH IDPLO\ $ERXW ILYH \HDUV DJR ZDV DZD\ IURP P\ SDUHQWV IRU DOPRVW ILYH PRQWKV (YHQ WKRXJK ZDV VWD\n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n ULEOH LW LV KHUH DQG KRZ PXFK EHWWHU LW ZRXOG EH DW KRPH ORQJHG IRU WKH ZDUPWK RI P\ KRPH DQG P\ SDUHQWV ZDV DFWLQJ RXW RI HPRWLRQ DQG QRW UDWLRQDOO\ (YHU\WKLQJ LV VR ERULQJ DQG XQLQWHUn HVWLQJ 0\ JHW XS DQG JR VHHPHG WR KDYH OHIW PH 6RPHWLPHV ZKHQ KDYH P\ PHQVWUXDO SHULRG GRQnW OLNH WR GLVFXVV P\ IHHOLQJV HYHQ ZLWK P\ ER\IULHQG 'XULQJ WKDW WLPH IHHO YHU\ PHOORZ ZDV RQFH DOO DORQH LQ D IRUHVW RQ SULYDWH ODQG ZDV DOO DORQH H[FHSW IRU D IHZ VTXLUUHOV DQG VRPH ELUGV HQMR\HG WKH DEVHQFH RI RWKHU SHRSOH \HW ZLVKHG WKDW P\ ER\IULHQG ZHUH ZLWK PH :KDWnV UHDOO\ VWUDQJH LV WKDW HYHQ WKRXJK GHn VLUHG KLV FRPSDQ\ LI KH KDG EHHQ WKHUH PRVW OLNHO\ ZRXOG KDYH ZDQWHG WR EH DORQH ZRXOGQnW ZDQW DQ\RQH WR WKLQN ZDVQnW VDWLVILHG ZLWK P\ RZQ FRPSDQ\ ZDV JRLQJ RXW ZLWK WKLV JX\ DQG RQH GD\ GHn FLGHG WR VWRS E\ KLV KRXVH :KHQ JRW WKHUH WKHUH ZDV D JLUO WKDW GLGQnW NQRZ DERXW YLVLWn LQJ KLP IHOW YHU\ XQFRPIRUWDEOH DQG RXW RI SODFH VR OHIW ZHQW GULYLQJ GRZQ WKLV OLWWOH URDG XQWLO JRW WR WKH ODNH VKRUH ZKHUH KDG

PAGE 181

JUHDW PRPHQWV ZLWK KLP VDW DW WKH VKRUH DQG IHOW YHU\ ORQHO\ DQG ZDQWHG WR FU\ IHOW WKDW QRERG\ FDUHG DERXW PH DW WKDW PRPHQW RU HYHQ ZRUn ULHG DERXW ZKHUH ZDV ZDV WDONLQJ WR P\ JLUOIULHQG DERXW P\ H[SHULn HQFHV ZLWK P\ ILUVW ER\IULHQG DQG WKH WLPH ZH PDGH ORYH UHDOO\ JRW YHU\ LQWLPDWH ZLWK KHU E\ WUXO\ H[SUHVVLQJ ZKDW WKRXJKW DERXW WKDW VSHn FLDO PRPHQW DQG WKH IHHOLQJ RI SDVVLRQ DQG DWWUDFn WLRQ WRZDUG P\ ER\IULHQG :H UHDOO\ XQGHUVWRRG HDFK RWKHU E\ KDYLQJ WKLV LQWLPDWH FRQYHUVDWLRQ ZKHUH VKDUHG VRPHWKLQJ YHU\ GHDU DQG SULYDWH WR PH ZRXOG QHYHU WDON DERXW LW WKH ZD\ WDONHG ZLWK KHU ZLWK DQ\ERG\ HOVH 0\ SDUHQWV KDG JRQH DZD\ IRU WKH ZHHNHQG DQG P\ EURWKHUV ZHUH DOO DZD\ VRPHZKHUH DQG KDG WKH KRXVH HQWLUHO\ WR P\VHOI ,W ZDV YHU\ SHDFHIXO DQG ODLG EDFN UHDG DQG ZDWFKHG 79 D ORW 7RZDUG WKH HQG RI WKH ZHHNHQG KRZHYHU EHJDQ WR IHHO ORQHO\ DQG FDOOHG IULHQGV WR WDON HQn MR\HG WKH WLPH WR P\VHOI LW VORZHG PH GRZQ DQG DOORZHG PH WR VWDUW IUHVK 0RQGD\ PRUQLQJ ZDV LQ D ODUJH OHFWXUH FODVV RI WZR KXQGUHG SHRSOH 0\ IHHOLQJV DW WKH WLPH ZHUH :K\ VKRXOG EH KHUH" ,I ZDVQnW KHUH QRWKLQJ ZRXOG FKDQJH HYHU\WKLQJ ZRXOG FRQWLQXH ZLWKRXW PH DQG QR RQH ZRXOG HYHQ NQRZ PXFK OHVV FDUH LI ZHUH QRW SUHVHQW :KHQ FDPH WR VFKRRO IRU WKH ILUVW WLPH DV D IUHVKPDQ KDG WR PHHW P\ WZR URRPPDWHV ZDV UHVHUYHG EHFDXVH ZDQWHG WR JHW DORQJ ZLWK WKHP VR EDGO\ WKDW ZDV DIUDLG WR EH VD\LQJ RU GRLQJ WKH ZURQJ WKLQJ PLJKW DGG KRZHYHU WKDW WKLV GLGQnW ODVW YHU\ ORQJ ,nP JHQHUDOO\ DQ RXWn JRLQJ SHUVRQ DQG XVXDOO\ VD\ ZKDWnV RQ P\ PLQG -XVW D IHZ ZHHNV DJR ZHQW ZLWK D IULHQG WR D UHVWDXUDQW :H PHW VRPH RI KLV IULHQGV WKHUH WKDW GLGQnW NQRZ 7KH\ ZHUH DOO LQ D FOXE WRJHWKHU DQG ZDVQnW )URP WKH EHJLQQLQJ RI WKH HYHQLQJ IHOW RVWUDFL]HG IURP WKH JURXS EHFDXVH WKH\ ZHUH GLVFXVVLQJ HYHQWV DQG SHRSOH WKDW GLGQnW NQRZ ZDV UHVHUYHG DQG XQFRPIRUWDEOH WKH HQWLUH HYHQn LQJ IHOW WKH ZRUVW ZKHQ WKH VXEMHFW FKDQJHG WR UHOLJLRQ 7KH\ GLVDJUHHG RQ VRPH UHOLJLRQV EXW WKH\ DOO DJUHHG WKDW %DSWLVWV ZHUH IDQDWLF DP

PAGE 182

D %DSWLVW GLGQnW VD\ DQ\WKLQJ EHFDXVH ZDQWHG WR KHDU ZKDW WKH\ WKRXJKW ,W ZDV DOO GHURJDWRU\ DQG IHOW LQVXOWHG DQG HYHQ PRUH UHVHUYHG 2QH WLPH QR RQH ZDV DW KRPH EXW PH KDG WKH ZKROH KRXVH WR P\VHOI VR WXUQHG WKH VWHUHR XS UHDO ORXG ORFNHG WKH GRRUV DQG ZDONHG WKURXJK WKH KRXVH LQ P\ XQGHUZHDU FRXOGQnW TXLWH EULQJ P\VHOI WR VWULS FRPSOHWHO\ GDQFHG D OLWWOH VDQJ WR WKH WRS RI P\ OXQJV DQG GLG FDUWZKHHOV LQ WKH NLWFKHQ ZKLFK LV VRPHWKLQJ ,nP QRW DOORZHG WR GR IHOW YHU\ IUHH DQG XQLQKLELWHG DP XVXn DOO\ YHU\ PRGHVW DERXW P\ DSSHDUDQFH DQG GRQnW DFW YHU\ RXWVWDQGLQJ ZKHQ SHRSOH DUH DURXQG IHOW OLNH FRXOG EH PH ZLWKRXW DQ\RQH VD\LQJ DQ\WKLQJ DERXW LW /DVW ZLQWHU UHPHPEHU WDNLQJ D ZDON ZLWK WKH JX\ ,nP GDWLQJ ,W ZDV D ORQJ ZDON RQ D FROG VWDUOLW QLJKW :H GLGQnW KDYH WR WDON PXFK ZH MXVW UHDOO\ IHOW YHU\ DW HDVH ZLWK HDFK RWKHU OLNH ZH KDG DOn ZD\V NQRZQ HDFK RWKHU HYHQ WKRXJK ZH KDGQnWf ,WnV MXVW D VSHFLDO IHHOLQJ NQRZLQJ WKDW \RX FDUH IRU VRPHRQH DQG WKH\ FDUH IRU \RX DQG \RX ZDQW WKH EHVW IRU HDFK RWKHU ZDV LQ D ODUJH H[SRVLWLRQ ZKHUH VHYHUDO WKRXVn DQG VLJKWVHHUV FDPH WR FKHFN WKH QHZ LWHPV RI PDQn XIDFWXUH RQ GLVSOD\ ZHQW WKHUH E\ P\VHOI GLG QRW LQYLWH DQ\ERG\ HOVH 7KH ILUVW LPSUHVVLRQ ZKLFK VWUXFN PH ZDV WKDW HYHU\ERG\ VHHPHG WR ZDON E\ ZLWKRXW JODQFLQJ D ORQJ WLPH DW PH 7KH\ GLG ORRN DW PH EXW LW ZDV PHUHO\ WR UHFRJQL]H WKHUH ZDV DQ REVWDFOH LQ WKHLU SDWK PXVW DGPLW WRR GLG QRW ERWKHU WR ORRN DW WKHP ZLWK LQWHQW WKH\ ZHUH DOO WKH VDPH IHOW JRRG DW WKDW WLPH EHn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n VLGH DQG DOO VDZ ZHUH JUHHQ ILHOGV DQG WUHHV DQG UROOLQJ PRXQWDLQV IHOW YHU\ UHOD[HG DQG ZDV

PAGE 183

MXVW OHWWLQJ UD\ WKRXJKWV ZDQGHU DV HQMR\HG WKH EHDXWLIXO GD\ IHOW DV WKRXJK KDG QR SUREn OHPV RU ZRUULHV DQG QR SUHVVXUH ZDV DORQH ZLWK QDWXUH DQG QR RQH ZDV KDVVOLQJ PH :KHQ ZDV HLJKW RU QLQH \HDUV ROG P\ EURWKHU ORFNHG PH LQ D VXLWFDVH DQG FDUULHG PH DURXQG WKH KRXVH :KHQ JRW RXW ZDV FU\LQJ P\ EDOOV RII ZDV DQJU\ ZDV ULGLQJ RQ D EXV 7KHUH VHHPHG WR EH QR SRVn VLEOH ZD\ WR ILW DQ\ PRUH SHRSOH RQ EXW SHRSOH MXVW NHSW SLOLQJ RQ IHOW OLNH D VDUGLQH 0\ ODUJHVW ZRUU\ EHLQJ KRZ ZDV HYHU JRLQJ WR JHW RXW DW P\ VWRS ,W KDG EHHQ H[WUHPHO\ FROG RXWn VLGH EXW RQ WKH EXV ZLWK WKH VHYHUDO SHRSOH LW EHn FDPH YHU\ XQFRPIRUWDEOH DQG KRW :KHQ KDG JRWWHQ D VHDW LW PDGH WKH WULS D OLWWOH PRUH EHDUDEOH EXW LW VWLOO ZDV XQFRPIRUWDEOH SHUIRUP RQ VWDJH DQG RIWHQ KDYH WR FKDQJH FRVn WXPHV LQ VPDOO TXDUWHUV ZLWK PDQ\ RWKHU JLUOV DQG WKLV GRHVQnW ERWKHU PH

PAGE 184

5()(5(1&(6 $OWPDQ ,UZLQ 3ULYDF\ $ FRQFHSWXDO DQDO\VLV ,Q 'DQLHO &DUVRQ (Gf 0DQHQYLURQPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQV (YDOXDn WLRQV DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV 3DUW ,, f 6WURXGVEXUJ 3D 'RZGHQ +XWFKLQVRQ t 5RVV $OWPDQ ,UZLQ 7KH HQYLURQPHQW DQG VRFLDO EHKDYLRU 3ULn YDF\ SHUVRQDO VSDFH WHUULWRU\ FURZGLQJ 0RQWHUH\ &D %URRNV&ROH $OWPDQ ,UZLQ 3ULYDF\ $ FRQFHSWXDO DQDO\VLV (QYLURQn PHQW DQG %HKDYLRU $OWPDQ ,UZLQ 3ULYDF\ UHJXODWLRQ FXOWXUDOO\ XQLYHUVDO RU &XOWXUDOO\ VSHFLILF" -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO ,VVXHV $OWPDQ t 7D\ORU 6RFLDO SHQHWUDWLRQ 7KH GHYHORSn PHQW RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV 1HZ
PAGE 185

%RZHUV -RKQ 3ULYDF\ WHUULWRULDOLW\ SHUVRQDO VSDFH DQG SHUVRQDOLW\ ,Q 7KH EHKDYLRUDO EDVLV RI GHVLJQ 6Hn OHFWHG SDSHUV RI ('5$ 6WURXGVEXUJ 3D 'RZGHQ +XWFKLQVRQ t 5RVV &KDLNLQ $ t 'HULHJD 9 9DULDEOHV DIIHFWLQJ WKH DSSURn SULDWHQHVV RI VHOIGLVFORVXUH -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 7a &KHUU\ &ROLQ 2Q KXPDQ FRPPXQLFDWLRQ $ UHYLHZ D VXUYH\ DQG D FULWLFLVP &DPEULGJH 0D 0,7 3UHVV &R]E\ 3DXO 6HOIGLVFORVXUH $ OLWHUDWXUH UHYLHZ 3V\ FKRORJLFDO %XOOHWLQ B 'HULHJD 9 t &KDLNLQ $ 1RUPV DIIHFWLQJ VHOIGLVFORVXUH LQ PHQ DQG ZRPHQ -RXUQDO RI &RQVXOWLQJ DQG &OLQLFDO 3V\FKRORJ\ 'HULHJD 9 t &KDLNLQ $ 3ULYDF\ DQG VHOIGLVFORVXUH LQ VRFLDO UHODWLRQVKLSV -RXUQDO RI 6RFLDO ,VVXHV 'XQFDQ %LUW :KDW GR \RX VD\ WR D QDNHG VWUDQJHU 7KH HIIHFWV RI SULYDF\ SHUVRQDO VSDFH LQWUXVLRQ RQ HVFDSH DQG KHOSLQJ ,Q 3 6XHGIHOG 5XVVHOO / :DUG ) 6]LJHWL t 'DYLV (GVf 7KH EHKDYLRUDO EDVLV RI GH VLJQ VHOHFWHG SDSHUV RI ('5$ 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH WK $QQXDO (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HVLJQ 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ &RQIHUHQFH YRO a 6WURXGVEXUJ 3D 'RZGHQ +XWFK PVRQ t 5RVV (GQH\ t %XGD 0 'LVWLQJXLVKLQJ WHUULWRULDOLW\ DQG SULn YDF\ 7ZR VWXGLHV +XPDQ (FRORJ\ A (VVHU $ 'LVFXVVLRQ RI SDSHUV SUHVHQWHG LQ WKH V\PSRVLXP (QYLURQPHQW DQG %HKDYLRU c )LVFKHU &RQVWDQFH 7RZDUG WKH VWUXFWXUH RI SULYDF\ ,Pn SOLFDWLRQV IRU SV\FKRORJLFDO DVVHVVPHQW ,Q $ *LRUJL : )LVFKHU DQG 5 YRQ (FNDUWVEHUJ (GVf 'XTXHVQH VWXGLHV LQ SKHQRPHQRORJLFDO SV\FKRORJ\ YROA 7a 37WWV EXUJ 'XTXHVQH 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV )ODKHUW\ 'DYLG 3ULYDF\ LQ FRORQLDO 1HZ (QJODQG &KDUn ORWWHVYLOOH 9D 8QLYHUVLW\ 3UHVV RI 9LUJLQLD *RIIPDQ ( $V\OXPV &KLFDJR $OGLQH 3UHVV

PAGE 186

*RIIPDQ ( %HKDYLRU LQ SXEOLF SODFHV 1RWHV RQ WKH VRn FLDO RUJDQL]DWLRQ RI JDWKHULQJV *OHQFRH ,, 7(H )UHH 3UHVV *RRGVWHLQ / t 5HLQHFNHU 9 )DFWRUV DIIHFWLQJ VHOIGLVn FORVXUH $ UHYLHZ RI WKH OLWHUDWXUH ,Q %$ 0DKHU (Gf 3URJUHVV LQ H[SHULPHQWDO SHUVRQDOLW\ UHVHDUFK YRO 1HZ
PAGE 187

,WWHOVRQ : 3URVKDQVN\ + 5LYOLQ / t :LQNHO $Q LQWURGXFWLRQ WR HQYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ 1HZ
PAGE 188

0DUVKDOO 1DQF\ (QYLURQPHQWDO FRPSRQHQWV RI RULHQWDWLRQV WRZDUG SULYDF\ ,Q $UFKHD DQG & (DVWPDQ (GVf ('5$ 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH QG DQQXDO (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HVLJQ 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ FRQIHUHQFH 3LWWVEXUJK 3D QR SUHVV D 0DUVKDOO 1DQF\ 3HUVRQDOLW\ FRUUHODWHV RI RULHQWDWLRQ WRn ZDUG SULYDF\ ,Q $UFKHD DQG & (DVWPDQ (GVf ('5$ 3URFHHGLQJV RI WKH QG DQQXDO (QYLURQPHQWDO 'HVLJQ 5HVHDUFK $VVRFLDWLRQ FRQIHUHQFH 3LWWVEXUJK 3D QR SUHVV E 0DUVKDOO 1DQF\ 3ULYDF\ DQG HQYLURQPHQW +XPDQ (FRORJ\ 0DUVKDOO 1DQF\ 'LPHQVLRQV RI SULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV 0XOn WLYDULDWH %HKDYLRUDO 5HVHDUFK B 0F.HFKQLH *HRUJH 7KH HQYLURQPHQWDO UHVSRQVH LQYHQWRU\ LQ DSSOLFDWLRQ (QYLURQPHQW DQG %HKDYLRU 0HKUDELDQ $ t 5XVVHOO $Q DSSURDFK WR HQYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ &DPEULGJH 0D 0,7 3UHVV 0LOOHU $ 7KH DVVDXOW RQ SULYDF\ 1HZ
PAGE 189

3DVWDODQ /HRQ 3ULYDF\ DV D EHKDYLRUDO FRQFHSW 6RFLDO )RUFHV D $B 3DVWDODQ /HRQ 3ULYDF\ DV DQ H[SUHVVLRQ RI KXPDQ WHUULn WRULDOLW\ ,Q /$ 3DVWDODQ DQG '+ &DUVRQ (GVf 6SDWLDO EHKDYLRU RI ROGHU SHRSOH $QQ $UERU 8QLYHU VLW\ RI 0LFKLJDQ 3UHVV E 3DVWDODQ /HRQ 3ULYDF\ SUHIHUHQFHV DPRQJ UHORFDWHG LQVWLn WXWLRQDOL]HG HOGHUO\ ,Q 'DQLHO &DUVRQ (Gf 0DQ HQYLURQPHQW LQWHUDFWLRQV (YDOXDWLRQV DQG DSSOLFDn WLRQV 3DUW ,, f 6WURXGVEXUJ 3D 'RZGHQ +XWFKLQVRQ t 5RVV 3HDUFH : t 6KDUS 6 6HOIGLVFORVXUH FRPPXQLFDWLRQ -RXUQDO RI &RPPXQLFDWLRQ B 3URVKDQVN\ + ,WWHOVRQ : t 5LYOLQ / )UHHGRP RI FKRLFH DQG EHKDYLRU LQ D SK\VLFDO VHWWLQJ ,Q +0 3URVKDQVN\ :+ ,WWHOVRQ DQG /* 5LYOLQ (GVf (QYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ 0DQ DQG KLV SK\VLFDO VHWWLQJ 1HZ
PAGE 190

