ABSTRACT

ACTION AND INTERACTION IN THE SOCIAL DYAD:
TEMPORAL MEASURES OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR

BY

Kathleen T. Yamanaka

Previous studies of process in different dyadic
relations found that one way in which people affect each
other is by their timing of actions and interactions.
Much of this earlier work, however, occurred in clinical
or interview settings. The present study investigated
temporal behavior of dyads in a semi-structured acquaint-
ance situation.

Thirty-two undergraduate students at Michigan State
University formed the sixteen male-female dyads which met
for fifty minutes once a week for five weeks. The dyads
included four "low-dogmatic" and four "high-dogmatic"
dyads (as determined by scores on Rokeach's (1960)
Dogmatism Scale) as well as four dyads composed of "high-
dogmatic" men and "low-dogmatic" women and four dyads
composed of "low-dogmatic" men and "high-dogmatic" women.

Tape recordings of sessions one, three, and five
were coded for Units and Duration of Speech, Initiative I
(initiation of a new topic) and Initiative II (initiation

of a second tOpic by a subject following his own last

Kathleen T. Yamanaka

utterance and silence by his partner), Check (inter-
ruption of a subject by his partner) and Counter-Check
(interruption of a subject by his partner whom he had
previously interrupted).

Also scored for were Individual Participation per

2 duration of speech for 81
2 duration of speech for S1 and S

 

Session ( 2) and Activity
per Session (2 duration of speech for S1 and S2).

The hypothesis that Speech Duration would increase
over sessions was not supported by the analysis of vari-
ance performed on the collected data. The hypothesis that
Initiative II scores would decrease over the sessions was
supported; however, the Initiative I scores did not
significantly decrease over the sessions. Contrary to
expectation, the Activity score decreased over sessions.
Also contrary to expectation, "low-dogmatic" subjects
scored higher on Check and Counter—Check than did "high-
dogmatic" subjects.

Significant second and third order interactions
were further analyzed for simple effects. The general
trend of results seemed to indicate that a process of
adjustment occurred, with measures being more stable at
sessions three and five. However, although the data
also appear to lend support to Chapple's (1940) hypothesis
of stable individual patterns of interaction, whether or
not individuals have characteristic patterns of inter—

action which are "upset" and then "readjusted" during an

Kathleen T. Yamanaka

acquaintance relationship could not be ascertained with
the present research design.

The clearest personality differences in the present
study indicated that "low-dogmatic" persons, especially
females, were more likely to accept being interrupted by
their partner and that "high-dogmatic" individuals
counter-checked or "talked down" their partner more often
if the other were a "low-dogmatic" individual.

Results were discussed in terms of a process of
adjustment and also in terms of both personality and the

social situation.

Thesis Committee:

Gary E. Stollak, Chairman APPROVED:

 

Lawrence A. Messé DATE

 

Joel Aronoff

ACTION AND INTERACTION IN THE SOCIAL DYAD:

TEMPORAL MEASURES OF VERBAL BEHAVIOR

BY
\yo

\w
Kathleen T?”Yamanaka

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere appreciation to
Dr. Gary Stollak, my advisor and the chairman of my
thesis committee, and to the two other members of my
committee, Dr. Lawrence Messé and Dr. Joel Aronoff for
their patience and guidance.

Thanks are also due to Dr. Terrance Allen for
helping me to think more critically on the problem; to
Deirdre Conway for making available the set of tapes
from which the present data were coded and to the under-
graduate students who coded the tapes for me.

Finally, a special mahalo to my family and friends,

without whose support this may never have been.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . V
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Past Research. . . . . . . . . . . 2
THE PROBLEM O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1-0
HYPOTHESES o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 l3
METHODOLOGY 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O l 6
Subjects and Design. . . . . . . . . 16
Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Scoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 20
Coder Reliability . . . . . . . . . 20
Analysis of Variance Results. . . . . . 21
Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . . 21
Cheek O O O O O O O O O O O O 27
Counter—Check. . . . . . . . . . 30
Socially Reinforcing Interruptions. . . 32
Speech Units . . . . . . . . . . 36
Speech Duration . . . . . . . . . 38
Individual Participation . . . . . . 41
Initiative 0 O O O O O O O O O O 41
DISCUSSION. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 42
Summary and Implications for Future
Research . . . . . . . . . . . 47

iii

Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
A. Analysis of Variance Tables (Non-

significant Results). . . . . . . . 54

B. Scoring Sheets. . . . . . . . . . 58

iv

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Initiative II. . . . . . . . .

Total Number of Initiative II Recorded for
Each Session . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Activity . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Dyadic Activity (in Seconds) Per
Session. . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
CheCk O O O O O O O O O O 0

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
counter-CheCk. o o o o o o o o

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex X
Session for Mean Check. . . . . .

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Session
for Counter-Check . . . . . . .

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex
for Counter-Check . . . . . . .

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Socially Reinforcing Checks . . . .

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex X
Session for Socially Reinforcing Check

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Speech Units . . . . . . . . .

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Session
for Mean Speech Unit . . . . . .

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Speech Duration . . . . . . . .

Page

22

23

24

24

25

26

28

29

31

33

34

37

38

39

Table

15.

Page

Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex X
Session for Speech Duration . . . . . 40

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Mean Duration of Speech . . . . . . 55

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Initiative I . . . . . . . . . . 56

Summary of the Analysis of Variance for
Individual Participation . . . . . . 57

vi

INTRODUCTION

Acquaintance studies have typically dealt with
predicting the outcome of the acquaintance process, i.e.,
attraction, like-dislike, rather than with studying the
process itself. Such variables as similarity of attitudes
and perception of being liked by the other have been used
to predict attraction; questions such as "What occurs
during the acquaintance process?" and "What are the
specific ways in which people affect each other during
the acquaintance process?" are only recently being asked.

However, from studies of process in other dyadic
relationships it would appear that one way in which people
affect each other is by their timing of actions and inter—
actions (Chapple, 1940, 1949; Kendon, 1967; Matarazzo and
Saslow, 1961). Results of these studies lead to such
questions as: Are there basic temporal interaction
patterns which describe the acquaintance process? Do
interaction patterns change over time? If so, how? If
there is a basic acquaintance process (in terms of tem-
poral interaction measures), is it affected by personality
differences? If so, how? The present study explores
questions such as these in terms of male-female dyads,

mixed or matched on dogmatism (Rokeach, 1960), who met

for fifty minutes once a week for five weeks. Before
further details of this study are presented, however, a
summary of previous studies of temporal interaction is
presented to provide the framework in which the present

experiment was undertaken.

Past Research

 

In 1940, Chapple, an anthropologist, published a
monograph in which he presented a framework for the
systematic description of human relations. He believed
that personality could be assessed without recourse to
intrapsychic or psychodynamic formulations and, further,
that this assessment involved merely the process of
observing time relations in the interaction patterns of
peOple. His observations of duration and frequency of
contact indicated that both specific relationships and
specific individuals could be characterized and differ-
entiated in terms of the quantitative aspects of their
contacts. In studying dyads who knew each other well,
he found that those who subjectively stated that they
got on well and saw each other frequently were charac-
terized by high adjustment. That is, the number of
interruptions and failures to respond for such dyads was
relatively low whereas the reverse was true for those
who reported that they did not get along.

Chapple's search for a precise method of analyzing

human interaction led eventually to the development of

the Interaction Chronograph, a recording device and
computer designed to evaluate personality and tempera-

ment by measuring the temporal interaction pattern of

an interview. Although in his early work Chapple found

no differences in what interviewers said, he did find
differences in interviewer behavior and in the results
which the interviewers obtained from their subjects. To
control the temporal behavior of the interviewer and,

thus, to increase the reliability of the measures obtained,
a standardized interview was developed. Chapple's standard-
ized interview is divided into five periods, three free
periods separated from each other by two stress periods.
During the first stress period the interviewer fails to
respond to the interviewee; during the second stress period
the interviewer continues to interrupt the interviewee.

In using this interview Chapple noted that the be-
havior of patients during the two stress periods could
yield important information about the individual's per—
sonality make-up. Accordingly, he developed the initiative
and dominance measures.' A partial set of the fourteen
variables computed and recorded by the Interaction Chrono-
graph is presented below; an act or action is defined as
any overt muscular activity of the organism which involves
a change from his immediately preceding activity.

Patient's Units: the number of times the patient

acted.

Patient's Action: the mean duration of the patient's
actions.

Patient's Adjustment: the duration of the patient's
interruptions minus the durations of his failures
to respond, divided by Patient's Units.

Patient's Initiative: the per cent of times out of
the available number of opportunities (usually
twelve) in Period 2 in which the patient acted
again (within a lS-second limit) following his
own last action.

Patient's Dominance: the number of times (out of
twelve) in Period 4 that the patient "talked down"
the interviewer minus the number of times the
interviewer "talked down" the patient, divided
by the number of Patient's Units in the period.

Patient's Synchronization: the number of times the
patient either interrupted or failed to respond
to the interviewer, divided by the number of
Patient's Units.

The process by which and the rationale for deriving
measures such as the adjustment measure are not clearly
stated by Chapple. Salsow, Matarazzo, and Guze (1955,

p. 418) state:

Some of these variables may seem unusually

arbitrary since they represent algebraic sums

of two variables rather than individual measures

of each of these variables. Apparently Chapple,

in develOping his interaction theory of personality,

has found these derived variables more useful than

the first order variables from which they were
obtained.

A factor analysis of twelve of the Interaction
Chronograph variables revealed two stable and independent
factors for the interview: silence behavior and action
behavior. Two weaker factors were initiative behavior
and adjustment behavior (Matarazzo, Saslow, and Hare,
1958).

Reliability and validity tests of the Interaction
Chronograph measures indicate that these measures are
relatively stable characteristics of an individual's
personality. Saslow g£_§1. (1955) and Matarazzo, Saslow,
and Guze (1956) found good interviewer reliability.
Chapple (1940) and Saslow g£_31. (1955) found good subject
reliability which could not be attributed to the patients'
repeating their stories to the different therapists
(Pearson £3 ranged from .726 to .956). Saslow and
Matarazzo (1959) found test-retest reliability values
after periods of seven days, five weeks, and eight months;
rs ranged from .423 to .910; rho from .485 to .919. For
scorer reliabilityISaslow gt_§1. (1955) found perfect
agreement on 96 per cent of 600 individual scores; on the
remaining 4 per cent, the magnitude of the errors was not
greater than 1 unit. Finally, Chapple (1940), studying
observer reliability, found no differences in the mean
or number of units obtained by two observers and their
six records.

Chapple (1949) also reported that his variables

have differentiated normals from neurotics, factory

workers from foremen, and good from poor sales people.
Goldman—Eisler (1952) found that rank order correlations
between the objective values of the Interaction Chrono-
graph measures and opinions obtained independently from
seven psychiatrist colleagues regarding three psychia-
trists were in "complete conformity."

Matarazzo and Saslow (1961) studied the differences
in behavior of five groups (outpatient and neurotics, a
mixed group of outpatient and inpatient neurotics and
psychotics, chronic patients, and two groups of normals).
Although there were considerable individual differences
within each group for all of the twelve variables studied,
the differences among the means of the three patient
groups and the means of each patient group with each of
the two normal groups reached high degrees of signifi-
cance.

That the Interaction Chronograph measures are
relatively stable characteristics of an individual's
personality is further indicated by Goldman-Eisler's
(1951) finding of stable interaction patterns for seven
psychology department members in free conversation.

She also found, in studying three senior psychiatrists
and their ten patients, that each psychiatrist had his
own individual interaction pattern regardless of which
type of patient (depressed or active) he was interviewing.
These patterns could be adjusted to the patient, but only

within the limits of the interviewer's own pattern.

Furthermore, each doctor influenced the interaction
patterns of the same ten patients in different ways
(Goldman-Eisler, 1952). So, while an individual's
interaction pattern is relatively stable, it may also
be influenced, within limits, by the patterns of others.

Experimenters have also found that certain patterns
of interaction are correlated with other personality
variables. Matarazzo, Matarazzo, Saslow, and Guze (1958a)
found that subjects with shorter utterances in a group
discussion task were less intelligent and more stereotyped
in responding to projective tests while those with longer
utterances were more intelligent and gave unconventional
Rorschach responses.

Phillips, Matarazzo, Matarazzo, Saslow, and Kanfer
(1961) studied the relationships between the Interaction
Chronograph's temporal variables and the content of inter-
views with new referrals to a psychiatric outpatient
clinic. The data suggested that patients who spoke less
often, who were faster to respond, and who were more
dominant in the interview spoke of being relatively more
oriented toward other people and toward interpersonal
interaction. They also more frequently described their
social roles as dominant, either paternalistically- or
hostilely—dominant. On the other hand, patients who lost
or submitted to interruptions, who were hesitant in
speaking and who were less active verbally tended to

emphasize noninterpersonal concerns rather than

interaction with others. They described their role with
other people as being submissively hostile.

