..1‘1.‘ 1 40 . .4‘1. 4 0 0 I I . . 0.. ..I.( .. 0.0.30.0 .0: . ... II. in 0 0... I. 0., I... 0.0 .... . A ..00. . .. 3.5.. l... .... .. E. 05.. I8 ..’.A00J...Ir_.. .0010 . ....04 .1‘ ...... ..1451 10.“... .l. I 111 . II VI 1. ...... 0? an. O :.. .... I. 0 . V . .. . ..0 .0 . 001 .. . . . .... . .00 :0. . 0 1 o 0.. :01. . 000. 0 . . I ... .. 2|... . o I 0.0. ...... W .01 .001... .0. ..‘60 i‘ P .0 .00." ”wk“ . . . . . .0. I; O. I 0 . .000.\..l..9.00. N. 0.0.. 0 . 0. . 00. N 0.0.. ......0. .:.....10020‘. . .0. ...-0' p.- .L'.‘ 0P.0..I..-_.o”0r v“.... 0 0O. ......“ V.. 00....- 0..0... 5000.000. . V . . . . . . .. .11. . .. .0..’ s. 2!. . . .0 ...v. .00. . .. l .- I. I . . 0. 60,0 .0 ....100003 . .\1.00... .0‘. 00 2).: CO. «0.0.: 0.00.‘....0.,00.”0I0 ‘..v.r..'.é.t0.9 . . . . .2’. 0 . .‘ 00.0.0... 0.. n. .. \O. . , .3 .V.. 1.... .. .. ...0 I 0.3... I .:..-00.0", 0 .0. ..‘o.0QJo...l..£‘ 00 . V . .. .00. .. 0.. . 3.. 00070000. 0... 0... 0:04....- .II0 0.0) . . . . 0 .0. . Z ...0 I . a... \.0..0. 00. .00.. ...!1 8000.20 .:.. .... I .0 8.0.0... 0 .00 0.0.. ..0... 1!. IId . I 0.. If... 0 t «"030. ....0 0.0 .0 -...fins.‘ ..l..l0.0 ....u‘! ..0I..l..00 .0 : 0.0.0.00.‘ 0.0.4.. . . ...-.00 .. .I .0... .I . . ... 0. ......f... .....‘b .2. ... .0. .... . 0. . \Lux...:..0l:..0|1)0...vk . .... $00.0”...5. .5900, .50 O. ......- 06...’ .0... 0. “'0: 00.0 .1003. ..l: '0..0.. . 0I00 0 0 0:300! 0.. 1.0.“. 3.0.. ... 0 I 0 a! J... . 0 .. 0 .0- 00. ..0.I . . .00. L’.‘. ..Q. 01...... ...... .... ...Iu .... 1'..- 00.'~.I000 \Itcfi. . 01 00‘00190 3. 0.110 a .I) .... 0 «a 3.013.002.0951... ... ..l-Ifl..v. .0 .00 .70 ...0 600.0. . 0... 1.0.0.1....0390... I. 0 00.... ......i . . . . .... .. .3! .. .. 00.0.. ... {0.0 ...... . .... .0 . r 0.. . .1......: .00 ... ....I . O. . L .00.... ... .:.. o .(0 . . ...?0. .‘r .l :1 0‘0... ...... .r . . . .0... 0. ....I . . 0.. . .‘II. . 300.00.10‘0 .. ‘00 2.00... .00 0 a I .530... V. 01.30 0.00710031’. .0 . . . . . . V‘re’. .... 00’ I . ...: ..- ... V00 .... V .9. I. . . v 1101...... 0V.I . . . 0. .920 I03? .0 . \..0 00. .‘ ..‘(1 .100000‘vw 00 0’ :0. .. .... ...! . .... 0.0..) 9.0.0. 0. 0.0230. 9 0.000! .9... 3.0.0I10 . 05.44... 0.. 0.00.. . 2.1.0.0. 0.10.30....03....0.0\..0I0......‘I. .... . .0. . :0. 2...... t .00. 0 ...!..0.. o... 01.... ...... ... . .9 ...0 . .. ... 18:12:09.1312. . 3 .1...2QII.. 30.00? -.....l; .u. ”Noon 0 . 40.00. 01,..03010‘00...‘ J .ul...0..0 '...0...0.0.... .0 0.0“. 0.0 . s ..7. I 1.. . vh- 0-010....0...o......fi0 . I50 ..(000... 0.91... .0... . .O- .30... ... .. 0.0.... ...x...0!0. 0. $010.30.. .... r... ...I’ , O0 7. , 0.... 20.1.... .....Ic 0.1.00... .:.—02... .....00 010‘"..0 .. .0 .73.... 0...“...‘0 I. . 01L. .00.... '. ...0...0Q. .500 0.0.. 001030 0.00:8? .. . .‘féll .0.0 00 320‘?! 01 ...00. 1.0.00»0 . I0..I . . . a .. ... I... 00 . 5.. ... . .4 S ...0. :0. .. ... ... .v0 .00 0...! .d.‘ . ... «U250 .10 . .. .. .:. . .. 0.0 .0.. .:. 000.000.600.020... 00... 0 10].. ..v...‘ 00. I0... .0 I . . . ... ..I. ...-0.. . 0.00 .00 .. . 0 . ., 0. ... 0 .. . 0' .. .... 1...: .. J" .....V. . .II .0. 0:00 :00. ... 00.! ...0. I 0. .. ...0 ...)..IIs “I03. I: 0... .. 50.. I0. . 00...: . . .v. . ...~. 0 T0 ... .‘0I0...v0...3 Fl» .... 0101.000I... ..90... .... I0 0. $0000. 0.. 130...... z 0!... 0.0.": .. . . .0303}... ... I\.. .... . . ... .... .0510 8.30.. ... ...: .. .. . . ... . ..P...‘ 9....-. ’0 01.03:...I. 00.0. 10...... Ila-000.3“. d. §. fl ... 8.031... 3’ 0000. '0. ...-.... .....900000. . I.....0....... .5053... 0.. ...I ....V.. $390.0 0. C .0... 04.. .00 .0. . . 0... ......0 {It-...... 0.. :7 . .0... .. :0. .0. 0.0... .... .. : .0. ..zts ...‘...I. 000 ...... 0 .00.0.0..0:.. .. ...» 0.1.... ...... 0......) .....0. .. 0.....V 3...! 000.4 I‘ #09“ g. 0 1 .0 0 .....0 I. . .... .. . .....0 00:0. ... 00. . ..IIQitfin’ZEI. 09.30.010- 00.3.... \00..flo..08000..$~. . . 9. .0 1...]... . .0 000007.31. 0.0... . .0. . . 0.000 . 00. . .. . .. 0 0.0. a . .. .... . ... . ._ . ... . .:..0.‘ .0... .v..X-.........I...X.VI.‘v .. . 0 $83.0 0 0... I.|’~fi . C 0. .. ...-30.0u..’0o“0h...0l0. H”... . 0 ”010’ 00-J.00,!.‘ T00? :..-...)... 0.00 0 0.1 3.00 . . V «020.1I. 0.0 0. I 0.... 0.. 0 0 I00 00.... ...0 ...: 0‘}.0 0t I.V ’ 0. . . ...0 .0... 00 0 0.0.0 0 ‘. . 3.0100 9.. 00 . ...?)I’.’ . .v. ‘50.. .0 50.00.1‘0,‘ I. '0. . .11...“ .3» ..ilJ’ u 6...- .n. 8.30.... 00‘: ..u.."0....0:.00 00:00:30.0 l).."¢.8 ...0'I0'0000I 0 9.000 . I 13.0.. .0... 0. ...!....00.00.. 0.9!...000. 0.1.1.000 . 0.022.... ...I . . .. .. 0.... . . I: .9280 . I 5:330:10 . . .l! ‘iiukrv . . .... .r... .8. .. 0.2.0.2.... ...-003.10... I 0...... . IQ...» . :0... .... VII; 0. ... .....V v. .... ...-Int... 0.... 1.0. .0 .r... ...0 .. .:.}... I..I..0....£.9 1... .03... .100... :..... .0 . . :..... .. .0. 4... 0. .....I . . , .. .III.... ...a... .:..!!th (3.0.... 60 tug-.00. .. 3‘00. 30-1.1000? .00. .. 0 .9000 009. 0 00.. 0“. 00?"..2. 3.00.9 .... ..\..I.=..00..h..000.u. .:....u .07 0.‘. . .. 0.70. ...-.0.- . . V . . I. ...0. . 1.3:... I .020. 30.0.90... ‘0.“ I .. . . . ....8‘....00. .... 3.. ... II...) ..I....‘..&0 10.00.. 0». .00.- ......00...00....I. 0.0 ...... .. 0. 0. 0.. .I0.. 0. .I . 0.0.... ...... . .0 . .. o I... .0. 0... .0... . . . .. 0 ...0. ..."..2'... I .. 010.0. I . .00... .C 0. 3... -20....(00.O..~ . .:..-0 .:.-00,000.. 0'04 .00.. 0. -V ....0 . ., LIE... 0.. :.0 0000. . 2.000.): ‘14.... . O. 0. .II'..0..!I ...-00.920'10: ..I . . 0 0.0.... 3.20.0.97’... .0100. . 9.. ... 0 . 0.035.... .I. . . .. .0... a... .0. .0. . .. 33.0.0 .00 -.. s..8’.C!‘.0&00..0..00.!<..00.I .7190. 1.200.”. .:.). .... .?r0...0. (0. l. .:.. 00 or...0..... _ I 00‘. -3022}. 0 L10... .. 0.00 .I . .- .0! 0. 2.020... 14V... ...-00..I0 0 10... . .0. . I . ... .. III} . _ 0 ..0 If: ... ., . )3! 0.4.0.0.. .0. .. .I0... 30...! 0. ......l...’ . -0. $0... . ...... .. .. .0 ... . 000.36 a. :0... Vlllrt...0. I. V? ..0.0 0.0.0.... .0. t I 13.1.0.0. . . (...! .0001l0300. .:.. . V . . .0 .. 0.0.. . )0... .0. .l0fiv... ... . ...-.00 .......000... 0...... 0... A .- ..nWt)). .0 . . .. . . 040 0 .. .00... 00 .....0: 301.30.001.06... .0 , 0 .03.. .0003? 2.! .....$ (0200. .11).. .0. 1.“ .....- .... 0.. .03 - I0. . .... .0 . ..0 . 0.0.0.0 . 0. .. ...... ... .01 . . .. ...... .30‘: 0:. 0 . :. 30.2.. .. ... 1.10.0... .....0 0. .. . .T..... 0 0.0 ..Isl......0}..fi¢|0'.1.00.01.)... 0.. .33.......0.0.f2 0. 0. 0... III. 00 .10. ...-.00.....\.!!.. 0.. .. . - .:.! ...-.0. .. ...-30.23:?! .0 ...-9...... ...-1...... . I. .00 .20. 3.2.0... ... . I. . . ... ...-.0. .... .0.0.0.... 0 1.. .. .I. .....70. 0... .00 . n. .. .... ... I0 ... 0.0.0.0... I.00.0.I.0!...’00_00.'0. . . .34.? . 0.50 ,0 .500. . 0:910... ...: 0. . 00 . 3‘03... . .9 .. .. . .. 91.00-00.00 0. ‘3 “0... 0 0 .K .0‘-\L§’ ....n .00.“ 0 10 .0) ..90. )2... .:...0. 0 .00 .002.» ...-0800.: 5:030 .:.). 20.0.0 . I, 0.0.0.0’30. 50.. 0.0.8.7. ...0 . 3’00 200- .5. £739. :0». .‘IO... ..0.....!I.0. . 0 04.. .0...9.000... 7. .0. :... 0.. 0.0.0.06... ... 0 . I I 1“. ... .: 0. v . 0.. ... .8)..P30I.I0...u.$0. 0:20.... .0P;0.0rr0. 0.0. ..0. ...-CI Int-01.1.0“ 0 ‘0’ . 301‘01I0’I0‘. .01....00. 00. ..r 3009')..0 00... .O . .000. ... 0.0.0 000 It..00.I0N..'..O.00, .0 00.0.... 0.1.00.0 O. .. .4100 00300.0...0 0 .....PI‘.’ 3.. 150.2710. 00.. 000 0 '0....00...:0‘.0.r“.‘l‘0\0’f...0301 $000 .I r100... .. 0.0 .. 0. O... ...-0.0.... . 0. .. 0C0...1 . 5. .3. VI... .. . . T? .04. 0.02.... O. .. 00. 00. 9...»! ... . .0 0.. .0... 03?. .3... :.. I... . ...I.0 0.... (Sn. 9.021..) ......nuL .0 . I) ...-.03 II} 00.... 001333.... 0...... 33¢. 0.. _ .6-.. .. I ..0. 0'. 00...... ...I. v . I, 0 ... r . .3‘...§. '5 .000. .:.! ....uq If... 5.928.005: 0.0.. .... 114.....030‘0 .112... 130.00 ......t‘. .. '00. 5.2.0.0 a... .830.» .399... 0.0... .. . .. ...... ... ......0... .0040 I . ....V.. ...?0... .......-I..Y._.0V.......0 v 0.00... 00; 7:0. . 0‘ . ... :00... . 30.0.0. A .. 00-00-00‘ . 002.0... .1. I ...00)00... . ...0: ‘00"0200. 0201...: ..0‘... . .. 0..- ‘ 3-3-4.9. 0 3.00 ...... 00.000Il‘..0~’ I0 . 0.00.0 1. . V . I 00. 0.0.0. .0 ....0 0.0.0.00. ., .. .0 . .. 0 .w ‘0... . .i. 0.. . 0100...... ...... I0. .. 0‘0‘? - ,. I: .. I. I000) :010’. . 01.0.0" Igkao‘ISo. .:.-.200. .0 14031.00 000 2.0 0. 0.....00 .. 0dlyo, . 30:03! 0000100.. . .I :00. 0.3....) ’0. ‘ . 0 .I 00 a. . I ....‘32000... 7. .0 0.001. . . .320.- .. ..l‘o... I .1. D :..: .05... 00 u .10. I V .0. ...... 3000.00.20.30. .:..... . 00 r .030 0.0 0w . ....IO‘. .30. 00.0-00.4580 .5. I00 ...... 1 .. . 0.. . 0.... $000.00.... . ... 9 ... 0 alt? A. ...-00.0. I. 000.... . V . .I. .. 9.... ...-0. . 0.0.0. 0‘ ..- ........0....9Ill 0.0.0.0. 1.0.0.0 .. I 0 . o . ...... . .. "0.0.0.01?! .OI.1.30 00100 30.0.: :..-.00.. .0. .00...- ..0000 0 0.0.. 0 ... (....h .0 .0...00'|0Ia...0 1 3.0.0.00 . ..0‘ ...-p. .l' 0.0.. .... . . . . u - . . ... t . A .9 .0 ..I... 00000 . . 0 i 0 W 3.100010 9 ...”..«i' ...... . .0 7.0.0.1.... 200.029... ..wa-v0.0& 0.. . ... . V... .... 0003.. 01. 000.. 0. .0130“..- .0. ’30....0... .3... . ...:90 . 0030: 0.0300 1. . . . . . . . 2.0.0.0. .02 . . . . . . 0 .80.. l. ‘0. ...0. 120.... 0...... 0. . L .00 .000 0...! . . .. 0.00.419 ..0. 0 . I) ...... DJ. 00.0.3.0}. .IJI.': .0 00 0. .. 0.09300. '0. 00 . .00 15‘. ....0 .0. . . . _. . . V ...... I0)I00 . . . ..- I9..O..I0.. ..1. .I.I I... ......030. . . 0.0.06. 70.3«0L...0:n... ...-...: ..0.. .0 ' 3.0.0.200 .00...“ . 30.00W3.|\01I.003. 0 v7.0.0.7: :..-CV: .... . J . 0.3.. .00.. 0.0..-. 0...... . 0.. 1+ 5.0.0.0 . . . . .. . .v. l0..".¢00 C .l . 0......000 00“ u. 03.. .0 7‘03 0‘ 09 '0: ’ . kn“..¢ .‘o . '0 . 3‘. l‘...00000000 0., ,‘zv‘i’lc . 4 .. . . . ..0010 .I. 71.0.... 0.0 0,... .0 20.0 D... .. 000.. ..0. I I ‘10}. It 0'0 ‘0.‘00I'0D¢ a1. a ... 0‘. v 0.0.0... 00. .10.... 0:» 0010 ... 2.0.00.0 l0 :0 .00. . 0......3311 0. . . . .0 3"»-.. 0.5.09.0... . 0. . .«00 00...0!¢l. .. ... 00.0...)0: ” ...!II. ‘00... 0 c. (1103.... I . , . V . .. .900 ‘ ... . .0. 0.0 O I . .0. 0.. 20...... .I ...! 0.000. . 0. ‘.' ‘00. ’0 ...»... .... 3.03.0.0... .. .S 2.0.0.2950! (1:990:01? I . . . . ,. 00$ : . I I. 0.0... .. ... .. .90....1 0 .IV . :.......00. 0.074;... 3.70 7... 31.3.“ I90. I :5 .5107). V... . . .0 ....0...1 .0 .. (c0 00. (0.00.0 0.00 .0. ..0‘0}. 0“... . . . . .. . . . . .. . .... ... . ......nI.0I..0...f 0.20.0.0 0.... .:0. I: .00.... . .000. . 4.0.. Y. .0: .0 0.. f. .v V.I00.0l0 ... ..I . .-..S’.‘ J... 0.0.. 000.9... _ . . ,. . v . ... . . ‘._0 ’ P .00. 0 ' 00~ . . Iro.:ol . .. ... .0.- 0 l. 3 .00. .0 .0 ... 0.0000... . I. 0 .0 3.0.03. . I... ‘30 0‘4. r0000 0.“ 0.00.01.93.0100... 0'2 .0 ..000 000. 0.0 .H’Iluuool H».00‘00‘.‘...0..0.0 . .I . 90.0. .. .0 Q. .. ..Q o .00. V‘.h~..8:...\..§0.‘oo- ...00.V. .0 ... . ..0...‘ ..0. 0 .. ....I ... 0.0.50.0: -:....031 30.03,.- .3I.u.. 0 . ..v.« .r. 3.1.0... ...... ... ......0 . .l0.. 3! I! . 0.0.- «V0... .:.-0 00:04.00 0! 0 I .0... 03.01.513.330. 1:0... 09;... 0... 3.10.... 0 .:..-...... ..00. l. 0’ 00.0... . :7 I, .I0.. .1 .. 00. I! .(03 .000 0. v.00. 0 .000... 0.9000 ‘ .:..}:q .00. 9.30-20.73.30...- ..0.U.r .. I00. 0.0000. 0.00 ..00‘20..0.0~....0 . 0 . ....0 . . . . . .I. 0. .... . ‘ .0 I . .I. . .0 . 1 020.100.! 02“. 2‘01". ...-'0. ‘0; 0030. ... 0.0.... ...-V? 0 .9033... 0600..“ 0‘ ,0 .0 00— 000 I300. . _ r. . . . .0 0 . . . . ...-... I . [3. I. ,1... 0... 0.00.0 . . .4 It... . . . 00... 0. 04 v . . . . . ...... . 0.. .0 . I. 00 .0 .. 0.I.00 0 .0..90“00.3 0.0 '0‘- (1.0.0080 4. v. . n. O 00. .. .....00. 00.. 0000,)? 00.0.1030! 000'. a... a. . .‘nfi . 0 . .r. ......A\.. C 0.. 0 0 ...0.. 0.000 00003.0. .0. 0. . . 3.000 0’ . ... .035. a ... .. .. . 1‘ . . 00. . 7. .. .0 _. .. £91.82)...” «0.. l ...0. 0).. thQ0 .... V . .33. .00 0. 0 0|... 0100.250 03.0 .I. 00...... . . 0 . A 0... . . . 0. 0.... 52.10:...0. . II.I.000.00.I 10. I h. . 00.0.0. 7.0 n 00. 0 .0... I000 hiJ...A-0 :01. . £00 I... 0 7.21.0 [1.09.10 . .. 0.0.0.10. 0.. . . . .v 0.. I a..." . ._ .... I 00.2.3.3: 3.000.000... $0. 00. #IJVL I. ‘. ......R‘i 0 0.0 I. - ..Il. . ... ... 0 00.1.0... I .05. :0. 1.100... I0. ‘00.... . . ...! ...-0.06.... 0.0.0.00. ... . . .I . . ...-2.3.... .l. (0...... 0 , . L.OV. IN}... .0 ...... €00.30 0‘... .1. it. (.:.-.0. I. ...00....0:.001. .00. ... . 0...... ...-...