6FKZDUW] %DUU\ 7KH VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ RI SULYDF\ $PHUn LFDQ -RXUQDO RI 6RFLRORJ\ 6FKQHLGHU &DUO 6KDPH H[SRVXUH DQG SULYDF\ %RVWRQ %HDFRQ 3UHVV 6FKZHLW]HU ( %HOO t 'DLO\ $ ELUDFLDO FRPSDUn LVRQ RI GHQVLW\ SUHIHUHQFHV LQ KRXVLQJ LQ WZR FLWLHV ,Q : 3UHLVHU (Gf (QYLURQPHQWDO GHVLJQ UHVHDUFK 6\PSRVLD DQG ZRUNVKRSV IRXUWK ('5$ FRQIHUHQFH YRO ,7 6WURXGVEXUJ 3D 'RZGHQ +XWFKLQVRQ t 5RVV 6KDZ 0 3HUVRQDO FRPPXQLFDWLRQ 6KHSDUG 5 5RPQH\ $ t 1HUORYH 6 (GVf 0XOWLGLPHQn VLRQDO VFDOLQJ 7KHRU\ DQG DSSOLFDWLRQV LQaWKH EHKDYn LRUDO VFLHQFHV 9RO DQG 1HZ
PAGE 191

7D\ORU t $OWPDQ ,QWLPDF\VFDOHG VWLPXOL IRU XVH LQ VWXGLHV RI LQWHUSHUVRQDO UHODWLRQV 3V\FKRORJLFDO 5Hn SRUWV B 7KXUVWRQH / t &KDYH ( 7KH PHDVXUHPHQW RI DWWLWXGH &KLFDJR 8QLYHUVLW\ RI &KLFDJR 3UHVV 7RUJHUVRQ : 7KHRU\ DQG PHWKRGV RI VFDOLQJ 1HZ
PAGE 192

%,2*5$3+,&$/ 6.(7&+ *UHJRU\ + :LOPRWK ZDV ERUQ LQ /RXLVYLOOH .HQWXFN\ LQ +H DWWHQGHG 5RPDQ &DWKROLF VFKRROV LQ (OL]DEHWKn WRZQ .HQWXFN\ JUDGXDWLQJ IURP (OL]DEHWKWRZQ &DWKROLF +LJK 6FKRRO LQ +H UHFHLYHG DQ $$ GHJUHH IURP (OL]DEHWKWRZQ &RPPXQLW\ &ROOHJH EHIRUH UHFHLYLQJ KLV %$ GHJUHH PDMRULQJ LQ DQWKURSRORJ\ IURP WKH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI .HQWXFN\ LQ ,Q KH ZDV DZDUGHG DQ 0$ GHJUHH LQ DQWKURSRORJ\ IURP WKH 6WDWH 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 1HZ
PAGE 193

:KLOH VWXG\LQJ VRFLDO SV\FKRORJ\ DW )ORULGD *UHJ ZDV DZDUGHG DQ 1,0+ WUDLQLQJ JUDQW DQG ODWHU VHUYHG DV SURMHFW FRRUGLQDWRU IRU D )ORULGD PHQWDO KHDOWK JUDQW +H DOVR FRPSOHWHG DQ LQWHUQVKLS LQ DSSOLHG HQYLURQPHQWDO SV\FKRORJ\ ZLWK WKH (QYLURQPHQWDO 5HVHDUFK DQG 'HYHORSPHQW )RXQGDWLRQ 7XFVRQ $UL]RQD 6ROLWDU\ KLNLQJ LQ WKH GHVHUWV FDQ\RQV DQG PRXQWDLQV RI WKH 6RXWKZHVW FRXQWHUEDODQFHG E\ LQWLPDF\ ZLWK IULHQGV QRXULVKHG *UHJnV LQWHUHVW LQ SULYDF\ +H LV SUHVHQWO\ $Vn VLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI (YDOXDWLRQ DQG $VVHVVPHQW DW WKH 8QLn YHUVLW\ RI 0DU\ODQG 8QLYHUVLW\ &ROOHJH

PAGE 194

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n n n &\ n n7F \  Y < L 0DUYLQ ( 6KDZ 3URIHVVRU RI 3V\FKRORJ\ FHUWLI\ WKDW KDYH UHDG WKLV VWXG\ DQG WKDW LQ P\ RSLQLRQ LW FRQIRUPV WR DFFHSWDEOH VWDQGDUGV RI VFKRODUO\ SUHVHQWDWLRQ DQG LV IXOO\ DGHTXDWH LQ VFRSH DQG TXDOLW\ DV D GLVVHUWDWLRQ IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ A? a?c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9 fn +HUQ£Q 9HUD $VVLVWDQW 3URIHVVRU RI 6RFLRORJ\

PAGE 195

7KLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ ZDV VXEPLWWHG WR WKH *UDGXDWH )DFXOW\ RI WKH 'HSDUWPHQW RI 3V\FKRORJ\ LQ WKH &ROOHJH RI /LEHUDO $UWV DQG 6FLHQFHV DQG WR WKH *UDGXDWH &RXQFLO DQG ZDV DFn FHSWHG DV SDUWLDO IXOILOOPHQW RI WKH UHJXLUHPHQWV IRU WKH GHJUHH RI 'RFWRU RI 3KLORVRSK\ $XJXVW 'HDQ *UDGXDWH 6FKRRO


119
category (Smith, Shoben & Rips, 1974) These dimensions
should be most salient to the individual when recalling
and describing the occasion. Other dimensions either idio
syncratic to a specific occasion or to the individual may
also be included in the subject's detailed description.
As such these idiosyncratic dimensions should not function
as stimuli which would discriminate systematically across
all occasions exemplifying a category of occasions. Thus
they would not appear as results of the MDS study.
The second quality of the experimental stimuli is
that these stimuli should cover a range from high to low
examplars of the eliciting category (i.e., privacy). This
insures that the underlying stimulus dimensions contained
in the experimental stimuli are easily discriminable by
subjects. Since the MDS similarity-dissimilarity task con
sists of making discriminations, a low range of values for
the experimental stimuli would result in truncated ratings
on the stimulus dimensions and a failure to identify the
underlying dimensions. This failure results from the fact
that the MDS least-squares algorhythms maximize the disper
sion range of similarity-dissimilarity scores. The greater
the range, the better the fit.
A variety of methods for achieving this second quality
of the experimental stimuli exists (see Schopler et al.,
1978; and Stockdale et al., 1978 for two such methods). The
research described in this proposal will attempt a new


168
031 My family has a condominium on the beach and one
weekend I felt like I had to get out of town so I
went over there. I really enjoyed being alone and
doing whatever I wanted whenever I wanted. I felt
very rested and unpressured. It gave me an energy
to get motivated again.
032 I always jog by myself. It gives me a time to re
lease built-up nervous energy. I do a lot of
thinking about myself and whatever situation is
going on in my life. I also jog at night because
I feel more alone inconspicuous.
033 My boyfriend and I recently broke-up and I have a
very good "heart-to-heart" talk with my best
friend. I was very upset so I called her about
midnight and I poured my problems to her. After
talking to her I felt much better because she was
understanding and I had faith that she would not
tell everybody. I had confidence and trust in her.
035 Looking at stars makes me feel private. I love to
look at stars and talk to God about my problems.
I'm not ultra-religious. I feel very peaceful be
cause I'm outside and I think about whatever is
bothering me. I have always done this and prob
ably will forever.
041 I was alone in my dorm room. I was very upset and
needed to be alone. There were other people in
the dorm that I could hear in the hall and music
in the courtyard. I had my own stereo on and the
shades down. It was at night which made me feel
even more private. It's like the darkness is a
blanket that separates you from the rest of the
world. That, along with the fact that there was
music other than my own playing and people in the
dorm, but they couldn't reach me, they were totally
apart from me, by my choice, made me feel private.
051 When I'm masturbating I feel private. In my opin
ion I not only express self acceptance but the fact
that I perform it makes me feel human. I derive
much pleasure from it and it does not reflect on
either failure or success on heterosexual activ
ities. I caress myself and feel no guilt. Maybe
by my attitude I should not hide it. But secrecy
is, perhaps, what adds to the pleasure. While
fondling, I sometimes fantasize about a certain
woman until I climax.


125
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very intimate. Being intimate means being alone
with another person. Describe . .
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very intimate. Being intimate means expressing
your thoughts, feelings, and actions to another
person. Describe . .
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very intimate. Being intimate means being alone
with another and expressing one's thoughts, feel
ings and actions to another. Describe . .
The booklets were assembled in such a fashion that the
order of types of privacy varied creating six different or
ders. This resulted in three booklets for each of the six
orders; two orders had an additional booklet accounting for
a total of twenty. The experimenter was uninformed about
the order of the booklets when distributing them to subjects.
Subjects were tested in groups. Subjects were given a
booklet with the following cover instructions:
Dimensions of Privacy Situations
DO NOT PLACE YOUR NAME OR ANY IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ON
THIS BOOKLET
This study is the first in a series of studies
to discover what types of situations lead people
to feel private. Please read carefully the in
structions at the top of each page. Please write
legibly and grammatically.
You will be anonymous and thus no one will be
able to associate your thoughts, feelings, and ex
periences with you individually.


47
The implicit notion that 'group seclusion' (Westin's
intimacy) is a facilitating condition for self-disclosure
intimacy has been supported by Holahan and Sleikin (1977).
When physical-environmental barriers were not available for
privacy, the psychological barrier of reserve became oper
ative as demonstrated by the reduced level of self-disclo
sure .
Altman (1975) theorizes that privacy is a dialectic
process; there is a shifting balance between social con
tact (penetration) and withdrawal (privacy). Self-disclo
sure operates as a dialectic process; "the best predictor
of the level of intimacy B will use in disclosing to A is
the level of intimacy with which A initiated the communica
tion" (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977, p. 106). The intimacy of
communication between members of a dyad tends to stabilize
at the level at which one member stops reciprocating the
level of intimacy (Altman & Taylor, 1973).
Research Related to Social-Normative Theories
Chaikin and Derlega (1974) and Derlega and Chaikin
(1977) have identified several norms current in American
society that regulate the amount and level of self-disclo
sure. These norms serve as one form of the institutional
ization of privacy. Such institutionalized privacy modes
are hypothesized to reflect and express the social structure
(power hierarchies). Not only are women expected to


Michael Conlin's humor, patience and programming expertise,
this dissertation would not now be complete.
Third, many deserve recognition for their valuable la
bor. Starr Silver, Jeff Elliott, Charles Green, Sonja
Peterson, Darlene Puckett, and Jill Schepler all served as
coders for one or more phases of the research. Mercedes
de los Santos, Yvette Garcia, and Greta Garrett ably con
ducted the experimental sessions. Karen Long typed the
rough draft. Lois Rudloff performed a miracle by typing
my disorganized, sporadic writings into a completed disser
tation within minimal time limits. Her patience, profes
sionalism, and friendliness greatly reduced my anxiety.
Fourth, my sincere thanks are extended to all those
students who endured the long and tedious experimental tasks.
Their conscientiousness underlies the quality of the data.
Fifth, my warmest thanks to especially to Karen Long
and Starr Silver. Without their concern, magnamity, and
emotional support, the months of labor on this dissertation
would have been desolate and hollow. Only I and they can
know their full contribution and my deep appreciation. Dr.
Lawrence Severy again deserves acknowledgement for his emo
tional support. I could not have been more fortunate in my
selection of Dr. Severy as chairman of my dissertation.
Finally but not least, I wish to acknowledge the dur
able understanding and material support of my parents, Leslie
and Eileen Wilmoth. Without them, I would never have reached
this goal.
in


98
Table 15.
Solitude MDS Dimensions Correlated
with Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Solutions
1
2
3
4
5
2
-.143
.379*
3
-.101
.141
.286
4
-.115
-.228
.214
.004
5
-.153
.190
-.300
-.010
-.040
*p>. 05


88
Only one attribute potentially defines the fifth di
mension. The attribute, "others understand how the actor
feels" (r=-.60, p=.09), is marginally significant when cor
related with dimension #5. This dimension is cautiously
interpreted as "Empathy."
Of the five dimensions, only the last one is margin
ally correlated (r=.60, p=.088) with the privacy scale
scores for the reserve situations. The perception of pri
vacy for situations in which people felt reserved increases
as the emotional empathy of the others present decreases.
A stepwise regression of all five dimensions onto the
privacy scale scores again reveals marginally significant
findings. Dimension #5 accounts for 36 percent of
the variance in privacy scores (F (2,8)=3.93, p-.088). The
inclusion of dimension #3 next increases the r-square to
.56 (F(2,8)=4.01, p=.078). The addition of dimension #1 is
the last inclusion to a stepwise regression which results
2
m a substantial increase in r-square (r =.70) and is still
marginally significant (F(2,8)=3.81, p=.09). Although
based on marginally significant findings, this result cau
tiously suggests that reserved situations are perceived as
more private as they are characterized by increasing emo
tional empathy from others, by the increasingly personal na
ture of the content of interaction, by the increasing ex
tent to which the content is not public knowledge, and by


106
Testing Multidimensional Models
Previous authors (Schooler et al., 1978 and Stockdale
et al., 1978) of multidimensional scaling studies have as
sumed that the dimensions derived were all related to the
phenomena under investigation. For example, Schopler et
al. (1978) chose a three-dimensional model (Familiarity,
Physical-Psychological, and Stress) to explain the subjec
tive experience of crowding. Without an independent mea
sure of the phenomena (whether crowding or privacy) being
studied, it is easy to assume and by post-hoc reasoning to
argue that every dimension of the solution is significantly
related to the phenomena.
It seems reasonable to argue that people discriminate
objects and situations along a multitude of dimensions, only
a few of which are pertinent to any particular judgment or
response. Thus a multidimensional solution may contain di
mensions both relevant and irrelevant to crowding or privacy.
By incorporating an independent measure of the depen
dent variable (subjective or perceived privacy) in the cur
rent methodology, this study is able to actually test the
relationship of the derived dimensions to felt privacy.
This test shows that a very salient dimension such as Famil
iarity is unrelated to experienced privacy. Another fre
quently cited (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) general dimension
(Pleasantness) also fails to be related to the dependent


132
into two piles as you did before. Please notify the ex
perimenter when you finish.
(Subject notifies experimenter.) Again I want to get
a finer measurement of privacy and like before I want you
to sort each of these two piles into two piles resulting
in four piles. (Experimenter places two sets of 'more'
and 'less' private cards in front of subject.) As before
please start with this 'more' private pile (experimenter
points to pile).
Privacy Scaling Results
The data from the scaling task were analysed to de
termine: (1) scale value, (2) item ambiguity, and (3)
gender differences by item. Each analysis is described
in turn.
Scale values can be computed in a number of ways (see
Torgerson, 1958), for the purposes of this study the mean
value of the graded-dichotomies scores served as the scale
value. These means were computed by the SAS UNIVARIATE
routine.
Thurstone and Chave's (1929) Q-value was chosen as
the most appropriate measure of item ambiguity. Q equals
the score distance between the score corresponding to the
seventy-fifth quartile and the score corresponding to the
twenty-fifth quartile. The SAS UNIVARIATE (Helwig & Coun
cil, 1979) routine provided this value.


84
The first dimension of the two-dimensional solution
is an anomaly. Although this dimension has the least dis
persion of actual scores from the computed dimension, no
attribute is significantly correlated with it. Two attri
butes are marginally significant in their correlation with
this dimension. The attributes are "the actor is self-re
vealing to other" (r=-.66, p=.054) and "the actor's feel
ings are due to self" (r=.59, p=.092). A cautious inter
pretation of this dimension is "Self-Disclosure." Subjects
discriminate situations which are reserved to the extent
that self-disclosure is present. Such an interpretation is
conceptually relevant to the construct "reserved." Appar
ently the level of self-disclosure occurring and the extent
to which the actor's feelings are due to internal motiva
tions are associated. The more inhibited the actor feels
about self-disclosing, the more the actor's feelings are due
to his/her own motivations and concerns. This interpreta
tion, albeit based on questionable statistical significance,
is conceptually reasonable.
Five attributes define the second dimension of the two
dimensional solution. In descending order of correlational
magnitude, they are (1) too many people for space avail
able (r=-.84, p=.005); (2) the actor is visible (r=-.81,
p=.008); (3) the actor feels claustrophobic (r=-.79, r=.01);
(4) others are too close to actor (r=-.71, p=.03); and (5)
too little privacy (r=-.70, p=.04). Four other attributes


Ill
Empathy, and Self-Disclosure (reserve) are hypothesized
to be lower-order dimensions of the Interpersonal Involve
ment dimension. Additional support comes from the finding
that the Interpersonal Involvement dimension and its hypoth
esized component dimensions are strong predictors of per
ceived privacy for intimacy, reserve, and overall privacy
situation. It is open to debate as to whether interpersonal
involvement determines privacy, whether privacy determines
interpersonal involvement, or whether both are aspects of
the same.
In Altman's theory, privacy exists when desired so
cial contact is low and when actual social interaction is
simultaneously low. When access to others is desired, how
ever, and achieved contact with others is unfulfilled, lone
liness rather than privacy is perceived and experienced.
This implies that both motivation and control are necessary
for the perception and feeling of privacy. Neither of
these components of Altman's theory receives strong support
from this study. First, the motivational element is as
sessed by only one item "the actor wants to escape." This
item is only marginally correlated with the first dimension
(Social Density) of the four-dimensional privacy solution.
Second, control does not emerge as a dimension in any solu
tion .
These findings suggest that perceived privacy is de
pendent upon neither the actor's motivation for privacy nor


163
response format used in the factor analysis study). The
response continuum ranged from "does not characterize at
all" to "completely characterizes." Subjects were in
structed for each defining attribute to respond to the
frame "how well does this characterize/describe the inci
dent or actor's feelings?" The last page of the booklet
repeated one privacy situation (#301) to provide a response
reliability estimate.
The order of the defining attributes was identical for
all pages and this order was randomly determined. The or
der of the privacy situations in the booklet was also ran
dom. In order to distribute either response set or response
fatigue effects equally across all experimental stimuli
(privacy situations), the booklet pages were progressively
staggered across the ten booklets. The first booklet began
with page one and continued through page forty while the
tenth booklet began with page thirty-six. Each booklet be
gan with a page four greater than the preceding booklet.
Subjects responded on computer-scored answer sheets. The
average time for task completion of forty items for each of
forty situations was three hours.
Reliability of Defining Attributes
An estimate of response reliability for defining at
tribute ratings was obtained by having subjects rate one


33
While territory is one strategy to attain privacy,
territoriality and privacy have different psychological
effects (Edney & Buda, 1976). Students preferred a situ
ation which was both in their territory and afforded pri
vacy for a wide range of activities: (1) personal activ
ities: taking care of personal business, personal hobby,
and writing a book about self; (2) work activities: study
ing, reading and creative writing; (3) basic biological
functions: sex and toilet-grooming; and (4) thinking about
anything and singing out loud. Territory without privacy
was more preferred for relaxation activities: watching TV,
'just relaxing-being yourself,' casual conversation with
one friend, and eating but not for relaxing after a hard
day. For drinking and 'doing something very different and
unconventional' subjects preferred no territory and no pri
vacy. Across all seventeen activities, a majority of peo
ple preferred territory without privacy indicating that peo
ple distinguish between privacy and territory.
Edney and Buda (1976) and Bower (1979) also found that
territory and privacy differentially affect attribution,
creativity, perception of the environment, and self-percep
tion. Subjects without privacy and those without territory
attributed their behavior more to the influence of others.
Bower (1979) was unable to replicate this finding for the
territory condition but did replicate the privacy effect on
attribution. Subjects in privacy but not territory scored


31
hypotheses, nine of them were confirmed. Only one relation
ship of thirty-seven non-predicted hypotheses was signif
icant .
The Need-for-Privacy Subscale (NPS) of McKechnie's
(1977) Environmental Response Inventory (ERI) is a gener
alized measure with no distinctive factors. The major
themes of the subscale are the need for physical isolation
from stimulation, need for freedom from distraction, and
dislike of neighboring. The only published scale reliabil
ity and validity information appears in the scale's manual
which is available only through purchase.
The Environmental Privacy Scale (EPS; Windley, 1973)
was developed to assess preferences to control access to
others by using features of the physical environment. The
reliability (item homogeneity) for this scale was intoler
ably low at .40 indicating high measurement error. Because
of this low reliability no validity data ware reported for
the EPS.
Research Related to Biological Theories
There is no directly relevant research on privacy ap
plicable to Halmos' (1953) bio-social need theory, Mehrabian
and Russell's (1974) semantic arousal mediation theory, or
Bechtel's (1977) ecological theory. Research is available
on territorial theories (Klopfer & Rubenstein, 1977; and
Pastalan, 1970b) and on adaptation theories (Hill, 1969; and
Marshall, 1972, 1974) of privacy.