Finally, Kendon (1967), in a study of gaze-direction
in interaction provided further evidence that such tem—
poral measures indicate stable individual differences. In
discussing his findings he also attempted to place them in
a more general theory of human behavior. Thus he stated
that individual differences in looking styles have been
linked to individual differences in interaction styles
and these differences in turn have been linked to indi-
vidual differences in input sampling. Kendon suggested
that perhaps people with highly persistent sets sample
less frequently than do people with less persistent sets.
A person may define a situation on the basis of infor—
mation he has gathered about the situation. To keep this
definition in line with those definitions of others
present and to keep his own performance in line, the
individual must sample the situation from time to time.
Kendon found that those who produced long utterances
looked at the other less frequently than those whose
utterances were short. If one presumes that the length
of an utterance is governed partly by the person's image
of the situation (e.g. how long it is appropriate to
talk), then it might be expected that people who have
persistent images and sample relatively rarely will, in

an encounter, talk at length and look infrequently.

 
 
 
 

One measure of personality which appears to be
related to the content and personality variables of the
Matarazzo e£_al. (1958a), Phillips §£_gl. (1961) and
Kendon (1967) studies is the Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach,
1960). This scale was developed by Rokeach to measure:
(a) the openness-closedness of cognitive systems, (b)
general authoritarianism, and (c) general intolerance.
Although the present experimenter is unaware of any
studies relating the Dogmatism Scale to temporal measures
of interaction and personality such as used by Chapple,
Matarazzo, Phillips, and Kendon, the content and per-
sonality measures used by these previous researchers may
be related in the following way to the three factors
measured by the Dogmatism Scale. It does not seem un-
reasonable to assume that the closed-minded, or high-
dogmatic, individual, with his inability to or difficulty
in incorporating new information at odds with his currently
held beliefs and attitudes, would be expected to have more
persistent images and to give more stereotyped responses
to a projective test than would the Open-minded, or low-
dogmatic, individual. The high—dogmatic, as compared to
the low-dogmatic, person would also be expected to be
more dominant and less likely to submit to being inter-

rupted by others.

THE PROBLEM

Much of the earlier work on temporal relations in
interpersonal interaction has used the structured inter-
view and/or has looked at patient-therapist or interviewee—
interviewer interactions. The acquaintance relationship
presents a different situation; the present study explores
the acquaintance process in male-female dyads in a semi-
structured situation in terms of the following temporal
interaction measures:

1. Units of Speech

2. Duration of Speech

3. Individual Participation per Session:

2 duration of speech for S

 

(2 duration of speech for S1 and S2

4. Activity per Session:

(2 duration of speech for S1 and S2).

In addition, the units of speech were coded according
to the following categories to further explore possible
process and personality differences:

5. Initiative I (S begins interaction or introduces

another topic)

6. Initiative II (S1 introduces a second tOpic

following his own last utterance and silence
by s2)
10

ll

7. Check (S1 interrupts or cuts short S2)

8. Counter-Check (S regains the floor, i.e.,
§1

rupted S1).

interrupts S2 who had previously inter-

The temporal measures used are first-order or simple
second-order measures based on, but not equivalent with,
Chapple's measures. The differences between the two sets
of measures reflect the present experimenter's desire for
greater simplicity and an inability to comprehend fully
several of Chapple's second-order variables. Furthermore,
the temporal measures in the present study are based en-
tirely on the subjects' verbal behavior; although Chapple
defined his variables in terms of acts, i.e., overt
muscular activities, in practice his coders depended
largely on the verbal aspects of interaction.

The dependent variables (temporal interaction
measures) listed above were analyzed in terms of their
relationship to the following independent variables:

1. Dogmatism of Subject (high or low)

2. Dogmatism of Partner (high or low)

3. Sex of Subject

4. Session (first, third, or fifth).

The first two independent variables were included
for several reasons: it was thought that both an indi-
vidual's personality and the personality of his partner
affect their acquaintance relationship and their pattern

of temporal interaction; the Dogmatism Scale appears to

12

be related to several of the content and personality
variables studied by previous researchers of temporal
interaction in dyads; the Dogmatism Scale was both
easily available and easily administered.

The effects of Sex were studied both because the
dyads were male-female dyads and because it was thought
that the traditionally different social roles for men
and women may be reflected in differences in their
respective patterns of interaction.

Finally, the last independent variable in the present
study, Session, was included to provide information on the
acquaintance process per se; to explore possible changes
in the temporal interaction scores as the sessions pro-

gressed.

HYPOTHESES

On the bases of informal observation and intuition
it was hypothesized that as S3 interact over several
sessions:

1. Their pattern of interaction will change from
one of shorter durations of speech to one of
longer speech durations.

2. The I and II scores will decrease over sessions.

3. The Activity score will increase over sessions.

These three hypotheses were generated by the follow-
ing reasoning. When strangers first meet they are unaware
of each other's interests and activities. It is thought
that initial meetings between strangers are used to
ascertain such interests and, further, to ascertain which
interests are held in common by both S1 and S2. One way
of finding out another's interests is by simply asking
questions. In a college setting, for example, initial
meetings with strangers often consist of a brief intro-
duction and/or of soliciting the following kinds of
information: name, year in school, major, current
courses, mutual acquaintances. This pattern of inter-
action would thus be one of brief utterances with several

different topics of conversation. As acquaintances

13

l4

develop, however, both S1 and S should become aware of

2
each other's interests and of those which they hold in
common; interaction should increase as they discuss
common topics of interest--and such topics should

hold their attention for a longer period of time.

4. In comparison with open-minded SS, closed-
minded gs will score higher on Check and
Counter-Check.

The fourth hypothesis was formulated because it is
thought that the closed-minded person is more likely than
the open—minded person to interrupt another, either to
simply present his own thoughts or to disagree with the
opinions of the other. Similarly, it is thought that
once interrupted by the other the closed-minded indi-
vidual would be more likely to interrupt the other or
to simply continue speaking.

Further hypotheses on possible relationships be-
tween open- and closed-mindedness and the other temporal
interaction measures were not made. On the basis of
Kendon's (1967) findings one might postulate that high-
dogmatic persons more than low-dogmatic persons would
tend to dominate the conversations and thus have longer
speech durations. On the other hand, Phillips gt_gl.
(1961), in correlating temporal and content measures
found that the patient who spoke relatively infrequently,
but with longer durations per utterance described him-

self as relatively more oriented to interactions with

15

other peOple, less concerned with his own solitary
eXperiences, interested in a wider variety of events
in daily living, and was less prone, in general, to
evade descriptions of himself. To the extent, then,
that open-minded peOple are also other-directed and
less guarded, we would expect them, and not the close-
minded, to have longer speech durations.

Because there is no specific, well-formulated
theory in this area, and because the present study is
an attempt to provide data from which additional questions
may be generated, no other hypotheses were formulated.
But, intra-dyad measures were obtained and examined for
possible relationships of individual and process measures
to dogmatism and/or the composition of the dyads: Is,
for example, dogmatism related to speech duration? Does
process differ for the pairs with mixed dogmatism levels

as compared to those pairs with similar dogmatism scores?

METHODOLOGY

Subjects and Design

 

Subjects for the present study were sixteen male
and sixteen female juniors and seniors at Michigan State
University. These subjects had participated in a study
conducted by Conway (1968) who then made available to the
present experimenter tape recordings which she had col—
lected for an acquaintance process study of content vari-
ables. The subjects had been selected in the following
manner: respondents to an advertisement in the school
paper and to notices posted in Olds Hall, a building of
the university housing the psychology department, were
given the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale (Rokeach, 1960). The
eight men and eight women scoring highest on dogmatism
and the eight men and eight women scoring lowest on
dogmatism were selected and the following dyads formed:
four pairs in which both members were high-dogmatic
individuals, four pairs in which both members were low-
dogmatic individuals, four pairs composed of low-dogmatic
men and high-dogmatic women, and four pairs of high-

dogmatic men and low-dogmatic women.

16

17

Procedure

 

Each couple met for fifty minutes once a week for
five weeks and were given no restrictions as to topics
of conversation. Tape recordings were made of each
session. All sessions were conducted in a basement room

of Olds Hall, furnished with a table and sofa.

Scoring

Undergraduate coders were trained on tapes of
sessions two and four.

With the aid of a stopwatch, coders scored the first
thirty minutes of sessions one, three, and five. The
tapes were scored every second in the following manner
(see scoring sheets, Appendix B):

l. Coders for units and duration of speech

simply marked the appropriate blocks whenever
S spoke.

2. Coders for Initiative (I) and Initiative (II)
marked the appropriate space as each S spoke
and further indicated I or II if a new topic
were introduced.

3. Coders for Check (V) and Counter-Check 04/)
also marked the appropriate space for each S
and further indicated a w’or VV’whenever one
S interrupted the other.

This method of coding required the coders' constant

attention and also informed them when the thirty minutes

18

were over. In addition, it allowed for a cross-check on
the units of speech among the three sets of data avail—
able for each dyad. This last reason for selecting this
particular coding scheme was important because it is
basically from the units of speech data that many of the
other measures were obtained (i.e., Duration of Speech,
Individual Participation per Session, and Activity per
Session).

While coding the tapes it was noted that often an
interruption would consist of an "um-hmm" or other brief,
socially reinforcing comment. The scoring sheets recorded
this as a one-second interruption on the part of S1 while
5—2

counter-checked S1. The distinction was thus made be-

continued to talk. S2 in turn was indicated as having

tween a Check and a Socially Reinforcing Check of one-
second or less duration, and the Check and Counter-Check
scores corrected by subtracting the Socially Reinforcing
Checks and their related Counter-Checks, respectively.
The resultant scores were then subjected to the analyses

described below.

Analyses

Data for all dependent variables except Activity
were analyzed using a four-way analysis of variance with
repeated measures on the last two factors (Winer, 1962).
The factors were Dogmatism of Subject (high or low),

Dogmatism of Partner (high or low), Sex, and Session.

19

Significant interactions were further analyzed for simple
effects and when these results were significant for the
last factor, Session, the Newman-Kuhls procedure was

used to test the differences between values.

Activity per Session, a measure obtained from pairs
of subjects and not individual subjects, was analyzed in
a similar fashion, but with a three-way analysis of
variance with repeated measures on the last factor. The
factors were Dogmatism of Male, Dogmatism of Female, and

Session.

RESULTS

Coder Reliability

 

Reliability was tested in the following manner. As
coding proceeded, the experimenter made random selections
of tapes and coded them. In addition, a few tapes were
coded by two different coders for the same dependent
variables. For Speech Duration, coder agreement ranged
from 93 per cent to 99 per cent. Scoring sheets were
highly similar, with some differences probably due to a
difference in beginning the timer. Number of Units was
somewhat less reliable with agreement ranging from 80 per
cent to 82 per cent. Such differences were probably due
to the raters' differences in noting brief pauses in a
subject's speech. However, these differences were also
related to the differences in duration scores and thus
tended to correct themselves in the Mean Duration scores.

Scoring for Initiative I and Initiative II indi-
cated no differences among coders.

Scoring for Check and Counter-Check indicated the
following agreement among coders: 67 per cent to 87 per
cent for Check and 67 per cent to 75 per cent for Counter-
Check. As was mentioned earlier, the method of coding

also allowed for a cross verification of several scores.

20

21

Counter-Check scores, because generally few in number

and easily cross validated, were always tested in this

manner 0

Thus a subject's Counter-Check score was ob—

tained only after his particular Check/Counter-Check

scoring sheet had been compared with its matching

Duration and I/II sheets.

Analysis of Variance Results

 

Of the ten analyses of variance completed on the

present data, three resulted in no significant findings.

Summary tables for these three analyses of variance are

presented as Appendix A; results of the remaining seven

analyses of variance are presented below.

Hypotheses

 

1.

Analysis of variance indicated no differences

in the Mean Duration of Speech over sessions
(Table A-1 in Appendix A).

Analysis of variance indicated no differences

in Initiative I scores over sessions (Table

A—2 in Appendix A). As Table 1, below, indi-
cates, however, Session did have a significant
effect on the number of Initiative II scores
recorded. And, as further indicated by Table 2,
below, these differences were in the direction
hypothesized. That is, Initiative II scores
decreased from sessions one and three to session

five.

22

TABLE l.--Summary of the analysis of variance for
Initiative II.

 

 

Source ' df MS F
Dogmatism 1 .375 .772
Dogmatism of partner 1 .041 .084
Dogmatism X Dogmatism

of partner 1 .042 .086
Error 12 .486
Sex 1 1.041 1.470
Dogmatism X Sex 1 1.042 1.472
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 1.043 1.473
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 .374 .528
Error 12 .708
Session 2 .760 4.368*
Dogmatism X Session 2 .406 2.336
Dogmatism of partner
X Session 2 .511 2.937
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 2 .072 .417
Error 24 .174
Sex X Session 2 .324 1.037
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 .010 .032
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 .197 .631
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 2 .220 .704
Error 24 .312

 

*p < .05

23

TABLE 2.--Tota1 number of Initiative II recorded for
each session.