}; .... I... 1.9.01... .....0 0. 0. 0 {’00: 00.0 .0 I .V... .0. 0.. I0 a ‘3... . I ... 10:... .I 0.1.... 0.6.0.... ... 9035......ICIO... Rs... 2‘ .....o I .. . .L0...0. . ., 0 .. I . 201.... .0 .1 .:..-20.04. .0 .‘00 ....10. 3.2.0.3 ...-1.1.0... .:..... 0 .000200'1... lt.03..f|$.0.... .:.. .. .0 . .0. . ......I I . I. .. 0.. ....Ir...‘ :3... 0.. .7... !!080. 5.00\O..00 0. .....00 .. 30.0 .AI01.. . 0!... 0. .. 1:). ...... .00..o00£l..00 .0 9.5%..0 I 30.? 9. 3.0.. .I 5.... 0 .... 1... .:.. . h0 . . _ 4.... 0 .:..... 1.0.20 ..0. ...??r... “411...... I. ...-:.. .I... ....00000»..g. _ w I. .r . #00,... . ... . \ 0.00.200. 0.0.0.95? ..003...090..0....... ... .3. 0.3.0.0. .. . '09....0 “r .I '0. . IG'PI. ...-00.000 . I... 0. ...0 . . ..00 p I; .. . ...: 0 . 0.... 0.0. .I0II,00..II: ..J. 00. 0.. . .00.... .0 . 1... .... .. .0 ...J0“. 0 In"... .0.0.A~.!.$.¢Io..0.00¢ 5.0.0.? .0. 0.0...» 0.00... ... ......0004 .0 ...... ..0 .I. 00. ...I .. .... ... 0.. . . I . . , _ .‘03.’ 0 .. L... ...!0 . .I .010I..i I 00.. 00... ..II. '0 ‘0). 130.02.30.17 0 03.06.03 v ... ..0 .0... I 0. . 000 ... 000...... .. 073.000 0..- 0.... ...-......300... 103...... .....009'0... (000.3. .0 .0... .r... 0.0.. .- ‘30.... 0. 0 00.01.. A . . .V ... .. . .. 3.03.3.1. v . . «0...... O\)r....lu‘..‘.02 ? . . .. .0 I. 2 .... .05.... ‘0. .... .313. 0......v. .. . .:.. .0 000,8! 3.. ...... ‘20.... 3329.22.13.30 .. 0.. .0 .... 10V 0... . .... (I... . .. . . ... . . . I .5 .I.. . I ..0... . ...I... .. 3‘. 0.0.0.0....“ 0.. .. -... baa-..-; . . . . . 0......00. .. . .0 0 0 .. . 0.. v , I . . 80.3..» ' . . .. . . . . . 0......0 0.0.... {$0.10 .9...03I0.0. 10.. 000.100.. .0 .0 ...... I . . “ 0.0.. .0 l. . 50.0..“33 03.070 . .09... . . . '0... . 0... 0. .....I In. . 0.00 0.. 0.101.030.020 0.0.03. .00. . .... 0 (.0 . . . {00.010.40. :0 3.000 00 Cal... . 0 I... , . . . .. I. .0 .3300. .0. .00....00... ..§’.:. 1 ...0 . I .0 ’00..t00.2. .10 ’00."! 00-0... 0... L 0. .. .4 .. a ..‘l . 0 ..- . 00 .. 0 0.... 0 ‘ ..0! 1.0.... ...l...‘ 0. ,I. :..... .‘0... . 09V... :..... .. .... 0.... ‘5. . . ...01. . n . ...0. ...IO . . 0- —I.... . 0. ....I. 90...: . ..033...’0’0 , .1010. 0 00000.0 .. 0... . . . . . .00. P 0. _. .0 . . . . ...... . . .. . I «.00.... . ‘ 0.0?00...“..' 00 ... 0.. .9... . .. I . .. a .00. I! . . 0. .. 0.. ... . .0... 0... 000 0.0.0. o ...... .... 1.0.... 0 300......0 ... . . . IQ... 1| ..I .. :9... 1...... {0007121. ....“ I, .. 0.... :31; ...... u. . I?30..VL...III..: .. ...C‘.‘ 0...... 00.. .. I. ...... 00.9.... . 03.0.... I :0 .:.... $130.30 0.0... .. . . .100. .1. ... 0 . ...... V. . 1...... I. a 039.00.... No.40... I .0 0 00...... .. . . .300... 4. ...! 0. 0 I. 0.: . I .. . .. 0 . 000..I.....O.0.0.... v . 9... . 0.. 3... .. . ....0 . . ...-{.0 ..0. a. . 0.0.0.0.: ... I. ......QIC. 20.0... .80 . I0 'n‘.‘ 0 c. . 9 . . , . . .0 07‘... 000.1 A 0.. 00 .000. 00...... .90... _ 0|. 0 I... 60'...” . . ...‘.I...... $00.2. . . ......300..l.' .... . .010 0‘00. ..0. if}. . 0.0. 0 . I , . . . . . . . .0...00...0 0.1.0.0. 1....010. '23:"; ..I5 5...). .. I ..0 0 ...; . .... . . . . 759C... :..... 00...... 0.20.... .0 ...... II’I...L00.O‘.003‘..09. .00‘ 0" ”‘00). “I .:.. ..J _ . . I .. 0:... . ...: ... . ... '00..-. .. I . . . .:.... .. . :0 3.0 . . I... . . ...: .:.}... 333.3503..--..-..-.......IS....0......17I..0:.0I.9OI!. I003... . I 0) 0'0 3.03.0. I., ..(O .3000. I 0. 00. A ‘ 00". 0.. t . v. .. . is .0. 00.000. 0. .... .00 .l . .. s, . w. ..I‘ .0 .o 0 .... ..0... .009 009.00,. 00 .V 01.. 0.. 0‘ .w; . 0:5"-“009'0 {J‘Q’M— 0 ’ “ .. ......0 L. .00. Q... .020 in... .. 20......0r. . ...Jb 00 O ...... .-. . .. 0.0V! . . 9 I 0.. . . 3‘... Q 00.9)...‘0 0.1.70.0. fut. I .0. ‘00. 0 0 10.. 0. 0 _ km 03.0 .. ...... 00 00 0:00 00 . . 00.. 0.00... i0 0.00 .0. .... 00.0 ..0 IO. . “7 0.00.1..IP. . . 0.7.. ... ..V 20.4.30 03-.“ 00st. 00 9.. 0i . J .... . . .... .0. .....01 . ......Ir -f.0....l.00-..l..0 ...0 .00... 0.. .0 .09 000 .... . 0 . ...0. 0.. £052.... 5. ...... .000 .‘0 . '30.". ....0 . . . . .0. 0.. ..00: 0. 0 0.. 3... 0. . . ... . .I 4.00 ... .I 00.. .0... . 00...?! ...9 . , .0 .....IV.....’ .4. 0 0. ...... 1210.0. ...00 V .....v: .:.....I.IY.E00.0.L.0000 1.}..3. . . . . . , V .00.. .... .I.‘ .00.. .0‘ ..0... . . .... ... . .I..... ...... .. ...... ...! «I. .90 :0. . 2.0.103} (...\:I0.0.11\2.0£. .0 .‘0. . , . , . . 0. . 10.0.0.0...0f: 0. .0000... 0.00 . .. . ‘0 .. I... .... I. a o .0 . ... ... . .... II 0. I 50.0 .0 r b. . . .00 3:73.02! . . ... I . . ..0. . .3010... 3.0.9.... .. 1.0.0.0.? I .. . . 010. 0.2.5.0 .. . .I... 00.0. .. ...00. . S'."P>0, v 0‘ I3.0..I....s...00 .:..... .. ... 00.0.1003!) ... . 0.01.2.5. 20...,- . , . . . v. .9 ,0 0...? .c 0 . . . 0. 0070.0... ,2 0.. II... 0.. . 00“... 0.. .....01000.’ 4. .... .i... 0...... .0. . . . I . . . :0... .0.... ..00' 00.00 3.0.1.3.}... 0. 0:00. . V ...V‘o...900 ..00,t00000...0.’0.002fi ‘0‘00: . I 0I I 7r» -:.. .0 a... 0 V 0... 00h . . .0 .Q‘ I. .n .0 I00. I 0.0 ‘0 )0. \O. 0’. . 0..) V. 00‘ . 3-0."?s£.:..'1001'¥!00‘00: ‘ IV’QI'E'! . . .. .. $0.»... 0.90. ......000 0‘ Z .000... . In... .. ... 00000.0 . 0.. 00 .IV0..0.0I.\00..-0 .0. 0 5". 0.0.. ...-0.02.0 1 . . C :..... 0.00 I0. v0.r‘.00.V1.....’.0.O...0r.30..00§9.0 . .0} .’.§..C 0 a. ‘1 ..0% $3. 00. 0|. 0 .. 0 0.‘ 5.1.90.0 0. . 0,... .00.... ..00... 0. . . V ...0: . I . I, ...? I'. . . . 0.. ...» .00‘2.:(00"0..4 l0."1§.0. bz'fil‘ .050“.... 1’ h .il.....0.0.. . .1... 0...... I. I? ...000..0. :.....) a . 20.... I.0.C.x..0.’:0. [0.0.0 .00. ...0.. . . . . . 4:230:11 .,.‘0§00...0.f0.._....0. 90.0.0.3. . .:.-0'. ... 0. I. .00 .0000... .0 ‘0 . '0... I .0. 00.3 . 0 0.0 I. .. ..00 .‘Z. - .10.}... .0l00; .I .0I00.0.0‘.-00|ool.. . . . . . . . .. . Iv... .. . . .. .'.\.I’ \. p..p§31{r.0l.:’ 00.00:...180‘ “1 ‘. 0.0 .0. .00 .0 I. . .0 . 004.0030 .. . . v .. :9... $00.... 0 .00. .....0.00 0...! . V .0. 5.7.... O. .0... . . V . . . . .000 .0. 0 . .00. .0 . 000.... I‘d“.o 0 ...00.~b‘.00.0.,.‘.l . ’00.0b:0. .‘ . . a 0. to ..I . .033... iii? 0 I 0.4,. 0.... .3070... 0..-. 0.... 1 0. .0. 0... ...-0.30002.-. 0.. Q . ... . V. . , . . . . , . .0 0. .00 .. 003V... . 2.0.33... ... . .00 I11? b.1339. ..01.¥01.00.I0:\.....9.... 9 . . .. . .. I .. :.. I. 0.. 09-! . .... I00 .:.... 001.32.?! (0.000.311.13. . ! .:..... ... . . ’0 .. 000...! 0.1.1.. 01.0.0 . . . . . . . . . I . ... ..I .... (.05.... .9 0.0 I IV.....I.£DI.£..0. ...}.Zfiéndt‘viill? 00 0. 00.00. . 0 ‘ I0 . .360 $0.00.. .3. . 0 00’: ..A. 0 00.10. 0.... . .00. 5.? 00 .0000. .:.... .0: .‘IF‘. 0. .0... 0 0. . . .3... 0 ... . . 0. . . . I . . . . . . I . . . .0. D 0. .....0 0.0.0. 000.. 0..{.. 0.. ‘0 0 0...‘I3I.0.0.0.... I!00.0.0.0 ‘ 0"0-0.’ 00‘}. . . . . I. . . .. :.....a. ..f. 0000.03.00. 3.000.330?! 70.1.0.0. “0.0.. I .0.- ....0.I.¢.. ..0100!..’..‘07.0.000 ...-V. 30!." 0.3.... 9000. 0.0 I v o. ‘. 0. n0 0 ‘I0'0 .. I . . 0... ...I . 0 I .V. .....r ..‘Io :1.- ,..:.0......:.... 13.3113... . .:.-............0.....0.....;. _ ..00. .... 15.... 0..-). . ...-l... . . . . . . . 0.000 . 3.017.... . ......7I01 . ...0....0.. - '. 3.0.0.0 . 0.. .0 .00. 4.0....0.II..0‘ 2.1.25.30072.’ ...: .020... .....Q.A 1.000100... .30 :.. .. . .. .. .. .. : . . . .. . . . . L . , 00 .1 0.2000. . .I , 0... I 0 I 00.0... 0.0 . , .:.-00.... I, ......‘f. 3.... o 0. .:..-20.000 0 00. .;..0....:...0... .. .lc. .0 :00 . . . . . . ., . , . . . . : I .. . . . _ . 0.0!...S‘0000T029. I 0’... 2.92.0.3}?! 5‘371’. 0‘9. . .. .. .. .0 I .70 . I ... 0.I 0.00? 0 V .. ..000....I .100 0.0...1 5.. . .....f. .00. .. 0.. 0..I 0.30:0! 0.00.001..00I00...0.1.0.0I~ ......1. . I «0.... . . v . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . l 0 . ...-... 15.000 .12....(3000 0.00101.§0_.003‘ ,0. .....0. .31 0 . 00. It- 0.. 0 I 00.00... 0.00.. 00101... 0.0. ‘0. 02.00 §1000;I ..00 .00... $011.03. 0.... 0... I. ' ‘5‘... ...... 0.0.00 0. .Q ’30.. . t I . . . . . . ,. 00’.l.'0..01.40.10.’.:.‘ 0'... ’-.-.'01I.I‘ ’_’:L -9303 t u . I. o ..l. 0 00. b0. . O .0‘0...“0.300 .. t . 0.’ 0 .0 Q. 000 0.01.0.1? .3 I‘c: .9. 0 ..II'... .. 0000.00 0 .1 0.0.3... 0.0.0‘ 0‘1 . . . . . , V . . . . . . I‘D. .:..:O.0.5. . ‘0’... I. )0. 0.0!) ‘0’0\0‘00 ’ 2 . .0 00.0- 2..b.'0)00.,...... .0 .2300}? I I .... .00 00... -.. 0.... .0 0. 0.30.0. . . .0000‘0. 0.... ...1 .. ‘ . . . .. . . .. . . . . V . . . 0 :.I ......0 .I ’.00. 0 ,0.00..D.0I....\I .5... 0. ...0.¢..’0...'0. .000... 30.1.1.0 0... ‘. ...-.0... 000.00.. IO. 00 ..V..0I.00. . . .V... I 0 0 . . . . . ., . w... ‘0: . ... ... ‘I .:..... flu}... .0030 . 00- '0‘ 0000] 0..0 0.00.00 . u 0.0 . ..v..,l00.-.0.0....0.'0' *0. 0. 00 .0. .0. 00. .A 00 ‘1 . .. . . . 0‘. _ 0.0 0‘ O . . .. .0 a. 0‘. .00....er 0090000 . C .0. ‘I00 '3'. 0‘ .:.I. . 0.. I 00 4...... 0 ’ ..Y. I: .0. .00... . 2 a.0.| 0 II... ... ..19.‘ ......0 0.5.0.. 00. . 0... . . . ....90 .0 . I 0 . 0.0.0 . 0 .090 . 0.. '00... 0.!0. I , 0.000. 0' 0 0 ...‘lil .‘ ' .0. 4 0. .2403.-. 0 0.00 0...... 31... V0 ,100 .0... .. ... . . .0..I- .. . 3.00 5. ‘0'. 0.. a. 00 0 ... 0I.. II . ... 0.0 0.0 0.. 0.0.0.... .0. 0. 00... 0.... ... . . 0.... ...-0.... I ‘00- , i‘ ..4.‘ ...'.l.|.0.0 0. .,.0_ I. .000} .‘ 0_ . 0'..do.. . . . 0 0800,00! 0.. I 000 ...I 0. .I...‘-.: 0. . . lo. 00.00. '.0.00.10 0 . .. I . ,1. 9. 0.00 . .‘O. C I ..I ..0. .00. 0 0. 0.. l...........0l. .03.. ... .. 0... 0 .00V.00000...I0.|.C. I . .0 . 0 0. In! 0 . 1 0.. .. .0 . . ..000 :00 z .0000. I. I. .10....00 l. 0300 . . ...): v.5..3uo0'0. 00 .0 4.0 . I..\.O?fII... .00. . ... r. . 0 . I... I I . ,000. ...: ... 00.04 .00... 000. ... .:. . 0... 0.00.: 00. I .o"!!...’ 0 I7. I I v I . .. 0. I Q... 10.1 a . 0 I. II V . -0 31.30.00, I. .0 I0 0 0 I . ..0. . ...-0'05I 0.00.. s . “000 .00.. ' ....» U 00. 0. 0' 3 Q ‘ 1-,..I 0'0 0O. 0 J \ . I. {00. 0 . 0.0. . 0.. ..I . . . .. . . I0...“ 00’ 0. 0 'al". 000. ‘00.. ..Inv. .0 o . 0‘0.000..0‘01 $00.0. 100?... 0. .I 0 .. . 0:. I .Q‘ . .V. .1 VIII! 0 0..00\.0..0Ov$ I ...)... I .0 ‘I. 0 II. I a .0... 00I.3...00.0.Q. I .0 Q: 0.. 0...: ...... .. . . I 0? .0 I ... .. I . .. . 0!.I... .0 0. _ I .... I . 0.. ..0.... . . .I .. .0 7'. . .. 5.23.... .Q-..00.0....0¢.V0 0.01....I113‘0n0 0. I 0 I 0,. . I . . 0? I. ‘1. ..al 0 .. . . I . I. ..I 0.0.00.0...- . . I . . . . . . . . ,‘00.Q 0.5. . I00 .0... .0.'. I1 ... .00.”.00!’.09.I ‘0’.0.0.I I‘IAIO ‘2... {Linn-t". . . a ‘ v.0 . .... ‘ .00..) . _ . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . , . _ . . . . . V . . . . _ . . .05 .... . . ...: 90.. . .I...LI 0.0 .000 001.009,... EziIut0 0.0”] . 0 . 4 10 0.. I 0.0 0 Ca... .OVI ‘0', . . . . . . . I , . . V . .. . . . . .. . I . I ...‘v.00. .c... “. 0...... 11.001. 1.000.... ..0‘..0£P’ .- .0 I. ...I. . 0.0.I 00 ._ I... . . . .. . _ . . . . _ . V . . . . .. . V . _ . 00.0 I0I$0Ivi0l’. I. II, .5. r l « I... 00 I . 0 . ..I a 00.0 . I . . . V . V . .... $9.0..9I.\ .00....20: I 0 10...0.0.0.I00’. ..J! . .. . . . . . I 00 ....O...10.I 0 .0 :..... 400.01...’ .0...’0.!I...I..I0. 0% l . .0...00 000. 0 0 .0. 0 .. 0. 00... 0 I,00.-v.9.!. 3.‘. D V Q.— afit 0‘. 0 , :..... ..I..‘.V 0. . 0.0 _.0 ’0 I00.0... 1. 3L . 0.1.50‘!. 00.003". \I .0 . . .. ...I. .... ..l. ...? ...0 0. 00 0.0.0.0.}- 0.. .0‘ozaoI.‘ I . . I ’ 0 . I... ...... 0.x. Ir. 0 '3'...- ~|000’.I.:»’b II 10.0 I II?! 0. I .I0 I000 20.. 0§§‘$&.00.a0‘0.00. I . 0 0. . ....- . ... . '1 =99... 3,050.90.000.0300‘..v.t00}.0. 0.9! 00.!- ..0..0..0. II...I..I ..\.. ”v. 01.1... . .00, 9:24.11. .11.... 0:50.... 3' 0... ...-f3... {#0. :..-3190.51... ......5 I. ...-0.3.... I ?.a.§.3’. $2.... I0 4102.90.51.9I00 . I . .I. 0....2"..v. 0:17 ...-0.110.005.331’010 . .. ... . 0.QI.0‘..0¢.. ~4...,..0 .. I I .'i‘” 3.0 ’ 0.00).. _ .- . . . . ...0 .:.....000 a 0 .. 5.0.0. .1000. 2i 0. .... . ... v.... I. I... 3010. ...0. .. 0.. 0. 0 .I’2 0 . . . . . 0‘. 0. .2. ... . . . .II . I. I . .. . l‘ ..0. 100......10 .. . .0 .0 . 1.0.0.. . I, 03.00.. . .. 0 . {£3.00 0. ...... . . 0.4 . 8.0. 0V 0 ... .0 n u u I... o 0 ..I. 0.0 . . . . .. . . V . .. 0.0 1.0 0 I . .. . 00 .. . . . .0 0.0.. .QI... 0'. 00.. :... . . . o. . .00}..000_I...0 51.00.... 0 0.0.0.70 .... ... 0.. ..0 . ... I . .. .. '0. .. . . . . . I . . D 0 . . .. . . J ... 0.00 ..0 :..-0131.. ...0. . 0. .l ...... 0 00‘. . . . .0 '50....010 0.. I . 0. .0. 3.0 0 . . .00 0110700." .. .0. ... .... I . , . I ..0 . 2.00.10... 