24
conformity constrained behavior and constantly open to
sanction. Under these conditions, privacy is desired as
both an escape for personal expression and an escape from
the sanctions inherent with surveillance. In addition to
cumulative demands of multiple roles, the requirements of
some roles may conflict with the successful performance of
requirements for other roles. The stress engendered by
this role conflict can be reduced by keeping the incompat
ible roles separate which may be viewed as the form of se
lective, task privacy. Privacy will be also desired in
order to maintain the enactment of incompatible roles which
would not be able to be both enacted if one status system
knew of this dual, incompatible role enactment. In states
where a person may not be a member of the Communist party
and a teacher in the public schools, privacy functions to
conceal information about performing these incompatible
roles from those in the public education status system.
Kelvin (1973) presented a social psychological theory
of privacy as opposed to the strictly sociological theories
of Schwartz and Pastalan. Privacy is a subjective state,
it is perceived privacy (Kelvin, 1973). The perception of
privacy is a function of the potential vulnerability ex
pected in an immediate situation from the presence of
others. As this feeling of vulnerability increases, the
probability that one's actions are changed by the presence
of another increases and perceived privacy decreases.


105
privacy. The Shame dimension (#3) accounts for the
next largest percentage of variance. Finally, the Self-
Disclosure dimension raises predicted variance to 70
percent. Social Density which is hypothesized to be a
higher-order privacy dimension is not predictive of per
ceived reserve either individually or in combination with
the other dimensions.
The dimensions extracted for solitude are manifestly
unsuccessful in predicting perceived privacy. Both the un
stable, undefined dimensions and the truncated privacy scale
values for solitude may explain this failure.
The Interpersonal Involvement, higher-order dimension
is a strong predictor of perceived privacy over all types
of privacy. The primacy of this dimension to the explana
tion of privacy is further supported if the Personal-Im
personal, Self-Disclosure, and Empathy dimensions are con
sidered as lower-order dimensions of Interpersonal Involve
ment. These dimensions are the best predictors of per
ceived privacy for intimacy and reserve respectively.
Although the Social Density dimension occurs in both
the privacy and reserve solutions, it is not predictive of
reserve. Normativeness, however, is predictive of both per
ceived privacy and perceived intimacy.


89
Table 11.
Reserve Correlations with Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Solutions
Dimensions
1
2
3
4
5
2
111
-.130
3
.171
-.234
.251
4
.191
-.125
.198
.565
5
.369
.158
.464
-.051
. 600*
*p=.088


133
Gender differences of two types were investigated.
First, differences between the group mean values for males
and females for each item were analyzed. The SPSS T-TEST
(Nie, Jenkins, Steinbrenner & Bent, 1975) routine calcu
lated these group mean differences. Second, the group
variance by gender was analyzed for significant differ
ences using Hartley's (1950) F-max test.
The means on the privacy situations ranged from a low
of 1.55 to a high of 7.23. One and eight were the minimum
and maximum possible means respectively. The situation
with the highest scaled privacy was one in which the per
son was solitary while the lowest privacy situation was
one of reserve. The complete list of forty items chosen
for the MDS phase with their respective means and Q-values
are presented in Table 17. Table 18 compares the four types
of privacy situations across three scale ranges. Note
that only reserve and intimacy have means encompassing the
full range of scale values from low (three or below) to
high (six or above). No situation in which a person was
anonymous possessed a high scale value. Conversely, no
solitary situation had a score in the lower third scale
values.
Seventeen privacy situations had a Q-value of two or
less. Only one situation (reserve type) had a Q-value of
zero and that item had the overall lowest scale value.
Three situations had Q-values of one. The situation with


152
respond to one situation-by-attribute page twice. This re
liability page was the last page of the booklet. Subjects
were instructed not to look back to the original page.
A principal components factor analysis with Varimax ro
tation was performed on the rating data. Twelve factors
with an eigenvalue greater than .5 resulted. Only seven
factors, however, possessed items loading above the pre
selected inclusion value of .5. Thirty-three items loaded
on the first factor at .5 or above. These items were not
clearly interpretable as a single factor and were subjected
to a subsequent factor analysis to better reveal their fac
tor structure. This secondary analysis is reported follow
ing the presentation of the results for the remaining six
factors in the initial factor solution.
The second factor was represented by thirteen items
(see Table 23). This factor seems best interpreted as simul
taneously "crowded" and "public," A further interpretation
of this factor suggests that it includes the notion of sec
ondary (Gesellshaft) relationships. This interpretation is
supported by the items: "the situation is impersonal" and
"feel emotionally involved (a negative loading)."
Solitude, one of Westin's (1967) privacy types, seems
to best encompass the items loading on the third factor.
Both physical and visual separation from others compose
both this factor and the conditions of solitude. This fac
tor was, therefore, labeled "Solitude and Separation."


121
predicted dimension and may respond on the basis of stim
ulus dimensions contained within the described situation
other than that upon which the experimenter chose that
situation. Subsequently this requires another phase of
research to identify and label the stimulus dimension ac
tually used by subjects when they responded.
It is finally at this stimulus dimension identifica
tion phase that the experimenter can test his/her predic
tions. The experimenter does this by selecting a set of
words and phrases which he/she believes characterizes the
predicted stimulus dimensions. In the case of privacy a
set of one hundred words and phrases potentially descrip
tive of the nine theories earlier enumerated (see page 54)
were selected from a review of the privacy and crowding
literature (see Table 21). To have subjects rate all ex
perimental stimuli on these one hundred descriptors would
be prohibitive. A pilot study to reduce this large set to
a more manageable set by factor analysis was performed
(see Appendix D for details).
Subjects are now directly evaluating the described
situation (experimental stimuli) on variables (words and
phrases) reflecting the experimenter's predictions. The
adequacy of these results of this phase and the prior phase
of research are contingent upon the experimenter's compre
hensiveness in predicting all relevant theoretical variables.
The omission of a pertinent variable in either of these


Table 25.
Defining Attributes Used in Previous Crowding MDS Research
Study
I tern
#** Schopler et al.*
Item }
t Stockdale et al.*
36
feelings due to self
people in my way
25
feelings due to situation
19
too many people for space
pleasant
7
people too close
18
familiar
cope with too many people
high physical density
40
feel claustrophobic
31
distressed
other's actions intentional
37
too much going on
have to fight for what wanted
35
feel like outsider
4
want to escape
21
feel in control of events
do not feel free to choose
33
others interfere and block actor
27
helpless
29
feelings due to others
28
too little privacy
confronted with too many inputs
few people present
22
anxious
hostile
34
largely psychological factors
stress
9
largely physical factors
feelings unique, not shared
38
angry
do not feel I belong
do not feel involved
crowded
*References: Schopler, J., Rusbult, C. & McCallum, R. Conceptual dimensions of crowd
ing: A North Carolina Study. Journal of Population, 1978, 1, 231-238; and Stockdale,
J., Wittman, L., Jones, L. & Greaves D. Conceptual dimensions of crowding: A London
(England) study. Journal of Population, 1978, 1, 239-251.
**Indicates the item number in the final forty defining attributes used in Phase 3; no num
ber means that the item was not included in Phase 3.
161


65
No attribute is significantly or marginally correlated
with the second dimension of the four-dimensional solution.
The attribute defining the second dimension of the two-di
mensional solution is only correlated r=.05 with this dimen
sion. This dimension is uninterpretable and thus unlabeled.
The nine attributes defining the third dimension indi
cate that it is a complex one. In order of correlational
magnitude, the nine are: (1) no one knows the actor, anon
ymous (#12, r+.50, p=.001); (2) the actor is visible (#16,
r=-.45, p=.004); (3) the actor is self-revealing (#22, r=
-.44, p=.005); (4) the actor is solitary (#30, 4=-.45, p=
.004); (5) another knows the actor's thoughts and feelings
(#6, r=-.41, p=.008); (6) the actor's feelings are caused
by the presence of others (#29, r=-.41, p=.03); (7) the
actor trusts others present (#20, r=-.34, p=.03); (8)
others understand how the actor feels (#15, r=-.33, p=.04);
and (9) the actor is free to be self (#10, 4=.32, p=.04).
The attribute "the actor is careful about what they say"
(#13, r=.27, p=.09) is marginally significant. A single
rubric which encompasses all of these attributes is not
immediately obvious.
"Privacy" suggests itself as one candidate. One end
of this dimension is anchored by two types of privacy,
i.e., anonymity and solitude. The other end, however, is
marked by two attributes (self-revealing and being care
ful about what is said) which are frequently believed to cre
ate two other types of privacy, i.e., intimacy and reserve


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Privacy has been proposed as the core, integrating
construct in environmental psychology by Altman (1975).
The class of proxemic behaviors including personal space,
interpersonal distance, immediacy, territoriality, social
density, and crowding are all explained using this construct.
Beyond proxemic behaviors, Kelvin (1973) contends that
privacy is a basic state relevant to an understanding of so
cial behavior in general and crucial to social psychological
theory overall. The sociologists Georg Simmel (1957),
Erving Goffman (1959, 1963) and Barry Schwartz (1968), all
conceptualize privacy as the inherent, counterpattern to so
cial interaction. The 'right to privacy' which is consid
ered a fundamental value to democracy is an increasingly
addressed topic in political science and is a focal concern
among those studying the socio-political impact of informa
tion technologies (Packard, 1964; Miller, 1971; Rule,
McAdam, Stearns & Uglow, 1980; and Westin, 1967).
In spite of privacy's central position in Altman's
(1974, 1975, 1976) conceptualization of the environment and
social behavior, and its importance within sociology and po
litical science, there is remarkably little agreement on the
definition of privacy and little research on its
1


60
subject received a booklet containing 41 pages, each of
which contained a privacy situation and listed 40 rele
vant qualities on which to be rated. (See Appendix D for
the selection of the forty qualities.) These qualities
reflected hypotheses about the dimensions of subjective
privacy. Subjects were instructed to rate the situation
and the actors on a ten-point scale and to record their
responses on computer-scored answer sheets. Both the or
der of qualities and situations were randomly determined.
The presentation order of the privacy situations was pro
gressively staggered over the ten booklets such that fa
tigue effects were distributed equally over all 40 exper
imental stimuli (see Appendix D). One experimental stim
ulus was repeated at the end of the booklet to provide a
response reliability estimate (see Appendix D).


177
Goffman, E. Behavior in public places: Notes on the so
cial organization of gatherings. Glencoe, II.: TEe
Free Press, 1963.
Goodstein, L. & Reinecker, V. Factors affecting self-dis
closure: A review of the literature. In B.A. Maher
(Ed.), Progress in experimental personality research,
vol. 7. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Gorsuch, R. Factor analysis. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders,
1974.
Gynther, Malcolm. MMPI items for invasion of privacy stud
ies. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1972, 28^, 76-77.
Halmos, Paul. Solitude and privacy: A study of social
isolation, its causes and therapy. New York: Philo
sophical Library, 1953.
Harman, E. & Betak, J. Some preliminary findings on the
cognitive meaning of external privacy in housing. In
Daniel Carson (Ed.), Man-environment interactions:
Evaluations and applications. Part III (11). Strouds
burg Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Hartley, H.P. The maximum F-ratio as a short-cut test for
heterogeneity of variance. Biometrika, 1950, 37, 308-
312.
Helson, H. Adaptation level theory. New York: Harper &
Row, 1964 .
Helwig, J. & Council, K. (Eds.). SAS User's Guide.
Raleigh, N.C.: SAS Instituted 1979.
Henley, Nancy. Status and sex: Some touching observations.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2^, 91-93.
Henley, Nancy. Power, sex, and nonverbal communication.
Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 1973-74, 18, 1-26.
Hill, Adrian. Visibility and privacy. In D.B. Canter (Ed.), Archi-
tectural psychology. London: RIBA Publications, 1969.
Holahan, C.J. Environment and behavior: A dynamic perspec
tive New York: Plenum Press, 1978.
Holahan, C. & Slaiken, K. Effects of contrasting degrees of
privacy on client self-disclosure in a counseling set
ting. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1977, 2£ 55-59.
Ittelson, W., Proshansky, H. & Rivlin, L. Bedroom size and
social interaction of the psychiatric ward. Environ-
ment and Behavior, 1970, 2, 255-270.


126
Subjects' privacy was further insured by allowing them
to place their completed booklets in a box in the back of
the room, reshuffling the order of booklets if they so de
sired. The booklets were then kept secure and confidential.
Coding of Privacy Situations
The frequency with which situations characterized by
the four different types of privacy were emitted in both
studies was determined by three trained coders. The prin
ciple investigator and two additional social psychology
graduate students served as coders. The two graduate stu
dents were selected and trained by the experimenter. Train
ing consisted of: (1) exposure to Westin's (1967) defini
tions of the four privacy types, (2) clarification and dis
crimination of the definitions, and (3) practice in apply
ing the definitions to situations. Only those descriptions
were used in the future stages of research on which all
three judges assigned the same code.
Intercoder Reliability
All three coders agreed in their privacy type coding
for fifty-five of the eighty-four open-ended-elicited pri
vacy stories (65.5 percent). Two of the three coders
agreed on twenty-five additional privacy stories (30 per
cent) On only four (4.5 percent) of the stories did none
of the judges agree. Out of a total of 252 pairs of


155
Table 23--continued.
Factor 6 EMPATHIC SITUATION
.61
.57
.52
others understand how actor
feels
feelings shared by others
Factor 7 SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS
attention focused on self
*Items loading on this factor were subjected to a subse
quent factor analysis to clarify the interpretation of
this factor (see Table 23).


53
components or structure) of the domain in which privacy is
an element is changing. An explanation of subjective pri
vacy, therefore, will require some theory of learning to
account for these semantic changes. Wolfe and Laufer (1974)
conclude that the complexity of the meaning of privacy in
creases with age thus indicating that the environmental
stimuli eliciting the emotional state associated with the
cognitive-linguistic category 'privacy' become more diverse.
What are the dimensions underlying these diverse, complex
stimuli which elicit the feeling of privacy? What explains
variations in these underlying dimensions across age and
cultures?
A program of research on subjective privacy should con
sist of explorations into meaning such as that by Wolfe and
Laufer (1974) and multi-dimensional analysis of situations
to identify the dimensions underlying privacy across a wide
range of environmental (both physical, social, and conative)
contingencies. Research should also be directed toward the
role of socialization (learning) on the meaning of privacy.
Parke and Sawin (1979) have examined privacy behaviors in
light of socialization practices but have not yet addressed
the differences in meaning that privacy takes on under these
varying types of socialization. Both the referents of
linguistic categories and the experiencing of emotions are
largely consensual within a social group or culture. One
manifestation of this consensus is the presence of norms.


122
final two phases will result in an undetermined solution;
that is, a variable (stimulus dimension) actually contrib
uting to the experiencing and perception of privacy will
be neglected and thus the phenomenon of privacy incom
pletely understood.
With judicious concern for methodological and theo
retical issues at all stages of MDS research, MDS research
can significantly contribute to the understanding of psy
chological processes like privacy. The relevant methodo
logical issues are addressed in Appendices B, C and D.


74
Table 5.
Intimacy MDS Results
Dimension
Stress
RSQ
1
.441
.573
2
.265
.702
3
.211
.763
4
.149
.858
5
.106
.917


CHAPTER III
RESULTS
The ranking data collected in Phase 2 were analyzed
with SAS-ALSCAL (Young & Lewyckyj, 1979). The following
parameters guided the analysis: (1) the measurement lev
el of the data were ordinal since a ranking task was used;
(2) the data were dissimilarity as opposed to similarity
in type; (3) the data v,ere row conditional; and (4) the
data were asymmetric in the sense that not all possible
comparisons of stimuli were performed. Row conditional
data obtain when the experimental stimuli are ranked
against target stimuli. The meaning of rank values var
ies for each standard target stimulus against which an
item is compared. The characteristics of the observations
are conditional on some aspect of the experimental proce
dure (the targets) in such a way that some observations
cannot be meaningfully compared with other observations.
Since multidimensional scaling is primarily an ex
ploratory analysis, a triangulation approach was used for
analyzing and interpreting the data. Although ALSCAL pro
vides for each dimensional solution a measure of goodness
of fit (stress) and the amount of variance accounted for,
there is no statistical criterion which signals which di
mensional solution is the best or appropriate one. Two
61


110
behavior is shameful" (r=-.75), "the situation is public"
(r=-.69), and "the situation is impersonal" (r=-.67).
Shame and normativeness are not, therefore, inherently
related. For privacy and intimacy the dimension in ques
tion appears to be best defined as "Normativeness." Fear
of exposure and shame also define this dimension for inti
macy. The reserve results more clearly indicate that the
relevant dimension is more aligned with Schneider's (1977)
shame and fear of exposure theory. The low end of this
dimension characterizes a situation which is public, imper
sonal and shameful. This fits the interpretation that to
expose certain information or behavior is shameful and de
personalizing. More research is needed to further explore
the relation of normativeness and shame to each other and
to privacy and its types.
The results provide mixed support for Altman's (1975)
interpersonal theory of privacy. Altman views privacy as
the quintessential self-other interpersonal boundary-regu
latory process. For Altman, privacy is a shifting balance
between being accessible to others (social penetration)
and being closed to others (privacy). The Interpersonal
Involvement dimension closely approximates this conceptual
ization. This higher order dimension is defined by both
complete social withdrawal (solitude) and by a number (#6,
#15, #20, #29 and #32) of interpersonal interaction attri
butes. Three dimensions, Personal-Impersonal (intimacy),


80
Table 7.
Intimacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Privacy Scale Value
Dimensional
Solution
Dimension
1
2
3
4
5
2
-.747*
.230
3
. 725*
.177
-.254
4
.770*
.088
-.234
.464
5
.770*
.085
-.197
.157
.350
*p<. 05


85
are marginally significant; they are (1) actor is soli
tary (r=.66, p=.051); (2) others interfere with or block
the actor (r=-.66, p=.053); (3) the actor feels anxious
(r=-.66, p=.053); and (4) crowded (r=.61, p=.08). Overall,
four attributes (#19, 40, 7, and 38) suggest that this di
mension primarily represents a continuum of social density.
Another attribute (#33) has been hypothesized to be a cause
of feeling crowded. Visibility is closely associated with
this dimension and thus with crowding. Further related to
this dimension is inadequate privacy. Based on the prepon
derance of attributes denoting and implying crowding, this
dimension is labeled ''Social Density."
For the five-dimensional solution, only the "actor is
self-revealing" attribute is marginally correlated (r=-.60,
p=.09) with the first dimension. The cautious interpreta
tion of this dimension as "Self-Disclosure" is maintained.
The second dimension of the five-dimensional solution
is defined by nine attributes (#19, 28, 40, 22, 33, 29, 16,
38, and 7). Items #19, 28, 40, 22, 33, 16, 38, and 7(see
Table 10) are identical to those for the two dimensional
solution. The new attribute which is added to the defini
tion of this dimension is "the actor's feelings are caused
by the presence of others" (r=.70, p=.04). This does not
change the original interpretation and labeling of this di
mension as "Social Density." It does suggest that as crowd
ing increases the actor's emotions are more related to the
presence of others.


My sincerest apologies to anyone whom I have forgotten
to acknowledge.
IV


174
042
083
124
just letting ray thoughts wander as I enjoyed the
beautiful day. I felt as though I had no prob
lems or worries and no pressure. I was alone with
nature and no one was hassling me.
When I was eight or nine years old my brother
locked me in a suitcase and carried me around the
house. When I got out I was crying my balls off.
I was angry.
I was riding on a bus. There seemed to be no pos
sible way to fit any more people on, but people
just kept piling on. I felt like a sardine. My
largest worry being how I was ever going to get
out at my stop. It had been extremely cold out
side but on the bus with the several people it be
came very uncomfortable and hot. When I had gotten
a seat it made the trip a little more bearable,
but it still was uncomfortable.
I perform on stage and often have to change cos
tumes in small quarters with many other girls and
this doesn't bother me.


