ORAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES 0F EXTRAVERTS AND INTROVERTS REGARDING SELECTED ENCODING VARIABLES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT THOMPSDN ANDREWS, JR. 1 96 9 1" fit". was-u . : x- .. This is to certify that the thesis entitled ORAL COI/DfUNICATION PRACTICES OF EXTRAVFRTS AND INTROVF‘RTS T-TGARDING SETTECTTDD ENCODING VARIABLES presented by Robert T. Andrews, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph. D. Speech degree in I I/ .C‘ ./I\ Date April 22 , 1969 0-169 BINDING I-Y ‘ - HUAs a sou3' nonx amorav me. mummy amosns flit-"i533. iiicaml VIII; .lvllllltll I? I I ABSTRACT ORAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF EXTRAVERTS AND INTROVERTS REGARDING SELECTED ENCODING VARIABLES By Robert Thompson Andrews, Jr. This study analyzed the speeches of fifty subjects, selected from basic speech courses taught at Michigan State University and Lansing Community College. The selection of the subjects was based upon whether the subjects scored high or low on an Eysenck Personality Inventory, which contained an extraversion-intro- version rating scale. The 25 who scored highest (17 or above) were the extravert subjects, and the 25 who scored lowest (10 or below) were the introvert subjects. Ten rhetorical categories in the areas of "Invention” and "Arrangement" were selected for the purpose of making evaluations: I. Invention A. Selection of TOpic B. Use of Evidence C. Approach to Argument D. Use of Analogy E. Use of Narrative F. Use of Humor G. Use of Rhetorical Question II. Arrangement A. Nature of Introduction B. Structural Clarity C. Nature of Conclusion The general hypothesis was that there would be a difference in the use made of these rhetorical variables by extravert and introvert subjects. More Specifically, that in the categories where measurement was possible, extraverts would use audience- centered approaches and materials more often than introverts, and that introverts would use content4centered materials and approaches more often than extraverts. I. In the Area of Invention: A. With regard to the Selection of Tapic, the prediction was made that extraverts would Speak on more tough- minded subjects, and that introverts would Speak on more tender-minded subjects. The prediction was con- firmed at the .05 level. With regard to the Use of Evidence, it was predicted that introverts would use more documentation than would extraverts. The prediction was not confirmed, but there was an observed trend in the direction of the hypothesis. While a directional prediction was made with regard the Approach to Argument, testing was done in order to discover if one personality type might use the one-sided approach to argument more often than the other; similarly, the two-sided approach. Though the results were non- significant at the .05 level, there was an observed trend toward the greater use of the one-sided approach by the extravert, and the greater use of the two-sided approach by the introvert. With regard to the Use of Analogy, it was predicted that extraverts would use this audience-centered type of reasoning more often than would introverts. The prediction was not confirmed. With regard to the Use of Narrative. it was predicted that extraverts would use this audience-centered material of public Speaking more often than introverts. The prediction was not confirmed at the .05 level, but there was an observed trend in the direction predicted. With regard to the Use of Humor, it was predicted that extraverts would use this audience-centered material of public Speaking more often than would introverts. The prediction was not confirmed. With regard to the Use of Rhetorical Question, it was predicted that extraverts would use this audience- centered material of public speaking more often than introverts. The prediction was confirmed at the .08 level. II. In the Area of Arrangement: A. With regard to the Nature of the Introduction. it was predicted that extraverts would use audience-centered introductions more frequently, whereas introverts would use more non audience-centered introductions. The prediction was confirmed at the .01 level. B. While no directional prediction was made with regard to Structural Clarity, testing was done to see if one personality type would use structural cuing more often than the other. The results were non-significant. C. With regard to Nature of the Conclusion, it was pre- dicted that the introvert would make greater use of the summary, a content-centered form of conclusion; whereas, the extravert would make greater use of a non-summary form of conclusion. The prediction was confirmed at the .05 level. The general hypothesis was confirmed in four categories: Selection of Topic, Use of Rhetorical Question, Nature of Introduction, and Nature of Conclusion. There were observed trends in three categories, though they were not confirmed at the .05 level. These observed trends were in the Use of Evidence, Approach to Argument, and