 

 

 

Session
1 3 5
12 11 3

 

3. Table 3 presents the results of the analysis
of variance for the Activity scores. Contrary
to eXpectation the Activity scores decreased,
with dyads being significantly more active in
session one than in sessions three and five
(Table 4).

4. The results of the analyses of variance for
Check and for Counter-Check are presented in
Tables 5 and 6, respectively.

.The significant four-way interactions for Check
and the significant three-way interactions for Counter-
Check were further analyzed for simple effects. There
were no significant main effects for Dogmatism, and the
analyses for simple effects indicated that, contrary to
expectation, low-dogmatic individuals checked and counter-
checked more than did high—dogmatic individuals. More
specifically, the analyses for simple effects provided
the following picture of the relationship between

dogmatism and the tendency to interrupt another.

24

TABLE 3.--Summary of the analysis of variance for

Activity.

 

 

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism of Male 1 14630.084 .147
Dogmatism of Female 1 65564.084 .660
Dogmatism of Male X

Dogmatism of Female 1 11346.749 .114
Error 12 99341.806
Session 2 153991.896 3.648*
Dogmatism of Male X
Session 2 60903.770 1.443
Dogmatism of Female X
Session 2 59238.146 1.403
Dogmatism of Male X
Dogmatism of Female
X Session 26566.188 .629
Error 24 42210.222
*p < .05

TABLE 4.--Mean dyadic activity (in seconds) per session.

 

 

 

Session
1 3 5
1666 1537 1474

 

Note: Newman-Kuhls analysis, p < .01 for session 1
as compared to sessions 3 and 5.

25

TABLE 5.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Check.

 

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 98.011 2.298
Dogmatism of partner 1 3.761 .088
Dogmatism X Dogmatism

of partner 1 4.593 .108
Error 12 42.656
Sex 1 55.511 2.986
Dogmatism X Sex 1 114.843 6.179*
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 .260 .014
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 31.511 1.695
Error 12 18.587
Session 2 338.719 7.175**
Dogmatism X Session 2 22.822 .483
Dogmatism of partner
X Session 2 71.448 1.514
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 6.844 .014
Error 24 47.208
Sex X Session 2 2.510 .349
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 43.157 5.993**
Dogmatism of partner X Sex
X Session 2 25.823 3.586*
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 2 75.760 10.521**
Error 24 7.201

 

*p < .05
**p < .01

26

TABLE 6.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Counter-

 

 

 

Check.

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 .666 .012
Dogmatism of partner 1 22.041 .382
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner 1 121.501 2.108
Error 12 57.646
Sex 1 13.500 7.623*
Dogmatism X Sex 1 40.042 22.610**
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 73.500 41.502**
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 9.375 5.294*
Error 12 1.771
Session 2 290.198 18.486**
Dogmatism X Session 2 17.323 1.104
Dogmatism of partner
X Session 2 33.448 2.131
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 2 56.656 3.609*
Error 24 15.698
Sex X Session 2 .968 .290
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 3.636 1.087
Dogmatism of partner X Sex
X Session 2 6.969 2.084
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 2 3.968 1.187
Error 24 3.344
*p < .05

**p < .01

27

At session one, with low-dogmatic partners, females
who scored high on dogmatism checked less often than did
females who scored low on dogmatism (Table 7, cells (j)
and (v); F = 7.056, p < .05).

Also at session one, with high-dogmatic partners,
low—dogmatic subjects counter-checked more often than
did high-dogmatic subjects (Table 8, cells (g) and (a);
F = 6.370, p < .05).

In addition, the analyses for simple effects for the
Check and Counter-Check scores indicated the following

significant relationships:

Check

Dogmatism of Partner.--There were two significant

 

findings for Dogmatism of Partner:

1. At session one, high-dogmatic males checked
more often if their partners were low-dogmatic
females than if their partners were high-
dogmatic females (Table 7, cells (g) and (a);

F = 4.516, p < .05).

2. At session one, low-dogmatic females checked
more often if their partners were low-dogmatic
males than if their partners were high-dogmatic
males (Table 7, cells (v) and (p); F = 5.098,

p < .05).

28

 

 

 

Axv mn.oH ABV oo.n A>V om.am mHmem
304
Any om.k luv mm.m Amy mm.HH mam:
BOA
luv om.mH Awe mn.k Adv oo.ma mamsmm
swam
loo m~.m lav mm.k lav mk.sa mam:
1H5 mm.m 1x5 mn.s Awe om.HH msmsmm
304
Any oo.m lav mn.m Ame om.mH mam:
swam
luv om.m Ame 00.8 161 m~.oa mamsmm
coax
luv me.oa lav mn.m Ame om.k mans
m m _H Hmcuumm
xmm mo EmflumEmoo
scammmm Emflpmfimoo

 

.xomco cmmfi How coflmmmm x xmm x uwcuumm mo EmHumEmoo x Emwumfimooll.> mqmda

29

TABLE 8.--Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Session for
Counter-Check.

 

_=' -

 

 

Dogmatism Session
Dogmatism of
Partner 1 3 5
High 2.75 (a) 1.50 (b) 3.88 (c)
High
Low 11.25 (d) 3.00 (e) 3.50 (f)
High 9.62 (g) 3.12 (h) 2.62 (1)
Low
Low 7.75 (j) 1.50 (k) 2.25 (1)

 

Sg§.--There were two significant findings for Sex:

1. At session five, with high-dogmatic partners,
low-dogmatic females checked more often than
did low-dogmatic males (Table 7, cells (r) and
(o); F = 15.562, p < .05).

2. At session one, with low-dogmatic partners,
low-dogmatic females checked more often than
did low-dogmatic males (Table 7, cells (v) and
(s); F = 19.109, p < .01).

Session.--There were two significant findings for

Session:

1. With low-dogmatic partners, high—dogmatic
males checked more often at session one than
at session three (Table 7, cells (9) and (h);

F = 3.624, p < .05).

30

2. With low-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
females checked more often at session one
than at sessions three and five (Table 7,

‘cells (v), (w) and (x); F = 8.329, p < .01).

Counter-Check

 

Dogmatism of Partner.--The only significant finding
for Dogmatism of Partner was that,at session one, high-
dogmatic subjects counter-checked more often if their
partners were low-dogmatics than if their partners were
high-dogmatics (Table 8, cells (d) and (a); F = 9.737,

p < .01).
Session.--There were three significant findings for
Session:
1. With low-dogmatic partners, high-dogmatics
counter-checked more often at session one than
at sessions three and five (Table 8, cells (d),
(e) and (f); F = 10.904, p < .01).

2. With high-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
subjects counter-checked more often at session
one than at sessions three and five (Table 8,
cells (9), (h) and (i); F = 7.772, p < .01).

3. With low-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
Subjects counter-checked more often at session
one than at sessions three and five (Table 8,

cells (j), (k) and (1); F = 5.616, p < .01).

31

Sg§.-—Analysis for simple effects for the signifi—
cant Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex interaction
resulted in the following three significant findings:

1. With low-dogmatic partners, high-dogmatic

males counter-checked more often than did
high-dogmatic females (Table 9, cells (c)
and (d); F = 33.973, p < .01).

TABLE 9.--Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Sex for
Counter-Check.

 

 

 

Dogmatism Sex
Dogmatism of

Partner Male Female

High 3.17 (a) 2.25 (b)
High

Low 7.50 (c) 4.50 (d)

High 3.67 (e) 6.58 (f)
Low

Low 4.75 (g) 2.92 (h)

 

2. With high-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
females counter-checked more often than did
low-dogmatic males (Table 9, cells (f) and
(e); F = 28.821, p < .01).

3. With low-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic males
counter-checked more often than did low-dogmatic
females (Table 9, cells (g) and (h); F = 11.387,

p < .01).

32

Socially Reinforcing
Interruptions

 

Table 10 presents the results of the analysis of

variance for the Socially Reinforcing Interruptions.

Table 11 presents the mean Socially Reinforcing

Check scores in a Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X

Sex X Session form.

Dogmatism.--Results of the analysis for simple

 

effects for the Socially Reinforcing Check scores indi-

cated two significant findings for Dogmatism:

1.

At session one, with low-dogmatic partners,
males made more socially reinforcing checks

if they were high-dogmatics than if they were
log-dogmatics (Table 11, cells (g) and (s);

F = 6.564, p < .05).

At session one, with low-dogmatic partners,
females made more socially reinforcing checks
if they were low-dogmatic persons than if they
were high-dogmatic persons (Table 11, cells

(v) and (j); E = 10.255, p < .01).

Dogmatism of Partner.--There were two significant

findings for Dogmatism of Partner:

1.

At session one, high-dogmatic males made more
socially reinforcing checks if their partners
were low-dogmatic females than if their partners
were high-dogmatic females (Table 11, cells (9)

and (a); F = 16.454, p < .01).

33

TABLE 10.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Socially
Reinforcing Checks.

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 48.167 .876
Dogmatism of partner 1 187.042 3.400
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner 1 .042 .001
Error 12 55.007
Sex 1 12.042 .847
Dogmatism X Sex 1 210.041 14.776**
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 10.667 .750
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 150.000 10.552**
Error 12 14.215
Session 2 273.698 12.508**
Dogmatism X Session 2 7.510 .343
Dogmatism of partner
X Session 2 73.698 3.368
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 2 7.510 .343
Error 24 21.882
Sex X Session 2 1.135 .076
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 16.698 1.116
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 32.635 2.181
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 2 54.281 3.627*
Error 24 14.965

 

 

34

Axv om.h 03v mm.n A>v om.m0 camamm

 

 

 

300
1:0 00.0 100 00.0 100 00.0 6002
300
100 00.0 100 00.0 Age 00.0 600260
nm0m
on 00.0 lav 00.0 Ase 00.0 0002
100 00.0 100 00.0 100 00.0 000500
300
100 00.0 100 00.0 10c 00.00 @002
nm0m
100 00.0 Ame 00.0 100 00.0 600500
£000
on 00.0 Age 00.0 000 00.0 6082
m m a umcuumm
xmm mo Emfiumfimoo
soflmmmm Emflumfimoo
.mxomno

m:0000mc0mm >HHMHoom 00m c00mmmm x xmm x umcunmm mo EmfiumEmoo x Emflumfimoolu.00 m0m¢e

35

2. At session one, low-dogmatic females made more
socially reinforcing checks if their partners
were low-dogmatic males than if their partners
were high-dogmatic males (Table 11, cells (v)
and (p); F = 6.564, p < .05).

Sg§.--There were three significant findings for Sex:
1. At session one, with low-dogmatic partners, high—
dogmatic males made more socially reinforcing
checks than did high-dogmatic females (Table 11,

cells (9) and (j); F = 16.446, p < .01).

2. At session one, with low-dogmatic partners, low—
dogmatic females made more socially reinforcing
checks than did low-dogmatic males (Table 11,
cells (v) and (s); F = 11.629, p < .01).

3. At session five, with low-dogmatic partners,
low-dogmatic females made more socially rein-
forcing checks than did low-dogmatic males
(Table 11, cells (x) and (u); F = 5.742,

p < .05).
Session.--There were two significant findings for
Session:

1. With low-dogmatic partners, high-dogmatic
males made more socially reinforcing checks
at session one than at sessions three and five
(Table 11, cells (9), (h) and (i); F = 12.922,

p < .01).

36

2. With low—dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
females made more socially reinforcing checks
at session one than at sessions three and
five (Table 11, cells (v), (w) and (x);

F = 6.030, p < .01).

Speech Units

Table 12 presents the results of the analysis of
variance for Speech Units.

The mean Speech Unit scores are presented in a
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Session form in Table
13.

The only significant findings indicated by the
analysis for simple effects for Speech Units were the
following two significant findings for Session:

1. With high-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
subjects spoke more often at session one than
at sessions three and five (Table 13, cells
(9), (h) and (i); F = 4.702, p < .05).

2. With low-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic
subjects spoke more often at session five than
at sessions one and three (Table 13, cells (1),

(j) and (k); F = 14.311, p < .01).

37

TABLE 12.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Speech

 

 

 

Units.

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 237.511 .022
Dogmatism of partner 1 .511 .000
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner 1 688.010 .064
Error 12 10698.101
Sex 1 943.761 .276
Dogmatism X Sex 1 834.260 .244
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 10106.510 2.960
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 6353.760 1.861
Error 12 3414.240
Session 2 1048.167 3.294
Dogmatism X Session 2 1089.290 3.423*
Dogmatism of partner X
Session 2 2212.166 6.951**
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 2436.542 7.656**
Error 24 318.257
Sex X Session 2 716.667 .209
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 2233.292 .651
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 5583.166 1.627
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 48.042 .014
Error 24 3432.271
*p < .05

**p < .01

38

TABLE 13.--Dogmatism X Dogmatism of Partner X Session
for mean Speech Unit.