130
You will all begin at the same time when I give you
the card decks. Since each of you reads and makes deci
sions at different rates, I will be working with each of
you individually from this point until the end of the ses
sion .
The first thing you are to do is to read through all
of the situations to become familiar with the many differ
ent types of situations in which people feel private. Do
not sort the cards into any order. When you are finished
reading the situations, notify the experimenter and I will
instruct you for the next step.
(Subject notifies experimenter.) Now that you have
read all of the situations, I want you to reread each sit
uation and decide whether it is a 'most private' or 'least
private' situation with regard to the provided situations.
(Experimenter places two cards with these labels on the
table in front of the subject.) You are to make this de
cision not on how you would feel in that situation, not
even on how the person who wrote the situation felt but
as you believe most people would feel in this situation.
You can have any number of cards in either pile, they do
not have to be equal. I cannot tell you what private is,
that is up to you to decide. When you have completed this
sorting notify the experimenter.
(Subject notifies experimenter.) For this next step
you will be working only with the 'most private' pile, I


5 0
and those from urban areas were more concerned about ques
tions delving into family background. In a rural setting
one's family background is already public knowledge.
Privacy norms function to protect those behaviors pro
scribed to private performance (Kelvin, 1973). The two con
tent areas of the MMPI with the most items judged as intrud
ing on privacy were those dealing with sex and elimination
processes (Gynther, 1972).
No research was found bearing on Pastalan's (1970b)
theory of role complexity, role incompatibility, and pri
vacy. Neither has research been conducted to test Bechtel'
(1977) privacy theory which is derived from ecological psy
chology .
Research on Functional Theories of Privacy
While the social-normative theories focus on the ef
fects of power on privacy, the functional theories empha
size the control nature of privacy. Privacy functions to
facilitate freedom of choice and to reduce social con
straints on behavior. The only reported research relevant
to these issues investigated cognitive and emotional dimen
sions of control.
The meanings 'controlling access to information' and
'doing what you want without being bothered' were salient
for all age groups from five to seventeen (Wolfe & Laufer,
1974), while 'controlling spaces' was salient for all those
above age six. Control over information and over spaces


91
decreasing self-disclosure. While this is suggestive at
best, these findings are consistent with various theories
of privacy.
Multidimensional Solitude Results
The one through six dimensional stress and r-square
values are presented in Table 13. The addition of the
fourth dimension results in a small decrease in stress thus
the three dimensional solution is considered the most accu
rate and parsimonious. This decision is partially sup
ported by the defining attribute analysis. An examination
of the attributes highly correlating with each dimension
for the three, four, and five dimensional solutions reveals
that only those for the first dimension in each analysis
are similar. Given the unstable nature of these relation
ships, it seems that three dimensions is the maximum reli
able .
A total of sixteen attributes define the first dimen
sion of the three-dimensional solution. Four of the six
attributes with the highest correlations with this dimen
sion concern the actor's affect. These attributes are
(1) the situation is comfortable (r=-.76, p-.0001); (2) the
actor feels distressed (r=.69, p=.0008); (3) the actor feels
helpless (r=.68, p=.001); and (4) the actor feels anxious
(r=.62, p=.003). One aspect of this dimension along which


63
Table 1.
Privacy MDS Results
Dimension
Stress
RSQ
1
.516
.196
2
.394
.244
3
.320
.308
4
.264
.368
5
.223
.425
6
.192
.480


135
Table 18.
Comparison of Privacy Types by Tripartite Scale Values
Privacy Type
Scale Value
Low
0-2.99
Mid
3-5.99
High
6-8
Intimacy
2.83*
4.10
6.98*
Reserve
1.55*
4.08
6.40*
Anonymous
1.90*
4.63*
Solitary
3.43*
7.23*
Note: Based on scale values for privacy situations with a
Q-value of 4 or less.
* Represents the extreme high or low scale value for
that type of privacy.


176
Bowers, John. Privacy, territoriality, personal space, and
personality. In The behavioral basis of design: Se
lected papers of EDRA 10. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, 1979.
Chaikin, A. & Deriega, V. Variables affecting the appro
priateness of self-disclosure. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 1974 4T~, 588-93.
Cherry, Colin. On human communication: A review, a survey,
and a criticism. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1966.
Cozby, Paul. Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 1973 7_9, 73-91.
Deriega, V. & Chaikin, A. Norms affecting self-disclosure
in men and women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1976, 44, 376-380.
Deriega, V. & Chaikin, A. Privacy and self-disclosure in
social relationships. Journal of Social Issues, 1977,
33, 102-116.
Duncan, Birt. What do you say to a naked stranger: The
effects of privacy, personal space intrusion on escape
and helping. In P. Suedfeld, J. Russell, L. Ward, F.
Szigeti & G. Davis (Eds.), The behavioral basis of de-
sign, selected papers of EDRA 7: Proceedings of the
7th Annual Environmental Design Research Association
Conference. vol. 2~. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutch-
mson & Ross, 1977.
Edney, J. & Buda, M. Distinguishing territoriality and pri
vacy: Two studies. Human Ecology, 1976 4^, 283-96.
Esser, A. Discussion of papers presented in the symposium.
Environment and Behavior, 1976, ¡3, 117-124.
Fischer, Constance. Toward the structure of privacy: Im
plications for psychological assessment. In A. Giorgi,
W. Fischer, and R. von Eckartsberg (Eds.), Duquesne
studies in phenomenological psychology, vol^ T~. PTtts-
burg: Duquesne University Press, 1971.
Flaherty, David. Privacy in colonial New England. Char
lottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia, 1972.
Goffman, E. Asylums. Chicago: Aldine Press, 1959.


107
variable of perceived privacy. Future multidimensional
scaling research would be enhanced by this methodological
improvement.
Comparison of Results to Privacy Theories
While this research is not a test of alternative the
ories of privacy, it does provide some evidence which can
be pertinent to these theories. Bennett (1967), Jourard
(1966), and Westin (1967) emphasize the central role of con
trolled communication in privacy. The two attributes most
related to this view are "the actor is self-revealing" and
"the actor is careful about what they say." These two at
tributes and a number of others (#6, #12 and #15) which con
cern having information about the actor are definitive of
the higher-order Interpersonal Involvement dimension. The
Personal-Impersonal and Self-Disclosure lower-order dimen
sions also contain aspects of this communication emphasis.
The current analysis does not answer, however, whether pri
vacy is a consequence of changes in communication or changes
in communication accompany changes in interpersonal involve
ment which results in changed levels of privacy. Regardless,
various communication aspects seem significantly related to
experienced privacy. The present findings give support to
a communication theory of privacy.


109
Normativeness dimension is both a higher-order dimension
and is significantly predictive of the perception of privacy.
Future research along these lines promises to be profitable.
In contrast to Kelvin's social-normative theory,
Schneider (1977) proposes that shame is the basis of pri
vacy. Rather than privacy existing to protect behaviors
prohibited or constrained by norms, privacy as a consequence
of shame functions to protect the individual's integrity,
and to avoid depersonalization. Shame may arise from the
dread of having a personally (although not necessarily so
cially) disvalued or undesirable quality exposed. Schneider
further contends that the meaning of some behaviors qual
itatively changes with public display. An intimate sexual
act in privacy is threatened by depersonalization when ex
posed .
In light of Schneider's (1977) shame theory, the dimen
sion labeled "normativeness" may also be interpreted as
"Fear of Exposure" instead. One item (the actor's behavior
is against the rules) was chosen to represent "Normative
ness" and one item (the actor's behavior is shameful) to
represent shame. These two items form varying combinations
when defining dimensions. For the privacy results, only
the item "the actor's behavior is against the rules" de
fines the dimension. The sname and normativeness items to
gether define one of the intimacy dimensions. One of the
reserve dimensions is defined by three items (the actor's


49
that places one in a position of vulnerability is deter
mined by norms and the reference group in which one is
functioning. Anxiety accompanies the perception of vulner
ability .
Self-disclosure is much less in those content areas
that provoke anxiety (Derlega & Chaikin, 1977). Altman and
Taylor (1973) found evidence that personal characteristics
negatively valued by the self and those socially forbidden
by one's reference groups were scaled as more intimate.
These attributes were also perceived as having higher costs
(vulnerability). One of five factors found for questions
judged to be sensitive to privacy invasion was 'social ad
justment' (Rosenbaum, 1973). Items of this factor dealt
with negatively valued personal characteristics such as
drug and alcohol use, and psychiatric history. Those groups
lower in the social structure (women, younger respondents,
the less educated, and those with lower income) were more
sensitive to questions about social adjustment.
Questions inquiring about finances and family back
ground (including religion and race) were rated as the
most vulnerable to privacy invasion (Rosenbaum, 1973). Re
ligion was also an objectional content area in MMPI ques
tions (Gynther, 1972). Dominant groups (males and those
with more income) were more sensitive to financial questions.
An exception to this result was that lower educated persons
rated these items as more private. Only the less educated


23
splintering the group. Second, privacy allows for the so
cial withdrawal from the group necessary to prevent the hos
tility which is likely to arise from too much group inti
macy (Schwartz, 1968).
Role performance is public performance with its con
comitant surveillance thereby enforcing conformity. This
constant conformity restricts the expression of individual
differences and in turn suppresses the individual's iden
tity. Privacy provides an institutionalized outlet for en
actment of non-role behavior and helps prevent "the ego
from identifying itself too closely with or loosing itself
in (public) roles" (Schwartz, 1968, p. 752).
Finally, privacy is institutionalized in architecture.
Spaces must be included for prescribed private behavior
(bathrooms) and the privileged privacy connected with stat
us must be provided and constructed to symbolize status.
Pastalan (1970b), unlike Schwartz, specifically fo
cused on role theory model for desired privacy. As members
of a society, individuals occupy a number of roles in the
social order. Characteristics of one's role complex act
as contingencies conducive to eliciting desires for privacy
The cumulative demands of multiple roles may be stress pro
ducing, privacy in the form of solitariness may be desired
to escape from this stress and to recuperate mental, emo
tional, and physical energies. Role behavior is both pre
scribed behavior and public behavior; therefore, it is


APPENDIX B
COLLECTION AND SELECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
STIMULI
In order to collect a representative sample of situa
tions in which college students felt private, seventeen
undergraduate students (eight males and nine females) com
pleted a booklet provided by the experimenter. Each of
five pages instructed the subject to: "Please think of a
time in your life when you felt very private. Describe the
incident you have in mind, and your feelings at the time,
in as much detail as possible." These instructions are
identical to those used by Schopler et al. (1978) except
for the substitution of the word 'private' for 'crowded.'
A total of eighty-four usable stories were obtained. A
usable story was one which was grammatically intelligible.
This procedure is considered preferable to one in
which one hundred students each provide one situation in
which they felt private. The preference is based on the
assumption that the prior procedure will result in situa
tions covering a greater range of experienced privacy.
Giving only one privacy situation may elicit only the most
salient and thus only the most extreme high privacy situa
tions and few if any low ones. A wide range of experienced
privacy is required for the construction of the MDS stimulus
set.
123


25
Privacy is an aspect of a relationship; it is the negation
of potential power relations between self and others.
The major source of another's power is a result of
norms, the presence of norms legitimizes another's negative
sanctioning of our behavior through criticism, rebuke, rid
icule, etc. Specific norms prescribing privacy function to
protect an individual's independence in situations in which
the person would be vulnerable by another's surveillance.
These privacy norms are higher-order norms which counter
mand other norms. It is these other norms which create the
vulnerability. Since norms constrain behavior choices
through their prescriptions and proscriptions, privacy norms
provide freedom of choice in these countermanded, protected
behavioral content areas. Privacy norms constrain the lim
iting power of social norms. Ambiguity arises from this
normative conflict which in turn creates intrapsychic anx
iety which is a source of the desire for privacy.
Kelvin (1973) postulates that privacy norms arise in
those areas of behavior which are in transition from rigid
normative control to public permissiveness. In situations
of permissiveness our independence is not vulnerable to
others' socially sanctioned power. Changes in technology,
social organization, standard of living, etc. effect atti
tudes toward norms and permissiveness.


78
to others (r=.77, p=.02); (4) the situation is public
(r=-.76, p=.02); (5) the situation is largely psychological
(r=.71, p=.03); (6) the actor feels comfortable (r=.70,
p=.04); and (7) others understand how the actor feels
(r=.67, p=.05). The only change in the first dimension
between the two and four-dimensional solutions is the ad
dition of the attribute "the situation is public. This
attribute is marginally (p=.052) significant for the two-
dimensional solution. The more impersonal the situation,
the more public it is. The interpretation of this dimen
sion remains the same, "Personal-Impersonal."
The second dimension of the four-dimensional solution
is identical to that for the two-dimensional solution ex
cept that the magnitudes of the significant correlations is
reduced. The "familiarity" attribute remains the most prom
inent, defining one.
No attribute is significantly correlated with the
third of the four dimensions. The attribute (the situation
is public r=.47, p=.2) with the highest correlation on
this dimension is significantly correlated with the first
dimension. No interpretation is possible of this dimension.
This finding potentially argues for a two-dimensional solu
tion as most parsimonious to the data.
The fourth dimension is, however, defined by two at
tributes which are significantly correlated with it. Both
attributes concern the actor's behavior; one evaluates it


35
opportunities: (1) more persons per room, (2) less ade
quate insulation between noisy and quiet activities in the
home, (3) more able to overhear neighbors, (4) and more
houses visible from the living room windows. Those who per
ceived their homes as sufficiently private had more actual
insulation between noisy and quiet activities, had fewer
houses visible from their living room windows, and lived
further away from neighbors. People increased the use of
drapes drawn closed during the day as their perceived pri
vacy from neighbors decreased (Marshall, 1972). Contrary
to the adaptation hypothesis of perceived privacy, per
ceived privacy from neighbors increased as reported noise
from traffic and from neighbors increased (Marshall, 1972).
Pastalan (1974) reported that PPS scores decreased
for nursing home residents who moved to a new nursing home
which provided more actual opportunities for privacy (pri
vate rooms). Those patients reporting having a successful
strategy for attaining privacy had lower preferences for
solitude. The desire for Intimacy (PPS subscale) was most
clearly related to changes in actual levels of privacy.
The preference for reserve (PPS subscale), however, was not
related to changes in actual reserve.
Results reported by Lawton and Bader (1970) attenuate
Hill's adaptation hypothesis. Regardless of actual privacy
opportunities, the preference for privacy increases with
age and socio-economic status.


83
Table 9.
Reserve MDS Results
Dimension
Stress
RSQ
1
.454
.439
2
.292
.617
3
.210
.742
4
.151
.841
5
.111
905


43
seventeen (a ceiling effect possibly for this latter group?)
closed the bathroom door. Family density was curvilinearly
related to both sibling access restriction to bathrooms and
parental knocking on bathroom doors. Both these behaviors
were high in low and high density homes.
A number of maternal socialization practices impacted
on children's privacy and children's privacy behaviors.
Restrictive and coercive mothers exercise more control over
their children's privacy habits. Children's bedroom doors
were kept open more during recreational periods and while
entertaining friends in homes where the mothers were more
protective, imposed more restrictive regulations, clar
ified and enforced household rules more, and made more co
ercive suggestions. Children of such mothers sought more
privacy as indicated by keeping the bathroom door closed
more.
Affectionate and approving mothers permit more private
behaviors by their children and have children who seek less
privacy. Children of mothers who were more affectionate
and more approving in their critical appraisals kept the
bathroom open more v/hile grooming and dressing (Parke &
Sawin, 1979) .
Developmental changes in privacy continue beyond child
hood and adolescence. Relationships and families also move
through a developmental cycle. Unmarried co-residing cou
ples exercise different privacy behaviors than similar


Page
CHAPTER
IV DISCUSSION 101
Comparison of Dimensions Across Types of
Privacy 101
Dimensions Predictive of Perceived
Privacy 104
Testing Multidimensional Models 106
Comparison of Results to Privacy
Theories 107
Toward a Multidimensional Model of
Privacy 112
APPENDIX
A CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATION OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING 116
B COLLECTION AND SELECTION OF EXPERIMENTAL
STIMULI 123
C SELECTION OF THE MDS TARGET STIMULI . 138
D SELECTION OF DEFINING ATTRIBUTES AND
DEFINING ATTRIBUTE PROCEDURE 147
E EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI 167
REFERENCES 175
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 183
Vi


129
people would feel. This procedure was followed because
males might have difficulty appropriately responding if
they were instructed to respond "as you would feel." Sec
ond, the 'most' and 'more' pile label cards were always
placed facing the subjects' left-hand side. Finally, in
each subsequent sorting, subjects were instructed to start
with the 'most' and 'more' piles first.
Twenty males and twenty females performed the scaling
task. Task completion was in same-sex groups of five with
each subject working at a separate table. Subjects were
informed that the sorting task they were to complete would
provide a measure of how much privacy existed in each sit
uation. Each situation was typed on a 4"x6" card. Before
each session the deck of stimulus cards was shuffled by
the experimenter in a random manner. Preceding the dis
tribution of the stimulus deck to subjects, they were read
the following instructions:
I am interested in identifying what causes people to
feel private. Before I can accomplish this, I first must
be able to measure how much privacy people experience in
a situation. The sorting task you are about to perform
will provide me with this measurement of privacy. You
will be given a deck of 4"x6" cards on which are typed
descriptions of situations in which students felt private.
These were written by students like yourself last quarter.


180
Pastalan, Leon. Privacy as a behavioral concept. Social
Forces, 19 7 0a, A5_, 93-97 .
Pastalan, Leon. Privacy as an expression of human terri
toriality. In L.A. Pastalan and D.H. Carson (Eds.),
Spatial behavior of older people. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press, 1970b.
Pastalan, Leon. Privacy preferences among relocated insti
tutionalized elderly. In Daniel Carson (Ed.), Man-
environment interactions: Evaluations and applica
tions Part II (6). Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Pearce, W. & Sharp, S. Self-disclosure communication.
Journal of Communication, 1973 23_, 409-425.
Proshansky, H., Ittelson, W. & Rivlin, L. Freedom of choice
and behavior in a physical setting. In H.M. Proshansky,
W.H. Ittelson, and L.G. Rivlin (Eds.), Environmental
psychology: Man and his physical setting. New York:
Holt, 1970.
Roberts, J. & Gregor, T. Privacy: A cultural view. In
J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (Eds.), Privacy. New
York: Atherton Press, 1971.
Rosenbaum, Bernard. Attitude toward invasion of privacy in
the personnel selection process and job applicant dem
ographic and personality correlates. Journal of Ap-
plied Psychology, 1973, 5_8, 333-38.
Rosenblatt, P. & Budd, L. Territoriality and privacy in
married and unmarried cohabiting couples. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1975, 97_, 67-76.
Rotter, Julian. Social learning and clinical psychology.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1954 .
Rule, J., MeAdam, D., Stearns, L. & Uglow, D. The politics
of privacy. New York: New American Library^ 1980.
Schein, Virginia. Individual privacy and personnal psy
chology: The need for a broader perspective. Journal
of Social Issues, 1977, 3J3 154-169 .
Schopler, J., Rusbult, C. & McCallum, R. Conceptual dimen
sions of crowding: A North Carolina study. Journal
of Population, 1978, 1, 231-238.