Use of Narrative. ORAL COMMUNICATION PRACTICES OF EXTRAVERTS AND INTROVERTS REGARDING SELECTED ENCODING VARIABLES By Robert Thompson Andrews, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Speech 1969 3‘) 7/52 5' 1/ 6- 6 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Speech, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial ful- fillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. Kenneth G. Hance Director of Thesis Guidance Committee: Kenneth G. Hance , Chairman James C. McCroskey , Co-Chairman Elaine Donelson David C. Ralph ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to the members of his guidance committee, Dr. Kenneth G. Hance, Chairman, Dr. James C. McCroskey, Co-Chariman, Dr. Elaine Donelson, and Dr. David C. Ralph for their constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions during the development of this research project and the preparation of this manuscript. In addition, he would like to express thanks to several of his colleagues who were generous in giving of their time and effort to facilitate the collection and analysis of these data; namely, Michael Doyle, Gary Wilson, and John Winterton. There are relatives, too, whom he would like to thank: his father, Robert, Sr., who postponed the purchase of a new auto- mobile in order to send money each month to help with family expenses; his mother, who kindly kept the children, at times, so that his wife could do necessary typing; his brother, Phillip, who drew the charts; and his grandmothers, Vernetia Abdullah and Ethel Andrews, who encouraged him in various kind ways. Last, but not least, he would like to express appreciation to his wife, Cordelia, whose assistance, encouragement, love and interest have made his graduate program most rewarding and enjoy- able. Besides these, she has undertaken the task of typing numerous drafts of this thesis. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACCEPTANCE O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O ACKNOWIJEDGMNTS . O O O O O O O O O O O O O I LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 LIST OF CIiARTS . O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY . . . . . . Purpose of the Study. . . . . . . . Background on Personality Typology Pertaining to this Study. . . . . Encoding Variables to be Tested . . Research Variables Defined. . . . . Theoretical Hypotheses. . . . . . . II. DESIGN FOR THE STUDY. . . . . . . . . SUbjeC t8. 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Content Requirements for the Speeches Used in this Study. . . . . . . . Evaluation of the Testing Instrument. The Eysenck Personality Inventory . The Extraversion Scale. . . . . . . Method of Control . . . . . . . . . Method of Analysis. . . . . . . . . III 0 RESULTS OF THE STUDY 0 O O C O O O O 0 Selection of Topic. . . . . . . . . Use of Evidence . . . . . . . . . . Approach to Argument. . . . . . Use of Analogy. . . . . . . . . . . Use of Narrative. . . . . . . . . . Use of Humor. . . . . . . . . . . . Use of Rhetorical Question. . . . . Nature of Introduction. . . . . . . Structural Clarity. . . . . . . . . Nature of Conclusion. . . . . . . . iv Page ii iii vi vii viii I'd «L‘GDO‘N 25 26 28 3O 31 32 33 35 35 36 37 38 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Chapter IV. REFERENCES. APPENDICES. SUMMARY. Conclusions. Discussion and Evaluation of Results Implications for Future Study. . . . Summary. . . CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, EVALUATION OF RESULTS IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND Page 47 47 48 54 56 58 63 10. ll. 12. The Distribution of Topics I and II Among LIST OF TABLES Subjects . . . . . . . . . The Distribution of Subjects on the Neuroticism Scale. . . . . Results Results Results Results Results on on on on on Selection of TOpic. . Use of Evidence . Approach to Argument. Use of Analogy. . Use of Narrative. Use of Humor Results . . . . Use of Rhetorical Question . Results on Nature of Introduction. Results on Structural Clarity. . . Results on Nature of Conclusion. vi Page 27 31 36 37 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page 1. Tough-Minded, Tender-Minded Chart. . . . . . . l7 2. Project Analysis Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 vii LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A Categorical Results And Totals For Extravert subjeCts O I O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 6S Categorical Results And Totals For Introvert SUbjeCts O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 66 B A Sample Speech Given by an Extravert . . . . . 68 A sample Speech Given by an Introvert . . . . . 