3.. ms.“ .n ..u a o a i . .n 3 9‘ 'F‘!‘ ‘H‘ n o . 9p; a...“ .u‘L O "V‘ '9‘. 1‘: if: um: nu .t.‘ 94¢. w... 3 fl... .7. VI 0 )4 on“! 4’ t? 0|»! of. if. Q‘ I” “mm .1 to «‘90 Mk.‘ FM! "fix” ‘ . \w . ah... «.u W m. “an m #3.“ I: MQI... . .2 no: 9W“ —( .. .v 90.2. FM.“ .2 IV” “I. am:- Iwcw uu‘ an. .a sf. “Wm I-Qm . ”*8. “A. awn” O bound .- s. a .05 $.M' \ 0'- d» . I J W‘.“ v If .1“ ol .DCQ a‘. i! u. a O o ”H”. Oi has. «a! 8 50W . In ... an...“ an” mm u”. IHESIS LIBRARY Michlgan State Universnty ROOM USE ONLY MARITAL ADJUSTMENT AND THE COMPARISON OF PERSONALITY DESCRIPTIONS OF MATES by Bion L. Hoeg A Thesis Submitted to Michigan State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Psychology 1965 ABSTRACT Locke's short marital adjustment scale and Hurvitz's "Index of Strain" were jointly used to discriminate a group of eleven "less well-adjusted" and a group of eleven "well- adjusted" married couples. Using LaForge's "Interpersonal Check List," the "well-adjusted" couples described them- selves as more similar to their spouses and also more accurately predicted their spouse's self-description than did the "less well-adjusted" couples. Scale 4 on the ICL, Skeptical-Distrustful items, versus Responsible-Overgenerous items, revealed significant differences in three of five comparisons, indicating that the traits composing this scale are of definite relevance here. These findings support the theory of homogamy as opposed to the theory of complimentari- ness as a positive determinant of marital adjustment. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. John Hurley, ichigan State Univer— sity Department of Psychology, for his suggestions, guidance and criticisms at each stage of the develOpment of this paper, and to Dr. Norman Abeles and Dr. Alfred Dietze for their advice on the final form of it. Also, I am indebted to my father, Captain Bion R. Hoeg, Michigan State Police, and the personnel of the Fifth District State Police Posts who volunteered to make this study possible, iii Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A THE SAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l5 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i6 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l/ 1V Table Discrepancy Between and His Wife's Self- Discrepancy Between and Her Description Discrepancy Between and His Description Discrepancy Between LIST OF TABLES Husband's Self-Description Description . . . Wife's Self-Description of Her Husband . Husband's Self-Description of His Wife ~Wife's Description of Her Husband and His Description of Himself Discrepancy Between Husband's Description of His Wife and her Description of Herself Page INTRODUCTION This paper is the result of an investigation aimed at discovering some of the differentiating characteristics of well-adjusted married couples when compared with poorly- adjusted married couples. The hypotheses tested were arrived at as the result of the following consideration of relevant theory and research data: What makes for marital compatibility? This question apparently has two diametric answers. One answer is that individuals adjust to one another best when their personali- ties are very similar or homogamous. The opposite of this would be that they adjust best when their personalities are complimentary. This latter statement has been formalized by Winch (1952) in terms of Murray's Needs. Rather than stating "opposites attract," he likens the situation to the intermesn- ing of cogwheels and gives much theoretical rationale for his stand. Winch offers modest evidence in support of this theory (195“), but Bowerman (1956) in a similar investigation, using the "Edwards Personal Preference Schedule" (PPS) where Winch had used: (a) a "need interview"; (b) a case history interview; and (c) an eight-card TAT test to determine the subject's needs, found insufficient evidence to support either a theory of com— plimentariness or homogamy. On the other hand, Izard (1960) found that friends have more similar PPS profiles than did randomly paired individuals, with no complimentary factors in evidence. Van Der Veen (196“) gives