 

 

Dogmatism Session
Dogmatism of
Partner 1 3 5
High 142.75 (a) 154.50 (b) 154.62 (c)
High
Low 136.88 (d) 150.12 (e) 147.38 (f)
High 163.88 (9) 140.38 (h) 140.00 (1)
Low
Low 136.62 (j) 142.62 (k) 180.62 (1)

 

Speech Duration

 

Table 14 presents the results of the analysis of
variance for Speech Duration.

Mean scores for each cell of a Dogmatism X Dogmatism
of Partner X Sex X Session table for the Speech Duration
scores are presented in Table 15.

The analysis for simple effects for Speech Duration
indicated no significant findings for Dogmatism.

Dogmatism of Partner.--The significant finding for

 

Dogmatism of Partner indicated that at session five, high-
dogmatic males had longer total speech durations if their
partners were low-dogmatic females than if their partners
were high-dogmatic females (Table 15, cells (1) and (c);
F = 4.940, p < .05).

Sg§.--The significant finding for Sex indicated

that at session five, with high-dogmatic partners,

39

TABLE 14.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Speech
Duration.

 

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 4959.375 .099
Dogmatism of partner 1 47082.042 .943
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner 1 5251.042 .105
Error 12 49914.847
Sex 1 13490.042 .065
Dogmatism X Sex 1 213759.375 1.034
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 317170.042 1.535
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 222915.374 1.079
Error 12 206626.486
Session 2 86770.510 1.445
Dogmatism X Session 2 31365.406 .522
Dogmatism of partner X
Session 2 39428.510 .657
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 2 13847.572 .231
Error 24 60032.701
Sex X Session 2 20129.573 .712
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 11165.614 .395
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 203604.822 7.204**
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 2 205224.594 7.261**
Error 24 28264.632

 

4O

 

 

 

0x0 00.000 030 00.000 0>v 00.000 000500
300
050 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.000 0005
300
100 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.0000 000500
5000
000 00.000 050 00.000 050 00.000 0002
000 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.000 000500
300
000 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.000 0005
0000
000 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.000 000500
0000
000 00.000 000 00.000 000 00.000 0002
m m 0 umcuumm
xmm mo EmHumEmoo
500mmwm Em0pmemoo

 

.50000050 nommdm 00m 5000mmm x xwm x umsuumm

mo Em0umemoo x Emflumeuooll.m0 mqmfla

41

high-dogmatic females had longer total speech durations
than did high-dogmatic males (Table 15, cells (f) and
(c); F = 4.974, p < .05).

Session.--There was one significant finding for
Session: with high-dogmatic partners, high-dogmatic
males had longer total speech durations at session one
than at session five (Table 15, cells (a) and (c);

F = 3.460, p < .05).

There were no significant findings from an analysis

of variance of the Mean Duration of Speech scores (Table

A—1 in Appendix A).

Individual Participation
Analysis of the Individual Participation scores
indicated no significant relationships among the variables

studied in the present experiment (Table A-3 in Appendix A).

Initiative

 

Analysis of variance for Initiative I resulted in
no significant findings (Table A-2 in Appendix A).

Results of the analysis of variance for Initiative
II are presented in Table 1. Results of the analysis
for simple effects indicated that Initiative II scores
were significantly less in session five than in sessions

one or three (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

The pattern of results in the present acquaintance
study indicates that, for the temporal aspects of verbal
behavior, a process of adjustment did occur. Additionally,
however, the deviations from this pattern indicate that
what did occur cannot be accounted for entirely on the
basis of adjustment. For example, twenty-five of the
thirty-one significant differences occurred during session
one or indicated that a particular score for session one
was different from that of sessions three and five, while
the scores for the latter two sessions did not differ
significantly from each other. This suggests that, as
each dyad interacted over several sessions, each indi-
vidual's pattern of interaction adjusted to the other's
until a somewhat stable pattern developed for each
particular dyad. And it further suggests that this
process of adjustment occurred fairly rapidly; most of
the measures had stabilized by session three. But,
Initiative, Mean Duration of Speech, and Individual
Participation were not affected by any of the independent
variables, including session. It would appear then, that

while a process of adjustment did occur, it was also

42

43

influenced by other factors, by both individual and
situational variables and possibly by social norms.

Chapple (1940) stated that each individual has a
characteristic and repetitive rate of interaction which
is inhibited in first interacting with a stranger.

Using both a ratio of the sum of double actions (both
individuals acting at the same time) to the sum of a
subject's actions in intervals of two minutes and the
amount of variation that occurred in the ratio as a
measure of adjustment, Chapple found that with two
strangers the variation increased progressively until it
became stable. However, with two individuals who had
known each other for some time, the index of variation
remained stable from the first to the last observation.
Although the double action scores are not identical with
the present Check and Counter-Check scores, one notes a
similar trend in the present study in the decrease of
Check and Counter-Check scores over the sessions. This
trend gives further support to the interpretation of a
process of adjustment.

And, although contrary to expectation, the decrease
in the Activity scores may also be explained in terms of
adjustment if we hypothesize that the initial meetings
included "nervous chatter." If, for two strangers,
silence is awkward, we may expect both to attempt to
keep such periods of silence to a minimum. As they

become acquainted, however, there is less uneasiness

44

about periods of silence and, consequently, less demand
for constant verbal activity. That this indeed may have
been the case is also indicated by the decrease in inter—
ruptions. For, as silence becomes less awkward, we may
also expect fewer instances of double—action immediately
following periods of silence.

That the Mean Duration of Speech and Individual
Participation scores did not change over sessions, how-
ever, indicates either the presence of social norms
regarding these aspects of verbal behavior and/or that
these measures reflect the more stable characteristics
of an individual's verbal behavior and as such are
subject to fewer and/or smaller changes over time. Both
these explanations would not be inconsistent with Chapple's
findings of characteristic and repetitive rates of inter—
action for his subjects or with the present study's finding
of relatively fewer significant differences at session five
as compared with session one (which, again, indicates that
after an initial period of adjustment the subjects differed
on very few of the measures). Similarly, the lack of any
significant findings for Mean Duration of Speech and Indi-
vidual Participation in the present study also present no
contradiction to either explanation.

Taylor (1965) found in a thirteen—week study of
male roommates that all dyads showed a significant increase
in the amount of talking, with no differences between high

and low self-revelation dyads. This finding appears to be

45

contrary to that of the present study but perhaps may be
explained if comparable data were available for mean
duration of speech. In the absence of such data from
Taylor's study, the following is suggested. Scores for
the present study are based on thirty-minute samples of
interaction. And although in one case the duration
scores did decrease over session, no differences in mean
duration were found. Taylor's study covered thirteen
weeks of interaction so that while the dyads increased
their total speaking time over the thirteen weeks, their
mean durations may not have changed during this same
period. The dyads may have interacted more frequently
(for example, five times a week rather than once a week),
but with similar rates of interaction (mean duration of
speech) at each meeting.

The Opposite trends for Units of Speech found for
low-dogmatic persons in matched as compared with mixed
dyads may perhaps be explained in terms of the social
situation. As the sessions progressed, low-dogmatic
subjects adapted to their more dominant high—dogmatic
partners by speaking less often while low-dogmatic
subjects and their low-dogmatic partners became less
inhibited and spoke more often. It could further be
postulated that the less adaptable high-dogmatic person
has a rate of speaking which he does not easily change
and that he maintains this rate of speaking regardless

of his partner's level of dogmatism.

46

Likewise, the check and counter-check findings
may be explained in similar terms. The mixed dyad may
have been reinforcing for the high-dogmatic subjects
who found that their partners submitted to their inter-
ruptions. With high-dogmatic partners, however, high—
dogmatic subjects may have experienced the reverse and
come to accept interruptions rather than attempt to
"talk down" the other. If, in fact, those in high-
dogmatic dyads did inhibit each other's counter-checks,
this would also help to explain the finding that with
high-dogmatic partners, low-dogmatic subjects, especially
females, counter-checked more often than did the high-
dogmatic subjects.

It is also interesting to note that although males
in the high-dogmatic dyads originally spoke for a longer
duration than did their female partners, by session five,
this finding had been reversed. For these dyads, the
males decreased their total speaking time while the
females increased theirs. This again can be attributed
to the social situation, for with low-dogmatic females
the high-dogmatic males increased (rather than decreased)
their total speaking time over the sessions.

Finally, the findings of no differences in mean
duration of speech and of low-dogmatic subjects Speaking
more often are somewhat contradictory to the Phillips
gE_§l. (1961) finding of fewer units and longer mean

durations of Speech for the other-directed, less guarded

47

patients. Although no firm resolution of the contra-
dictions can be made at this time, it should be noted
that subjects for Phillips' study were patients in a
patient-therapist interview, while subjects in the
present study were undergraduates meeting informally
as peers in an acquaintance situation.

Summaryiand Implications for
Future Research

 

 

The findings indicate that there does appear to be
an "acquaintance process" in terms of temporal measures of
dyadic interaction. This process can perhaps be best

described by the term adjustment. Many of the measures

 

indicated a difference in values from session one to
sessions three and five. However, whether or not indi-
viduals have characteristic patterns of interaction which
are "upset" and then "readjusted" during an acquaintance
process could not be ascertained with the design of the
present study. A possible design for a study to test this
question may be one where base scores were first obtained
for each subject. Then dyads could be formed on the basis
of these base scores, on the basis of different personality
characteristics, or at random, and temporal data collected
for study and comparison. Such a design could also be
used to test whether or not there is a norm for an indi-
vidual's mean duration of speech in an informal acquaint-

ance situation.

48

The clearest personality differences in the present
study indicated that low-dogmatic persons of either sex
were more likely to accept being interrupted by their
partner and that high-dogmatic individuals counter-
checked or "talked down" their partner more often if
the other were a low-dogmatic individual. Although
these findings also have high face validity, a repli-
cation would help to ascertain whether such a relation-
ship does exist or whether this may have been a chance
finding due to the large number of analyses completed
in the present study.

Several eXplanations have been suggested for the
results obtained in the present study. It is hOped that
further research will help to clarify these issues, to
specify whether all or any of these explanations are valid
and to what extent they are in fact responsible for the
phenomena observed.

Finally, further research on the following post
hoc analysis may be of interest. Conway (1968) asked
all subjects to answer the following question: To what
extent would you like to or object to continuing the
relationship now that the study is over? All subjects
answered the question by using the following responses:

1. Would like very much to continue

2. Would like to continue

3. Don't care either way

49

4. Would prefer not to continue

5. Definitely don't want to continue

Dyads whose mean score was two or less were con-
sidered to have formed a rewarding or positive relation-
ship. Dyads whose mean score was three-and—a-half or
four were considered to have formed either no relation-
ship or a non-rewarding one. On this basis there were
three positive dyads and two negative dyads. The posi-
tive couples were an open-minded dyad, a closed-minded
dyad and a mixed dyad composed of a high-dogmatic male
and a low-dogmatic female. Both negative couples were,
however, composed of low-dogmatic males and high-dogmatic
females. While the S is small, it is interesting to
speculate that, perhaps because of the social expectation
that males be more dominant and self-assertive and females
more accepting and supportive, the low-dogmatic male-—
high-dogmatic female couples are less likely to experience

a satisfying relationship.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chapple, E. D. Measuring human relations: An intro-
duction to the study of the interaction of indi—
viduals. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1940, S3,
3-147 0

. The interaction chronograph: Its evolution
and present application. Personnel, 1949, SS,
295-307.

Conway, D. The Expression of Empathy, Genuineness,
Warmth and Openness in the Acquaintance Process.
Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1968.

Goldman-Eisler, F. The measurement of time sequences in
conversational behavior. British Journal of
Psychology, 1951, 43, 355—362.

 

. Individual differences between interviewers
and their affect on interviewees' conversational
behavior. Journal of Mental Science, 1952, 98,
660-671. 7’

Kendon, A. Some functions of gaze-direction in social
interaction. Acta Psychologica, 1967, SS, 22-63.

 

Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G. and Guze, S. B. Stability
of interaction patterns during interviews: a
replication. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1956, S9, 267-274.

Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G. and Hare, A. P. Factor analysis
of interview interaction behavior. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 1958, 33, 419-429.

Matarazzo, J. D. and Saslow, G. Differences in inter-
view interaction behavior among normal and deviant
groups, pp. 286-327 in I. S. Berg and B. M. Bass
(eds.) Conformity and Deviation. New York:

Harper and Brothers, 1961.

51

52

Matarazzo, R. G., Matarazzo, J. D., Saslow, G. and Phillips,
J. S. Psychological test and organismic correlates
of interview interaction behavior. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958a, SS, 329-338.