178
Ittelson, W. Proshansky, H. Rivlin, L. & Winkel, G. An
introduction to environmental psychology. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1974.
Johnson, Carl. Privacy as personal control. In Daniel
Carson (Ed.), Man-environment interactions: Evalua
tions and applications. Part II (6). Stroudsburg,
Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Jourard, Sidney. Some psychological aspects of privacy.
Law and Contemporary Problems, 1966, 3_1, 307-18.
Jourard, Sidney. Self-disclosure: An experimental analy
sis of the transparent self. New York: Wiley, 1971a.
Jourard, Sidney. The transparent self. New York: Van
Nostrand, 1971b.
Kelvin, Peter. A social-psychological examination of pri
vacy. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychol
ogy, 1973, 12, 238-61.
Klatzky, R. Human memory: Structures and processes. San
Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1975.
Klopfer, P. & Rubenstein, D. The concept of privacy and its
biological basis. Journal of Social Issues, 1977, 33,
52-65.
Laufer, R., Proshansky, H. & Wolfe, M. Some analytic dimen
sions of privacy. Paper presented at the 2nd Interna
tional Architectural Psychology Conference, University
of Lund, Sweden: June, 1973.
Laufer, R. & Wolfe, M. Privacy as a concept and a social
issue: A multidimensional developmental theory. Jour-
nal of Social Issues, 1977, 2k3, 22-42.
Lawton, M.P. & Bader, J. Wish for privacy by young and old.
Journal of Gerontology, 1970, 2_5, 48-54.
Margulis, Stephen. Privacy as a behavioral phenomenon: Com
ing of age. In Daniel Carson (Ed.) Man-environment in
teractions: Evaluations and applications. Part II (6).
Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1974.
Margulis, Stephen. Conceptions of privacy: Current status
and next steps. Journal of Social Issues. 1977, 33, 5-21.


127
responses resulting from three pairings of responses be
tween the three judges for eighty-four stories, 85 percent
of the coding response pairs agreed (215 of 252 pairs).
For the second, predefined-elicited privacy stories,
all three judges agreed on 75 percent (seventy-eight of
104 stories) of the stories. Two of the three coders agreed
on another 22 percent (23 of 104) of the privacy stories.
Only three of 104 stories (3 percent) failed to receive any
consensus from the three coders. Out of a total of 312 to
tal pairs of responses across all stories and coders, 90
percent consisted of identical codes (280 ot 312 pairs).
Combining both sets of privacy stories, the following
agreement rates obtained: all three judges agreed on 133
of 188 (70.8 percent) stories, two coders agreed on forty-
eight of 188 (22.5 percent) additional stories, while no
coders agreed on seven of 188 (3.7 percent) stories. The
coders agreed on 88 percent of all possible pairs of clas
sifications (495 of 564).
Distribution of Privacy Types
Of the fifty privacy stories from the open-ended elic
itation study, on which all three coders agreed, solitude
accounted for over half of the stories (52 percent). In
timacy and reserve had identical frequencies of eleven (22
percent each). Only 4 percent of the stories were situa
tions in which the person felt anonymous. These percentages


181
Schwartz, Barry. The social psychology of privacy. Amer
ican Journal of Sociology, 1968, 73, 741-52.
Schneider, Carl. Shame, exposure and privacy. Boston:
Beacon Press, 1977.
Schweitzer, E., Bell, G. & Daily, J. A bi-racial compar
ison of density preferences in housing in two cities.
In W. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental design research:
Symposia and workshops, fourth EDRA conference. vol.
IT Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.
Shaw, M. Personal communication, 1980.
Shepard, R., Romney, A. & Nerlove, S. (Eds.). Multidimen
sional scaling: Theory and applications in~the behav
ioral sciences. Vol. 1 and 2. New York: Academic
Press, 1972.
Simmel, G. Brucke und Tur. Stuttgart: K.F. Koehler, 1957.
Smith, D. & Swanson, R. Privacy and corrections: A social
learning approach. Unpublished manuscript. Univer
sity of Florida, 1979.
Smith, E., Shoben, E. & Rips, L. Structure and process in
semantic memory: A featural model for semantic deci
sion. Psychological Review, 1974 81_, 214-241.
Smith, R., Downer, D., Lynch, M. & Winter, M. Privacy and
interaction within the family as related to dwelling
space. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1969, 31,
559-66.
Sommer, Robert. The ecology of privacy. The Library Quar
terly, 1966 3_6, 234-248 .
Steinfeld, Edward. Physical planning for increased cross-
generational contact. In W.F.E. Preiser (Ed.), En-
vironmental design research: Fourth International?
EDRA conference. vol. 1. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.
Stockdale, J., Wittman, L., Jones, J. & Greaves, D. Con
ceptual dimensions of crowding: A London (England)
study. Journal of Copulation, 1978, 1, 239-251.
Taylor, D. & Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in
studies of interpersonal relationships. Report #9,
Naval Medical Research Institute, Bethesda, Md.: 1966.


54
Norms are a given existing before an infant's birth and
constitute a part of the infant's socialization. These
larger contexts of privacy meaning must be investigated
for an adequate theory of subjective privacy.
As an initial approximation to understanding privacy,
the proposed research investigates subjective or perceived
privacy. In this instance subjects will themselves decide
what is "private" by responding to an elicitation frame in
structing them to describe a situation in which they felt
private. Within this conceptual context and following the
reasoning of Schopler et al. (1978), this research asks,
"What are the cognitive and stimulus dimensions that deter
mine peoples' perceptions of being private?" The preced
ing review of the privacy literature indicates a wide di
vergence about what constitutes the necessary and sufficient
conditions for eliciting the state of feeling private. Nine
major conditions can be identified in the literature and
these are the dimensions hypothesized to be the determi
nants of the experience of feeling private:
1. a physical situation characterized by the absence
of others (solitude), Westin (1967);
2. an interpersonal situation involving limited so
cial stimulation (the absence of distraction),
Bechtel, (1977) and Mehrabian and Russell, (1974)
(and the absence of stimulus overload), Altman
(1975) ;


153
Table 22.
Test-Retest Reliability of Situation Descriptors
Selected as Defining Attributes
Item r
actor feels distressed .77
feelings are due to situation .77
actor feels anxious .75
actor is behaving against rule .75
actor is self-revealing .71
too much going on around actor .71
actor wants to escape .71
actor is anonymous .68
actor feels helpless .67
actor feels comfortable .65
attention is focused on self .63
actors are intimate .61
familiar .58
no one knows actor .58
feelings due to self .56
trusts others present .54
situation is largely physical .54
situation is public .53
too little privacy .53
others interfere with or block actor .50
actor is careful about what they say .40
too much social stimulation .38*
*p<.05


8
social-normative. The ecological orientation is reserved
solely for explanations of privacy based on Barker's (1968)
analytic concepts. Those theories which conceive of pri
vacy as a mediating process toward the attainment of a cer
tain class of choice freedom goals are demarcated as func
tions .
Biological Theories
Biological theories of privacy can be further subdi
vided into three classes: genetic, arousal mediating, and
adaptation theory (Helson, 1964) derived. Genetic theories
postulate an innate propensity toward either gregariousness
(Halmos, 1953), territoriality (Pastalan, 1970a), or survival
(Klopfer & Rubenstein, 1977). Mehrabian and Russell's (1974)
arousal mediation theory proposes that the underlying, fun
damental quality of all situations which elicit a desire
for privacy is the emotive response of the individual to
that situation which in turn is a function of the situa
tion's arousal eliciting level. Both Hill (1969) and Mar
shall (1972) explain desired privacy as a function of adap
tation level processes.
Halmos (1953) postulated that the human species through
biological evolution is genetically programmed to be gre
garious. This bio-social need has been frustrated as a re
sult of an increasing division of labor concomitant with
cultural evolution. Primitive societies are characterized


173
455
462
471
482
a Baptist. I didn't say anything because I wanted
to hear what they thought. It was all derogatory
and I felt insulted and even more reserved.
One time no one was at home but me. I had the
whole house to myself so I turned the stereo up
real loud, locked the doors and walked through
the house in my underwear. I couldn't quite bring
myself to strip completely. I danced a little,
sang to the top of my lungs and did cartwheels in
the kitchen which is something I'm not allowed to
do. I felt very free and uninhibited. I am usu
ally very modest about my appearance and don't act
very outstanding when people are around. I felt
like I could be me without anyone saying anything
about it.
Last winter I remember taking a walk with the guy
I'm dating. It was a long walk on a cold, starlit
night. We didn't have to talk much, we just really
felt very at ease with each other, like we had al
ways known each other (even though we hadn't).
It's just a special feeling knowing that you care
for someone and they care for you, and you want
the best for each other.
I was in a large exposition where several thous
and sightseers came to check the new items of man
ufacture on display. I went there by myself; I
did not invite anybody else. The first impression
which struck me was that everybody seemed to walk
by without glancing a long time at me. They did
look at me but it was merely to recognize there
was an obstacle in their path. I must admit I too
did not bother to look at them with intent; they
were all the same. I felt good at that time be
cause it was the first occasion for at least a
month since I was all by myself. I was young then
and I had little independence so that I felt a
great relief to be walking around without having
to acknowledge the threats of parents or having
to say continuously "Hi" to friends.
This past summer I was out selling books door-to-
door. I was working the country up in Pennsylvania
in the mountains. It was a beautiful sunny day and
I was lying in the shade under some trees in a
grassy field. I was looking out over the country
side and all I saw were green fields and trees and
rolling mountains. I felt very relaxed and I was


Low
Feels comfortable
Free to be self
Actor is in control
Actor is solitary
Actor is anonymous
Feelings due to self
Attention focused on self
Figure 1. Pleasantness Dimension
High
Feels distressed
Feels anxious
Feels helpless
Feels like an outsider
Feelings due to situation
Feels intruded upon
Actor is self-revealing
Another knows actor's thoughts and feelings
Situation is psychological
U!


APPENDIX E
EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI
Story #
Privacy Situations
Oil
013
021
023
024
I like to express my feelings through writing
(poetry) and during these times I like to be left
alone. I am able to gather my thoughts and feel
ings much better when I am alone. I have always
been a very private person and do not open up to
people easily. I am the only person whom I have
known that has never failed me, and this tends to
make me want to be isolated. I can also think
about others' roles in my life better when I am
by myself and this helps me to be creative in my
writing.
I like to be alone and in privacy when I am with
a girl who means a great deal to me. By that I
mean I am in love with. I feel so close to them
that being with them is like being with myself.
I live in a two-bedroom apartment and have my own
room but I like to be home with a lady when my
roommate is out. I just feel more comfortable
and it is much easier to relate to each other.
I felt private when I was home alone and my family
was out of town. I had the whole house to myself
and I could listen to the stereo if I wanted to or
just sit in my room and think. It just gave me a
chance to sit and think without being interrupted.
At my boyfriend's house when we would just sit and
talk in the livingroom. We would play cards or
backgammon for hours without being interrupted.
Only when his roommate was out of town.
In my car when I would drive home from work at 4
A.M. because I had the late shift. I worked at
Disney and it took me about a half hour to get home.
The reads were very deserted and I felt like I was
the only person around.
167


CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
The results indicate a number of suggestive but not
conclusive explanations of the subjective experience of
privacy. The most substantiated conclusion from this re
search is that privacy is a multidimensional construct.
The findings also evidence that the specific types of pri
vacy are discriminated along subsets of dimensions contain
ing both shared and unique dimensions. These two direc
tions of findings are discussed in more depth.
Comparison of Dimensions Across Types
of Privacy
When the data from all four types of privacy are ana
lyzed together, subjects used four dimensions in making
their rankings of similarity. These four dimensions are in
terpreted as "Social Density," Normativeness," Interpersonal
Involvement," and "Physical Involvement." Approximately
35 percent of the similarity data is explained by
these four dimensions. Computing the maximum number of di
mensions (six) permissible with SAS ALSCAL still accounts
for less than 50 percent of the variance. Either of two
alternatives is plausible. First, a large proportion of the
similarity data variance is either methodological-error
101


139
The target should be pre-imminently salient on only one
quality of the set of qualities being investigated. In
the present case, an ideal target would be one which rates
highly on only one of the nine hypothesized privacy-induc
ing conditions. Unfortunately, only three privacy situa
tions were highly characterized by only one factor and all
three of these (471, 441, and 451) represented the iden
tical factor, anonymity. Several privacy situations (154,
021, 031, 433 and 455) (see Table 19)possessed high rat
ings on five or more hypothesized qualities. In these in
stances where no one quality is pre-imminently salient,
respondents have an almost equal probability of respond
ing to the situation on any of the high loading qualities
and not the single quality for which the situation may have
been selected to represent.
One solution to this problem is to choose as targets
those situations which have high ratings on the fewest hy
pothesized qualities. This tactic assumes that the like
lihood that respondents will make responses on the desired
or to-be-represented quality increases as the number of
highly salient, competing qualities loading on that situa
tion decreases. The procedure involved identifying those
situations for a particular to-be-represented quality that
had the fewest high scores on other qualities. Where two
or more situations had high ratings on the same to-be-rep
resented quality and the same number of high ratings on


76
(r=.81, p=.008). The dimension is clearly a "familiarity"
one but it is unclear what constitutes "the situation."
Two alternative explanations are that (1) the situation
is the physical and behavioral environment and (2) the sit
uation refers to the other persons present. One hypothesis,
therefore, is that as the physical and behavioral environ
ment becomes more familiar, the actor's emotions are a func
tion of the others present, the more novel and unfamiliar
the situation the more the actor's emotions are associated
with the physical and behavioral environment and less with
the others present. An alternative hypothesis results when
the situation refers to the other people present. In this
case the more familiar are the other people present the more
the actor's emotions are associated with these people and
the less the emotions are related to either the actor's in
ternal motivations or to the external, physical, non-human
environment. Regardless of which of these alternatives or
others is correct, this dimension is labeled as "familiar
ity.
The first two dimensions of the four-dimensional solu
tion are essentially the same in their defining attributes
as those of the two-dimensional solution. Seven attributes
are significantly correlated to the first dimension of the
four-dimensional solution. These are (1) the situation is
impersonal (r=-.88, p=.002), (2) the situation is unpre
dictable (r=-.79, p=.01); (3) the actor is self-revealing


56
the investigation of motivational determinants is beyond the
scope of this research proposal. The same caveat applies
for the consequences of privacy.
Given the formative stage of theory and research on
privacy, the selection of a research strategy which samples
a large variety of situations in which people may experi
ence privacy and which is independent of any one theory
and/or conceptualization of privacy is desirable. Such a
promising exploratory methodology is multidimensional scal
ing (Shepard, Romney & Nerlove, 1972). This methodology
has been gainfully applied to the concept of crowding by
Schopler et al. (1978) and Stockdale et al. (1978) and
was adopted for this study (see Appendix A for a conceptual
explanation of multidimensional scaling).


172
great moments with him. I sat at the shore and
felt very lonely and I wanted to cry. I felt that
nobody cared about me at that moment or even wor
ried about where I was.
405 I was talking to my girlfriend about my experi
ences with my first boyfriend and the time we made
love. I really got very intimate with her by
truly expressing what I thought about that spe
cial moment and the feeling of passion and attrac
tion toward my boyfriend. We really understood
each other by having this intimate conversation
where I shared something very dear and private to
me. I would never talk about it the way I talked
with her with anybody else.
433 My parents had gone away for the weekend and my
brothers were all away somewhere and I had the
house entirely to myself. It was very peaceful
and laid back. I read and watched T.V. a lot.
Toward the end of the weekend, however, I began
to feel lonely and called friends to talk. I en
joyed the time to myself, it slowed me down and
allowed me to start fresh Monday morning.
441 I was in a large lecture class of two hundred
people. My feelings at the time were "Why should
I be here? If I wasn't here, nothing would change;
everything would continue without me and no one
would even know, much less care, if I were not
present."
445 When I came to school for the first time as a
freshman, I had to meet my two roommates. I was
reserved because I wanted to get along with them
so badly that I was afraid to be saying or doing
the "wrong" thing. I might add, however, that
this didn't last very long. I'm generally an out
going person and usually say what's on my mind.
451 Just a few weeks ago I went with a friend to a
restaurant. We met some of his friends there that
I didn't know. They were all in a club together
and I wasn't. From the beginning of the evening
I felt ostracized from the group because they were
discussing events and people that I didn't know.
I was reserved and uncomfortable the entire even
ing. I felt the worst when the subject changed
to religion. They disagreed on some religions but
they all agreed that Baptists were fanatic. I am


68
Table 2continued.
Dimension #2 of the two-dimensional solution is distinct
from dimension #2 of the three-dimensional solution which
is undefined.
2
Correlation coefficients for the 2-dimensional solution.
3
Probability is greater than .05 and less than .10.
4
Correlation coefficients for the four-dimensional solution.


69
"the situation is largely physical" (r=-.29, p=.07), "the
actor feels claustrophobic" (r=.28, p=.09), "the situation
is sexual" (r=-.27, p=.09), and "the actor feels intruded
upon" (r=.26, p=.10) are marginally significant. This con
tinuum ranges from a situation which is sexual and physical
to nonsexual and nonphysical. Simultaneously the continuum
covers both the desire to escape (avoidance), and the feel
ing of intrusion, and claustrophobia on one end to the de
sire to not escape (approach), and the absence of feeling
intruded upon and claustrophobic. In the first dimension
the attributes common to both dimensions were associated
with crowdedness but in this dimension they are related to
sexuality. A cautious interpretation of the tenuous (mar
ginal) relationship between approach-avoidance (escape) and
sexuality is "Physical Involvement."
The five-dimensional solution is similar to the four
dimensional solution. This solution is not insightful since
no attribute is related to the dimension and it adds nothing
to the variance accounted for in a stepwise regression of
dimensional coordinates onto the privacy scale scores.
To what extent are the dimensions used by subjects in
discriminating privacy situations related to the perceived
degree of privacy in those situations? To answer this ques
tion correlations between the dimension coordinates for each
privacy situation and the privacy scale values for each pri
vacy situation were computed. Table 3 presents the results.


156
Another of Westin's (1967) privacy types, self-disclo
sure, was clearly interpretable from the five items loading
on the fourth factor. These items indicated communication
about the self which was revealing.
Reserve, yet another type of privacy (Westin, 1967),
was indicative of the items comprising the fifth factor.
The items suggested inhibited communication about the self.
The sixth factor consisted of two items. These items
both concerned the correspondence of affect between actors,
either mutual understanding of the others' affect or mutual
sharing of feelings. This factor was, therefore, inter
preted and labeled as denoting an "empathetic situation."
Finally, "self-consciousness" seemed to best interpret
the single item of the seventh factor. This item was worded
"attention is focused on self." Such an attentional basis
was hypothesized by Fischer (1971) as the phenomenological
process underlying privacy.
Returning to the first factor of the initial solution,
the subsequent factor analysis of its items revealed three
separate factors (see Table 23). The first factor still
captured a large number of items (twenty-five) but was now
interpretable as an affective factor. Since both positive
and negative states loaded on this factor, it was inter
preted as a general affective factor. This factor appeared
to be a general affective factor in another way since it in
cluded items which could be expected to be sources of


APPENDIX C
SELECTION OF THE MDS TARGET STIMULI
Since nine conditions had been identified from the
literature as most plausibly accounting for the subjective
experience of privacy (see page 54 for these nine factors),
nine experimental stimuli were required to represent the
respective conditions. Instead of relying on the experi
menter's subjective evaluation in choosing these target
stimuli as in previous research (Schopler, et al., 1978),
ten judges rated each privacy situation on all nine hy
pothesized conditions.
The ten judges consisted of seven social psychology
graduate students and three undergraduate research assis
tants. They were presented a response booklet in which
one condition (called a 'quality' in the booklet) appeared
on each page, followed by each experimental stimuli.
Judges were instructed to rate each privacy situation in
terms of: "How much is each situation numbered below char
acterized by the above quality?" Response options ranged
from "not characteristic at all" to "completely character
izes." A bar continuum followed with ten response inter
vals from "0-10 percent to 90-100 percent."
An ideal methodological target would be one which
orthogonally represents a particular quality to be evaluated.
138


36
Hill's (1969) other adaptation hypothesis dealt with
the optimization of privacy and boundary permeability.
Privacy boundaries function to control interaction and ac
cess, not to eliminate these. There is a functional bal
ance between privacy (access to self) and visibility (ac
cess to others). Hill found this optimization process, as
the desire for privacy increased the visual access by the
resident to others outside the home decreased.
Rather than interpreting adaptation level theory in
terms of present privacy conditions, Marshall (1972, 1974)
focuses on the impact of childhood privacy conditions on
adult privacy preferences. Those people experiencing lit
tle privacy in childhood will develop a low preference for
privacy as adults. Their adult preferences are a result of
childhood adaptations. Marshall (1972, 1974), however,
found minimal relations between the density of childhood
environments and adult privacy preferences. There were no
significant relationships between the childhood density
measures and preference for seclusion or solitude (PPS
subscale scores). Privacy preference (total PPS score) was
not significantly related to childhood perceived privacy,
number of siblings, childhood perceived crowding, having
own room, amicability of siblings, amount of open space in
childhood neighborhoods, childhood town size, and childhood
spatial mobility.