some support to a theory of homogamy by showing "Family Concepts" of happily married couples to be more congruent than those of less happily married couples. Also, Luckey (1960) shows certain positive relation- ships between marital satisfaction and correlations of self and spouse concepts with concepts of parents. Luckey uses LaForge's "Interpersonal Check List" as a measure of personality concept with Locke's modified marital adjustment scale and Terman's self rating "Happiness Scale" as criterion of marital happiness. The existing evidence is most supportive of a theory of homogamy.v Probably neither of these positions is sufficiently articulated to accurately conceptualize the marital situation. The homogamy-complimentary dicotomy appears useful, however, for it encourages the development of hypotheses which may bring us closer to a more adequate understanding of marital compatibility. Following-these considerations, the hypothesis was set forth that there would be a smaller discrepancy between the self— descriptions and the spouse-descriptions of well-adjusted mates than between less well-adjusted mates. More specifically, there should be a smaller descrepancy for well-adjusted mates than for the less well—adjusted mates between: (1) Husband's self-description and his wife's self-description. (2) Wife's self-description and her description of her husband. (3) Husband's self-description and his description of his wife. (A) Wife's description of her husband and his description of himself. (5) Husband's description of his wife and her description of herself. PROCEDURE Terman, in his 1938 study, which was one of the earliest and most thorough investigations in this area of marital happi— ness, differentiated between "happy” and "unhappy” marriages through: (a) Subjects' ratings of the happiness of the marriage; and (b) factual information of the husband—wife agreement or disagreement about various matters. Luckey (1960) also employed two independent measures to discriminate between ”satisfactorily" and "less satisfactorily” married couples. The Terman (1938) self-rating happiness scale and Locke's (1959) short marital adjustment scale were jointly used by Luckey. In this study the Locke (1959) measure and Hurvitz's (1959, 1960) "Marital Roles 1 Inventory,‘ which is an instrument designed to gauge how closely marriage partners agree upon the rank order of their respective roles, were jointly used. When both these criteria placed both mates on the same side of the median score of the whole sample the couple was accepted as either well-adjusted or less well- adjusted as indicated. The subjects were allowed to take the questionnaires home to complete. They were advised that their responses would be kept anonymous unless they desired knowledge of the results. It was also stressed to them that they should work independently and not consult their spouse in any way. Any more elaborate method for obtaining criterion groups, such as Locke's (1959) procedure of finding happily married couples and divorced couples was deemed beyond the resources of this study. This procedure resulted in discriminating one group of couples who both scored above the median on both criterion measures. This group shall be referred to as the W (well— adjusted) group. A second group, composed of couples both scoring below the median, shall be referred to as the L (less well-adjusted) group. Simultaneously, with the criterion measures, the subjects completed LaForge's (1955, 1963) "Interpersonal Check List" (ICL) on which they were instructed to "Check all of the items which you feel describe your spouse." The ICL was the instru- ment used to assess, quantitatively, several personality vari- ables which seen quite pertinent to marital harmony; e.g., Dependency, Cooperativeness, Responsibility. The scores on the ICL are used as each mate's self-description and description of spouse. THE SAMPLE The subjects were volunteers from the officers and civil— ian personnel stationed at the Michigan State Police Posts in the Fifth District and their spouses. This district includes the territory in the southwest corner