3011‘. 00 ., I 0.70.0.1 0.. ... 0. . .I‘O 0.0.0.0.... . VV 0. .0 0.00 {£30. 0 ..0 0... ... ...9 v .. ...: In... ..00 . . . I .../I. o 97. .4... ... 3 .IIW).tu§I0lu0.0.I. (.....VII .VIZI‘CI‘. . 0 I .. ...I. ....l . 20.1.. .21.. . .00 .. . .30.. . 9000 01.0... . ...)..Q. 00.... 0. v . , . 0 .I .9 0.0V .00. 0.0 000...... ... “0V0 OI -... 10.... .. A... 0 0.0 0.0 0.... . ... .. I .. .. 0...... . u . . ... ,v . . V . . . . . . ._ . . ., . . . . _ . . . I .... ..0. . V .... ... . ..I 4 . ‘12... ...00 ..- c. . 40...,.0 .r. 0 . w . . . . . . . . . I ... a ..0 ...-I. II... . . . ‘ . . .v ... 00.0 .0. .0.\. 00. 0.. . 0 . I I .. . 00.000 p. .0 -. .00. .0 .clIn-I.I 200...... Q. _ .5. \o‘ I .0000 I .. #w- . .. ... . . .0 .00. .... . . .000. .0 . .. r, . . . . I I . 00. ‘v 0. I000 ‘5’PI. ‘03 l‘. 0I‘0'-0.I0‘000'l Aw, 00.?05 ... . .300 0 0 0.0. .0 I; ... .. 0.. 3'. 0'0 CmI . . I. .0 0.... .I 0... 30029.96 I all ...}... . . ... I 0 4. .0. 00.0031. .1! D ... -.0 .I. .0 .I ... . .07. 0.0 ..00 . 0.1.0 .. 0.. . . . 000'. ... 0. . 0 .00.. 0.... 0 I .O .. 0 a . .. ... . 0.. . 0. (0. . . . I I.. 0 ’ .-0“. Q I . . v ... . . .. 00..., I . . . 0 00 I. I 0 -.0 10.00 I. I 0. .. 0. 0 0 ... . . I... . . ... .0. .. 0.0, I .. 0. ‘0 .‘ .000010 2.; 0 ‘10 l‘o0‘..'0..u00.0‘..4 v '0.00IV. V ... ...... .. 0.. ... . v..- .0 . 1.. ... . . . .0 \.0 0.0 ..V . .. ......0 s. . . . . 0 . . v.0 0.30.010 00.1 .:.. I ...)? ,. ...... . ‘0. 0.. ...0,0'0.tn§..00.0.0"0... . 5.5.00.0.Qii.‘ . e l . . ...: . . 0 0. . ..0 . 0 , . , -....II... . .0 . ... u 00 i‘ . . I... :..! 0.. -00. 0.01.003 ... .§. 0.0 0.0 I.0}O.0.0.01.0.. 0 ‘0 .0. . . ... . 00..-!!! . 100”. d .. . ‘UI . .. . . . , . I \ .0 . . , . .V 0.! .0. I. .00 I _ .. . . 5.0.0 :0... 0:..- . I . .00‘1‘.’ .0. . 0......0. . .01 .... .... . I .0 .0 0 .0 .ca. ,. . . . . . I . . .. v a. .0‘... . .. 0. .. V. 00. .’!..t .... . . ... . I u . l0 . . .. . . 0.0 .UQO.!0.II' 0.60.0... I... 0 I... I... I... . ... .I. 0. .. ...0. I0. ..- a 0 . .1. . V . . . . . . .L0 0 .. 0 v. . .4 0 . I 0.. .... ....-.000 0.. 0. -.. . ... n . . . ... 0.0 h .. . . . . 6.0. ’ . ...... ....0VIOJI."IIpIIOO".0I" V 0... 0... . I0......... . . .T . . .. . . .0... . 0 P. . ...... .... .. ... 0 . 5...... 9 .7 .I . o . . I. . 0 90.. l. 0. .0.I0 . . 0.. .I «.0 .0100... I...’ .0.. VII 0.00,..0l0... 1510'...” I 0 309.00'. V. ... . .. .... ... . 0 0.0 00 . 00.... I o... . . I . . II .0 .0 .. 0.,0 I00. ... 0. 3... 00 0.0 0. 0. 000 ,...Q 0 0 0 0 0 .:..-.0 .01... I 0’. ..I ..0 .0. 0 v. 0 I... 0.0 ..0.VI 0 00. \00.YO’I,. .4 0 V 5 l 5. 1. 1.--. . A II I I 0 . .... . .0 . .0. 0.. . .0 . .. ..0 .0. 0. . . . .. . . I . ,. . C I0 . 0.0. 0Q. .a . .. .:... .901 .... .0. ... . 0. § 5‘. I.l.r .. . . . 0 - . . 000 . . . . . . . .I 0 n 0 0 . 0...I.I I0 0.00.0400... 5‘... l. 0.00 .1.‘ 00.0. .... . 00. .. . . 0.... . .. .... ...! .2825; . . . 4.3.. .. .. . .. . .I .....V... . .. 0.. ,2 .. .. 920.... .. .:. . . .....l 30.. ,. .. ..I I 30.. . ..I .... I 0. I 0.0.) $0.... ...-.... 9v...I..1.0.§. ...-0 0’ ..-I‘...0¢r0.11.0’0lir A . . . 0 . \ . . 0 0 In I v. . .. ..0 0.0 . I 0 0. .... . . I. .....v . . 00., . .. .... 0.. 0 ‘ .... .I 0.» . 0.0 . .. .-.. . ... . 000 .... . .... I I ..0 0 . .. 000 V. I . n 0 0 a ‘000I9 I0... .I ..‘nII... 0 0 I 0‘0... I I ‘I.§0II I... . . I .. I . . I. :..! . .10.... 0.... .. ... ...Ic .. .I..- . ... .00....ILVI.0..0.0. .:..... _ .:.. . ... ... .. . .. ... fr..- . 0 ....E. .... .. 0 .... . .. .. . .0 . . .30 . ... V.. .. z 0.. II. I o. 0 ..0. . .u. . .. 0' 0.1,! .- . .0.. . . :..-{.90'OT'00 I.0III..;"II V v 0 II . I0 ..‘lf ..- .q . . . I .:... .II... .23.... . ,0V . . 000... 00 v. . .I. o. . .. o u’ 0 I I...» I 30...... Z .. .f. . ..ID: .0. ._ . o. .. .0... V I ....0. .. .l00 .1 ..00 00.3.0000 105. . "rolid 2500090.! ‘ ..V.0."I00l000. v o --.IHI . I.’ I O. |. x . a. . . ....0. I. . .. 0 In ... .20 80 .I...00 .... 40 2 o L . I. ....0 ... 0. 0.0.0 . 00. . 0.0 . . . . ... . 0 .0a.l. .. I. o. .A ... . .0 ... . 00;| I. ...I .. .0: I.. .2005 .0 ..0. .0. .. I. ....00.Io. .... 0...: . I...0.. 110.100.; \19.‘fi00.000ll,~9.0“01l I 0. 0 .. .I r. . . . .... .0. . 9 . ...... 0.0 C: ...... . I .... . .0! ... . . . . . . ... . . 00.. . .01? .. I0 . . . \ .I. . . .... 0.0 .0 .. .00. ....I...0..I.1. 0." ....-. ..,90100§00.1‘300000 . ’ . 0 I . I .. I. 0 c 0.0 . . 0. 0 .0... X .l . I 4 .... . . .. ... .10 I.5.... o. ... .. ... ..c . .0 . . . .0. ..r . ......00. ... . . V. . .-.. . . . . 00 . 97 .0 O. a q . .. .. ... 0....Ic‘03I'0 .I. ...... v .. . V I . I. I r 0 o I... - .Q ...I. 000-. .... . ...: . . .00 .1“.00..... .. . 00... . .5 .. ., . . a. 09 .0 . ... 0 .400 ... O I ..00 0 I I ...).0 . Q00I900. .. L... . .. . ..II..O..II .0. In? .I. I...‘ I. . ..J... . IV...‘ .:.. 4.... . III? :..0 .5... ....-. .....0_ 000 0.0 .I.. I...) v ...f. I. . 0.0.. 0 .. . v. 0 A I o o . I . . . ... a. :..-.0..- . . 0 . . 0 . .00 . .. I .0 0 . £30. I 0 . . . 0 .0. 0I... ...o 50 .. I :0 0. . 0 . v . . I... . 0 . 0.. v .:.. ... . .0 ... ... 1 a 10.2.... .000 :.l . 0. . . . 0.... 0 .. ... I .... ‘i :00 30.00... .0‘ f ... .0... . 0 .0 V I . 0 0. I’. .... .... . 0..-... . . 0.0. . I. 0.. .00... .0. I000. . S...I...I.0...I.. . (.0. . o .:.. . 0 0 I. . 0 . V.. D I... . 16 . . II ...I 0 . ..0 . . .. . ..0 .0 I . 0 0 0 . . . ..00. 0.. . ... I. . . I :1: I50. . 0.. 0.0.. 000.0 ..I ..o — .I.’ . I0 I I . C CO I 0 I .0 .0- .00 . I ., 0 II . .Q\ 0 .. . I I. ..0 . 0.. ' I. .C 00. . 00 ..I Q. . ‘0. ... I .0. _ . ' . .. O 0' . .. 0.. ... Cl J. .0. 00 .0. 0. I. 0.0. . .. I a 0.. I... I I. ' 0 I: ... 0! .0.000 I . ,0..I.OI. _. .0'30d0 ... .I I . III . 0.0. - I 0.. l . .. ...... I. 0 . _ . .... .0 . .0 I-.. ...?u.... .. IQI.I..0.I0..000..0.5 . 0 0 0 0 0 I .. I 0 . 0 o .I . .. .... . .I0. 00 a . . .. I .... . . 0. .0000.... ...P‘ .I 0.... o- . S 0 .0. .53.. .0 I0..|0.O...‘.0Qll‘0:. _.0.- I. .. . . , . . ... ..I . .0 . I... ... . .. 1 . .:. .0 .. . : I... . , ...0 ...... .I . .. . . 0 . .o . . .. I. . 0 .... :... . 100... . I... .V... .o . .. {.02. .0. ...«000.?.0.0.0.I. 00‘" 00000.5. II . . ‘Iov [£300. . I I 6 I .0. .I I . ...... . N0 0 x. 00... .. . , 0. . . .0. .. .0». I... .0 ...0.. 0.... . . ... I. .0. 0.. .0.\0. 1‘... .. l000..V -.. ..0?0’I..'..0¢01§’3I ’09 I 0.. I o In I: I n o 0. I. 00 00 . .. . . I. .0 . 3 000 . a n . c 0 0.0.00 0‘ . .0 I I 0 .. f ' o . 0 04. 0 . .0. 0 04 0 0.. '0. I0.‘. ‘7.-. 0.. 0'0 In.ll.0L-O.II0.I.§. .v.0 ... I .l .. .. 0 .. .0 .0 . ....... c 0 20-10: 00. ...0.. I... .... 0 . 0. . 0... o I .. 0 . . -0 ...!041. ..V t 10.2-{5'3 0. -- .V O .0 Il,. .... r5 -..I ..0 D. . . .00.... . -..0. a. . . .0 a. .0 . .. .0 ...-O. .0: .0I.0 -0 02.0.0.0 00..0I.’I0 .50. 0...... I30".-. 0 . ... 0 VI . .-. .0 0. .0 .. o. 0 I ....0-0 .0 0 a. . 0.0 . .4 0 . .. . I . . 0 I . . 0.. 0 I ~ . I I.- 0 ‘ . 0 .I .0. L. Q... 0 O! . I 0 I I1 .0 I0. . I . . 0... . O... n 0.0... 0 I. 0. . .0. I 9 ....0 050. I . . . .I .0.. .. v.0... . . I I .I 0' 01?--..'l 0.. 0.. .. 0 0. J . I. ... ....V . .0. .I I. . u 0 0. . I I .I. ... .v .04 .0 III 0 0.. . o . 0 q. 4 .0 .13100'5‘009..0.0. .30.. ‘0 - I. O 0 . . Ibo-0 ...... I 0.0 I 0.. . | .0 . . 0 A 0 0 . I Q ... 0 I 0 .0. I r «0.. ' 0.. . ...I v \‘0 A. ‘2‘ V 0’ 0‘... 1.0..0AuI. ... I . u . .. . ..vn . . 0.00 .0 ... I Cs. I. . . 0 o . I a . 0.. I. . . I 0 . C . . . .4 0 . v. I a ..0'. . .I . ...-0......10 0..‘.I.§.‘....0I _ 0Q.l . II..... I- 0'. ...... 0. . ...... '0... . 0 .....Qlt. 00. i. . 0 O. .00...I I. 0 I Q 0 .009I00..o‘..'.0.0.lo 0 . . . .00.; . . . o 00‘... 00.. . I 0. .\ 0.... . . 0.. 00 I 0 00 0.000. .II 0 .I II 0 .I .0.§0h ......I 000.0..{610‘Cgrn0 II. 0. . I 0 . . . 0 . 00 .. .v ... I . 4o 0 ... . o. 0 . . ....I . I 0 . . o 0 0 . . 0 .. 0.. 0 00.. 10. ..Io. 06.2.... ‘0 . Ir 020-0.;‘00200E1t. .0 . .. .~ 0 LI. 0'. n ..0 .a I I 0. .- 10 I L 0 0 0 0 Q 0.. 0 . . 0 0 O! ' .0 O 0 . I o I . *0. ‘00 I .I. 0 .051. ‘0’; ‘M‘.’ 1. ..f}‘.0 "JJ‘ : A . I . , I I o v 0... .. . 000 .0 . . 0 q 0. 00 .... .I I . 0.. . 0 0 s I . . I V Q Q. I 00 0. , . II. "0.9.00... .‘4‘00‘.0‘- I... OAICJ '0. . w. -' n .0. - 0 . .., 0.... .0. 01.0 I .00. I 00 .. I 000 . . r. s. . 00 I . a ...I 0 I 0.. ..I 0.70 0|.OI.\0.I .... 0"“ 20-0.0‘0 ‘ 0 l , I. . ... .. .. . . . .... .:..... . .... .V. I0. . V . . . . ,v... ...... 0. .0.. 0 ...! .0‘... .. . . 3‘59... AI,1II..0.0. tr 0.. I. 11": .v. .1l 4 ' .0 .14. I0.|00 . . . . ..1 I0 .0 0 .I0 0 . . . . , 0 . I . ._ .... 0 . .00 .0. V . . . . n I. . .0 0 0 . ... . . .9 I 0.}. I 0 ... .l.8lg.z0‘fi¥§§.o '20 OI". 0 . I: 0 0. 0. .I 0 0. . .. .0 01. ...?30. 0I .0 . . I . 00 I I 0. . 0 ... 000: 00‘:! 0n.ioi?v.,00!50!!I‘o .. _ . 0 n ..0. 0.. ~ :0 I6 TI 0' . . .... 0.1. .... c . . 0 . ..I . . II 0 . 0 I . . VI . . . . . 00. ..0 ~0r.I.IAl\0.lI‘II.0 .I‘l‘ 000000....“1 . . . o 0 .. .... . . .. .. . .... .. v. .. .. I ... . . 0. . .. 4.. . . ~ - . U .... . ... 0 .0. .. u. .90.. I00 90.. 0 91.0. I’?‘ It... 1ifi.‘§.. ..Iv .... o 0 .0 ....NQ ....0 I: ... . I . . .. ...... .0. .. .... ..al: .0 0 .0. I ._ . ... .. 0 . .4 I . . . ... 0 v . 8000. .0‘2'1 90.0.0006)“ .(000'040..0tl1 ... .00 II I . (....l. .... .. . .V. I . . .. ..L. . . ..- ...-a . .....9. .. 0. ..00.. :0... I 0.40YII I’RVI‘I....0?,AV0VI (.oI w I. .. I. . II- .V.’. 0 0.9 I: . 0. II! C ._ . . 0 o. . 00 .l. .000. .0... I. . ‘. 6- ‘2!!‘0‘.0..I07 . .0. .0. I I I .0... I I. . .. . I .0. . o 0. n. I .....0. . I .. .0.V ... ...I .0..0“0 .w. ‘ . 3‘00- 0. .. . I . .0. . . 00 0| Io. .10 0... ‘4. .9.0 .. . — . I 00.. Iv..0I I0. 0 . 0 I. . . 1. I .0... . 0 v I . ..x 0 f. 0 .. I030 I. u. u . ‘Vr v .0 ...-0:.- 3.0.3000... .0. o :.. . . I...|0I .0. I ..00. 0...! ..0 0... 2.00“»...IoI0. 0. I ll. ..0 . ,. I I .000 I-.. I I. I .0! 0 l .0... .0000 . 0 . I 0 .U . I. 0 . 0. . vb 10 .00 . O . I Q . ... .. 0...»-.. I. . .0 . .. .. ... . II I .....0 v0. . . .r . . I O 0 .. ...l . ..0 . 4... . .0 . . I . . . . . I . 0 0 ..f 0: ... . _. ....r I. .. .... . .. (I 000...... I o .. .....0 . I. . . . 0 .........0....!.. .0..0 . . ... o In . . ....0.... \t... . O \ .I . . II .. 0.. . I. I... .:... 0 0.1.0. .0- 00.. 10.... .0. . I .. V . .I 0 . ....I . . . . 0 0403. . . ... . . . 0 II .0. . .. 000 $9. 0- 0 0.. ‘ A 1 I ..l. -I I . . . . '00 A 500.. . ... . .. . .’. .I .0 . . .. . 00. . 0 . 0.1.00 ... . . I 00 I I 0 . . 0’ .0 . 0.500 0 .0 0 . . . .0. . . I I . . I . 0 ......00. ...~ .. .0. . . _ ...0 00 0‘. 00 0. I. . .0 .. .o .00 .I .0 . 0v . I u h . .0 . '0 . 0 .0’0 0 .0‘. . .. . . 000 . . II .. ..0.’ I I 0 .0? . J 0 . .. ...: ......0 .. . . .00.. .70! I... 009.. .:.. ... : r .0 . . . I . I I..00.f .40....0 4‘ o . 0 ‘ I . . 0.. 0‘ 0 . 0I0 .. ... 0.00 0 ll .0 0 § . . . A '4. 0 . 00 ' I .0... O . 0 .. . 0 I . . I 0 . I 0 . . ’0‘. 0 0 ‘ . .-I o .o .0 .. .0 . . .... . ...' I. '00. I .0. ... 0'0 ...)... 0.. I 0000 . .u . I . II. .0)- r. .4. I. . . O 0..- .. .... I. .. .. .:.... .00... CIII I 00.... CI . .I... . . O: 0.000. c 0-0. .1 .. . ...; I 0. «v0.0. . . .0... .. 0 20....0 . . .l . I . .o 0. .. 0 ..I01 I 00900.1! I v I I O. 0 I I . .0 .-..0.0 l 000! J .0 . 0 . I. . II0 b. O ... 0I.0...I ..0. .00. III II. 0I 0 ’QI00.‘II0QII I 0.... II. I .- I 0 ....0 . . I. ... I p I... .0... . I. .. .I . I0 .. 0 ....I. 0 I, .. v. . .0: 0 0.00 I. .00.II00.. .I vI0 .0 . 0 [.1 V. .. I.0 .I. o .. 0 ....0. 00. I 0.. . ..I. .II . 0... 0. .. .0. I . 0 n0 . 0. . I . 0.200 I .. . o 0 .0 .40 ...I..| I.0I.. 0.... 00....0. I ....I00 0 V'I".n..0 _I-0. ‘0 0.0 I II I . v I 0 .0 I I.. I 0. v .0 ... . .11.... . 0 .0 . (I Q. . . 0. I00. I 0 ‘ .... 0. I . II 10: .I.00000-..o 0. '0 I. 0”.I I0. -I 0. .00 . . I 0.. I .I . .l o . .. . 0. "0.- .....l..0V. 0... .I. ..... 00.... I . . I .. 70 .. 0... I! .. ’I0 0‘. 0.00 0... 0 0 0.. 0.- 0..-... .. 0 0 .0 00 0000 .‘ol..000.0-' 00 000 v . . I... . 0. I 0 0 J I I . 0. .. 0.4 o .00... - 0 ...... .v V I. .. ... 00 I .0 .. . .0. 0 . . . I0. . I .0 . 0 00...... 0.. v0 00 000-. .0000. .00. O 0’-"000’6.00 _\ .. .-. 0 I . . 0|..0 Q 0. I. . I ..0 0 .00 ..0. 00‘ I . u 0.. .00 I0 000... 0 .10 00‘. I....‘. - . .. .- 0 .lco . .0030. .. . .I... I. 0.00 .9. ... 0| I0 0|. I .4 I . 0.... .. 4 II ... \ .... .0 .1: 0 n . . O .. .v I 0 0.0 . .0II 0.0... H. .0 V... , .l I..0 ‘00. I'. . ..m....?.... 1%.? ...-..» ......33.«satanikz ......imiei .0.$3.é....§.¢..i.......Sér....:.....E.3..m.....q ...:3 ...:r......