179
Marshall, Nancy. Environmental components of orientations
toward privacy. In J. Archea and C. Eastman (Eds.),
EDRA 2: Proceedings of the 2nd annual Environmental
Design Research Association conference! Pittsburgh,
Pa.: no press, 1970a.
Marshall, Nancy. Personality correlates of orientation to
ward privacy. In J. Archea and C. Eastman (Eds.),
EDRA 2: Proceedings of the 2nd annual Environmental
Design Research Association conference. Pittsburgh,
Pa.: no press, 1970b.
Marshall, Nancy. Privacy and environment. Human Ecology,
1972, 1, 93-110.
Marshall, Nancy. Dimensions of privacy preferences. Mul
tivariate Behavioral Research, 1974 9_, 255-271.
McKechnie, George. The environmental response inventory
in application. Environment and Behavior, 1977, 9,
255-76.
Mehrabian, A. & Russell, J. An approach to environmental
psychology. Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 1974.
Miller, A. The assault on privacy. New York: New Amer
ican Library, 1971.
Nguyen, M., Heslin, R. & Nguyen, T. The meaning of touch:
Sex and marital status differences. Representative
Research in Social Psychology, 1976 T~, 13-18.
Nie, N., Hull, C., Jenkins, J., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D.
SPSS: Statistical package for the social sciences.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Nisbett, R. & Wilson, T. Telling more than we can know:
Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological
Review, 1977, 84, 231-259.
Osgood, C., Suci, G. & Tannebaum, P. The measurement of
meaning. Urbana, II.: University of Illinois Press,
1957.
Packard, V. The naked society. D. McKay Co.: New York,
1964 .
Parke, R. & Sawin, D. Children's privacy in the home: De
velopmental, ecological and child-rearing determinants.
Environment and Behavior, 1979, 11, 87-104.


Story
Oil
013*
021
023
024
031*
032
033*
035
041
051*
053
055
063
094
114
115
121
134
135*
151
154
301
335*
341
343
345
353
145
Table 20.
Privacy MDS Reliability
Reliability Significance
All Cases
One Week Retest**
Level
.38
.26
.01
.26
.16
.11
.33
.35
.04
.41
.28
.01
.50
.49
.00
.31
.39
.05
. 44
.36
.01
Target
Target
--
.30
.31
.06
.29
.32
.07
.47
.52
.00
.43
.37
.01
.63
.61
.00
.44
.57
.01
.73
.60
.00
.33
.45
.04
.54
.41
.00
.42
.69
.01
.64
.52
.00
.57
.45
.00
.54
.48
.00
.65
.63
.00
.20
.27
.22
. 30
.28
.06
.46
.63
.00
.35
.23
.03
.58
.51
.00
.35
.37
.03


81
Table 8.
Regression of Intimacy MDS Dimensions on
Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Solutions
1
Dimensions
2 3
4
5
Stepwise
MRSQ
2
.558*
.053
.580
3
(1) **
(2)
3
.526*
.031
.064
.601
(1)
(2)
(3)
4
.593*
.007
.054
.215
. 865*
(1)
(4)
(3)
(2)
5
.593*
.007
.039
.025
.122
.799
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
*p<.05
**Designates the order in which the dimension was optimally
entered into the stepwise regression.


159
affect. This factor was labeled, therefore, as "Affect and
Sources of Affect."
While the second factor to emerge from the secondary
analysis contained four affective-type items, the remain
ing seven items were interpreted as "control and freedom
from contraint." Being on one's own territory seemed to
provide the physical basis for these states.
The third and final factor consisted of two items:
"the actor is undetected" and "no one knows the actor."
While somewhat ambiguous, these items were interpreted as
anonymity.
A residue of thirty-three items failed to achieve the
criterion loading on any of the factors in the initial and
secondary factor analyses. Thus, these items were consid
ered unique items (see Table 24).
Three considerations guided the selection of items for
the final defining attribute phase of the study. First,
items were selected to represent the nine factors desired
(six in the initial solution and three for the subsequent
solutions). Second, there was a desire to include those
items used in previous crowding MDS studies (Schopler et
al., 1978 and Stockdale et al., 1978; see Table 25). And
third, the number of items finally chosen had to be few
enough to prevent severe fatigue effects in subjects' re
sponding .


70
Table 3.
Privacy MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Privacy Scale Values
Dimensional
Solution
Dimension
1
2*
3
4
5
2
3211
-.3012
3
-.3261
. 1393
2
-.310
4
-.3801
. 0963
-.3701
. 0583
5
-.4001
. 1323
-. 4431
-.1023
-.0553
*Dimension 2 is defined by distinct attributes in solution 2
versus solutions 3, 4 and 5.
1p<.05
2p<.10
3p>.10


44
married couples (Rosenblatt & Budd, 1975). While married
couples are more likely to have a place in their residence
to be alone than married couples, married couples have more
separate storage areas. Neither type of couple showed a
difference in access restrictiveness toward their partner
when occupying the bathroom. Couples who co-resided before
marriage were less territorial (separate storage areas)
than couples married without prior co-residence (Rosenblatt
& Budd, 1975) .
Once a married couple has children further modifica
tions in privacy behavior occur. Mothers with children
have less time alone in the house and less time alone with
guests (Smith et al., 1969). There was no difference, how
ever, in the amount of time mothers and nonmothers spent in
the home. Those with pre-school children have less privacy
than those mothers with only school age children. More pro
tective mothers (those who always accompany their children
outside and require the child to play in the same room in
which the mother is working) have less privacy. Alterna
tively those mothers who participate more in their chil
dren's play and encourage their children to help more in
household chores have less privacy. Household rules also
affect the mother's privacy. When one room is the chil
dren's play area and other rooms are "off limits" and when
all the pre-school children are required to nap at the same
time, the mother has more privacy.


12
Whereas the discrepancy hypothesis is central to
Mehrabian and Russell's (1974) approach, adaptation level
theory is focal for Hill (1969) and Marshall (1972). Adap
tation level theory has been applied differently by Hill and
Marshall. Hill applies the theory to two dimensions: the
relation of perceived to actual privacy and the optimization
of visual privacy requirements with visual-access-outward
requirements. In neither instance is a formal, systematic
explanation proposed in terms of adaptation level theory.
Only focal stimuli and background stimuli, but not residual
stimuli (Helson, 1964), are implied by Hill. On the issue
of the relation of perceived to actual privacy, Hill hypoth
esizes that "as people become aware of their surrounding
environment (both physical and social) so their judgements
of perceived privacy are modified and approach a level which
is roughly equivalent to the real amount of privacy present
in a given situation" (Hill, 1969, p. 39). The fit between
past privacy experience (residual stimuli) and present pri
vacy opportunities and/or constraints is not discussed.
The problem of optimization is a function of the in
herent boundary permeability involved in privacy. While
privacy is desired, isolation is not; where freedom from
observation is sought, the complete lack of access to out
ward observation is not. The process of optimization be
tween these extremes of visibility is an adaptation (balance)
between outward and inward visibility (privacy). There is,


104
Empathy which are believed to be component dimensions of
Interpersonal Involvement).
Dimensions Predictive of Perceived Privacy
Having determined the dimensional structure of privacy
and its types, the contribution of each dimension to the
perceived level of privacy was examined through multiple,
stepwise regression. Three privacy dimensions are predic
tive of perceived privacy as assessed by the privacy scale
scores. Although Social Density, Normativeness, and Inter
personal Involvement each account for roughly 10 percent
of the variance, Social Density enters first into the mul
tiple regression. It appears that the Physical Involvement
dimension is irrelevant to people's perception of privacy.
The prediction of perceived intimacy is manifestly
better than for privacy overall. The Personal-Impersonal
and Normative dimensions predict 81 percent of the
variance in perceived privacy which compares to an estimated
thirty percent for the privacy dimensions. Over half of the
variance is accounted by the Personal-Impersonal dimension.
Again, one dimension, Familiarity, is unrelated to perceived
privacy.
The reserve dimensions while only marginally signif
icant in predicting perceived privacy are suggestive. The
Empathy dimension explains 36 percent of perceived


120
method wherein the collected experimental stimuli will be
scaled by subjects relevant to the eliciting category (i.e.
privacy).
The next phase of MDS research involves the similar
ity-dissimilarity procedure. Again, a variety of tech
niques are available for generating these scores. The pro
posed research chooses a rank ordering method rather than
a rating method because it provides the widest range of
scores for computation. Of the three most frequently used
procedures (i.e., all pair-wise comparisons, planned par
tial comparisons, and target comparisons), the target com
parisons procedure is selected. The target comparison pro
cedure is selected because it generally provides more clear
cut, interpretable results than does either the pair-wise
comparison or planned partial comparison procedures (Bech
tel, 1979) .
Targets are experimental stimuli chosen, based on the
experimenter's theoretical dispositions, to represent hy
pothesized discriminating stimulus dimensions. Note that
the experimenter's theoretical predictions do enter at this
phase of the research in his/her selection of target dimen
sions. In order to prevent directly determining the sub
jects' responses, the experimenter is required to select
experimental stimuli (descriptions of situations) which he/
she believes best characterize the hypothesized dimension.
The subjects, however, when responding are blind to the


29
selection of a goal, freedom of choice is performed in the
selection of behaviors expected to lead to that goal. Pri
vacy is this behavior selection control designed to attain
pre-selected goals. Privacy, therefore, is not an outcome
but a behavior conducive to an outcome.
Whether privacy is satisfying is a function of the ex
tent to which it achieves the desired outcome. The selec
tion of privacy behavior automatically leads to multiple
consequences in the form of eliminated options in addition
to the intended consequence. Ambivalence then is fre
quently experienced with privacy. Since secondary control
is distal from the desired outcome, the relationship be
tween privacy and outcomes may be highly uncertain. This
uncertainty in turn is a source of stress and anxiety asso
ciated with privacy.
Research on Privacy
As this review of privacy theories has indicated, pri
vacy is a complex construct. The research on privacy mir
rors this complexity. At the present embryonic stage of
theory and its testing, a detailed critique of privacy re
search design and methodology seems premature. Instead
only the findings reported as significant will be presented.
Thus the word 'significant' is not repeated for each find
ing. The methodological soundness of the reported research


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Just as few individuals have the requisite knowledge
and skills for single-handedly constructing a house, few
can complete a dissertation without assistance. In my case
many individuals provided knowledge, skills, labor, and mor
al support.
First, I wish to acknowledge the eager, patient, and
professional guidance and support rendered by my committee
members. Dr. Lawrence J. Severy always offered encourage
ment, faith and especially much needed latitude. He gen
uinely facilitated the entire project, by his inspiration
and by his timely provision of materials and resources
needed to carry-out the research. Conceptual and methodo
logical assistance was provided by Dr. Marvin E. Shaw. Dr.
Hernn Vera repeatedly inspired my thinking with his orig
inal insights and questions. Dr. William Froming encour
aged me to design the research to test wider issues than
privacy. Dr. Scott Miller helped clarify the presentation
of the methodology through his practical, specific questions
Above all else the committee members showed patience and
faith in my less than orthodox execution of the dissertation
Second, special thanks are directed to Michael Conlin
and the staff of CIRCA, the University of Florida. Without
11


16
life cycle. New physical settings such as school present
new problems for privacy requiring new adaptations in pri
vacy behaviors.
A less obvious developmental task which takes on par
ticular importance in industrial-secular societies is adap
tation to socio-cultural change. The patterns and expecta
tions of privacy learned in pre-adulthood may be incompat
ible with rapidly emerging life styles, mores, and technol
ogies .
Since control is a critical element in all definitions
of privacy, development of the awareness of being able to
control becomes important. The first successfully concealed
behavior begins awareness that one's own thoughts and behav
iors are not known unless they are volitionally disclosed.
The learning of what thoughts and behaviors to control
(neither to perform in public or to make publicly announced)
is an important process of socialization.
Of the six dimensions (Laufer, Proshansky & Wolfe,
1973) the last is conceptual complexity. With maturation
the concept of privacy should become both more complex and
integrated with related conceptual systems like moral reason
ing. The complexity of the behavioral repertoire used to
create and maintain privacy and the functions for which pri
vacy is engaged should also increase with age. Laufer,
Proshansky and Wolfe (1973) rather than presenting a devel
opmental theory of privacy have identified six analytic


41
with the child's age. Both of these developmental trends
were focused around two household areas: the bathroom and
the child's bedroom. The primary privacy marker was the
closed door and the most prominent privacy rule was knock
ing on closed doors. A closed door signalled restricted
access to the room. As the age of the child increased,
both parents and siblings were more restricted in their
access to the bathroom occupied by the child. The largest
shift (increase) in the child restricting access to others
occurred during early adolescence. Adolescents of the same
age who were more physically mature as measured by an ob
jective index were more likely to keep the bathroom door
closed and to restrict access to other family members even
after they knocked.
Viewing the family as a social system, the exercise
of privacy by one member is largely contingent on the co
operative behavior of the remaining family members. As a
result not only are parents and siblings increasingly re
stricted in access to the bathroom as the child ages but
parents knock more on both the bathroom and bedroom doors
of older children. These mutually contingent behaviors
are strongly attenuated by the gender composition of inter
actants and by the activity being engaged in by the pri
vacy-seeking member. The child's restriction of access to
others is less for same sex versus opposite sex parents and
siblings. Inversely parents knock on the bathroom door


other two dimensions. As Normativeness of the behavior de
scribed decreases the perception of privacy increases.
IX


46
intimacy is a key concept. The meaning of the concept is
not the same, however, in both contexts. As a state of
privacy, intimacy is the chosen seclusion of a dyad or
group (Westin, 1967) Intimacy in self-disclosure refers
to the self-centrality of the information communicated
(Derlega & Chaikin, 1977) Although the privacy state of
intimacy may imply a depth of disclosure between the par
ties, this disclosure depth is not an explicit definitional
component. The term intimacy will be used subsequently in
this paper to refer only to the depth of disclosure and not
to Westin's (1967) state of privacy for which 'group seclu
sion' will be substituted.
Reserve, which is one of Westin's privacy states
rather than Westin's intimacy, is conceptually more sim
ilar to self-disclosure intimacy. Defined as "a psycho
logical barrier against unwanted intrusion" (Westin, 1967,
p. 32), Westin unfortunately includes three discrete types
of behavior under reserve: (1) withholding disclosure,
(2) discretion by the recipient of disclosure, and (3) se
lective attention to others (tuning others out). Reserve
as withholding disclosure is clearly related to the self
disclosure research. This research (Derlega & Chaikin,
1977) has shown that one's level of self-disclosure is par
tially determined by the discloser's trust in the recipi
ent's discretion.


82
third dimension. Entering the fourth dimension into a
setpwise regression following the first dimension results,
however, in both a significant prediction (F (2,8)=13.08,
p=.007) and an increase of 22 percent of variance
accounted for over that for the first dimension alone. The
more normative and less shameful the actor's behavior the
less private is the intimacy situation perceived. These
two dimensions of Personal-Impersonal and Normativeness
combined account for eighty-one percent of the privacy scale
score variance.
Multidimensional Reserve Results
Table 9 shows the stress values and r-square values
for one through five-dimensional solutions. The addition
of dimension two substantially reduces the stress value and
increases the r-square. The stress reduction due to the in
clusion of the third and fourth dimensions is more modest.
While two dimensions is the minimum number of dimensions,
the maximum number is uncertain. Although the five dimen
sional solution results in a small decrease in the stress
value, this solution offers the best prediction of the pri
vacy scale scores. For this reason, both the two- and five
dimensional solutions are interpreted based on the defining
attribute data.


103
The dimensions "Situational Attribution of Emotions" and
"Undefined" complete the dimensional model of reserve.
Solitude is poorly explicated by the current multidi
mensional solution. The dimensional solutions account for
modest amounts of variance, are unstable across solutions,
and are mostly uninterpretable. Pleasantness is the only
clearly labeled dimension and is not one of the privacy
dimensions. One hypothesis is offered for these results.
Conceptually the privacy state of solitude is a dichotomous
state. A person is either solitary or not. It is hypoth
esized that solitude is not a continuous variable and that
a dimension like Pleasantness is about the only dimension
along which subjects can discriminate solitary situations.
According to the speculations profferred above compar
ing the dimensions of privacy and types of privacy, the
three privacy dimensions of Social Density, Normativeness,
and Interpersonal Involvement are the higher-order dimen
sions of privacy. Each type of privacy is then composed of
a lower-order set of dimensions. Intimacy may be viewed as
consisting of one higher-order dimension (Normativeness)
and one lower-order dimension (Personal-Impersonal which is
hypothesized to be a lower-order dimension of Interpersonal
Involvement). Reserve, on the other hand, is deemed to be
comprised of a different higher-order dimension (Social Den
sity) and two lower-order dimensions (Self-Disclosure and


166
story (#301) twice; once during the task session and again
at the completion of the task. A Pearson correlation was
computed between ratings for time one and time two. These
correlations are presented in Table 26. The correlations
ranged from a high of r=.83 (#22) to a low of r=.13 (#19).
Two attributes (#19 and #33) failed to be significantly
correlated between test and retest. Twenty-five attri
butes had a test-retest reliability significant at the .001
level.


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate
Council of the University of Florida in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
of Doctor of Philosophy
THE PERCEPTION OF PRIVACY: A MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING ANALYSIS
By
Gregory H. Wilmoth
August 1980
Chairman: Lawrence J. Severy
Major Department: Psychology
The multidimensional nature of perceived privacy was
explored through a multidimensional scaling analysis (MDS)
of forty privacy situations. Three dimensions labeled "So
cial Density," "Normativeness," and "Interpersonal Involve
ment" were judged to best explain privacy. These dimen
sions in combination significantly predicted the privacy
scale scores of the privacy situations. The data were par
titioned into three sets according to three types of pri
vacy situations (intimacy, reserve, and solitude) and an
alyzed. Two (Personal-Impersonal and Normativeness) of
four dimensions found for intimacy were significantly re
lated to the privacy scale scores. An Empathy and Self-
Disclosure dimension, along with an Undefined dimension of
a five-dimensional solution for reserve, accounted for sev
enty percent of the privacy scale scores and was marginally
Vll


94
feelings (r=.46, p=.04). Others know the actor's identity,
thoughts and feelings at one extreme of this continuum and
know nothing about the actor at the other extreme.
A residue of three attributes which are significantly
correlated to this dimension remains after this conceptual
analysis. One, the actor is solitary (r=-.56, p=.01), may
be thought of as a manipulation check. Subjects did per
ceive that they were responding to incidents of solitude.
Another, the actor feels like an outsider (r=.55, p=.01),
is open to speculation. Finally, "the situation is largely
psychological" (r=.47, p=.04), is also available for sev
eral alternative hypotheses.
As a whole this first dimension is multi-faceted. A
host of attributes is interrelated and are covarying along
this single dimension. Figure 1 organizes these attri
butes along this dimension. While applying a single label
to such a complex dimension is risky, it is interpreted as
"pleasantness." The non-affective attributes are hypoth
esized to be related to experiencing varying levels of
pleasure in solitude.
No attribute is significantly related to the second
dimension of the three-dimensional solution (or for the
five dimensional solution). Three attributes are correlated
with this dimension at marginal significance: (1) the actor
feels like an outsider (r=.39, p=.09); (2) the actor feels
helpless (r=.39, p=.09); and (3) the actor's attention is


64
attributes (too many people for space available, r=-.31,
p=.053; and crowded, r=-.30, p=.06) are marginally signif
icant. Together these attributes are interpreted as "So
cial Density" and this dimension is thus labeled.
The second dimension of the two-dimensional solution
has one attribute which is correlated at a level of margin
al significance. "The actor's behavior is against the
rules" (r=.29, p=.068) is cautiously interpreted as a "Nor
mativeness" dimension. This dimension is unique to this so
lution, not reappearing in any other dimensional solution.
This argues for yet increased caution.
The four-dimensional solution further elaborates the
first dimension previously discussed. The correlations of
the attributes "too much going on around the actor" (r=-.48,
p=.03) and "the actor feels claustrophobic" (r=-.31, p=.05)
are also now significantly related to this dimension. The
one marginally significant attribute ("the actor wants to
escape" (r=-.29, p=.07)) also seems relevant to the inter
pretation of this dimension. This dimension represents a
continuum from crowded to not crowded. Four consequences
are apparently associated with this crowding continuum. The
amount of stimulation impinging on the actor, the degree of
privacy available, the motivation to escape the situation,
and the feeling of claustrophobia all vary along the same
dimension as crowding.