72 viii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY Purpose of the Study The results of various personality tests indicate that some individuals possess attitudes toward themselves, others, and life in general that characterize them as extraverted or introverted. This study analyzed speeches given by Speakers of these extreme personality types in order to discover what differences there might be in the way introverts and extraverts encode messages. The speech variables selected for analyses were chosen from the rhetorical constituents of speech, classi- cally referred to as Invention and Arrangement. "Invention is the process by which communicators adapt to an audience what they have determined to be a fact or truth, in order to accomplish a predetermined purpose."1 Arrangement is "the process of organizing the arguments and supporting materials in such a manner as to produce the desired effect."2 The measuring instrument used to select subjects for this study was the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Introverts 1James C. McCroskey, An Introduction to Rhetorical Commu- nication, (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1968), p. 117. 2Ibid., p. 143. and extraverts, therefore, are defined operationally as indi- viduals ranking high and low on an Eysenck Personality Inventory. Background on Personality Typology Pertaininggto This Study Personality typology is not new. It goes back at least as far as the great medieval physician, Galen, and his theory of the four temperaments. The extravert-introvert personality typology, however, had its origin with Carl Gustav Jung around 1916. Jung first suggested a classification of individuals into the two psychological types on the basis of the "flow of the libido." In the extrovert the flow of the libido is outward toward the object. The object contains the unconditioned value for the subject and it determines to a large extent his reactions. In the introvert the flow of the libido is inward from the object. The unconditioned value is in the subject. Guilford and Braly point out in a study on extraversion and introversion that while Jung may have developed and pop- ularized the extraversion-introversion dichotomy, he should not be given the entire credit for its origin. As early as 1900, Stern had suggested a pair of types known as "objective" and "sub- jective," which he found to differ in regard 3J.P. Guilford and Kenneth W. Braly, "Extraversion and Introversion," Psychological Bulletin, XXVII (1930), p. 96. (When extravert-introvert were first used in connection with personality typology, extravert was spelled extrgvert. Later literature began to use the spelling extravert.) to simple reaction time under sensory and motor instructions and also in their reactions in the Aussage tests. Others who wrote later concerning these same two types are Klages and Kurella. Another writer previous to Jung, and one to whom Jung gives some attention, is Otto Cross. His two types, which were discovered in the field of pathology, were called the "deep-narrow" and the "shallow-broad." They were distinguished upon the relative amounts of "primary" and ”sec- ondary" function present, the primary functions being those which follow directly upon stimula- tion, and the secondary ones being those which persist after stimulation and permit organization and systematization of sense-impressions. Hey- mans and Wiersma contributed factual data which were derived from interviews with 2,523 individ- uals and which bear upon the characteristics of these two types. It is indeed difficult to establish priority in this as well as in other ideas in science. We find William James distinguishing between "explo- sive” and "obstructed" wills in 1890. He describes his "tender-minded" and "tough-minded” types in 1907. J. M. Baldwin speaks of "sensory" and "motor" types in 1902. It does not require much inspection to find a great deal in common in all these writers. Soon after Jung produced his first treatise on the Subject, which was published in America in 1916 under the title "The 5 Psychology of the Unconscious," many took it upon themselves either to explain what Jung meant by introversion and extra- 4Ibid., p. 97. 5C.G. Jung, Collected Papers on Analytical Psychology (New York: Moffat Yard and Company, 1917), p. v. version or to develop their own concepts of these personality types. For example, Freyd gave these definitions: Introvert: An individual in whom exists an exaggeration of the thought processes in relation to directly observable social behavior, with an accompanying tendency to withdraw from social con- tacts. Extrovert: An individual in whom exists a diminution of the thought processes in relation to directly observable social behavior, with an accom- panying tendency to make social contacts. MCDougall described them in this way: The well-marked extroverts are those whose emo- tions flow out easily into bodily expression, and action. They are the vivid, vivacious active persons who charm us by their ease and freedom of expression, their frankness, their quick sympathetic responses. They are little given to introspective brooding; they remain relatively ignorant of themselves, for they are essentially objective, they are interested dir- ectly and primarily in the outer world about them. When and if they break down under strain, their trouble takes on the hysteric type, the form of dis- sociations, paralyses, anesthesias, amnesias; in Spite of which they may remain cheerful, active, and interested in the world. The introvert, on the other hand, is slow and reserved in the expression of his emotions. He has difficulty in adequately expressing himself. His nervous and mental energies, instead of flowing out freely to meet and play upon the outer world, seem apt to turn inward, determining him to brood- ing, reflection, deliberation before action. And, when he is subject to strain, his energies are absorbed in internal conflicts; he becomes dead to the outer world, languid, absorbed, self-centered, and full of vague distress. 