¢w.m.......zJ .....zfi........amaaa.§....£fi2§at... is a... . . . .- .... . . .. .... .... . . -.. .....s ......... . . .. ........H....-.. n. .. - . .. . .. -........... .I. . ... . 3...... ..I... ... KURT“... pm. ... ... 10(I042.I0n\..§..:.? 140.000.. . .. .03.... .4: SP 4.3:... {Suntan 03.4.0.9, .0... . #9915...”......n‘auzflfihzidmv Fatty: 00...... 8.1h:.0ui3..r.3 $1..J!.$....J.H_.... _&2us.wl.m.ok§. ......S....r.usa..u:0m.0.3.u%..¥§6n0$h: .E. I I. r.80‘ .. I -‘-1 'II' III! it Ili - i ‘ J 95 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled AN EXAMINATION OF THE MANIFEST FUNCTIONS, LATENT FUNCTIONS, AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF FFIATEFINITIES AND SORORITIES presented by Roderick D. Thomas has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral degree in American Studies M4 L/ Major Professor‘séignature [dew/(120W Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer LIBRARY Michigan State University PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 5/08 K:/Proj/Acc&Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd AN EXAMINATION OF THE MANIFEST FUNCTIONS, LATENT FUNCTIONS, AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES By Roderick D. Thomas A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY American Studies 2010 ABSTRACT AN EXAMINATION OF THE MANIF EST FUNCTIONS, LATENT FUNCTIONS, AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES By Roderick D. Thomas . Fraternity and sorority members have been found to participate in activities that are indicative of their professed manifest functions as well as others that are contradictive to those goals. For these reasons, this research was done in an effort to identify influencing factors for members' activity. Past studies have reported evidence of deleterious activity without making conscious attempts to identify factors that may have influenced members to participate in such activity. This study suggests that dysfunctional activity occurs as a result of disregard for either manifest functions or latent functions. The concepts of pluralistic ignorance and false consensus are also proposed as potential contributors to dysfunctional activity. As a result of this investigation, statistical data has been produced which indicates relationships between fraternity and sorority members’ attitudes, pluralistic ignorance, and activity. Odds ratio calculations indicate an increased probability of participating in latent function activity as fraternity or sorority members' latent function attitudes increase and also when they experience manifest function pluralistic ignorance. This knowledge deems prior expectations and perceptions of others’ to be critical factors to consider when developing policies related to fratemities and sororities. The study concludes with a moral assessment declaring that fraternities and sororities have been immoral as institutions and the members have been immoral as individuals because they have all used people merely as means to their personal ends. This research is dedicated to my late grandmother Luviner Billups. She nurtured my passion for research and was unrelenting in her support for my aspirations. Iknow she’s looking down proudly upon her grandson—the doctor. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost I would like to give special thanks to my Chair Dr. Carl S. Taylor for believing in my ability and giving me the opportunity to pursue this research. In spite of all of the support and encouragement, it could not have happened if he had not made personal sacrifices to serve in that capacity. I would also like to thank the rest of my committee: Dr. Arnold Greenfield, Dr. Barbara Schneider, and Dr. Stephen Esquith. They all provided support and encouragement throughout the dissertation process. I would like to thank the Andrew Mellon Foundation for providing financial support for dissertation completion. 1 am particularly thankful for the recruitment assistance that I received from my wife Felicia, father-in—law Tony Sr., Dale, Jonathan Sr., Jonathan Jr., and Trevor. Thanks to my survey participants for taking time to come out and make this idea a reality. I would also like to thank MSU Student Services for providing a host of workshops and other support services that facilitated my matriculation through the process. I am especially grateful for Dr. Jan Collins-Eaglin and Dr. John Lee for their counseling through the Dissertation Support Group and Dr. Matt Helm for his Career Services and placement counseling. They were more like life counselors in my case. Thanks (again) to my wife Felicia for tolerating the results of my stress and picking up the slack while I was committed to the research. And thanks to my children Lance and Madison for lending their quality time to the project. Sorry about that kids. I’ll make it up. Last but not least I want to thank all of my friends and family who offered encouragement and support—moral, mental, and physical. There are far too many to name. But you know who you are. If you’re not sure . . . call me; let’s talk about it. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................ viii LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................... x CHAPTER ONE .................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................. l Manifest Functions as Publicly Professed .............................................. 2 Dysfunctions as Observed Activity ...................................................... 2 Latent Functions Proposed as a Middle Ground ....................................... 4 Pluralistic Ignorance and False Consensus as Potential Contributors ............... 5 Research Objective ........................................................................ 6 Significance of the Study .................................................................. 6 Summary and Conclusion ................................................................. 7 CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................. 12 Introduction ................................................................................ 12 Merton’s Theory of Structural Functionalism ......................................... 12 Dominant Goals and Accepted Means ........................................ 13 Five Response Patterns ......................................................... l4 Conformity ............................................................... .14 Innovation ............................................................... l4 Ritualism ................................................................. 15 Rebellion ................................................................. 16 Summary .................................................................................. 18 CHAPTER THREE ............................................................................... 19 Introduction ................................................................................ l9 Pluralistic Ignorance ..................................................................... 20 Personality Traits ................................................................ 21 Heuristics ......................................................................... 21 False Consensus ........................................................................... 22 Subjective Construal ............................................................ 23 Spotlight Effect and Illusion of Transparency ............................... 23 Summary ................................................................................... 24 CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................. 26 Introduction ................................................................................ 26 Fraternities and Sororities as Social Institutions ...................................... 26 Harmony as Conformity .................................................................. 27 Hazing as Innovation ..................................................................... 28 Over Compliance as Ritualism .......................................................... 29 Inactivity as Retreatism ................................................................... 30 Renouncement as Rebellion .............................................................. 31 Pluralistic Ignorance and False Consensus in Fraternities and Sororities .......... 32 Gender Role Socialization ...................................................... 32 Sexual and Romantic Behavior ................................................. 33 Summary ................................................................................... 40 CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................... 42 Introduction ................................................................................ 42 Definition of Concepts ................................................................... 43 Variables Considered in the Research .................................................. 44 Hypotheses ................................................................................. 44 Development of the Questionnaire ..................................................... 45 Survey Validity Tests .................................................................... 46 Rationale for Survey Items ............................................................. 47 Source of Data ............................................................................ 5 .1 Universe and Sample .................................................................... 51 Turning Technologies Audience Response System ................................. 51 Summary .................................................................................. 52 CHAPTER SIX ..................................................................................... 54 Introduction ................................................................................ 54 Operationalization of Variables ......................................................... 54 Independent Variables ............................................................ 55 Dependent Variables ............................................................. 59 Description of the Sample ................................................................ 61 Test of the Hypotheses ................................................................... 65 Summary ................................................................................... 85 CHAPTER SEVEN ............................................................................... 88 General Summary ........................................................................ 88 Conclusion ................................................................................. 89 Limitations ................................................................................. 90 Implications ............................................................................... 93 CHAPTER EIGHT ............................................................................... 94 Introduction ................................................................................ 94 Memoirs as a Fraternity Pledge ........................................................... 96 Memoirs as a Fraternity Member ......................................................... 97 OWT Brothers ..................................................................... 97 CAT Brothers ..................................................................... 98 Authentic Members ............................................................... 98 Conflicting Realities .............................................................. 99 Kant, Merton, Fraternities and Sororities, and Conformity ........................ 100 Violation of the Second Formulation ......................................... 101 Violation of the First Formulation ............................................ 102 -vi- Moral Assessment ...................................................................... 