of the lower penninsula (from Battle Creek west to Lake Michigan and from Grand Rapids to the state border). State Police Officers are men ranging in age from twenty-one to fifty-six, who have a minimum of a high school education, are of relatively high moral character, and in good physical condition. The range of socioeconomic levels represented by this group is very narrow and all of the data gained was gained from couples whose marriages were definitely intact. The subjects were told that if they desired knowledge of their standing in the group to sign their names to the back of the protocol.1 One hundred twenty-five questionnaires were distributed, seventy—three were returned within a six week period. Of these, 11 were eventually placed in the W group, 11 in the L group, and 20 had overlapping scores on the adjustment scales and were classified as being in an ”Intermediate” group. The remaining 31 were either blank, incomplete, or judged by the handwriting to have been done by a single person. Only the two groups W and L were used for further analysis. ‘— wv—v ‘— - 1Only one couple in the W group did this, whereas five couples in the L group did this. 6 When the scores of these two groups were compared with the means of Locke's (1959) normative group, it was discovered that the W group had a mean score of 13A.8 which is very close to Locke's "well—adjusted” group mean of 135.9. However, the L group had a mean score of 95.6 which was substantially higher than Locke's "poorly—adjusted" group mean of 71.7. Thus, it must be borne in mind that whereas the W group is very compar- able to Locke's "well—adjusted" group, the couples in the L group have considerably higher adjustment scores than those in Locke's group. There are not adequate norms to similarly ex- amine the Hurvitz scores, since he reports only correlation coefficients over the whole range of marital adjustment and thus did not separate into discrete groups as we have done here. RESULTS Interpreting the results of scores on the ICL seems to be largely up to the discretion of the individual investigator. LaForge (1963) reports, one can use a scoring system as gross as combining the responses into two "dimensions," Dominance— Submission (Dom) and Love-Hate (Lov) or as fine as examining each of the 13“ items individually. Since this study is very similar in design to that done by Luckey (1959), it was decided to follow her procedure in examining the results. Luckey's label for each of the 16 scales is not always identical to LaForge's (e.g., Blunt for Sadistic, Explotive for Narcissistic) but each scale is still composed of the same items. The 16 variables of the ICL, which are arranged in a circular profile and combined into descriptive octants in such a way that the opposite octant represents an Opposing variable, were resolved to four scales. Scale 1 is made up of variables termed Managerial-Autocratic, Octant AP, at one end of the continum, and Modest-Self effacing, Octant HI, at the other; Scale 2, Competitive—Exploitive, BC, vs. Docile-Dependent, JK; Scale 3, Blunt-Agressive, DE, vs. Coopera- tive—Over conventional, LM; Scale A, Skeptical—Distrustful, PG, vs. Responsible—Overgenerous, NO. By then subtracting the lower scale from the higher of the Opposing octants on each scale, thus locating a single point on each continuum, a four point personality profile developed for both W and L groups on each scale was determined. Here it was necessary to arbitrarily call one half of the scale positive and the other negative in order to arrive at the absolute difference between points. The mean (i) of these differences for each group on each scale is shown below. TABLE 1 Discrepancy between husband's self-description and his wife's self—description. ICL Scale L w i i l 8.8 > 5.8 2 8.1 < 10.2 3 9.5 < 11.3 4 8 3 < 9.2 3U.7 36.5 TABLE 2 Discrepancy between wife's self—description and her description of her husband. ICL Scale ' L w i x l 1A.l > 9.u 2 8.7 > 7.2 3 7.A < 8.0 Ll l2 7 > 6.3* A2 9 3O 9 * Significant at .05 level. 