112
the actor's control in achieving privacy. The privacy sit
uations described by subjects demonstrate that undesired
social isolation (see story #353) may be labeled as both
private and lonely. These are not exclusive states as hy
pothesized by Altman (1975). The motivation for privacy
does not appear to be important in the perception of privacy.
In addition, regardless of whether privacy is desired or not,
the perception of privacy is not determined by whether its
achievement is due to personal control or external imposition.
Toward a Multidimensional Model of Privacy
The three higher-order dimensions produced from the
multidimensional scaling analysis serve as potential, con
ceptual building blocks in the construction of a model of
privacy. Such a model is admittedly speculative and rests
on a foundation of less than ideal statistical results.
Although basically a three-dimensional model is pro
posed, lower-order dimensions are included. Rather than a
simple cube, however, the model takes the shape of a U-shaped
rectangle. The U-shaped plane is the Interpersonal Involve
ment dimension and represents a curvi-linear relationship
between this dimension and privacy. Both high and low Inter
personal Involvement increase privacy. One of the linear
planes is the Social Density dimension while the other lin
ear dimension is the Normativeness dimension. As Social


164
Table 26.
Defining Attributes Test-Retest Reliabilities*
Item #
Item
r
* *
1 actor feels comfortable .39
2 situation is unpredictable .54
3 actor's self-image is threatened .65
4 actor wants to escape .66
5 actor's behavior is shameful .53
6 another knows actor's thoughts and feelings .52
7 others are too close to actor .48
8 other's behavior is against the rules .41
9 situation is largely physical .48
10 actor is free to be self .66
11 actor's attention is focused on self .42
12 no one knows actor, actor is anonymous .35
13 actor is careful about what they say .59
14 too much social stimulation .69
15 others understand how actor feels .43
16 actor is visible to others .67
17 actors are intimate .51
18 situation is familiar to actor .40
19 too many people for space available .13
20 actor trusts others present .62
21 actor is in control of events .47
22 actor feels anxious .83
23 situation is public .51
24 actor feels intruded upon .39
25 actor's feelings due to situation .58
26 situation is impersonal .35
27 actor feels helpless .60
28 too little privacy .45
29 actor's feelings are caused by presence of .61
others
30 actor is solitary .52
31 actor feels distressed .41
32 actor is self-revealing to others in situation .43
33 others interfere with or block actor .17
34 situation is largely psychological .34
35 actor feels like an outsider .47
36 feelings due to self .38
37 too much going on around actor .49
38 crowded .53
39 situation is sexual .34
40 actor feels claustrophobic .58


184
While studying social psychology at Florida, Greg was
awarded an NIMH training grant and later served as project
coordinator for a Florida mental health grant. He also
completed an internship in applied environmental psychology
with the Environmental Research and Development Foundation,
Tucson, Arizona.
Solitary hiking in the deserts, canyons, and mountains
of the Southwest counterbalanced by intimacy with friends
nourished Greg's interest in privacy. He is presently As
sistant Professor of Evaluation and Assessment at the Uni
versity of Maryland, University College.


128
for each type of privacy prescribed the percentage of type
in the construction of the final MDS stimulus set.
Scaling of Privacy Situations
To select a stimulus set with items representing the
extremes of felt privacy, Attneave's (1949) method of
graded dichotomies was used to scale the generated situa
tions on their degree of privateness. All those descrip
tions with intercoder agreement from the open ended col
lection phase were used. Additional descriptions of situ
ations elicited in the defined collection phase with inter
coder agreement were selected by the experimenter. These
additional items served to increase the number of stimuli
for each type of privacy in an effort to insure that a suf
ficient number existed to provide items with acceptable Q-
values (Torgerson, 1958), and both high and low scale val
ues (means). Another criterion in the selection of these
additional items was non-redundancy in the location and/or
activity of the situation in comparison to the open-ended
items. A final set of ninety privacy descriptions consti
tuted the stimulus set for the scaling phase.
A standardized format was followed for the graded di
chotomies scaling. First, since some of the simulus items
were female specific, that is, concerned with menstruation
subjects were instructed to respond as they believed most


11
physiological responses of arousal, pleasure, and muscular
tension. Activity, evaluation, and dominance (potency) are
the emotional-connotative (Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957)
responses corresponding to the respective physiological re
sponses. Arousal is a direct function of the information
load of an environment. An environment's information load
is measured by its novelty and complexity.
Privacy is equated with low environmental information
load (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974, p. 299). A person is in
a state of privacy to the extent that he is receiving a
low level of output (information load) from others. The
desire for privacy should be an inverse function of the in
formation load to which one is exposed. Reciprocally, the
rate, breadth, and depth of information load from the self
to others determines the degree of privacy. A low informa
tion load from self (another's environmental stimulus) to
another constitutes high privacy. To the extent that en
vironments enhance positive (pleasure) feelings, self-dis
closure (information load to others) is also enhanced.
Since either an excessively high or low information load
is aversively arousing and thus unpleasant, the maximum
preference for environments will be slightly discrepant
from the adaptation level. People will be engaged, there
fore, in an ever changing flow between privacy and social
interaction.


151
and #345). Only a low scale value item was selected for
anonymity (#471). Two high scale value items and one low
scale value item were selected for the crowding situations
(#042, #083, and #124).
A standardized testing format was used. First, the
order of the attributes in the instrument was randomly
determined. Second, fifty attributes appeared per page.
Thus each privacy situation appeared twice on separate
pages with one-half (fifty) of the attributes. Third, the
order of these twenty pages was randomly assigned. And
fourth, to balance fatigue effects half the booklets began
with the first ten situation-by-attribute pages and half
began with the last ten situation-by-attribute pages.
Subjects consisted of seventy male and seventy-one
female students who participated as partial fulfillment of
an introductory psychology course. They were instructed
to rate each attribute by how well it described the situa
tion or feelings of the actor. A ten-point scale was pro
vided ranging from "does not describe at all" (0-10 per
cent describes) to "completely describes" (91-100 percent
describes). Each subject-by-situation was treated as an
observation resulting in 1441 observations for each attri
bute thus exceeding a minimum criteria of ten times the
number of observations as variables (attributes) in the
factor analysis (Gorsuch, 1974) An estimate of response
reliability was provided by having one hundred subjects


115
multidimensional nature of privacy. Future research is re
quired to test the proposed model.


17
developmental dimensions which are hypothesized to be re
lated to privacy.
The only specifically learning theory of privacy to
appear is that of Smith and Swanson (1979). They apply
Rotter's (1954) social learning theory to privacy. Through
the learning history of the individual, both preferences
for types of reinforcements and expectancies of reinforce
ment resulting from various actions are formed. "[P]rivacy
as a process of interactional control is a function of the
value of such control and the expectancy of achieving such
control" (Smith & Swanson, 1979, p. 5). The immediate
and enduring psychological situation is the third factor
influencing the behavior potential toward privacy. The
psychological situation refers to those aspects of the in
ternal and external environment as perceived by the indi
vidual. The primary hypothesis states that "individual no
tions of privacy vary as a function of their environment"
(Smith & Swanson, 1979, p. 17). On the psychological lev
el, the environment influences behavior potential not
through changing values but through impacting expectancies
that potential behaviors will be reinforced. Expectancies
should be object- and situation-specific whereas values are
intra-individual entities transcending situational specifics.
Failure to achieve privacy will be more aversive as the ex
pectancy for attainment and value of attainment increase.


131
will place the 'least private' pile aside until later.
Even though you have divided the situations into 'most'
and 'least' private piles, you probably feel that some
are still more private than others. That is what I want
you to do now, sort this pile of 'most private' cards in
to two piles of 'more' and 'less' private (experimenter
places two labeled cards on the table) in the same man
ner as you previously did, that is, as you believe most
people would feel. When you finish this sorting please
notify the experimenter.
(Subject notifies experimenter.) Now I want to get
even finer discriminations of how much privacy is present
in each situation. This provides me with a finer measure
ment of privacy. To do this I want you to divide each
pile before you into 'more' and 'less' private. Please
sort the 'more private' pile first (experimenter points
to the previous more private pile). When you are finished
with these sortings you will be finished with these situ
ations. Please notify the experimenter when you finish.
(Subject notifies experimenter.) You are now finished
with these situations. You are left with this pile which
you originally called 'least private.' We will now put
these piles you just completed aside. (Experimenter moves
them aside, moves 'least private' pile before the subject,
and places a 'more' and 'less' private card before the
subject.) I want you to sort this 'least private' pile


99
(see Table 15). Only dimension #2 of the two-dimensional
solution is correlated (r=.38, p=.10) at a marginally sig
nificant level with the privacy scale scores. Further, no
combination of one through five dimensions entered into a
stepwise regression produces a significant result (see
Table 16) .


45
Fathers have less privacy (time alone in the home)
than husbands without children. Men with children achieved
privacy by spending less time in the home than did those
without children who acquired their privacy by having a
separate room in the home for themselves. Although fathers
spent less time in the home than husbands without children,
the amount of time they spent in interaction with other mem
bers of the family did not vary across family stages (Smith
et al., 1969).
Family stage also affects the amount of children's
privacy. The youngest pre-school child has more privacy
than other age children due to nap time which may not al
ways be spent in sleep. Children with private bedrooms
were able to choose more privacy and had more privacy than
those who shared bedrooms (Smith et al., 1969). On a cog
nitive level, however, Wolfe and Laufer (1974) found no re
liable differences in the salience of privacy meanings be
tween children sharing and not sharing bedrooms.
Research on Interpersonal Theories of Privacy
When privacy is conceptualized as control over when and
to whom to transmit information, then research on self-dis
closure becomes relevant to privacy. Jourard (1966, 1971)
has explicitly related these two research areas as points
along the same continuum of self-communication. In both the
privacy (Westin, 1967) and self-disclosure literature,


APPENDIX A
CONCEPTUAL EXPLANATION OF MULTIDIMENSIONAL
SCALING
Multidimensional scaling (MDS) is a set of related
analytic procedures which both determines the number of
dimensions along which subjects discriminate stimuli and
identifies or labels these dimensions. The MDS procedure is
free from theoretical biases and does not require that the
dimensions be registered in the conscious, verbalizable
awareness of the respondent. The absence of theoretical
predilections permits a comparative evaluation of theories.
By not requiring subjects to conjecture about their cog
nitive processes, the procedure avoids the problems re
lated to reporting these processes accurately (Hisbett &
Wilson, 1977).
Multidimensional scaling is an extension of psycho
physical scaling (Shepard, Romney & Nerlove, 1972) which
is theoretically based on stimulus discrimination. By re
quiring subjects to report the amount of similarity or dis
similarity between stimuli, the process of stimulus discrim
ination is engaged. The resultant problem is to then iden
tify the stimulus (or stimuli in the case of MDS) along
which the subjects are discriminating. This can be accom
plished through a variety of techniques (see Shepard, Rom
ney & Nerlove, 1972).
116


124
Since it was predicted that the frequencies for each
of the four types of privacy (Westin, 1967) would be widely
discrepant resulting in extremely low numbers in some types,
a second set of situations were elicited from a second
group of students. Nineteen students (ten males and nine
females) completed a booklet of six pages. A total of one
hundred and three usable stories were obtained. Each page
instructed the subject to describe a specific type of pri
vacy which was defined by the experimenter based on Westin's
(1967) definitions. For exploratory purposes, three def
initions of 'intimate' were constructed by manipulating two
theoretical dimensions. These dimensions were group seclu
sion (Westin, 1967) and self-disclosure (Jourard, 1966).
The six set of instructions with definitions follows:
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very anonymous. Being anonymous means being unknown
to anyone in a group. Describe . (same as in
original instructions).
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very solitary. Being solitary means being alone,
not with other people. Describe . .
Please think of a time in your life when you felt
very reserved. Being reserved means using restraint
in expressing one's thoughts, feelings, or actions.
Describe . .


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Gregory H. Wilmoth was born in Louisville, Kentucky,
in 1947. He attended Roman Catholic schools in Elizabeth
town, Kentucky, graduating from Elizabethtown Catholic
High School in 1965. He received an A.A. degree from
Elizabethtown Community College before receiving his B.A.
degree, majoring in anthropology, from the University of
Kentucky in 1969. In 1975 he was awarded an M.A. degree
in anthropology from the State University of New York at
Binghamton and later (1977) earned an M.A. degree is Psy
chology from Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green,
Ky.
Following graduation in 1969, Greg was a research as
sistant on an applied anthropology project in Eastern Ken
tucky. During 1970, he worked as a research assistant on
archaeological excavations in Kentucky and Illinois. While
living in a large farm house built of logs, circa 1820,
with five friends and numerous cats and dogs, he taught an
thropology and sociology at Elizabethtown Community College
and the University of Kentucky-Ft. Knox. As a student at
Western Kentucky University, he served as assistant to the
director of the Kentucky Museum. Upon leaving this posi
tion, he became instructor of psychology and sociology at
Edison State College, Piqua, Ohio.
183


59
Subsequently the subjects were presented response booklets.
At the top of each page of the booklet was a "target situ
ation" and subjects were instructed to rank order all of
the privacy situations in terms of their similarity in the
experience of being private to each target. The nine sep
arate target situations were members of the 40 experi
mental stimuli and were selected to represent each of the
nine hypothesized conditions causing the subjective expe
rience of privacy (see Appendix C for a description of this
selection procedure). Order of targets was randomized over
subjects. One target was repeated to provide a reliability
estimate (refer to Appendix C).
Phase 3
The dimensions constituting the experience of subjec
tive privacy were determined by analysing the data obtained
in Phase 2 via SAS ALSCAL (Young & Lewyckyj, 1979). In
order to identify and label these resultant dimensions,
45 introductory psychology students participated in
Phase 3 for course credit. One female and two males failed
to appropriately complete the experimental task and their
data were excluded from the analysis. Subjects were tested
in same-sex groups of 10.
The experimenter explained that the purpose of the ex
periment was to identify the qualities that best character
ized situations in which students felt private. Each


13
however, no single such optimization; rather the achieved
optimization is influenced by such focal and background
stimuli as room function and outside view--activity. The
compromise between the opposing requirements for outward
and inward vision would be optimized more toward privacy
for a bedroom fronting on the street as opposed to a kitch
en facing a secluded backyard.
Marshall (1972) explicitly treats the residual stim
uli of childhood home density and childhood neighborhood
density. She deduced that: (1) those reared in a high
density home (large number of siblings and without a room
of one's own) would prefer low levels of privacy as a re
sult of adapting to the attendant lack of privacy in the
childhood home, and (2) those spending their childhood in
cities, as opposed to small towns, would prefer more ano
nymity as a result of adapting to the increased availabil
ity of anonymity in the city. Both actual density and per
ceived crowdedness of childhood environments were consid
ered .
Background stimuli such as present environmental den
sity in the home and neighborhood were also hypothesized to
be related to preferred privacy (Marshall, 1972). An in
dividual's preference for privacy represents an adaptation
to the amount of privacy available within one's environment.
Preference for privacy should be inversely related to den
sity in the present home and neighborhood environment.


71
Dimension #1 (Social Density) is significantly correlated
with the degree of perceived privacy. The "Interpersonal
Involvement" dimension (#3) is also significantly related
to perceived privacy. Finally, the second dimension (NOR
MATIVENESS) of the two-dimensional solution is correlated
(r=-.301, p=.06) at a marginally significant level. "Phys
ical Involvement" shows no relationship to perceived privacy.
The stepwise regression of the two-dimensional solution
indicates that both dimensions together significantly pre
dice (F(2,30)=4.7, p=.02) the privacy scale scores. Each
dimension accounts for one-half of the explained variance
(rsq=.20).
The four-dimensional solution also significantly pre
dicts the privacy scale scores. When dimension #1 is en
tered first into the stepwise regression followed by the
inclusion of dimension #3 29 percent of the variance in
privacy scale scores is predicted (F(2,30)=7.68, p=.002).
Although the F-value (F2,30)=3.97, p=.009) for all four
dimensions entered into the stepwise regression is signif
icant, less than 2 percent of explained variance is added.
Note that dimension #2 in the four-dimensional solution is
distinctly different from the "Normativeness" dimension of
the two-dimensional solution.
While the above analyses add support to the view that
privacy is a single, multidimensional construct, a more
atomistic analysis might provide further evidence


182
Taylor, D. & Altman, I. Intimacy-scaled stimuli for use in
studies of interpersonal relations. Psychological Re
ports 1966 1_9, 729-30 .
Thurstone, L. & Chave, E. The measurement of attitude.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929.
Torgerson, W. Theory and methods of scaling. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, 1958.
Vera, H. Personal communication, 1980.
Walden, T., Smith, D. & Nelson, P. Crowding, privacy and
coping: An empirical investigation. Unpublished man
uscript. University of Florida, 1978.
Warren, C. & Laslett, B. Privacy and secrecy: A concep
tual comparison. Journal of Social Issues, 1977, 33,
43-51.
Weinstein, W.L. The private and the free: A conceptual
inquiry. In J.R. Pennock and J.W. Chapman (Eds.),
Privacy. New York: Atherton Press, 1971.
Westin, Alan. Privacy and freedom. New York: Ateneum,
1967 .
Wicker, Allan. An introduction to ecological psychology.
Monterey, Ca.: Brooks/Cole, 1979.
Windley, Paul. Measuring environmental dispositions of el
derly females. In W.F.E. Preiser (Ed.), Environmental
design research: Symposia and workshops,~fourth EDRA
conference. vol. F! Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden,
Hutchinson & Ross, 1973.
Wolfe, M. Childhood and privacy. In I. Altman & J. Wohl-
will (Eds.), Children and the environment. New York:
Plenum Press, 1978.
Wolfe, M. & Laufer, R. The concept of privacy in childhood
and adolescence. In Daniel Carson (Ed.), Man-environ-
ment interactions: Evaluations and applications.
Part II (6). Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson &
Ross, 1974.
Young, F. & Lewyckyi, R. ALSCAL-4: User's guide. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: Forest W. Young, 1979.