104 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 105 Appendix A .............................................................................. 106 Appendix B .............................................................................. 109 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................ 120 -vii— Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 1 1: Table 12: Table 13: Table 14: Table 15: Table 16: Table 17: Table 18: Table 19: Table 20: Table 21: LIST OF TABLES Sample Population Demographics .................................................... 64 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFatt by MFact (at the mean) .......................... 66 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFatt by MFact (at the midpoint) ..................... 66 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFatt by LFact (at the mean) .......................... 68 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFatt by LFact (at the midpoint) ..................... 68 Odds Ratio Calculation —— LFatt by LFact (at the mean) ........................... 70 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFatt by LFact (at the midpoint) ...................... 70 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFatt by MFact (at the mean) .......................... 72 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFatt by MFact (at the midpoint) ...................... 72 Odds Ratio Calculation - MFPI by MFact (at the mean) ........................ 74 Odds Ratio Calculation —- MFPI by MFact (at the midpoint) ................... 74 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFPI by LFact (at the mean) .......................... 75 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFPI by LFact (at the midpoint) ..................... 75 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFPI by MFact (at the mean) ......................... 76 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFPI by MFact (at the midpoint) .................... 77 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFPI by LFact (at the mean) ......................... 78 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFPI by LFact (at the midpoint) ..................... 79 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFFC by MFact (at the midpoint) .................. 80 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFFC by LFact (at the midpoint) .................... 80 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFFC by MFact (at the midpoint) ................... 80 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFFC by LFact (at the midpoint) ................... 81 - viii - Table 22: Table 23: Table 24: Table 25: Table 26: Odds Ratio Calculation — MFFC by MFact (at the mean) ....................... 82 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFFC by LFact (at the mean) ......................... 82 Odds Ratio Calculation — LFFC by MFact (at the mean) ........................ 83 Odds Ratio Calculation — MFFC by LFact (at the mean) ........................ 84 Hypothesis Results .................................................................... 87 Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: LIST OF FIGURES Levels of Functionality ................................................................ 27 Attitudes and Activity ................................................................. 36 Attitudes and Activity Moderated by Pluralistic Ignorance ..................... 37 Attitudes and Activity Moderated by False Consensus ........................... 38 Attitudes and Dysfunctional Activity Moderated by Pluralistic Ignorance 39 Attitudes and Dysfunctional Activity Moderated by False Consensus 40 CHAPTER ONE MANIFEST FUNCTIONS, LATENT FUNCTIONS, AND DYSFUNCTIONS OF FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES Introduction This dissertation has been developed as a supplement to existing literature related to the observed activity of fraternity and sorority members. Rather than discuss manifest function activity and dysfunctional activity as distinct extremes, this study introduces the concept of latent functions as an explanatory factor to facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of observed contradictions in members' activity. Collective patterns of activity were determined by investigating the relationship between members' self-reported attitudes and activity as they pertain to the manifest functions and latent functions of fraternities and sororities. The investigation was inspired by the notion that equal respect for members' personal values as well as the ideals of their respective institutions is conducive to increased functionality for the members and organizations. Concepts in social stratification, social psychology, and moral philosophy have been integrated to offer a holistic approach to the research. Theories in social stratification provide a framework for describing collective patterns of member activity; social psychology offers insight into members' impetus for engaging in certain types of activity: and moral philosophy serves as means for making an ultimate determination of functionality. The overall objective of this study is to suggest ideas to consider for implementing more practical organizational policies that could potentially result in more conforming member activity. Manifest Functions as Publicly Professed When asked to provide some form of rationale, defense, or explanation for choosing to take membership in a fraternity or sorority, members tend to respond by declaring a manifest function—“ commitment to service” (“Alpha Kappa Alpha,” 1988). Although the provided services may take various forms, positive efforts geared to promote advancement or uplift for individuals and groups are verbally professed as principal motivations for joining these organizations. For instance, it is not uncommon for black fraternities and sororities to provide support for disadvantaged communities (“Sigma Gamma Rho,” 1991) while their white counterparts, on the other hand, strive to facilitate the synthesis from high school to college for incoming freshmen (DeParle, 1988). The professing of manifest functions by fraternity and sorority members is often supported by recorded history indicating decades, even centuries in some cases, of group participation in activities such as blood drives, voter registration drives, charitable donations, scholarship assistance, as well as many other constructive projects (“Alpha Kappa Alpha,” 1988;”Alpha Phi Alpha,” 1989;”Fraternity to Remember,” 1996;”Kappa Alpha Psi,” 1990: Marshall, 1990;”Omega Psi Phi,” 1993;”Sigma Gamma Rho,” 1991). Dysfunctions as Observed Activity Taking the above factors into consideration, it seems ironic that many people and groups are opposed to the existence of fraternities and sororities. Some people, in many ways, even consider them to be counterproductive to advancement or uplift (Kuh, Pascarella, & Wechsler, 1996). These controversies are sometimes explained as the result of fraternity and sorority members preaching one philosophy—emphasizing [J manifest functions—while concomitantly participating in activity that has proven to be dysfunctional. It has also been assumed that fraternities and sororities have internal divisions amongst members and, therefore, some members act in accordance with the professed manifest functions while others tend to act in ways that are dysfunctional (Shea, 1994). There is support for this perspective when binge drinking, hazing, sexual assault, and deaths associated with fraternities and sororities are taken into consideration. There have been noted patterns that indicate that some members take part in these activities while others do not. Due to widespread concern and interest in restructuring fraternities and sororities, this phenomenon—manifest functions versus dysfunctions of fraternity and sorority members’ activity—must be examined thoroughly in order to provide more insight as to why such contradictions exist within these organizations. Furthermore, there is a need to understand factors that influence members’ activity. Although published articles have provided evidence of deviant behavior amongst fraternity and sorority members, they have been, for the most part, one-dimensional. They have focused primarily on the dysfunctions that result from such behavior. This study does not intend to deny that this information is important for public notice. However, it does suggest that a deeper understanding of the facts is needed. This suggestion is grounded on the premise that having notice of existing problems without thoroughly understanding underlying causes is futile. Past research has provided the public with notice of problems that exist within fraternities and sororities. This study intends to extend earlier research by offering a thorough understanding of the underlying causes of those problems. Latent Functions Proposed as a Middle Ground This study contends that earlier reports are less than thorough because they lack a pertinent perspective. It argues that they do not consider latent function attitudes and their relationship to fraternity and sorority members’ activity. Latent function attitudes are connected to internally embraced ideals that tend to link members under some form of perceived commonality. Unlike manifest functions, latent functions are not usually professed in general public discussions (Farley, 1994’). Nevertheless, latent functions tend to play a central role in members’ perceptions and expectations of their fraternities or sororities (Biernat, Green, & Vescio, 1996). An examination of latent function attitudes and their relationship to fraternity and sorority members’ activity could possibly offer internal insight, from the members’ point-of—view, for understanding why they chose to take part in either prescribed or proscribed activity. With manifest functions being those that are obvious and openly stated and latent functions being those that are informally embraced, it is apparent that a clear distinction must be made between the two types. Using education as an example, its manifest function would be teaching children about subjects such as reading, writing, and arithmetic. On the other hand, the latent function of education would be baby-sitting: school relieves parents of the responsibility of taking care of their children. Thus, the parents are free to pursue other efforts or simply take a break from childcare. In other words, although the latent function of education is not publicly espoused, it serves a social need nonetheless. To elaborate further, take yard sales as another example: A yard sale performs the important function of allowing things that would otherwise go to waste to be used and, for the seller, to be turned into a little extra cash. These are the functions of a yard sale that readily come to mind-in other words, its manifest functions. Consider, though, some latent functions of yard sales. For one, they offer people an enjoyable outing, an opportunity to get out of the house. In addition, they may perform the important social function of enabling people to see one another on a regular basis (Farley, 1994, p. 56). Similarly, in the case of fraternities and sororities, members may converge to engage in manifest functions (e.g., community service, uplift, etc.) while also appreciating the benefits of latent functions (e.g., group solidarity. group uniformity, social networking, etc.). Pluralistic Ignorance and False Consensus as Potential Contributors In addition to exploring fraternity and sorority members collective patterns of activity, this study also considers theoretical concepts in social psychology that seek to explain factors that motivate individuals to engage in such activity. Allport (1924) contends that an individual would think it's absurd to question a position that they assume their fellow group members support even if he or she does not personally embrace the position. When the individual's assumption about others' support is inaccurate, a situation social psychologists call pluralistic