Newcomb, T. M. The Acquaintance Process. New York:
Holt, Rinefiart andFWinston, 1961.

Phillips, J. S., Matarazzo, R. G., Matarazzo, J. D.,
Saslow, G. and Kanfer, F. H. Relationships between
descriptive content and interaction behavior in
interviews. Journal of Consulting Psychology,
1961, 3S, 2603266.

Rokeach, M. The Open and Closed‘Mind: Investigations
Into the Nature of Belief Systems and Personality
Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1960.

Saslow, G., Matarazzo, J. D. & Guze, S. B. The
stability of interaction chronograph patterns in
psychiatric interviews. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 1955, lg, 417—430.

Saslow, G. and Matarazzo, J. D. A technique for studying
changes in interview behavior, pp. 125-159 in E. A.
Rubinstein and M. B. Parloff (eds.) Research in
Psychotherapy, 1959.

Taylor, D. A. Some aspects of the development of inter—
personal relationships: Social penetration pro-
cesses. Technical Report No. 1, May 29, 1965,
University of Delaware, Contract Nonr 2285(04),
Naval Medical Research Institute, Office of Naval
Research.

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental
Design. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

Analysis of Variance Tables

(Non-significant Results)

55

TABLE A-l.--Summary of the analysis of variance for Mean
Duration of Speech.

 

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism 1 .408 .024
Dogmatism of partner 1 .430 .025
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner 1 3.954 .234
Error 12 16.928
Sex 1 24.806 .928
Dogmatism X Sex 1 5.396 .202
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 51.190 1.914
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 72.140 2.698
Error 12 26.738
Session 2 18.995 1.430
Dogmatism X Session 2 4.879 .367
Dogmatism of partner
X Session 2 .105 .008
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session 9.056 .682
Error 24 13.284
Sex X Session 2 5.168 .435
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 4.388 .369
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 22.600 1.901
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session 23.334 1.963
Error 24 11.889

 

57

TABLE A-3.--Summary of the analysis of variance for
Individual Participation.

 

 

Source df MS F
Dogmatism l .000 .000
Dogmatism of partner 1 .000 .000
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of

partner ‘1 .000 .000
Error 12 .000 .000
Sex 1 .006 .076
Dogmatism X Sex 1 .099 1.253
Dogmatism of partner X Sex 1 .100 2.263
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex 1 .037 .468
Error 12 .079
Session 2 .000 .000
Dogmatism X Session 2 .006 3.000
Dogmatism of partner X
Session 2 .006 3.000
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Session .0005 .025
Error 24 .002
Sex X Session 2 .004 .148
Dogmatism X Sex X Session 2 .036 1.333
Dogmatism of partner X
Sex X Session 2 .036 1.333
Dogmatism X Dogmatism of
partner X Sex X Session .078 2.889
Error 24

.027

 

APPENDIX B

Scoring Sheets

Coding Sheet for Speech Duration

 