10 TABLE 3 Discrepancy between husband's self—description and his description of his wife. ICL Scale L w i i 1 13.6 > 5.9* 2 1A.l > 7.0 3 12.1 > 8.0 u 20 u > 9.5* 60 2 30 u TABLE u Discrepancy between wife's description of her husband and his description of himself. ICL Scale L W i i l 8.0 > 7.6 2 6.6 < 6.8 3 10.5 > 6.0* A ll 5 > 6.9 36.6 27 3 * Significant at .05 level. 11 TABLE 5 Discrepancy between husband's description of his wife and her description of herself. ICL Scale L W i i l 8.5 > 5-9 2 9.1 > 7.u 3 8.9 > 8.6 A lu.6 > 6 6* Al 1 28 5 * Significant at .05 level. DISCUSSION Due to the large variance of scores and relatively small sample size, only five of the twenty comparisons were signifi— cantly different at the .05 level. In each of these five cases the score of the well-adjusted couples was smaller, indi- cating closer agreement between the pfofiles prepared in each case. None of the comparisons in which the L group showed closer agreement were significant. Out of the 20 comparisons only five showed closer agreement between L group profiles than between W group profiles. Table 1 accounts for three of these five results. But as stated before, none of these comparisons are significant. If one considers the situation represented here; that is, observa— tions are compared which were made by two separate observers observing two separate events, one would be very much surprised to find significant consistant results in any direction. It 18 therefore proposed that the last four tables would present the most meaningful data. For in tables two and three we are deal- ing with only one observer and in tables four and five we deal with observations made upon the same object (individual). Thus reducing the error variance introduced by the more complex pro— cedure of Table l, we can more readily discover the true state of affairs. 13 Considering only the last four scales, we can note: Find- ing 1A of the 16 discrepancies to be greater for the L group significantly supports the hypotheses. Parenthetically, it should be observed that in those two cases where the W group discrepancy was larger the differences between the two scores were among the smallest of the whole sample. It is interesting that ICL Scale A, in the last four tables, revealed the great- est differences between the discrepancy scores. This suggests that the items on the Skeptical—Distrustful vs. Responsible- Overgenerous continum are among the more important factors in marital compatibility. Also, the sum of the L group husband's scores in Table three is by far the largest sum of any of the scores in any table. It is practically double the sum of the discrepancies for the W group husbands in this table. This indicates that self and spouse descriptions given by husbands, when analyzed in the manner here presented, rather sensitively discriminate well-adjusted from less well-adjusted couples. Further research on these points may prove fruitful. Other suggestions for research stimulated by this study might include: (a) a replication employing a larger N so as to reduce the effects of the wide variance upon attempts at getting statistically significant results; (b) a replication involving subjects who are much less "well-adjusted" than the L group used here; (0) a similar study using different criteria for separating W group from L group couples. Also, a reanalysis of the data presented in the appendix using only the Locke or only the Hur— vitz measure as criterion, instead of using them jointly, would 14 be readily accomplished investigation, as would reanalysis of the ICL scores using some different scoring system than the one here employed. Apparently the best way to interpret the data of these last four tables is to say that well-adjusted married couples tend to see themselves as being much more alike on these ICL scales than do poorly-adjusted couples. Also, the well- adjusted mates' concept of their spouse more closely flts their spouse's own self concept than did the poorly—adjusted couples. Generally, couples who feel that they each have a personality which is quite similar to one another's and also have accurate concepts as to what their spouse feels their own personality to be like tend to have