ignorance occurs. The individual's erroneous assumption results in him or her participating in activity that most of the group disfavors. For this reason, pluralistic ignorance is also being investigated as a potential contributor to dysfunctional activity. Misperceptions about the positions taken by others' could also contribute to dysfunctional activity if an individual engages in activity because he or she erroneously assumes that other people support his or her own personal position when in fact they do not. Gilovich (1990) and other social psychologists refer to that scenario as false consensus. Individuals having a personal interest in dysfunctional activity may refrain from indulging if they're aware that the majority of their peers disapprove of the activity. But misguided by false consensus they follow through feeling justified in doing so. Research Objective The purpose of this project is to examine manifest function attitudes, latent function attitudes, pluralistic ignorance, and false consensus and their relationship to fraternity and sorority members’ activity. Significance of the Study By highlighting manifest function attitudes, latent function attitudes, pluralistic ignorance, and false consensus and their relationship to fraternity and sorority members’ activity, it is presumed that a greater overall understanding would be gained in regard to the structure of these organizations. More importantly, further insight could better explain why members tend to participate in dysfunctional activity. Thus, information resulting from this study will benefit fraternity and sorority members, the organizations themselves, and also non-members. By having a better understanding of factors that have been influential in past activity, fraternity and sorority members are able to make more rational and logical activity in the future. Past choices were probably based on inaccurate assumptions or tradition rather than sound reasoning. Results from this study could give fraternity and sorority members a means for examining and interpreting activities that have taken place within their respective organizations and ultimately allow them to utilize sound judgment when making decisions in regard to future activity. Fraternities and sororities have much to gain from this research because the information provided can aid in their assessment of members’ activity. Having an understanding of influential factors will benefit the organizations in their policy development and intervention methods. Furthermore, this understanding will help them to become more effective in their screening process when selecting prospective candidates for membership. Non-members will also benefit from this study. Individuals contemplating membership in a fraternity or sorority will benefit from the availability of the additional information. It creates opportunities for them to make informed decisions when making their selections. There are also individuals who may have sought membership with an organization, but, for one reason or another, may not have been accepted. The rejection that they experienced may have lowered their self-esteem or affected them in some other negative ways. In such instances, the results of this study could possibly reverse that effect. This newly acquired information may help them appreciate their rejection and thereby maintain dignity. Summary and Conclusion Fraternity and sorority members tend to openly declare that manifest functions (e.g., commitment to service) are their primary motivation for taking membership in their respective organizations. There are some critics who object to this declaration though. Critics have even gone so far as to label these organizations as counterproductive. Nevertheless, these labels can be hard to accept when evidence of positive activity is taken into consideration. On the other hand, supporting evidence has also been produced in favor of the arguments made by the critics. Fraternity and sorority members have been participants in dysfunctional activity such as binge drinking, sexual assault, and murder. There is no disputing the facts. Fraternity and sorority members have been found to participate in activity that is indicative of their professed manifest functions as well as others that are contradictive to those goals. For these reasons, research is needed in order to identify influencing factors for members’ activity. Judging the functional value of fraternities and sororities without first validly and reliably researching the factors that influence them could result in erroneous assumptions. Although earlier studies have sought to examine these issues, they have, all too often, been myopic in their perspectives. Many of these studies have reported evidence of deleterious activity without making conscious attempts to identify factors that may have influenced members to participate in such activity. This study examines manifest function attitudes, latent function attitudes, and their relationship to fraternity and sorority members’ activity in order to offer greater overall understanding in regard to the structure of fraternities and sororities. The acquired results could potentially benefit fraternity and sorority members, their respective organizations, and also non—members. The second chapter of this dissertation explores social stratification through Robert Merton's (I968) theory of structural functionalism. The five collective responses that he deems characteristic of all social institutions are used to formulate a theoretical framework for gaining insight in regard to attitudes and activity of fraternity and sorority members. Understanding their collective responses to the dominant goals of their organizations (i.e., institutions)--as well as their responses to the accepted means for accomplishing those goals--is expected to result in an increased awareness of issues that give rise to dysfunctional activity. Chapter three delves into the notions of pluralistic ignorance and false consensus. Social psychologists have investigated these concepts in an effort to explain why there is a tendency for individuals to engage in activity that either conflicts with their personal values or those held by a majority of their cohorts. These inquiries offer additional insight into fraternity members' attitudes and activity. Merton's (1968) theory on structural functionalism provides plausible explanations for the collective activity of fraternity and sorority members. And theories in social psychology complement those explanations by positing reasons for their participation as individuals. More specifically, research on pluralistic ignorance and false consensus has revealed evidence indicating that inaccurate perceptions about the attitudes of fellow group members often motivates individuals to engage in activity that they would disfavor otherwise. Chapter four explores pluralistic ignorance. false consensus, and Merton's (1968) theory on structural functionalism through empirical research. Major and related hypotheses are tested through twelve specific hypotheses. Combined, they speculate relationships between attitudes, perceptions of others' attitudes, and fraternity and sorority members' activity. Independent and dependent variables are identified: concepts are -9- defined; the universe and sample is described; and the source of data is disclosed. Essentially, the overall research design is explained in this chapter. Chapter five provides a summary of the research results; conclusions derived from that summary; and implications for future research and policy changes. It begins with a description of the demographic makeup of the sample population and then proceeds to expound upon procedures and results related to the tested hypotheses. Twenty-six tables are provided throughout the chapter to elucidate discussed data. The twelve specific hypotheses are either accepted or rejected in accordance with the test outcomes. Chapter six provides a general summary, conclusion, limitations, and implications for future research. Chapter seven transcends the research conclusions proffered in the previous chapter by making a moral assessment. Immanuel Kant‘s (1785) proposition for a supreme principle of morality (i.e., categorical imperative) is taken as a frame of reference to measure moral appropriateness. Evidence discussed in chapters two through six is then filtered through specific formulations of the categorical imperative in search of violations. Personal accounts of experiences as a fraternity member are also divulged for additional insight. By invoking moral judgment in the final chapter, this study transitions from scientific observation to ethical adjudication. Thus, theories in social stratification and social psychology offer means to better understand things that fraternity and sorority members have done while theories in moral philosophy help to determine what they ought to do. Altogether the ideas raised throughout this dissertation are offered as -10- contributions to promote decreases in dysfunctionality for fraternity and sorority members, their respective organizations, and society in general. -1]- CHAPTER TWO SOCIAL STRATIFICATION: STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM Introduction Theories in social stratification attempt to explain concepts and patterns of division that facilitate social order. Robert Merton’s (1968) theory of social structure fell within the functionalist school of thought. However, many of his concepts contrasted with those of traditional functional theorists. While traditional functionalists tended to suggest that all institutions within society served purposes that were ultimately beneficial and therefore conducive to the harmony and structure of society, Merton (1968) had additional perspectives. He suggested that some institutions within society could actually be dysfunctional. Merton’s Theory of Structural F unctionalism Merton (1968) suggested that dysfunctional institutions could be identified within a society by examining the relationship between a society’s dominant goals and the accepted means for acquiring or achieving those goals. He posited that individuals’ collective responses to societal institutions often serve as reliable units of analysis for providing indication of that institution’s level of functionality or dysfunctionality. Furthermore, individuals respond to societal institutions in systematic patterns. To be more specific, he suggested that individuals would respond to societal structuring and functioning in one of five ways: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion (Merton, 1968). Merton (1968) contrasted with psychologists who suggested that social structures were established to control man’s natural instincts for gratification and, therefore, “conformity is the result of a utilitarian calculus or of unreasoned conditioning” (Merton, 1968, p. 132). He questioned this assumption by inquiring about deviant behavior varying in shapes and patterns within different social structures. He declared that one must still learn why social structures generate circumstances that produce “normal or expected responses of infringement” (Merton, 1968, p. 132). His primary argument was that there is a need to discover how some social structures exert a definite pressure upon certain persons to engage in non-conforming rather than conforming conduct. He suggested that they responded this way, not because of individual, biological reasons, but because they were responding “normally to the cultural situation that they found themselves living in” (Merton, 1968, p.134). Merton’s (1968) research was not very concerned with the individual’s behavior of deviancy, but instead with patterns of people who carry out similar acts. In essence, he suggested that some behavior that had been labeled as deviant was just as normal and commonplace as conforming behavior. Dominant Goals and Accepted Means In his analysis of patterns of deviancy, Merton (1968) mentioned two elements of social structure that were of immediate importance. The first was the “culturally defined goals” which were “ordered in some hierarchy of value” (Merton, 1968, p. 186). Some of these things may have been directly related to the biological drives of man, but they were not totally determined by them. The second element was that which “defines, regulates, and controls the acceptable modes of reaching out for these goals” (Merton, 1968, p. 187). These modes were not always the most efficient. In fact, the disallowed procedures were sometimes the most effective for a particular group. Nevertheless, they were prohibited through methods such as taboos, sacred norms, and laws. The criteria for accepting these modes was not based on technical efficiency, but instead on the values that were promoted by the dominant group. (Dominance may exist due to the number of people, amount of power or the ability to produce propaganda.) The chosen mode for striving toward cultural goals was always limited by institutionalized norms. Five Response Patterns Conformity Although cultural goals and institutionalized norms operated jointly, the relationship was not always one of harmony. Groups could sometimes move to either extreme. They could either focus only on the technical efficiencies for striving toward goals, thereby “innovating” alternative means for accomplishing the goals, or they could become so involved with the practice that they did not realize that it was no longer instrumental and they, in turn, fell into a mode of “ritualism” (Merton, 1968, p.193). These two extremes were at odds with the state of equilibrium-“conformity” (Merton, 1968, p. 193)-which placed an equal emphasis on cultural goals and institutionalized practices which ultimately formed stable societies. This equilibrium could only be maintained if those who conformed to the constraints achieved satisfaction. Conformity is a stable adaptation to both cultural goals and institutionalized means. There was competition that developed, but as long as some rewards were offered for adherence to the constraints and the focus was not excluded to the competition, satisfaction was achieved from mere participation in the competition. Without this type of order, deviant behavior would likely result (Merton, 1968, p.193). Innovation Innovation “occurred when the individual had assimilated the cultural emphasis upon the goal without equally internalizing the institutional norms governing ways and means for its attainment” (Merton, 1968, p.194). There was a feature of the American social structure that predisposed people for this type of adaptation. There was often a thin line between “praiseworthy salesmanship and penitentiary offense” (Merton, 1968, p. 196) until a court decided. One who had achieved success outside of regulated means was often reluctantly admired, privately. White-collar crimes either went unnoticed or unprosecuted because of the status of the offenders (Merton, 1968). “It appears from -14- analysis that the greatest pressures toward deviation are exerted upon the lower strata” (Merton, 1968, p. 200). For this reason, it was expected for an individual to commit crimes when the legitimate means for success or advancement were not available. The status of unskilled labor and the consequent low income could not readily compete with the high income achieved from vice, rackets, and crime. Despite persisting open-class ideologies, advancement toward the success-goal was relatively rare and notably difficult for those armed with little formal education and few economic resources (Merton, 1968, p. 201). When there was no room for vertical mobility, only advancement within a particular caste, the “cardinal American virtue, ‘ambition,’ promoted a cardinal American vice, ‘deviant behavior’” (Merton, 1968, p. 202). This theory was also used to explain discrepancies in crime and poverty. Some poorer countries had less crime. The key was that country’s social structure. “One should not, therefore, expect a linear correlation between crime and poverty” (Merton, 1968, p. 199). A linear correlation resulted in the American social structure because emphasis was placed on success as the dominant goal. People would usually see the discrepancy between the ideology of cultural goals and their inability to reach them. This realization sometimes resulted in rebellion, but more often than not, ended up in their attributing it to mysticism by basing their status on fortune, chance, and luck. This was how well governed societies were run. The promoted concept of luck allowed the unsuccessful to preserve their self-esteem in the face of failure (Merton, 1968, p.195). Ritualism Ritualism was identified by statements like “I’m not sticking my neck out,” “I’m playing it safe,” or “Don’t aim high and you won’t be disappointed” (Merton, 1968, p.195). It was, in short, the mode of adaptation of individuals seeking a private escape from the dangers and frustrations that seemed to be inherent in competing for major cultural goals. There was an abandoning of the goals and a clinging. all the more closely, -l5- to the safe routines and the institutional norms. This could be more frequently expected among lower-middle class Americans. This group tended to be content with their status and opted to avoid taking risks that may have seemed to be threatening to their status. Retreatism Merton (1968) considered conformity to be the most frequent form of adaptation and, on the other hand, he considered retreatism to be the least. Retreatism was the rejection of both the cultural goals and the accepted institutional means. “People who adapted or maladapted in this fashion were, strictly speaking, in the society, but not of it. They were often identified as vagrants, outcasts, drug addicts, and tramps” (Merton, 1968, p. 207). This came about by internalizing the limitations set by the institution’s accepted means, therefore self-prohibiting the use of illegal means and not having the access or ability to accomplish cultural goals through the legitimate means. Although their positions may have seemed harmless, especially when compared with that of those who were innovative, others within society would not willingly accept them. According to Merton (1968), retreatists were seen as non-productive to the society, and they brought about questions in regard to the structure of the society itself. For these reasons, there were unrelenting efforts made to “revitalize their dead aspirations” (Merton, 1968, p. 207). Rebellion Merton (1968) described rebellion as a complete rejection of the social structure altogether. He illustrated the rebel as one who would not only withdraw from the present structure but would encourage a totally new structure, based on a new myth or new concept. “It is, above all, the renegade who, though himself successful, renounces the prevailing values that become the target of greatest hostility among those in rebellion. ~l6- For the rebel not only puts the values into question, as does the out-group, but he signifies that the unity of the group is broken” (Merton, 1968, p. 209). Merton (1968) made a deliberate effort to distinguish between “ressentiment” and rebellion. He reserved the term ressentiment to describe individuals who rejected the social structure either because they were not accepted by the social structure or they were unable to adequately adjust to the structure. It involved a “fox and the sour grapes” (Merton, 1968, p. 210) pattern. After struggling to reach a grapevine without success, a disappointed fox declared that the grapes were probably sour anyway. Similarly, in ressentiment, “one condemns what one secretly craves; in rebellion, one condemns the craving itself ’ (Merton, 1968, p. 210). For this reason, rebels were usually found in a rising class and not the lower strata. A system in which the focus turned to accomplish the goal rather than accomplishing the goal while abiding by the rules ended up in a state of chaos and disorder. The American social structure was used as a paradigm, and it was declared that the American Dream has no stopping point because there is always a want for 25% more (Merton, 1968). This gave indication of a society that was bombarded on every side by precepts that affirmed the rights or, often, the duty of retaining the goal even in the face of repeated frustration. Primary institutions such as family, church, and school served as means for keeping individuals disciplined and intact even when goals remained elusively beyond reach. Prestigious representatives (those who had their piece of the pie) also reinforced this cultural emphasis. Schools were the “official agencies” (Merton, 1968, p. 212) for passing these values on. “American culture admonishes quitting. Even low aim is a crime” (Merton, 1968, p. 211). -17- Summary Robert Merton (1968) considered individuals" collective decisions to either comply with or deviate from social norms to be predictable. He claimed that such predictions could take place once the culturally defined goals and acceptable means for attaining those goals were identified. Then, by knowing where the individuals place their highest priority, it could be possible to scientifically determine the likelihood that a person would take one of five positions within a social structure. The positions that individuals have taken can be recognized by their actions within their respective social structures. They have engaged in activities that ranged from an equal acceptance of the goals and the means for attaining those goals to a complete rejection of both. Although Merton (1968) conveniently described American social structure in order to better conceptualize his theory, he explained the principles as being universal and applicable to any social structure. CHAPTER THREE SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY: PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE AND FALSE CONSENSUS Introduction There is a tendency for individuals to have preconceived notions about the thoughts and beliefs that prevail amongst their respective group members. It’s probably even safe to assume that some level of shared understandings and expectations are absolutely necessary for social beings to effectively co-exist. When a group of people share a similar sense of ideals, and therefore understand the values that are held by the group, it seems likely that they are then in an optimum position to cooperate in making decisions in the best interest of the group. So then, it would seem to follow that individual group members should also benefit from the collective understanding that exists within the group. All of this is, of course, contingent upon individuals having an accurate understanding of their respective groups’ values; and it is also contingent on groups having an accurate understanding of the values held by its individual members. What are the implications of inaccurate perceptions between groups and their respective members? The above discussion assumes that shared, accurate, understandings benefit individual group members, as well as groups, as a whole. If that assumption is correct, does it follow that misunderstandings between members and groups are deleterious? Some scholars, particularly in the field of social psychology, think “yes.” Inaccurate perceptions of groups by their members, and vice versa, have been studied sporadically since the 19303. Floyd Allport (1924) offered one of the earliest publications on this phenomenon. In a discussion titled “impression of universality,” which primarily focused on group behavior, Allport posited that individuals imagine others around them as equally taking part in reacting to a common crowd object. This being the case, these imagined cohorts are also believed to be accepting of various ideals that are promoted to, or within, the group. “Since the idea as presented is assumed by me -19- to be accepted by all present, it would seem absurd for me to question it” (Allport, 1924). If an individual publicly endorses a value that she privately rejects, as a result of erroneously assuming that her fellow group members endorse it, when they in fact do not support it either, it