1 . : ~..s ._',I' Fl-l. . . . 0 I . - o -v .. I I) \
. ' 4
1 Q... -~7. mar- -- - . ’ r . 'I . u .1 0- 0" 4‘: ‘ "'I.-x ‘: IA. 0 .J'z . — "0.. . I . .w '- 1‘. ' ‘ a. Y
. . .. ’- I
l ‘ ' ._
la. 2‘" . ' 0 Vt.“ .- .- . ' ‘5 NI -l.. l‘ t‘ nmla‘t- IJUu-re1c‘ut nv'w- .01....13... --;:~4I...I "Q‘w‘ egg. . 'rr » 1" L ”~91..." ~q..-. : ‘ 7 . _; .
.
.
. ) . .
I
0' fl 0 . '. I.) 8': . . . 1‘ 1 I~ . .‘,0 -oc.n '40- 0. n u . ‘ 0... . I ’ . - ‘.' . .' -' a 1 . . . l I
1“... - \-,. . . I. 0- f - ~ I0|~". P'. _v\.r"'..- v '0... . -. I .vt..r-...x '11,..0- 1].: .m (.0 .. . 0,0 _. . .1 .. ”A, , .
1 ' . I ' .
| v V 3
_ .
‘_ e" we 0 t :I 0.3‘. .Pv. .-i . I .-.: .. Q .0 ’ C ' - ‘nn'.|"s -n.g.x.1¢- -§ ..- .16 'p.‘ r J‘ .1 .o- ‘ 0. If-I -mr . ~ I’ . I\ u 0. .‘- - '* . "1. - ' I.‘—.‘ . . 'v I . . I
\
' 01-4"... M . as 1:). -. ' 0" I ~ ~ 1 ' \I .. .-_ a... J. '. v11. 5 ' a... . .1‘ r..' ao’IC- Ii. VI. .1». -\ -.aI.t.‘Jh- '5 '_ .I'.’ ._ ' 'n -n ~. I u. . I 0 J ’30 -." ' -. o t '
( . 4
.0 I i ‘
u. .0 «20‘. . Ian-x 'p r1. In > x x .- -_A~ plum-- nun.” I--r 10:... . . wax-u. - . . 1.10 :10 ..u-.-. q. u‘ 014 ' . - - ~ .». wrv - ' ‘
1 I ; ,
I
0., 0. x. “inc. 0". nt‘v'I'l - ' ‘3 l-l 'Y‘Vlvl‘ ' IO'II‘ ‘.I\ \:.,r--»0-_wr.-0'<n~.e. 0. - {II‘OJI‘ .~. .. .,.‘0 0 V' ,up,vu r‘. '_.~. “'0‘ 0 i‘a" 0 l. y. .
3 . l
. . l C
. 0: 0. v' .4 t. .0” - 0 ~- . ' . 0‘. ' \. -.:- \ . Armand ~s~ .-\'.n -'A." “Irv-on 0- ‘m- 0r. gal". . 2v . a- run 4 - .. ~‘IIATRV... - n s. "r' I \ 0 ~ . n ' ' ‘ ' ‘
.
.
\ , ’ \'
w
. . - 5‘51 .00. 1 ". . .\' ~ rd. 1: ,. -. a... 'I'U ,.‘u l .1."- -. . I x . _ . .5 a . 1 '0"
' ' 'I ’r a . -0 s ‘ ‘ ' '
1 ‘ . l
_ . a‘ I". 8 n ' "I t :r "In. .1 .~-’. I.'. .1'4-Vso'. ’Vfi‘ll'. " 0.x. it“- I“ -.' ‘t‘L ' u‘IL .. 0 I ‘L':- '-.n . 1.,- E»: ' . .
‘ .
, 0
. . -
w‘w u. . “‘10 I . Fr 4 0...... .‘ -." 00'0”! .0 .~.c-.I'|'-«rvo:~'. «IV! .I ~50“ -1 .n-..n-'AI 0:1,“... 1: PM?! 'I u . 5‘ xi” . r \
. _ ,
l ‘ , . .
I .
. _ 1 n l' "l 'J'uv- ..a'5 "Lu... . ...' r. :2»: vvt»\t-c--'I-‘h41n.- '3 r 'nlw'r s-g- AVSL .- .o I. l.-LA.0":°"-nhlv.‘-. '0' A: .1 .cn ' .0 *\' '
> v ‘ I I
1 v I ._ I .
I ' 0 l
.uu. 0... ~. ~..;. - .. 0‘». .10.I04- . r; 1 I: 5' F. I 'ln’ r3"; 3» ~ an'nr--..-.~.0.u+ 0 ‘- «so-)1: .ar-ezuzp Mrs :30- l‘l'fl.‘Ju~hfl"‘ 24~ a. ‘0’” '4... if "'-f‘-IJ .~-~..'aI-.-~,.-0. .. -_~.-:.| 013.. -0. x ' ‘|.1~ r . -
t . . .
l . I 1 , . . E
I‘ ' ‘. . _ ~ ‘ . ~
_ If" -‘ - -d 5 I 0 '9... ’9 0 - V I . .. ’ ' > C ‘1 J LO? .C“ . - ' ~0- t- . 10'. 3'5 ' 4'. 'n ' “ E. '. ‘ 0') I I. Q! ~,-‘_ " - " I -"-l‘o-“I 0‘£~\r.~ '4 . ‘ ’u "5’- n. W."- ’0 ' ’v- 3 .i"; -l p ‘ I. d " N ' ' l
. - :. . l
a 1 1 ‘ ‘ l ‘ ' . h
. . '. I I , . .
r. 0-.I~I-‘ ‘1' 0'» dot-0““ r- |.-'_ ' 3 . .'-- . -“ O'c‘I'F. Inueu’xl'thn-bhhl0 0-5-0 #0 r 2'. C~_w"--";lvm-1l ‘w:ta'rt.~~.rv-.~Ifi n “h" f. .‘ . illfitmI-Al ‘v- ‘9'“ fl- l-rd' .D."."IF - " S '
v ‘ - . ‘ .- ‘ ' ~. , ‘ ‘
. ' . ' '- 1 ' . . . -
cu.“ m0} :‘é- LI. — I'- v‘ «"0 . . -' It ‘. 0v ; ‘tcx VIM-I ‘9: »». "'0‘ £04. .A.It') 14’5' u '~73't-‘4Jbu~ “*.'A: o-.0.v.fisxa 4.....'~:» '92s)... 0 " Afi' “Nim’bu a "x. "Nfl?)¢~nm‘a 3"?! ":1?" 1'4
. .. . '\ .
, .- . .
‘ Q, .~ , . .
. . , .
. . . .
,5». 04.04....“ 3710‘ JFK.- l w- ... .0 ' n..--.. . L .' -ruvI-- 1.3,)» .I. In. 0:12.?l-0- .3 “wt—AM“ 0.4-1 Infiflhr‘ - 'w..|.-_‘y.~n _- .1. ‘I '-.'-vlf.'4 'I-..:- ‘9‘ g | (.5140. '9'- 1‘. 'gvhr‘fi '."v - I- : '3 a
. l .
. . . , . . .
: . ' .’ r . 1 . r -
‘ . ,- I - .‘ . ,
_ -.,; 1. ‘- _,_(- ~ -5“... .00- .. y ,3 . - -na.l..- .‘u A my .v 4:o-‘ ‘0. I.->. ., -.~I\,‘.‘v--1.V_.--u,'n.or. Ll“.- |_- .MJ I m “uh .. - ‘1‘: frlvu .afnucalfll'gv- w‘ .- ..bV-Vanrmflirzb '- If'n'l- .Ku
). . . u .
. , . . .
I i ' ' ' I.
p .19: t- .“1 ..’-.LsPI - - -e' . I, " :r -'..~~.“- A|SI010000tuu .‘ ~an‘d' «0.0- ’l .25.“ 11;»1-cm‘ "MJ. .‘1:.. .~-\- r‘o-n-n. I'Avvzh'0". , -~ 3.1; 41‘
V ' - -0 - ’ . . . .. . . . r, .. _ 0 --0 - - v - I .
F. ' ' I f )
. . . , 1 .
0) 5‘,“ .1“? ' .l. 4‘ ‘I J I1. W .. . .23: V.’. .1 0 I!" wrath ~00 ”CIW' l-u.."‘0. 2.1".st 'IA'D—U 4‘. “Evil L" {'3‘ I'I.v .41 u_‘4‘:r 1‘¢,\‘:h.t.v<’.l;.‘n::‘zj).~0' Ut'f-‘ I04 ‘ 1.. ' t.'--‘\_r 1' 0' 03L
. , .
: . t .
‘ 0 ‘ T ‘ I v .' ’ ' ' I
.' I . 1
0 cl 1..- »r-' 1‘ all 9 .0 v -‘ ' ‘ ~ ' . L ~ -.‘-I .w-u'. LN“: ”'23-. as“: '0’: -. 10* "Isuzu. L‘blf'w"a- {‘1' an .fiv". m".- "as .':v '1‘: .ln l»'J£o-"’r",_"‘ i\" Zia-‘05 [4:0 \0uv'. g . - 0 4 I. - -
. - i I '
I . _ . . ‘ ,
. ' is." ! '- $ - ~' -- . ‘ ‘ ‘ ¢ ' '. Du. '1'! ' ~"-~ 0‘. of.’ L19. i-IO‘- l- ILV" “01. '-"-;'.“v.vcfivuun~t_ _‘N'IV‘.~:'~. 4' . r «0“..g...‘u-,..._-, f .0- 'rn.‘ w- ‘.. 1.5.0 ‘0 if“. u ' n '
. V b ,
I. I '4 . .
. , .
, .
J. _. 9‘ - .p' . 0» es 1 - . .~ 2" --~ -. 0. . ' 1'. xa~'~-I: ~:.a "a" .10.“ ' Ibis. "02-0: h.\-'.~-n-.-m.I-~.. .;-.y ..> an :..t.:. \.I".~ra~‘.I':ICI‘-I " ‘3} . o-u aria“: -- 4 . ' .A'.‘.
I ' v .
l . 3 I.
I I - 7 I ‘ .
H01“ .- 'I . ' ' ‘I A. ~~| v 0 . r 0 I 1 1| ‘-‘4 " 0 .1"? b-n "LI-0.. ...~_ 0- '4 ' a "0.: IL... nap. _-.uu-m"— “1‘? ‘~ t.I . 0.0-"raf' r‘.’ “I." ..<; a Na .' . x. 04‘!" 't“ 0. .‘ f ' 4..- V
u 0 . ,
. ‘ . ‘ . o ,
- «._.\),-r ., u. I‘L- I u 0- . ...I .2 3‘ t-‘..* - .I‘A‘a‘v a ‘n ..-~I.:a~.¢0n.‘.-t~.“. ’ ~04: 0:00. a- «H. '.-ua~ '."5I“.I‘¢V‘“iiflfir ' a“ II I n vJ-q- “Mac-EU?“ ‘J-‘V0V‘u ‘1 -)s‘ . ."J r flux-r (‘
. . . .
I . ,
. - g - ' .
.- .0 a 'A~ 'r. 0 u. . ~—. . . . I;.- ‘104350 . 1‘ fl! : .ur. -. .1V lk-t‘. ::-ru..-~. "aft: ~145Mu" 00‘. o—“~ h ' ' a \La -. :-d-t.!n-AO'.H0-".'_' 'nrhu ~. - .0. c0. - n--~.‘ u- o;
. . .
. . .
’ 0 ' v. 1 ‘ -‘ ' .
- I ‘ ‘ .
’ .1 . - .. a 1* ‘0. w-II’IJ-Isnti " 0 0m ' [{A‘O‘CDI'EII'}: ftk‘IIUl’ lav ‘-'~‘l’A'- JP‘QI‘IKJWA‘ Unit”:- -a‘..‘*.. - "I -,I.'-la*~-t.uw.vr. -I"‘hl. uni-so -- . .D‘cta '_.A‘J§-:.H. TV“
. ' i ' ' . I ‘ - .
.\ g . . , . .
, ~ . l ' .
:.--w -4 5 - ~9 ‘~ ‘ I .‘ I ' ' ' - ‘K'K .A-‘u ' "LLJ‘V‘ ‘4"..‘. 'AHI-kh'cffll 'l: i‘lL' .u.\l‘."\.-— ‘5‘]!1“ film}. . ' i 0 11’3“}? ”wit ' ’ ".:.~"~3QI( J ‘ “FBI! ‘.". 13. \‘F'Laufl:
I . ' I
. ‘ . . .’ n
’ .
3'11'1‘9‘ .' ' f‘. ." g“ D " . ‘ . 1. '1!“ -\'$"‘-I‘r' f‘l'P597rV‘1"-~'}n-""I =‘ '..""I.".HY'|“"."A.‘. e «acumen-x: a- 'vpr \utwq.-...: pr . - '9.an} : '. 2 .2 0 4 \n -.| '
‘. , . _ ' I , J
. . . ..-
! . , r x . f n -
. .
- "a.- ' "€371“ ' "I: I' .. ' “- . . )' .L‘hL’w-‘O.lf :c .‘. t. ... rt \lnl’.l.:r:.l.'\ ‘u: r, 00-‘r- fix. Aral" a unmet-J: mil-01." 'a. I t'n -~ ”I [Mu—'1'. ---.1r'. CI ‘Jaa— v7.1- 9: -..-. ---' 0....
v . -' . 4 -. - : t
y _ _ ‘ . .'
.0: .< o- o ' t, f . w . - . .r ‘a 3.6 ‘MR 1‘ ‘ .lun..—.‘-.-nr1.‘..:" .' .‘ 1123.3": ‘L01‘10 :amr:~‘r mt . 0':qu a'nu-‘v.9.nn'l\lu»p ~10! o. Lln‘l l'r D-V‘ba't'nm. ‘— .It .003: '
. ~ I
I , i. .
T n . . ‘. . . . .§_
«‘0 ‘14- .. : I . : u — .3 ~ 1 -: JV: z-au 'un'J l \!1'0~" . .‘J .‘ ‘44 I'II 'iau'w ."ll‘u4c\ '0 bales 4:.‘nm.-0~I-iu_'n1u' ~‘.r '.n‘&".'l-".'z 1". “I if 1075': ‘u-.\---'.Inv"‘l'!- '; .-
i
t I I . v . _‘ l 0'
. _ ‘ . : _
__- . 1 , .-« 1 I .‘x-Q‘ _ j r . . - “ ' r. -r.w.:-oa.-u.u.l u“... *.01,_'.rn ;,. ,uv ~~1’-_.\‘R~NK)TI “Juan.«Am.fl~mul'n'wnm:0fluua .‘O 0.14'..‘I."ufi.-l '0 ..\Q‘ou.
. * ' - ‘ '
1 ~ . g A
. ‘ .
31‘ - .04 -. I ‘ .. f: L ~-. - ._ \ .001 I'b 'sktn. -.-n-..'\.1vo'vfl.bu.~l .5 .?~!‘\ fl.’01'-‘l"vl.-v 3.020!" (at: ' Dla'a‘mur unzu'wu ,- II A.
E . ' I . I l:
l ‘ .
, ~ . '3 0 — ~ 0 0 ‘7 . 4‘ . ' V 1?. 7‘ ‘-"a Zl-Jlds. CI! -~_.V‘f’-" «hf|‘-:| ~ . J I!'_ hill“. '1 .1‘0 "lgf‘u—‘ffl‘fiflt'a‘Liw 'ih. .AIIC’A 1 Q autumn-4r; 2 ‘1 r -.‘ V ‘ 'V ‘.\‘-‘l" ’0 'l'~ ' ‘ ' 0 -l
, ,
. , - .
. . . . I
.
0 r. . 'f w — . r 0 . - ‘. n." 1.. 1.. u p.0lttll0 «,0. 1,!L- ’0.~'D.|- I-l- "J t— ’ I-‘ ~-'~c'.“¢"-"bv—F-0 -i‘n..""l .. 1- UA..'. I‘v- "iw?l~ “42;:- 00‘. v t vii .9: a.
. . \. ., ‘ . . ~ '
. . - : n
I‘ . ' "' ‘ " ' '- " 3 ‘ .. ‘ \ .- ’V“ - —' "s“ w- ,-!r---.).,‘s' «wuss-.- ~.-.nv.'.0 v. "a 0 es 0‘¢a—u.\ («MD-Amt" L‘.‘~ 4- ‘- ’7 ' 'L' -v
. . - ' p - .
. I r y . r .
- -. ’. . - - . ‘ . ' 2.. .0“ .- 1.-.. u «t .' .’» II u;,..'0£. V vflu lli‘nrl'dl-Jnt—r-‘Lr d.i1' I... .Q‘w ..'mu—-. 45‘033115 \\ (-xt‘ h 'I‘.‘a‘:~ 0" 311'" .u.~' JL'J r . M 4 ul- -
‘. T- . , . .
. _ .. ,‘ ‘ ' ., ,.. , . v u. .
. ‘ .1 . J. -_ . - ,I -.~ (4. 00 . 4 . .. v. .. _. p-I' .‘n‘nwn'mw 5"! -\ w;r‘,-vfl§d"-.— - \. . .'. 'i'J‘I
t ‘ .
f ' ..
. . - . a an 1' v .. 0 . . . --. 0 A I'Mnk -('~ A .".. .t'u‘" '50: haw-1‘!“ \ii-.)-LA..\~..-4rn-n A: at.“ emu-'10!” amt-u... "1.5.1.. .-,. 01.01000... 1 - I‘. r 9" ~‘
0 , 3 - . A ‘ I
3 T' f i ; I. ' Q . -
1 ' . . - '
, . . v .-). am--—- A.- . 0* ‘1 . . - . n. g - 0.1- - luWaA‘n-ifl—fim" JCTW'uu-u...'-i I-Itm. n- .'-4‘ -'~|nn¢.»m.nvau.n. .: 1 \- ~.|u' 4.23754120 w-:_'\"! 1' J‘ r
. ’ I .' '
._ . . ' ;
. . 7
0, . . . c. 1 10.. .-.- 0%.... h. w; .: ‘ -\..l, .- .- u‘.. aru‘L‘U-u-v! -. II. "V“ - .' :‘szfiammmflfi l 2' .nla . v I "An-CNNPWHClnk-v 7‘ 0 r. 000'-
. u
. . g _ . n
.
. . . .1“ . . . . . J" :r 4'. IT'. IL. 1 v_‘.ug_....l.-Ql .. a, ."t "‘Ivl‘r‘n‘.“~'I|‘J_.‘_¢‘."i0.0 .'.~|13l.l"u ‘5! 1!..u ZIIJ' “Jaw... .tavnnmuvcmsa- ’k-‘th‘f‘xfi'l ~‘Lkl,b -' - ~a .r
. . ' ‘ ' .
A u . . '
‘ 1 .‘ . . . . ‘
. I ‘ .
. ~t - . -n.‘ . . 0:... - \ 4'! w 4" .' 1 vol; rava 01-!- .--!..1..-0.wa,na0ran.~ovuun at»; IWJ“ I.’ V. 0" “Ollid‘fl anmua llnlt- lil.~ol.10 "‘ ‘5 '|-- Y“.
, ' J ‘
» . ; ,
« ' . , \ '
. 0 . « . 0 . . .- .: .'-\ vo.‘ » .1. 0 J}. .00un‘ ”.3. - awn-1‘50...“ (‘10: 1'5 .. 'ufl."- ' 'ln- Dnr‘gtu.‘ .5..- anti”. :H-~ . '- $1 alr- 4 :n v. .0 v:.‘» A ‘0 . tl!‘
. . 0
. - « - '; . s
,0 '. 0 I .0 0 . ’ .-«'w<.-‘.-.. ~- "10' .vflgnlgatfi'l 'f.AI.~.|.»‘...-~x:-vnut »ln. ‘rvr int-Ln "Inuit "o‘vl‘rl’ ‘J‘u' - "All-.10 0:.i’; so: -
1 ‘ .
u 1 .
. - . ._
. ' - --- - ‘ A. ‘ ‘0. -' ’ HI - 03- . . 0.1. -‘09 1 I‘uun‘r..u; J'J :- l .l 0 ".15.“...- - a“...I.‘- 4. '1 . x .1 J. 4 . 0". -. .
1 ' 4 I
I - I .35 0- .l- r. 9. w run . a I 0‘ . ‘w '.'b‘ -. '31 (In: ‘0’): "0“”. A ‘ .0‘.‘ Hz? 10.1' r '9- .n .“'.’_‘-“'~'. .4.'., .. 0 - .j- w-uw «0. _CI. l .5 . vr . 0 k-
, ’ 1 .
l - . 0 i
. _ _ ~. , . .. . .. .. , . . . . . . . ..
L ., . ‘ 'o.’ ' 1 ‘ '1 v- ‘. 12. ' . )‘A . ‘ :-_--. ‘1'l0‘11044. ‘1 . ._ !' 0:.nnn.-:-o.:-- '.\- I'M; ~-"'("- ‘-“ ..—1 - "J:
. I
- . .. n» ‘- ..‘. . .. n‘ . . . . 0 ~ .0 ’10:“ II.I 4 "a. v >--. .- .A '.>- .~-: l,or',!~o.|c. x - ‘.')0}.--1 .0. .- W " *0 . ' '0
. .
9. ' . . -
u . -.a. ' . -‘r. ,0 .. 1".DI'lI—oa'4 0c v Jul-I ..ll:..0¢-\ «'I’w‘: - . -"".<I='|~--'llu'-v | I ‘0’ ‘ “‘(‘u' 0 'V‘9‘ '\ ..
r v
(3.1 . . :
. 1
a . ’ . - ' I. n , -. . . .v 0’“. nth-..-'..n_..“ --; ' )I‘...» H'00.l.'_-P-.0n .'a .‘A ".'l 1.....\u‘\.\ - . o.“I~~- I“ 0" .'-l - V-‘- M
. x .
. . ,
r0 . . . . . 0
, - .. . . .0, r v. ,- . . .-.. .. . .. -4. v ,0 .004,- rx. L .0.0.n v 1 ...vv- «.1103 n' 0': slvu' .1- w - ' m :1." a.wn4d1-o....~' - a - o u. co 1 ‘ " "‘4‘.- ‘
\5 a .
. V . . , . - ~ -- . -(.-----‘..fKI'. .‘UO'T rm:- 1"! :o-n ..,-II.~ ".>~.'I--' .. r - ~ r-o « .... «- - . ~ "‘ . ‘ " 'l- ‘ ‘O‘l—vd
\\ i . 2 -
-0 - w “a . ‘ - " . .. ~ < H . ‘.-- ..'ll".'. .-' Q (0." '12-.'.\:..‘I‘ t :‘.d ,-‘L‘..«"'u:h .u .- 4'... "0". r1. ‘ .' L .‘ _n.«o Kn .. . . ’\ cl. .- ' .10... G ‘34- 0 “I -D~R"--'/
‘. I .
I QI- v 1% f .
-..-)-~v'4 - 1" ~ ‘ ‘~- —- ‘ - .4. ~ .1. .._ a u. was: r311": ~I 01" n4 ‘hf‘w". ,. (Hat. 0. v I011. .-r..‘_, “I": . ,. .0 23,". .- -.- nan. - ,..f_ -: It.‘ 1.0.! .0 ‘- .~ “0.7‘ I
. y .
I . . ‘ I ‘
\ : 4
"0 . . ‘. I0. ~ » . ’." .uP-‘R‘ . :'_- ....p n, 1". r. .11:‘*'.“| l0‘0".l.l. r~.. I a .4 0 .. t-Q - Iv." I 0 "~01 4}. -v .AI‘_:
‘ .
N -

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

     

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1‘
.
.. _.
.,,_.
. , 0
a- h"
.055:
. ,v
:I- »
--_ a
O. -4
_, J
0 :

I£l|\I.