62
sources of information are resorted to in determining the
most appropriate and illuminating dimensional solution.
First, correlations between the dimensional coordinates of
each solution and the defining attribute ratings are exam
ined and reported. Second, correlations between the dimen
sional coordinates of each solution and the privacy unidi
mensional scale values obtained in Phase 1 are examined and
reported. This triangulation of data sometimes converges
to clarify the interpretation of the results and at other
times suggests noncongruent, alternative interpretations.
Multidimensional Privacy Results
The stress values and r-square values for the one
through six dimensional solutions are presented in Table 1.
The reduction in stress values due to the generation of the
third and subsequent dimensions is small. This suggests
that a two-dimensional solution is adequate. Subsequent ex
ploratory analyses of the three- through five-dimensional
solutions indicate that the four-dimensional solution is
noteworthy. Thus both the two-dimensional and four-dimen
sional analyses are presented.
The first dimension of the two-dimensional solution is
defined by three attributes. The attribute, "too much going
on around the actor," is the only one achieving an accepted
level of significance (r=-.36, p=.02). The other two


134
Table 17.
Scale Values and Q-Values of MDS Privacy Situations
Item #
Type*
Scale Value
Q-Value
471
Aa
1.90
1
441
A
3.03
3
345
R
1.55
0
094
R
6.18
2
445
R
2.13
2
371
R
5.20
3
063
R
5.38
4
114
R
4.18
4
115
R
4.08
4
121
R
3.63
4
451
R
3.35
4
013
Ia
6.58
2
154
I
6.95
2
301
I
6.88
2
405
I
6.95
2
462
I
6.43
2
033
I
5.95
3
023
I
4.10
4
134
I
2.83
4
135
I
3.30
4
051
Sa
7.23
1
Oil
sb
5.08
3
031
s
5.25
3
053
sab
6.45
3
055
sb
6.25
3
335
s
5.70
3
341
s
3.63
3
353
s
4.53
3
402
s
6.28
3
433
s
3.60
3
035
sab
5.43
3.25
021
s
5.25
4
024
s
4.00
4
032
s
4.43
4
041
s
4.95
4
151
s
5.00
4
343
s
3.45
4
391
s
5.50
4
455
s
5.85
4
482
s
4.48
4
Notes: A
S
= Anonymous,
= Solitary.
R = Reserved
, I :
= Intimacy,
'a'
= significant
sex.
difference in
group
variance by
'b'
= significant
difference in
group
means by se:


37
Some relationships between certain childhood density
variables and isolated PPS subscales were found. Prefer
ence for anonymity increased as the size of the town one
had grown-up in increased. An increasing size of childhood
town increased the preference for adult intimacy. The de
sire for intimacy was higher amongst those adults who had
lived in single family residences as children. While shar
ing a room as a child, having many siblings, and having
open space around the childhood home were not related to
adult privacy preferences, these variables were related
to perceived crowding of the childhood home. Those adults
who in turn remembered their childhood homes as crowded
preferred both anonymity, intimacy, and reserve.
Developmental Research
Developmental research on privacy can be divided into
four categories: (1) research on changes in privacy atti
tudes over the developmental cycle, (2) research on changes
in the meaning of privacy over the developmental cycle,
(3) research on changes in household privacy behaviors and
their socialization correlates over the developmental cycle,
and (4) research on changes in household privacy behaviors
over the stages of the family cycle. These will be reviewed
in turn.
Viewing preference as an attitude, preference for a
private room increases with age from years ten through forty


171
341 When I came to the university I had never been
away from home. I had my own apartment. I had no
one to disturb me in any way. I come from a large
family.
343 About five years ago I was away from my parents
for almost five months. Even though I was stay
ing with my aunt and uncle, I felt very lonely
and solitary. Specially for about three hours
since I would get home from school and my uncle
would not be there.
345 When I was going through high school I dated a
girl whose parents were of the so-called "High
Society." Therefore whenever I was invited for
dinner or something like that I always tried to
talk very little so as not to be embarrassed by
one of my vulgaries. It turned out that these
High Society people were worse than many families
that were poor.
353 During the first couple of weeks of school, I
would sit alone in my room with no one to talk to.
Things began racing through my head about how ter
rible it is here and how much better it would be
at home. I longed for the warmth of my home and
my parents. I was acting out of emotion and not
rationally. Everything is so boring and uninter
esting. My get up and go seemed to have left me.
371 Sometimes when I have my menstrual period, I don't
like to discuss my feelings even with my boyfriend.
During that time I feel very mellow.
391 I was once all alone in a forest on private land.
I was all alone except for a few squirrels and
some birds. I enjoyed the absence of other people,
yet I wished that my boyfriend were with me.
What's really strange is that even though I de
sired his company, if he had been there I most
likely would have wanted to be alone. I wouldn't
want anyone to think I wasn't satisfied with my
own company.
402 I was going out with this guy and one day I de
cided to stop by his house. When I got there,
there was a girl that I didn't know about visit
ing him. I felt very uncomfortable and out of
place so I left. I went driving down this little
road until I got to the lake shore where I had


20
level of privacy-interaction, either a deficit or an ex
cess activates behaviors to restate the optimization bal
ance. Both inputs from others and outputs to others are
governed by this boundary-regulation process.
Altman's theory has conceptual appeal due to the fact
that the conceptualization of crowding and isolation can be
derived from the privacy theory. Crowding exists when de
sired privacy is high and inputs from others are simultane
ously high. When the desire for social contact is high
(low desired privacy) and actual contact (output to others)
is low then isolation is experienced. The motivational
element (desired privacy) of the theory introduces the cen
tral concept of control. Whether intimacy or invasion of
privacy occurs is determined by whether the contact is cho
sen. Choice is the volitional aspect of control. To the
extent that privacy is optimized, control has been success
fully achieved. An achieved privacy which is discrepant
from the desired privacy motivates the re-exertion of con
trol .
Whereas Jourard (1966, 1971) restricts privacy to the
control exercised over information about self, Altman (1975)
encompasses the control over all self-other contacts within
privacy. The implications of this distinction are impor
tant: in Jourard's conceptualization there is a single,
essential motivation for privacy, the concealment of knowl
edge about self; in Altman's theory there can be multiple


143
selected as a target for another quality, thereby leaving
item #135 as the target for the "space" quality.
Two situations (353 and 041) had high ratings on "a
situation in which one is free from observation" and high
ratings on only one other factor. Item #353 was chosen
as the target stimuli to represent this quality based on
its clarity of description. The factor "person voluntar
ily communicates about self to others" also had only two
situations (033 and 405) with high loadings on this qual
ity and only one other quality. The selected target was
item #033 because its rating on the to-be-represented qual
ity was higher than item #405.
Three situations (033, 405 and 462) had high ratings
on the quality "another person in the situation knows the
author's actions, thoughts and/or feelings." These situ
ations also had high ratings on two other qualities. Item
#033 was eliminated as the target because it had previously
been selected as a target for another quality. Item #462
was chosen as the target because its description was most
explicitly related to the to-be-represented quality.
"Absence of close, physical proximity to others" had
high ratings on ten items. In one situation (041) there
was a high loading on only one other quality. In other
situations (053, 151, 391, 035) high ratings occurred on
two additional qualities. Item #391 was selected as the
target because it most explicitly described the to-be-rated
quality.


APPENDIX D
SELECTION OF DEFINING ATTRIBUTES AND DEFINING
ATTRIBUTE PROCEDURE
To identify the dimensions uncovered by the MDS anal
ysis, a set of defining attributes to be used in rating the
situations is required. A list of one hundred words and
phrases which are potentially attributes of privacy situa
tions was extracted from the privacy and crowding litera
ture (see Table 21). To distill them into a manageable
number and to eliminate redundant (highly correlated) at
tributes, a factor analysis study was performed. To the
extent that redundant attributes exist in the attribute
set, which will be subjected to a multiple regression onto
the MDS dimension coordinates, the problem of multicollin-
earity will obtain and thereby reduce the clarity of the
interpretation of results.
Ratings on the one hundred attributes were obtained by
having subjects rate each of ten situations on all one hun
dred attributes. These situations consisted of seven pri
vacy situations selected from the MDS stimulus set and three
crowding situations to be used in a subsequent multidimen
sional scaling analysis of crowding. The privacy situations
included both a high and low scale value item for intimacy
(#405 and #134) solitude (#051 and #035) and reserve (#904
147


96
Table 14.
Solitude MDS Dimensions Correlated with
Defining Attributes
(Three Dimensional Solution)
Dimension
Item #
DIMENSIONAL LABEL / Item
r
1
PLEASANTNESS
1
comfortable
-. 761
10
free to be self
-. 751
21
in control of events
-. 7 41
31
actor feels distressed
. 691
27
actor feels helpless
. 681
2
UNDEFINED
35
feels like an outsider
. 393
27
feels helpless
. 393
3
FAMILIARITY
18
familiar
. 502
20
trusts others present
-. 492
32
actor is self-revealing
. 462
1p<.01
2p<.05
3p>.0 5


significant. No reliable dimensional solution was obtained
for the solitude situations.
The Personal-Impersonal, Self-Disclosure, and Empathy
dimensions derived from the partitioned analyses shared de
fining attributes with the Interpersonal Involvement dimen
sion. This was interpreted as indicating that the Inter
personal Involvement dimension was a higher-order dimension
with three components. Intimacy and reserve were distinct
based on their respective combinations of these component,
lower-order dimensions. Intimacy was further specified by
the Normativeness dimension.
The results were evaluated against current privacy the
ories. The data were supportive of Altman's interpersonal
boundary-regulation theory and Kelvin's social-normative
theory of privacy. There was little evidence supporting a
theory of privacy as control and choice freedom.
A U-shaped three dimensional model consisting of Social
Density, Normativeness, and Interpersonal Involvement was
proposed to explain the perception of privacy. The model
specifies that both high Interpersonal Involvement (inti
macy) and low Interpersonal Involvement (solitude) are as
sociated with high perceived privacy. Solitude and anonym
ity are primarily distinguished by being low and high re
spectively on the Social Density dimension. Perceived pri
vacy increases as Social Density decreases. The Normative
ness dimension is speculated to interact additively with the
viii


9
by primary relationships (Gemeinshaft) and intimacy while
post-primitive societies are defined by secondary relation
ships (Gesellshaft) and reserve. The social fragmentation
resulting from a Gesellshaft society creates social isola
tion which engenders individual anxiety. It is this anxi
ety which causes the individual's desire for privacy. Ano
nymity is impossible (except possibly in selected rituals)
in a Gemeinshaft society. The desire for solitude is nat
ural to both types of society and functions to "regenerate
social life for its more harmonious living" (Halmos, 1953,
p. 168).
Unlike Halmos, Pastalan (1970a) does not directly claim
territoriality to be an inherited drive. He does, however,
treat it as an universal in human behavior. Human territo
riality has, furthermore, unique behavioral states (pri
vacy) which have no conceptual counterparts in animal ter
ritoriality. Westin's (1967) four states of privacy and
their related functions (personal autonomy, emotional re
lease, self-evaluation, and protected communication) have
no parallel in animal behavior. Human territoriality, there
fore, has social determinants such as the situational con
text, one's position in a role system, and one's emotional
goals. These will be explicated later in reviewing Pasta-
lan's (1970b) other work.
Without proposing discrete instincts, Klopfer and Ru-
benstein (1977) argue that some degree of privacy is


14
Predictions about the type of privacy effected by home
and neighborhood density are different and thus the de
sired type of privacy also changes respective to these two
forms of density. Note that whereas Marshall addresses
the adaptation relation between preferred (desired) pri
vacy and environmentally available privacy, Hill (1969)
focuses on the relation between perceived privacy and
achieved privacy.
Developmental-Learning Theories
Marshall's (1972) hypotheses about the effect of
childhood density experiences on adult privacy preferences
assumes that experiences perceived as either private, inva
sions of privacy, or crowding are the same in both child
hood and adulthood. Developmental psychology challenges
such assumptions, partially through the impact of learning.
Ittelson, Proshansky, Rivlin, and Kinkel (1974) believe
that our conceptions of what constitutes privacy, the areas
in v/hich privacy is appropriate, the settings which support
it, and the techniques available to enforce privacy are
learned through the observation of adults, primarily through
experiencing exclusion from adults' lives.
The earliest developmental conceptualization of privacy
(Smith et al., 1969) focused on the family developmental cycle
as opposed to the individual developmental cycle. Different
stages of the family cycle represent distinguishable activity


40
"Controlling information" was emitted more than "alone"
for only seven-year-olds, than "no one bothering me" for
all ages except thirteen-year-olds, and than "controlling
access to spaces" by all ages. The meaning "alone" was
given by a greater percentage of children than "no one
bothering me" at all ages except seven, and more than "con
trolling spaces" at all ages except seven and nine. Only
children at age thirteen gave "no one bothering me" more
than "controlling spaces." More children at all ages gave
"alone" and "controlling information" than "no one bother
ing me" and "control over spaces." The percent of chil
dren using "when you want to" as part of the meaning for
privacy increases with age and is used more often after
age fifteen.
Averaged across all ages, the most frequently pro
vided meanings for privacy were: (1) controlling access
to information (39%) (2) alone (33%) (3) no one bother
ing me, and (4) controlling access to spaces. These four
categories of mean were given by four largely independent
groups of children controlling for age. This result indi
cates that control per se cannot be viewed experientially
as unidimensionally.
Knowledge about privacy behavioral changes and the so
cialization influences on these changes is provided Parke
and Sawin's (1979) research. They found that the use of
physical privacy markers and privacy rules both increased


CHAPTER II
METHOD
The study consisted of three phases. The first phase
involved collecting paragraphs describing situations in
which students felt private. These served as the experi
mental stimuli. In Phase 2 subjects produced similarity
rankings between the privacy stimuli. These data enabled
the determination of the dimensions used by respondents in
comparing and discriminating among privacy situations. In
order to identify and label these major dimensions, Phase 3
respondents rated each privacy situation on 40 relevant
qualities. An overview of the procedures employed will be
described separately for each of these phases. A complete,
detailed description of each phase is provided in respec
tive appendices noted.
Phase 1
Paragraphs describing privacy situations were collected
from 36 undergraduates from the University of Florida. Sub
jects received class credits for responding five times to
the following instructions:
Please think of a time in your life v/hen you felt very
private.
57


118
constructed and the results would only be a form of manipu
lation check indicating the experimenter's skill at creat
ing discriminable situations.
In the present proposal, one theoretical bias is in
troduced by the elicitation frame. Instructing people to
describe situations in which they felt private assumes
that private situations are discrete from non-private sit
uations. It may be the case as implied by Altman (1975)
and maintained by Vera (1980) that privacy is a character
istic of all human behavior and varies only in degree from
situation to situation; that is, it is a continuous vari
able .
To avoid experimenter bias in general, the experimen
tal stimuli should be generated by a sample of the popula
tion who will be performing the MDS tasks. A standard tech
nique for doing this is to provide subjects with a recall
response frame in which they are instructed to remember an
occasion on which they felt 'crowded,' for example (Schop-
ler et al., 1978), and to describe that incident in detail.
It is assumed using information processing models (Klatzky,
1975) that in performing this task subjects will access an
LTM storage category appropriate to the instructions and
retrieve examples of occasions fitting that category. The
details recorded for those occasions by the subject are as
sumed to include aspects (stimulus dimensions) of that oc
casion corresponding to the defining features of that LTM


73
demonstrating the specific dimensional combinations and
properties of the four types of privacy. The multidimen
sional data set was, therefore, subsequently partitioned
into subsets containing data for the privacy situations
previously coded into the four types. Three usable subsets
resulted. Too few stimuli existed for privacy situations
which were anonymous to be further analyzed. The results
for the remaining three privacy types are reported in al
phabetical order.
Multidimensional Intimacy Results
The MDS stress values and r-square values for one
through five dimensional solutions appear in Table 5. The
insubstantial increase in the stress and r-square values be
tween the two and three, and four and five dimensional solu
tions suggests that either a two or four dimensional solu
tion is optimal. Both solutions are, therefore, explored
via the defining attribute data. The five dimensional solu
tion is also discussed due to its potentially interesting
relationship to the privacy scores.
The first dimension of the two dimensional solution is
defined by six attributes (see Table 6). in order of their
correlational magnitude they are (1) the situation is im
personal (r=-.87, p=.002), (2) the situation is unpredict
able (r=.84, p=.004); the actor is self-revealing to others


4
(1977)) defined privacy as a process of controlling per
sonal transactions through control over boundaries between
self and others, and Marshall (1974) defined it as the abil
ity to control the degree to which people and institutions
encroach upon one's life. In Altman's (1975) privacy the
ory, privacy is defined as "selective control of access to
the self or to one's group." (p. 18) These definitions
tend to share the characteristic that privacy is a bidirec
tional processboth input from others to self and output
from the self to others are controlled. Definitions which
emphasize the selective control of information communicated
about self (Jourard, 1966; Westin, 1967; and others) do not
contain this bidirectionality dimension.
One further definitive dimension of privacy, its nor-
nativeness, is emphasized by sociologists. Warren and Las-
lett (1977) distinguish between secrecy and privacy by the
normative acceptance and protection of the behavior in ques
tion. Privacy protects those behaviors which are either
morally neutral or valued by society through consensual,
social legitimation and further seen as nonthreatening to
others. Schwartz (1968) and Kelvin (1973) also primarily
discussed this normative element of privacy. None of the
previously cited definitions of privacy include this norma
tive distinction.
Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973) contend that many
behaviors, events, and affective experiences are encompassed


114
more complex at this point because here the lower-order di
mensions of Interpersonal Involvement are introduced.
To the extent that intimacy is simply group solitude
and is normative, a moderate level of perceived privacy is
hypothesized. Perceived privacy given this state, however,
will increase as Self-Disclosure increases, Empathy in
creases, and the interaction is more personal. It is varia
tion on these three lower-order dimensions that is hypoth-
exized to account for increases or decreases in perceived
privacy for normative, intimate situations.
Reserved situations occupy a middle ground on the In
terpersonal Involvement and Social Density dimensions. Like
intimacy, the perception of privacy in reserved situations
is hypothesized to be largely a matter of its position on
the Personal-Impersonal dimension. The more personal the
content withheld, the more private is the situation per
ceived to be. Possibly associated with this dimension is
the Normativeness dimension. The less normative the content
not disclosed, the more private it may be perceived. High
scores on Empathy are hypothesized to decrease perceived
privacy. Interactions between Empathy and Self-Disclosure
are also predicted.
The results from this multidimensional scaling study
have suggested the above model. Such a multidimensional
model is required to adequately explain a multidimensional
construct like privacy. This study has confirmed the


3
should be communicated to others and under what conditions."
This seminal definition has been used by Pastalan (1970a,
1970b), Roberts and Gregor (1971) and Derlega and Chaikin
(1977). Three key elements of this definition, i.e. deci
sion autonomy, information about self, and communication,
are central to related definitions. Bates (1964) stated
that privacy is a person's feeling that others should be
excluded from a structured portion of this total phenomeno
logical field. Similarly for Jourard (1966) privacy is an
outcome of a person's wish to withhold from others certain
knowledge about his past and present experience and action,
and his intentions for his future. Finally, Bennett (1967)
defined privacy as the selective control of communication.
Despite the core elements shared by each of these def
initions, a unified concept is negated by differences in
the ontological locus of privacy. In Westin's perspective,
privacy is a legal-political prerogative as opposed to the
emotional state proposed by Bates. Alternatively, privacy
is an informational outcome state between social actors re
sulting from selective communication (Jourard, 1966).
Privacy definitions which focus exclusively on the
autonomy (choice freedom) dimension tend to claim the onto
logical status of "process" rather than of "state." At the
most inclusive level, privacy is a claim to immunity from
intrusion or control by others (Proshansky & Ittelson, 1970;
and Weinstein, 1971) Margulis (1974 and used by Berscheid


18
Social learning theory suggests a model of reactions to in
vasion of privacy which Smith and Swanson (1979) do not de
velop .
Interpersonal Theories
Some of the developmental dimensions presented by
Laufer, Proshansky, and Wolfe (1973) confront the interper
sonal, social nature of privacy. Jourard (1966, 1971),
most known for his theory and research on interpersonal
self-disclosure, has clearly conceived of privacy as one
extreme of the self-disclosure process. He frames self
disclosure and concealment (privacy) as bi-polar opposites.
Jourard's (1966, 1971) definitions of self-disclosure and
privacy are conceptually interdependent: privacy is the
achieved concealment of knowledge about self while self
disclosure is the revealment of knowledge about self. Self
disclosure is a process that changes the state of privacy
existing between two people. Intimacy is both achieved by
and a state of high self-disclosure. In Westin's (1967)
frequently cited types of privacy, intimacy is the polar
opposite of solitude.
The psychological functions attributed to privacy
(Jourard, 1966; and Altman, 1975) are identical to those
claimed for self-disclosure (Jourard, 1971). That which
constitutes the content of privacy is conceptually equiva
lent to that of self-disclosure: centrality to the person's


154
Table 23.
Initial Factor Structure for Potential
Defining Attributes
Factor # Factor Label Item Loading
Factor 1*
Factor 2 CROWDED AND PUBLIC
Too many people for space .80
situation too noisy .77
public .76
crowded .76
high physical density .73
impersonal .62
few people present -.62
too much going on .62
must cope with too many people .61
visible .61
exposed .56
emotionally involved -.53
people too close .52
Factor 3 SOLITUDE AND SEPARATION
solitary .65
insulated from others .64
undetected .63
free from observation .60
secluded .58
actor is excluding others .54
physically separated from others .53
Factor 4 SELF-DISCLOSURE
actor is self-revealing .75
willing to talk about self .73
talks openly about self .68
actor is revealing .68
actor is communicating .54
Factor 5 RESERVE
careful about what they say .64
actor feels shy .60
actor is reserved .56
actor is under surveillance .51