is quite possible for destructive results to occur for both the individual and the group. Furthermore, results could be equally destructive when members inaccurately overestimate the amount of agreement that other group members share in common with them. In the former case, groups could collectively participate in activities that few, if any, of its members actually support. In the latter case, individual group members could participate in activities—assumin g they have substantial support of fellow members to do so when, in fact, they do not. Pluralistic Ignorance Since Allport’s (1924) initial proposition on the impression of universality, more research on the subject has been conducted and a more formal term, “pluralistic ignorance,” has emerged. Although these studies extend over a span of eight decades, researchers in the field unanimously maintain that pluralistic ignorance has been greatly understudied. So then, it makes perfect sense that much of the performed research on the matter has sought to emphasize just how strong the detrimental effects of pluralistic ignorance could be on individual, institutional, and national levels. Allport’s (1924) impression of universality touched on one of the major tenets of pluralistic ignorance when he suggested that individuals imagine that others react to a common object and accept it as intended. Two major points that he neglected to consider, however, are the direction of causation that the individual applies to himself as opposed to his fellow group members and the validity of his perception. Allport’s (1924) successors have extended his concept by suggesting that pluralistic ignorance results when an individual inaccurately assumes that others support certain activities or ideals because their personal views are aligned with the normal intention of those activities or ideals even though his personal views deviate from the norm in spite of the fact that he also offers public support for the activities or ideals (Korte, 1972; Kunda, 1999; Miller & McFarland, 1987; Miller & Prentice, 1994; O’Gorman, 1975, 1986;0’Gonnan & Garry, 1976). Recognizing the causal direction that the individual subjected to pluralistic ignorance attributes to his views and activities in contrast with those of his fellow group members is important because it prompts two critical questions that social psychologists have attempted to address: (1) Why does the individual consider his personal position to be a deviation, rather than the norm, when his public actions are apparently the same as his fellows? And (2) why does the individual inaccurately assess the views of his fellow group members? Personality Traits Miller and McFarland (1987) look to personality traits in their attempt to explain why individuals engaged in pluralistic ignorance tend to perceive their private views as deviant. More specifically, they suggested that individuals typically tend to believe that they possess higher degrees of traits that are related to social inhibition than other people. From this point the researchers then go on to predict that individuals’ self-diagnosis of increased social inhibition—in cases of personal embarrassment—leads them to further assume that others who behave in ways that are similar to their own, do so for reasons other than the reasons which motivated their own behavior. Heuristics At this point Miller and McFarland (1987) have activated the two critical “why” questions (Why individuals tend to assume that they’re deviants? And why do they make errors in assessing the view of others?), however, a sufficient answer has yet to be provided. In search of a more sufficient explanation, they delve into a theory of social cognition by suggesting “individuals have more data relevant to the existence of internal traits in self than in others” (Miller and McFarland, 1987, p. 301). This then suggests that individuals call on heuristics to explain their personal emotions at a given moment in the same way that they use them to explain other, external, phenomenon that they may witness or experience. And since heuristics are by their very nature inclined to promote statistical fallacies, it makes perfect sense that assessments of self-other personality traits, grounded on the logical foundation of heuristics, would result in erroneous conclusions. False Consensus False consensus is similar to pluralistic ignorance in the sense that individuals’ decisions to engage in behaviors or offer support are based on inaccurate assumptions about the way others feel toward the issue in question. In another sense, false consensus works in ways that are very different in comparison to pluralistic ignorance. According to Gilovich (1990), the false consensus effect refers to a tendency for people's own habits, values, and behavioral responses to bias their estimates of the commonness of the habits, values, and actions of the general, population. In essence, the individual influenced by false consensus errs in assuming more shared positive support for ideals that are personally embraced while the individual influenced by pluralistic ignorance assume more shared positive support amongst others for ideals that they personally oppose. IQ Ts.) I Subjective Construal False consensus effect was first observed in 1943. Researchers noticed that people holding a particular attitude tend to estimate that higher proportions of others share their attitudes than people who do not hold that attitude. (Fabrigar and Krosnick, 1995, p. 469) Gilovich (1990) conducted research to determine if false consensus is partly due to subjects’ subjective construal of alternatives in their choices. The results provided evidence suggesting that people fail to consider the fact that they may perceive situations differently than their peers when estimating attitudes of others. And the results also gave indication that false consensus effect increased as more latitude was permitted for subjective construal. Gilovich’s (1990) findings related to those of Miller and McFarland (1987) in the sense that internal traits and self—reflection helped to explain why individuals have a tendency to inaccurately estimate their attitudes as compared to their peers. However, it’s interesting how individuals tend to project their individuality in different directions. In the case of false consensus, the subjects view their individuality objectively thereby assuming that more of their peers share their attitude than is actually the case. Individuals influenced by pluralistic ignorance, on the other hand, think that their attitudes are more unique and isolated in comparison to others. Spotlight Effect and Illusion of Transparency The “spotlight effect” (Gilovich, 2000) and “illusion of transparency” (Gilovich, 1998) have been offered as possible explanations to facilitate in understanding the causes of false consensus effect. Spotlight effect occurs when people are cognizant of a particular attribute related to themselves. And because of that awareness they overestimate the likelihood of others also being aware of that particular attribute. Similarly, illusion of transparency occurs when individuals overestimate the likelihood of others having the ability to perceive their thoughts. Gilovich (1998, 2000) contends that spotlight effect and illusion of transparency are both derived from the same anchoring- and-adjustment mechanisms. And insufficient adjustments in either case result in people believing that the perspective of others is more like their own than is actually the case. Summary The concepts of pluralistic ignorance and false consensus are being proposed as essential research perspectives in this project because inaccurate assumptions about the attitudes of one’s fellow fraternity or sorority members are presumed to be contributing factors in cases of dysfunctional activity. On the other hand, accurate assessments of shared values are presumed to be conducive to group functionality. Social psychologists have shown interest in this topic for more than 80 years. Researchers have proposed factors such as personality traits and heuristics as potential causes of pluralistic ignorance. When individuals believe they possess higher degrees of traits related to social inhibition, they tend assume that others behave for reasons different than their own even though they engage in the same kind of activity. And assumptions about others’ traits are often inaccurate because individuals naturally know more about their own characteristics than others. Yet they assess others according to facts that they know about themselves. Research on topics like subjective construal, spotlight effect, and illusion of transparency has been pursued to help explain false consensus. Results from Gilovich’s (1990) study indicated that people who are biased toward a certain position are more apt to estimate that others share their bias than people who are not biased. Furthermore, there is a tendency for individuals to overestimate the likelihood of others having the ability to perceive their thoughts. CHAPTER FOUR A THEORETICAL MEDLEY: STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONALISM, PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE, AND FALSE CONSENSUS Introduction Merton's (1968) theory on structural functionalism provides a means for interpreting response patterns that have been observed through individuals' collective behavior within social institutions. Pluralistic ignorance offers an explanation for individuals' decision to engage in patterns of behavior that conflict with their personal values. And false consensus explains those that conflict with the personal values of one's respective group members. By exploring an integrated combination of all three concepts, this study intends to provide an enhanced theoretical foundation that could possibly facilitate solutions for eliminating dysfunctional behavior within fraternities and sororities by helping to better understand what members tend to do and why. Past studies have only dealt with the "what" aspect of the problem by either focusing on members' manifest function activity or dysfunctional activity without considering the relevance of latent function activity. By merging concepts borrowed from structural functionalism, pluralistic ignorance, and false consensus, this study offers insight in regard to the "why" aspect. It assumes that imbalances between manifest function attitudes and latent function attitudes result in dysfunctional behavior for fraternity and sorority members in the same way that imbalances between emphasis on dominant goals and accepted means have resulted in dysfunctional behavior for individuals within social institutions. Fraternities and Sororities as Social Institutions Although Merton’s (1968) social structure theory made numerous referrals to the American social structure, his concepts were not exclusive to any particular institution. Through his concepts, he proposed to offer a generic method of analysis that could be used to evaluate any social structure. His concepts were not limited to macro social analysis either. They could also be used to evaluate micro institutions and subcultures within a society. In an effort to identify factors that have been influential in fraternity and sorority members’ activity choices, this study examines fraternities and sororities as social structures through Merton’s (1968) theory on social structure. Individual fraternity or sorority members’ collective responses to institutional goals and accepted means for achieving those goals are reviewed. And a deliberate effort is made to categorize their responses into one of Merton’s (1968) predicted categories: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism or rebellion. The proposed categories provide indication of fraternity and sorority members’ level of commitment to manifest function and latent function attitudes. Figure 1 illustrates the level of functional analysis for each category. Figure 1: Levels of Functionality LATEI IT FUl ICTIOI'I ACTIVITY DYSFUI ICTIOIIAL_ FUl-ICTIOIIAL - gm—4>mm«mm gm-P>CH~N <4—ngwZOO ZO—4>