I. 11'
:I‘ ‘0
r.
0‘

l 2'
I" "-
“--.
J...
.' \
L'l
-. 'w
by
'\'.1

III. 00—

.‘I"

 

,0
--..
- “
-.- a . .0.
"01.: ‘(U-l‘ I
raw-‘5
Io'.‘ .1). 7.
i, 0 ("L-
tl 'I.‘ ' 10'
«In . ' .
.|\. I.
ll * -
' .v‘l‘ ' a
'—I'. >4
‘51 I
..0 ~-«.-
I ' v"
I n . .‘A
k -1 \-
1. .
s - 1’ I
. .
. .¢

.
l_.
C
‘ u
.-I 0
v- .I-.'
'4:-
fl‘

..
.. 0
.c”)
' 1
. |;
‘r.’ I

.0..
.1

(

g
I: 1‘
. ..t
I"‘>'

Coding Sheet for Initiative and

Check/Counter-Check

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- 'v I I I .I; u . . ' - ‘ -
r- 4 , '. .1...’ -- ,r. . .
. ' . ' I . I' , ‘_ . . 'I' I . - ' ' t .. U. ' ‘ " .. / ‘ ' .
, ‘4 - ‘m’.‘ n.-,.. ~v.- ,._ I u.:s‘u~_‘\ .l~ l./-‘ glow-.1 '0' v “’f' " a In v'--I -J I ."‘ "9’_‘” u-.-_. ‘It‘b" 'v L'er. I'II." ‘ID-r'i; A Oo‘.""'o ti I II . ll! ._
' : N l' ‘1“ ' I, ' n ‘.¢
I ,.. 1 I‘m—‘w ".‘_'".IC"IIID vwfl . .I I II "at M“ ‘Jm'VII ‘bI-I.‘ F'l"?l"uu-a‘ IA. ;:“- ='- '4‘ *h I ”aw vv awn 0‘! .9 . .‘c‘: ‘I I: m'n‘ bin- and)» \nL-w S a '.- In" - ‘i-Clho It“.l u... -‘_‘I "'- .‘n ~~ II
- II ' ‘ ‘ . i. '
5'; ‘ . ‘ ’ .“.
"rm. “90.3.1'IL tub-aa‘s‘u:n-h-.I .V‘IP I-r'uI‘DIfnrJ Il’WIt-vamnlzmu _-‘,v . in II ‘-.r ‘uaI 0 Julia!” 1' Wm! Iv-t-I u'fiivir 92- 'm'vefirh :l‘ [Inna-‘3 . v” 90"... v «.9 r I I u. -. _ “- - o‘ I
l '- ii i I .3
’ 1 i . a .4
. m...“ - am’g.aa-.fl.am‘- v, unuur .v LIED ”awfuuaaun‘ ‘MI 3‘5‘ #3“ I!‘ magnum-am. u qua-vainly moul- .. t; . m Isa-r 4.90.4: .m‘ 14‘.- r . J - fir a. q - ~-- .1
2% l1 ‘ g ‘ . '.
i , I? U. I - : ._ ‘-
. .m...a;-i r-m.“ur .- twin-wt I‘ll‘a‘ .MrmMu-fé‘ ._.- :,I‘t.2m‘m‘.l(_.'r 2 1r «.‘Invm-I- mgr-I. .. mun-Wm. .Ir- 1,; 4 “MMHHFLY } sun 7 u 9 I.
_ " ‘ ’ '1 K 4 I. .
.' E ’2 J' '4 J = - " :
v nu“— -“' .0.“th f ..~.‘- I?! .1— I-cw'J-KQ— Ma.» '1‘ 1: 'A'Aw Lon-rungmfln . u m-kuv‘b tank-CD8. a v. )‘I‘OIIIWV. i-vsfll 3" mi .1 v - ~ I-
v . I ‘ f .
u r x
. 1 E i a, . . a . g I ‘ [:1
r.. - met-1‘ II o-m-‘u— qub'I‘J‘Ja-fi "NIII MM... WK“ 3739-11” ~m9-aI—m‘ up umdm.ihh _~1.1-m.- no" I'nfiuu'hfiplkm m an -'- A I I '
J | a y i .
L i 2. j
| . S! I‘ : {J :5 1 ~
I «v.0-III- n-Izl: “'11.“! arm's-=- IMIJ-M‘I . 1:3 d‘r-TZ‘I'IO"? at!” “H’OIIMIL I ' Ln’m- in.” "fihizfll ”‘0 -‘ 0".- “WRIL‘Iflh‘Kb' VIM" '- I. . ' :‘I .-
I l :_ I‘ a , |: ' f
‘ I i I, .J l I I I :'
I .
..-_._I-— 'I nu- - lam-11 I. mag-hp m..—I‘0.~n-¢.-l...;':w a; n'fl)’: uni-l): rain I} Q “5wa 'l‘.‘ 4a)-!"lfl A: at»?! ACJmWIIIM-II '0. - \l'll' v f‘ I .1 -
I I. " | ‘ g Q
I :; J: l l x 2 ‘ I l
1 I ' '
"I.“GPWW: Quit“ a- I‘Irau-a-I ti—I-Ai «III—IQMM-Jr {r93 ~-':- g" I u qua-II... a": night-Ildgonmnnq-l' - Auto-1-:- I:J~v{ "uI "Ur I'M-I‘f -:I u}: _. . -
I I ' \ , . . ,
L -- I u I I -- I .
.Ozflu-‘QM‘I‘ mm“: ' _. .. -w.....v ‘ __ r. 3”. Fol-‘W jun-n «av—W -' flo' "aw-mat.“ -. rdmwl- -¢: 4'1- ptf .. an: nwmau }: \ I. u. 'u
‘ ‘ I. t I
i i :i A n- -f- 'I j ; f y'a-
;9 u-u-m‘;r¢~mm—u p N-;'-'§h~-m‘1m0I - 1v 3‘1”” fl—rupvuwn- .-_ ._.. “Ia-In-” - I ICU-Lfirv-JI’ o...- 9 I “Wt-what"! '- . " ' "I ' v I
. l I 5‘ ‘ . I ~ . ' I " ‘
‘ '. ',. ’ . .'
i : II! n:— o:- a . ‘ .I s I . ‘ I
s‘..‘- WWI-and; 4"" MFA-JIMWMIlo-fzu- In” oath-marbacn I-I 'A'udI-I- ~13mvvi’»mw- Is nu u". macaw.“ mi .8" 9 w—u '."' .
I' .' t .. I . I 2 :1 0.
‘ ‘ :! . u _ l i s i : ' ' y
.- oum-yi-¢um0£lr‘h II '- m-rnkwqa—ndunv-rnmm If!" -_ ‘I- .\- 4 .- ”m3. «sou-Ir 4“ . .mmmfi‘un’. I. rwcflil'L‘IIIQ-I at mat .1'msmvt’3...¢.r , cw a I
. I . a : ‘ u
I 1 I T .1 ‘ I I I E 'I 3; _. 1 f ‘I
I I "' , . ," .
.-~I m'I-ofi'u-qu-"nmJW‘ I- dub‘lm nwavawwnrmn- _v;' I: ”If. ‘T%.mmto1'-i-l c."~.fl1l"n-r-u- «.wum ‘ 3; winner". :nr-‘ .I Amman-matriun.» 3'... -b I, J. a a
.' ' . i " ' '
. I - . . '
a {I . . 2) I j a ; I .1 _ .‘
«.9- ”my". ImeuII- -P- |*-l'-"".~’—VF' anv- calm-“r. Ia. ~; nv .- n- 'I- WMM‘I. J .m1.~ I: 5.1% - 0P mIrl)-ovr .l".1-'1‘m mlmv ‘. ‘ ~. '{ ~ I—' - I‘ .
- II :I , -- .. g ‘ I: 6 . I
? I! I: ‘-'I“~ _ .-_ 3 .. .l .'
--.—-ur‘ mur- and. -\-IA."'. m. _‘.I.. Minna-m9,“ ', “1}.“ r” ImnflisfivnQ-fin .I - mn'.‘im.l I; “um-Inn 0» h'fl .o-m-umuu mars-f f 51;. 2 3| 9. . - 'I
' . I l
. i '
' .: :I .. . . ! I .I. - I
umfinA-Ma'rCOIOMaU. w “in“. m 4”“ It...“ ”HUN". If r; '5 {"Ifl‘ WW“: .‘l~ ms 9». tut-:1:- {o ”I‘dghm‘h' a... on. .muywq ~UOIfi$ ..,: ‘. .-'..-. ;‘ u o
. ‘ - ; I ’
I I! {I HI.) . . 3: .I 5.! 3
Al I ’ I ~
.v- ”w..-$h-‘I~III..—1 -'-‘,'1{r— v...- _‘ "- ._....__ __~.r. I‘ . .1- (TI; I‘mw‘ “I..." ”pH-u". .WV '7'. “In Hal-I 1:- £913. 90"..mlri’v‘ 9“; ~ {MT .‘ ~I
: ,. ,- U i .- - L ~
I! o" f ; F :§ .4 { '
~A~w~m “T0!” 'MI-I-In‘ . v-nr-I..-Im u-sml- “II-III“: .39: ‘t :nIh a». aunt-um? - -» J.‘ =. - . 'lrmrmmmrmn .-— .—.— I m- - ‘I
. 5 ‘. . I
I E i -: .' I‘ : 5 l I z I- I
xt-‘ml‘r m-_aqu-w'.u- "‘— * A witt‘ 1'51“va "MICE 0W“ - J‘V “mm- m I; war-um»... ufin-‘n 0‘ WW“?! I. I1: I v I ‘ 3
I | ' '.‘ . . 3
I I .!1'-~‘-§ i .E ‘4 £--‘-:
."Iw-Wa-utszmm'm, _ _ .‘eu- ;. «‘9’.- AI-y M‘m- t""l§fl§:nl-MIAV-H'A - It l“‘“uu I-erJ-le‘I‘mnfi‘I‘”; :~- I}: "_ .l'i‘ - v
, - .
.l‘ I) ‘ ‘ I . . I
. I H I I .I 2: cI-s
‘ ' Itn‘vx-w'rr.--1t:fll—‘W;I-If ' m v 1‘.» ‘I'lv'fi -'- v I . um 15' -' I- I. 21‘: ‘1' ”III-r! 3 ap '9 ;o.m‘m-MI~M‘I_IE(; ‘. {‘9' .. '
I! . I L .’ ' '- . I ,
4 2 I l I .. ) t 1 p ! 3 C. ,7
.4- -uuu-‘A mum*.qrm. w __ ‘g'l" - . «‘5' y- ”than“ in .mm.« I‘- my?" - .l '2.“ taxman-1mm“! 3'! u‘ r; - I.“ " I"
' I ' "5 I ' H ' . .
2 ll ILL. f3 .1 .‘::.-.
"I. =~"= —.——~ —‘“ F v Yfrv- WI. _I..' 4' ”laflmw VI WWII/II..- ‘ Am “WI-stn-twnwrx‘q‘uwng- .nv' .o
5 ' J ' I ' ' I '
' I! ; ._') . . . . £-.'.'
4 '- "I'D-Ml. __ . —.._.— b‘ “ .9;an mum} r! “sun-Mm" -_ fm_-mor.c-1¢wcmawn.gq . .171. s. nu 1.
-_ .‘ ‘ ‘.-" . ‘ 2 ‘ -. ‘
I II I II, .9.) I I : ,. am I
I... “6““ :- Inn-m . .__ - —- ... ._ ,. -,'1' :53!” Rruwm\.tm P mama-au- I‘ -‘M"I'l.-Z ~fil;fimm&I.-)Ir¢- 4:2 - 1'" on. 9
1 ,1 I PI! _ ‘ ‘1' V .P i
! : t. 4- ,9 ,2 £.. f
”WWMUIig JWWCI‘HL ~mm-Ian 'mr; 3'; ;.-' ‘I‘fi'i MI I.“ ‘ '39 ’“anl‘ -l."-'I‘I II i-b "1‘3? \IVW'W WMMI- 'I‘FC" r. 7‘ " “ ‘I'
Q I' L .. l .
. I D. - - P
f H .I .I an.
I'v- mmrtmmvwma'fll I'm-Iqalmnmmt—I ”‘7‘" " T! I KIMrvm. I Ir I WWII—8mm ‘. {nflmawmpvzw f-m‘nirI-‘y; ‘ ‘ I'. 1
-‘ ' g: I . .‘I , I
0 .I - .
'Ivu-W-I I.“ —4: ,Ar 4 . -. . .II-W-d ”Mr 1' “‘Qta-mm ;- “I'M-h: 5v "II-w um mamxx‘nvgfi 'I 5‘ ‘u‘, 'l
. . o . .0 I .
- ‘5 H} I; -' ' '~
‘I I.’ I 7 . , :I . .4 ‘ I
'- Ihu~ m»?fl'-WF.WM"IJ III “p."fl...‘ mum-nu ‘Q‘- . - 1» gm wl’ml‘u‘ ism-I- :1- ‘ I‘ ”mi?” “zu‘wn‘r- Ha... our '2 mm muffin-Ice" 9" r
I , I ‘ I '_ '
I .- a. 9. - 1 l i. ...~' - - 1.
reh- Incl-l- . n-‘II “I _ ‘3 .1: ' ‘_ “Gum II 'J . : ~: 5 . r- '5‘ “a.“ -. - .. -\llq'av|.\!f\.—.mn - 3" 9.5““: ft! txr'wt‘w... fila' an- II ‘8' ‘ . ‘
' I ' J i j '1 .' J
g I; 9w 3 I - ' t. '
at.“ ’ 'mmmrg‘l-aIHWfiI-mllm Mun-pr ;'...I .. {Lib mow" {40.2" #5 “II-“I'm?- . i Web uni? V -I I“ ‘ Qoam-‘w—NIII- - ‘ "
' ' ' I. I ‘
l l l" ' I ’ ‘ L
’ I- - ’ ,. . :I S. H ,-
Iotn-r—lma'wm-mn IMF. —. - - .T‘-‘ "“ arr- orrn.nw=.nani 5 IA “paw” . “Mo-MIP- MPiM"”mM—A1‘I'I" ., .‘
1 '. . . ‘ I I '
: I i . , .
. I 9 . . - I -- ,
1 i a t I . '- ‘- I H ‘I M: . .
I -‘ll—IMmrI-F- A T; . ...-‘“-‘ ‘ -‘ Ins-w. r l I 1‘93 run-:9 xvi-runw- In u-IImI-au-o-run . 11 ..‘ulg'lfl ll ‘9', Vim-W .W s h, ms 9 -
t ' . - .- g
5 I l . -, i) I - u I '. F
n . - , , . .a‘ « ~
‘I o “ JMIF-‘ym‘T—m Mr, ('1' . "P'r‘ Ma ‘VIlu‘La‘-’ v w -utv wa— ,.. .- .- ' .1
I I . .- . j .5 . I
l. i ' I ., I l A - . .
ulnar“ ”8“?!“ «In-aw FImIaflI C-- II mutual IEI a: ‘3 If. “NEW“ 5.1 "I‘m-AMI in": 3.3} .,~~_
I l- , I .I
1 i: ! i . v I I ' I.” ‘ 9'
I‘m...“ r. -m- .— _L- .ww..- - 3:9: '7“ n-‘vv'hzn'm r'I-Iu-uu‘.3"u—n1'. v_-‘ ', ‘u-r; .. .I
. . ,_ I J . .
i ' l? 75,) g "- :55 -
I ' 01" .
IQ. 4mm E‘W."‘;:’em«‘ MIT-um!- m- r I" III: 1" 1-rm-Irpbflat- 1': “..m J \M-J' :. 2; ‘~ - 'r a
{.1 ' (’ I a J .) ‘
g . I I I I - ../ . ‘
I '5-m".I‘-‘-I‘1_“Ia no.7?uxk‘1-‘wz‘pfi—“vw I- rw: In'w'rr‘n 'mmv' 7‘ ‘w'umnr- .. I:- »‘II .1“. In filo untfififl‘un. 'h _ *I' I °
. . v {
I . I
‘ h I l . ‘I - f _ . A.
““‘ -‘=#1 “- ,_ I Imm-I -m——m.‘r? .‘T -',- \I.Vflmm 9. n- ‘J' . III-Lam... I‘I u'nmm-uumaw.mm-m~nmr v. I "I v -
. . . .
v ‘ I I
5 H I ‘. III-J. . . a - ,J .I. '
' ‘ I. , .‘Iw .v. .— "I- 1 ' ‘ “1" Mom w Imc MIA-ulnar ,. ‘1." - "I I'm""‘ ---2. " -.'-.-._
I II t . - l I . I -' : '
I ‘- v I .
3 II I Isue- I '9 .. --.. I
....._,. ‘ w... -. 3'77“ -—- gI _ .. .r v—acgzmIn'bu-TW ~ If)! -,-.. . .1 I
I l' l: I, 9r ' II II .
.- i 1 I i C. .-.i ‘ I
ll..___ _____ _ ‘ ‘ ‘-— 3‘9.” - . ‘ u I 9‘ _ - I M- . _.___ -‘_ _ _‘ . ' ~ ' I
I I. I . I I “'1!" I . .
I Ii I I.._LI - :., it -.~".:
«I... v —‘ ‘ Y’ “- _ fur ; "g-"ra- ”autumn :rn'm aid-"II 1 '2‘" Fumuu- :I' mr "my L II. ,I.’ '
I II I ‘3 I ‘ I ’4. ii L; “I -
' ‘c ‘ . ~ _ A
'3': k_ ._.__., ‘7“ . -.; IV"? m: Im- “ad-'- a *.'i- 3%.. "L‘s—v- v.4.“ Gavin-swamps» if ~. . v,. . t
’I I ;~ I. I , '
LI , 3’ L .3.) I I ' I. z. . s ' 5
"I! .,...—— “ A‘ «ff-q :17... ' NIP“ , - .1- - _-¢= .. _*‘“‘“,n |. '~ ‘ ?. I '
, , ‘ a '_ A '
I r. I - I I
I I !I I- . ’ I . .I‘ {It L;
:_.. _. __ ' ~ --- - -:-‘_. -- I?“- am.- III-a - ----- .. -- _I-'- T w ._ in.“ T - '9‘ - I
' ‘9 ‘ I; ' . .
I ii I P‘ .U ? II‘ I h LIV .
n-w A - qr .. w‘1:..._ “ 63va Annu- n (m-or—Iafi- '3. :WM - n..- _._ —-—.-m‘.'_h1.tr~ ~ .1...
E“, y . "\ ' ‘1 I 3' l I
I, 5 1 . I, ’ .
Irin- __ —. . y = “' ‘_ -=:: \- 4':- _‘" II mus-w- firm I ‘VAIIL‘.A"II'M"'I ”LI'WWI' 4V .v-A' Jen» a TI
i ' '
I I a I J I
5 is i I {.1 . .- i I: l . 9 .
I-a-M-i—Ifi " ,1,— _ . ".0: v.- ‘ 1.19.95 I=:‘Y_— w-—_'\vt-_: ' v-I -
- 3 'I I :5 - .
i {5 I 'g t _ I 3 ., I .1 C. ;
! ‘l cc. 3 1- J' I a -
--_=-- ——-— ‘ . * “' —-rwh'g' ... I-‘Iv um *I_-:--- f» ”0"." f-FLV‘JM-.W‘.“ qufizsmfiw . I'm. .
I I . . ' ' y! L. ..
.' E (W. . I ‘ y
I! .—“‘ ““‘ “Viflfu‘luh MCSI i‘n"; ‘ I-_“§I~1['~I "W h (V‘ Mamw I "(WWII-'1! I momma 1"!8 0‘" u ”s! .
r II I ' ' ,I j: z z I . I .
:— 7 ““ - .. ‘ “awn 0:: m: IIQIOAJV‘HCP' unu— r- :a who amvfi ' on. .t‘wn—Ivn 1- rmtm 7mm hf "._. r. .
l' i - 1 I _' i ' .
I E ‘ r. I ' 1 “I _- .
"u r ”'9: m “MFG-Tu: mar-9v II:I,_,, ,mmn m- II'I ’- -"’h§$‘m 'I.‘l “9"“ arc-rt» e “fitmDU-I’U‘III .I . I ‘3 .. - _ .
I \ I I I
I ' ‘.~ -- i .- .
I 3 I : ' ' I I 5 l . a I
.9... ___ _-'I|:- __ .l“I—‘.uauut-v~'r; rug-vs. “WWII' C'- Ixt can't-um ."!'I:-K‘..fl"’f~'p.lBmwlxmll'l ~«.;- n- I
i Ii 1 5 I I .I . 3 i F ' b. ‘ I
I I .‘ . h ‘. I a l
' -____ . .—___ ' - m- vmaE'I-In I-Im-l-vmx .541“ . .I I.- r". IWJ.‘”CNK -. ~I- nun-In I W n want-Ian: .- V‘ IIIVI'IFWOID‘c r-P‘mh: .‘g' . w .
‘ I 1’ . . I ‘ .
I I: j 9: ‘ '- I g 9.. .
O" -v
‘_._ . _.n—. — g __ ;- . .w “fimuu'i nu,- I u ¢.- I Ingmar,” an ~-u: 1.5. now .vr)... - u ‘mkh fir! nu 1. cv“.... y. .-....g,, , _., _., .
. , ‘f - . . . r‘.
I H I I: '_; L, l : i I "_.: .
_ m It Imam-.9. - " --‘- —- I": n-