happier marriages. Thus, this study lends definite support to a theory of homogeneity, For if the theory of complimentary needs were the more accurate statement of reality, we would have seen the mean differences between the well—adjusted couples to have been greater than the poorly—adjusted couples at least in tables two and three. To this investigator, these results support the line of reasoning that proceeds: If two persons are of similar nature, they would come into conflict much less often in seeking their respective pleasures than would a couple who have more disparate tastes (tables 2 and 3). also, a better understanding of another would allow an individual to more efficiently bring pleasure and avoid the discomfort which might be inflicted by anknowing behavior (tables A and 5). SUMMARY Locke's short marital adjustment scale and Huertz's "Index of Strain" were jointly used to discriminate a group of eleven "less well-adjusted" and a group of eleven "well- adjusted” married couples. Using LaForge's ”Interpersonal Check List," the "well-adjusted" couples described them- selves as more similar to their spouses and also more accur— ately predicted their spouses selfedescription than did the ”less well-adjusted" couples. Scale A on the ICL, Skeptical— Distrustful items, versus Responsible-Overgenerous items, revealed significant differences in three of five comparisons, indicating that the traits composing this scale are of defin— ite relevance here. These findings support the theory of homogamy as opposed to the theory of complimentariness as a positive determinant of marital adjustment. 15 REFERENCES Bowerman, C. B. and Day, B. R. A test of the theory of com— plimentary needs as applied to couples during courtship. Amer. Soc. Rev., 1956, 21, 602—605. Hurvitz, N. The Index of Strain as a measure of marital satis- faction. Sociol. Soc. Res., 1959, AA, 10A-1ll. Hurvitz, N. The measurment of marital strain. Amer. i. Sociol., 1960, 61, U7-51. Izard, C. E. Personality similarity and friendship. i. Ao. Soc. Psychol., 1960, 61, 47—51. LaForge, R., and Suczek, R. An interpersonal checklist. i. Pers., 1955, 2A, 94-112. LaForge, Rolfe, Research Use of the ICL. Oregon Research Institute Technical Report, Vol. 3, No. K, Oct., 1963. Locke, H. J. Predicting Adjustment £2 Marriage. New York: Holt, 1951. Locke, H. J., and Wallace, K. M. Short marital adjustment and prediction tests: Their reliability and validity. Mar— raige and Family Living, 1959, 21, 251-256. Luckey, E. B. Marital staisfaction and parental concepts. i. Consult. Psychol., 1960, 2A, 195-204. Terman, L. M. Psychological Factors £2 Marital Happiness. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1938. Van Der Veen, H., et. a1. Parents' concepts of family and family adjustment. Am. i. of Orthopsychiat., 196A, 34, “5-55. Winch, R. F. The Modern Family, New York: Holt, 1952. Winch, R. F., Ktsanes, T., and Ktsanes, V. The theory of com— plimentary needs in mate-selection: an analytic and de- scriptive study. Am. Soc. Rev., 195A, 19, 2Al-2A9. l6 APPENDICES 18 mom comm mam 0mm cam smm saw mom mmm smm mmm Hmm Hmm esm Hmfi sssa 53H msa mas ema ems OHH sma mmH mma was sma eeecasm mmfl mama mma sea sag was mma mmfi mma mmfl 0mg mmfl sma teas m an mas as; 0:3 ama am; mm: mm3 cm: was am; smz caasco mopoom mXoOA .moaasoo pmpmSmppsm amoaazoo Boomshp¢laamz H mqm< CDLflKOCIlr—iHNLQJONfl'r—iom: w :rm.m\mmm\omm:rmmt\t\\ot\ m :r Or-{CDr—ir—{OOOOMr—ir—immr—{m 3 r—i H :r JMMOMHKOMJCFMNNOOr—i 3 r—-+ r—qr—i O :r r—4\C>Lf\xr—iMr—4:TMC\JC\JNML\QDMN 3 ON on Hr—imzmrao.mmmmoomm:r~+ 3 N m mxoooO\G\r—+xor—+.—+mm:rmmom 3 m m mmmmmammmomr—amm.r—+m 3 (\l m mOLflLflKOr—i-ZTQ'MNNQDr—imwm 3 r—1 0 m oowwommmomxomr—immmr— 3 H 00 (\J Nommnowmmnmmmr—imm 3 H ,_1 [\ (\J OOOOOKONCDMMKDNCOOHMO 3 r—‘r—ir—i HHHH J m oomowoomzorimmoommmo 3 [—1 r—{ (1) H CU 0 U) deQLflfi—«UEHF‘DKQEZOQ i_”l C.) H Couple 21 TABLE V Well—Adjusted Wives'ICL Self Description Scores Couple CDCOKOOONKOUWONQ'mOva—ir—i zmzwmmmzmzmzkoxomm >4 mqfltxmmmmmooozc—ioowxo w mxomwkomxozquozrwkomm m H r—ir—i (\1 [\ H (\1 -: H 3 H [\Or—‘lCL; mom :rmr—q :r r—ir-i r—{t—ir—i 3 O 0er Lora or» Q 0 :r r—1 v—i r—4 3 ON on m .—ir—+ wa m O 3 L\ m G \OM r—l ml [x 3 r—i m m H mm om r—‘l m 3 [—4 (\J on L0 \om L0 1.0 C) 3 O mooozoomm m (\J m m r—ir—i [—4 ma 3 oo (\1 Ln mar—40m O m 3 r—ir—i -—4 N (\J m r—ir—i C) :r N 3 :r :r Mr—iNKOr-‘i :rfloooomxo (\l r—1 .—1.—+ [—4 r-ir—ir—{r—ir—lv—i 3 <1) H CG 0 U) C) mm H x: E a. A O I—1 TABLE VI ICL Spouse Description Scores Well—Adjusted Wives' 22 a) o\:r q>xo pH m cm a>xo b~ OxLfl UWCM 0\ IX OOOIOOOOOOOOOOOO n-Ln :'\o :r m :r m cu WWkO-S oo b—W3\O x onto q>xo r+c3 m>cu H (3;: n-rn O leD m U\\O :r F—Lfl on 3 no ww:r w-uw O\GD\O c~ w» :- mxcn Wfit\ U\-<3 a) H G} wwr4 Oxt~ o t» chu 3 #4 H H H r4 H -4 o 2- Ln 0 U1 ~»u1 H rfi(h wwr4 o owrx U\Ln o 3 H! H H O\ «n H CH r+¢H c>.H :r o (M owxo co anLn 03:0 3 L\ on H DH F—(fl m>cn mu 3 H a) m as b—Lfl c>rn r1ro uan no 0 Ln F—t\ C)t\ 3 H H H N oJ a) N-Lfl r~ WWCD C) m cm nanpiuw N3t~ h—t\ 3 H :T o1 H Ln m) N)(fl OJ H rm q3 HHmHe o:.mH ©.mmH OH.HH om.mH om.CH om.oH OH.MH OH.mH om.HH om.oH om.HH om.HH om.mH gem NH.N m.ms Hm.: NH.m mm.m m©.m oo.m Hm.m mm.» sm.m ms.s mm.s om.m mHom m.egwpmzm Hm.m ©.sm mm.m Hm.: mH.H mm.: oo.m ms.m ms.m Hm.H we.» m:.H om.m mHom m.mHH3 m xw wHH mHH HHH OHH mH NH SH mH HH NH HH mHQsoo Achwppm mo xoocsz mopoom mpH>Lsm .monsoo oopmzmoleHoz mmoq HH> mqm<8 2U TABLE IX ICL Self Description Scores Less Well—Adjusted Husbands' Couple mmoooooommxooomoomr—{zooo OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO \omzowzwmmmzmkomzrm v—i \OLflMCfiKOChOOr—io GROWN >4 [\QmHoozroozrmxo \okomxmm w H H KO [\ \GO’WC‘. v—4 O H ._21 N GO mel“: CD C H r—ir—i .4 H O (VIC‘ ’YWFoP—i '—1 (NJ H H HH #1 O H m [\-(—1Lf\ m ID ;_J cf C O (“JKC-r-i m LO ,4 H H H N m .r_\ \O O; \Q on m m u Ln H L\ A HH H HH HHHH \D (\J 000 :THr—i [\ Q #1 H H LO LO mm mmH O H ._] r—i Hr—l :—1 H :I' 00 Name OO\CDLF‘,J y—J r—i r—1 r—ir—ir—ir—i 01 mm H C‘Ir—iO (\J «:0 D—J r—iH H H «—-i O KO ChkOLD r—l ON C ._J H H H H (I) :—-1 CU O U) Q (3th 5‘, LL Q C.) H 25 O.O OO O H O H O OH O O O O OH O O.O OO HH O O O O HH O HH OH OH O O 0.0 OO HH O O O OH OH O OH HH OH O z 0.0 OO HH O O O O OH O O OH OH O z O.O OO O O O OH O OH O O HH H O H 0.0 OO H O O OH OH OH O OH O OH O O O.O HO O H O OH H OH O OH O O O O 0.0 OO O H O OH O O O OH O O H H H.O OO O H O OH O O O OH O O O O O.O OO O O OH O O O O O HH O OH O O.O OO O O H. H H O O H O O OH O O.O HO H O O O O O O H OH O OH O H.O OO H O O O O OH O O OH O O O H.O OO O O O O O O O H O H O O O.O OH O O O O O OH O O O H O O O.O OH H O O O H OH O O O H OH O OHOOO HOH m OH OHH OHH HHH OHH OH OH OH OH OH OH HH mHOOOO mopoom :oHquLomoo omzoqm HQH .mocmnmsm oopOSHo< r—1(\JLF\(IDO\C\JO\r—iC\J\O:T[\MO\QLO (,4 :r\o:rm:r:rl_rxmmmm:room\om \o H mkowoommxomm'xommcnmxooo A (\J H OOr—ifYWMr-{OJMNLC"\OMKOr—1m© OJ H H 00 co Ln [\ \o m L0 Ln 0 :r m m H Ln Ln m »—'1 H O H QQMHmmchmemxorWHm .4 H 00 mwmmmmHmmooonOHmm J H [\ Homwxomwmcxommmwm: OJ HH H HHHHHH \o :rmmzchQNOMHmmoHM .q H Ln HHHmexoonzzmmzHo Q :- MNNLHMHMNMKONLQHSMOJ OJ HHHH (\1 mommomOOHmHmmmoscoH .4 H H MHwomxommmxzmmmmm J H H (1) H (U 0 Cf) F1rle b—:$ mxflJLfl H a) Ix O O O O O I O O O O O O O 0 O O N-MDLn N—K)(W b-Cu m OJch : Chin m>t\ x b~cr OxWWKO o t» o —H H -=Q w F-t~\o qyxo WWCH m burn NwLn O unxo x» H \o H WWOJLD m\:r(h O\\O mer m O+cm : ?.<3 O] H —-i PHI --i m H WWCU m,~wrh H Hora cncm o F4C\ H us O H H H H r4 m c0\© as O u} o to O—Ch m\oo o q>!n H H H H r4 0 H m cnrn O WW(W mic; c c>c3 O CDCD o O\ O] H H H m) oxt~ B FHKO O4:r MwO4(n Mu~1cm mucu H «Sta C)ro 0 us O b- q m rara H H O+rH H ~4rH H m) n-cu mxr4CW mxb~CU o c>r4 H uwco m m) H In U\Lfl W7t\ a>rn OirH 0 r4 O4cn o :r z N» g H .3 o O4Hx OHOHO O0.0 O0.00H O0.0 OH.OH O0.0 HO OH OO OH OO OH OH.OH OO.OH OO.OH OH.O OO.O O0.0 OO.O O0.0 HH.O OH.O O0.0 HH.O OO.O OO.O sum HO.O OO.OOH O0.0 OH.O OH.O OO.O O0.0 OH.O HO.O OO.O OO.O OO.H HO.H OO.O HO.O OHrH OO.O OO.O OO.H OH.O OO.O HO.H mHom . I , , . w.vcmnmsm OO.H HO.OO O0.0 O0.0 OO.H HH.O HO.O OO.H HO.O OO.H OO.H OH.O OH.H OO.H HO.H HO.O OH.O OO.O OO.O HO.H OH.O OO.H mHoO ‘ . O.OOHO x xu OHH OOH OOH OOH HOH . HOH OOH OOH HOOH OOH HOH OOH OHH OHH OHH OHH HHH OHH OH OH mHOsoo A:chppm Ho xochzv mmLOOm NpH>Lzz .mngsoo mumHUwELmHCH HHHX mqm