62

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

’
. h. cc 'V..V":I
n
S
.
'WLV VP.” 0 "I i‘ '1 ant-s.
I
I

L.
' (I MIR-fins. '1 "'Vh .

'JL'I -.
'1. ..m'~ VL‘ ._ ‘*
II
.‘I
u I,” J." "I O.
I
'.
.9 - .mIin‘vI. .9.
1r :,"'4I.— . I..- a.
I
I
.r um:- u I'm.
'I
t
-v v.l""4\n «IL .- I
i
1
“Ir t I; ,0-
5'
I
I 'I“! .~ I'llxs "91--
2
I
Mi...» I "1.
I
.
OIL-ZUOIIG .. - to.
I
l
.
I A .- .‘1‘.-. "0*"! .m‘ I
!
I
(maul-J rt. --~'
."
d
"V ‘4“ 'r-I "‘I II. I~'
.
I
I
- I—am Ink-v. I...
J
I
I
‘ EMA.'1.."‘HM
u'
'.
I
, fl”.u- g r ,‘I. .
I waa- Ir.- L‘_‘- -
E
. \W‘ 1411 «II
.0 'Mnuu\i}l"'.'h.
I
I” h“! I'W 29% .93-
- .-".-ia:‘ "unru-
.‘
\..' 1f..~w (.3 "m"
L
.. Imps-J. v wan-v
9
2
' ..'m;‘ui‘.r. - *0
I
' ' m“ 3“ II‘U WI." ‘
'I
,~‘
I
I W-‘-' i - IC'
.
war“. .I -.. 1w
'1
5
‘ 119'" -.l \4. w.
.I
51
II
I .' 'tIl-II O \1~ w"-
_.
!
‘- H‘IDGI ._ 91:, . ‘7"
l
I
I
‘I 'IIIA'I " ‘1 ‘II .-J
o’
p
~n...I~p. u Run
a
3'
M‘;-- u‘.‘ *-
I
I
'I
..m"-I-»" ' ”fl ‘
\
'. Anl'OI‘i! l ".C‘
I '.'M'¢~< “I!
i
. '51.: 'v .1 .n
-I‘YV'JI I"... ' 9.1-:
2
I
.9a¢.nw A»! . rr:
'-
.4
I
paint." 2"»
I we “ - '1“ '- a!"
‘I
‘m. "lf-‘n ‘.
I
I LII . .t I. . .U'
I
3%.??? I 'J I a
I
'Jf'm' ‘f ~.r '1;
.
' .‘-'or-- - -. '1-
I
1 ‘ ,‘u n o “3'
'll“- .‘ u i
I
I
.‘f’b‘l 0 ~ " ‘ £3
.
I
5 m . l‘ g;
I 'II".IO"' \ '.‘-.'
I
tam.u;s. W
' n .‘-u .I-u. *-
:
”man I: II'
I
Q I." HUI :7 I

 

3.." v .'

OCT 231969

 

“xii ifixfij‘ufiflfijfiu ijjigifl flag \ififl \fl\'\i\1W|T

772