6Max Freyd, "Introverts and Extroverts," Psychological Review, XXXI (1924), pp. 74, 75. 7Wm. McDougall, Is America Safe for Democragy? (New York, 1921), p. 85. Allport made the following distinctions: The extroverted person is one whose mental images, thoughts, and problems find ready expres- sion in overt behavior. Mental conflicts trouble him but little, and he appears to have nothing to repress or to avoid. The introvert, on the other hand, dwells largely in a realm of imagina- tion, creating inwardly a more desirable ideal world rather than adjusting himself outwardly to the real one. He is not always a misfit, how- ever, for given sufficient ability, his internal or convert actions may be the vision of the poet or artist. On the whole he takes many things too personally, is anxious and self-searching, if not actually afraid of the repressions and conflicts which have not found a salutory neural outlet or resolution. Nicolls added this observation: The introvert type, in its most characteris- tic expression, is reserved, outwardly cold, guard- ed, watchful, and difficult to understand. Unlike the extrovert, who hides little, the introvert hides everything because he dreads the exposure of his emotions, because they are too raw and intense. They have not been worked up into useful feelings... He reveals himself only to his most intimate friends, and then only in part. He is thoroughly aware of his inner life, and is a keen and serious critic of himself. His tendencies lie in the direction of self-depreciation, which he often counter-balances by an outer air of self-appre- ciation. His approach to everything is critical and Suspicious..... Anxiety is a constant state of mind with him; he is anxious about the future and anxious about the present. Fear is the pre- dominant factor behind his psychology, and this causes him, when in a position 06 responsibility, to leave nothing to chance...... 8F.H. Allport and G.W. Allport, "Personality Traits: Their Classification and Measurement," Journal of Abnormal Psychology, XVI, (1921), p. 12. 9Maurice Nicoll, Dream Psychology, (London; H. Frowde, 1921), p. 147. () Following the descriptive phase mentioned above, the extraversion-introversion concept began to expand in many directions. It has been linked with physiological processes and morphology, with perceptual and cognitive behav- ior, with sociocultural phenomena, with physical and psychopathological disorders of one sort and another. Early attempts to demonstrate these relationships produced little in the way of definitive results; researchers began to doubt the validity of the con- struct, and in the early forties, it looked for a time as though extraversion-introversion had had its day. Like the proverbial bad penny, however, the construct has continued to turn up, notably in fac- tor analytic studies, and over the past decade it has gradually been reinstated as an important focus in personality research.10 Extensive factor analytic research on extraversion-intro- version has been conducted by H. J. Eysenck, who has served as. professor of psychology at the University of London and director of the Institute of Psychiatry at the Maudsley and Bethlem Royal HOSpitals in London, England. His work has been a prime factor in refocusing attention on the introversion-extraversion personality construct. Encoding Variables To Be Tested The variables listed below have been selected on the bases of certain hypothetical assumptions to be mentioned in the section entitled "Theoretical Hypothesis” later in this chapter. 10Patricia M. Carrigan, "Extraversion-Introversion as a Dimension of Personality: A Reappraisal." Psychological Bulletin, LVII, (September, 1960), p. 329. Because of the necessary limitations that must be placed upon a study of this nature, the writer has selected certain rhetorical encoding variables which can be operationally defined, and about which some theoretical assumptions relating to personality rea- sonably may be made. The question being raised is, "Will these rhetorical vari- ables be treated differently by introverts and extraverts?" The variables to be tested are: I. Invention A. Selection of Topic 1. Tough-minded selection 2. Tender-minded selection B. Use of Evidence 1. Documented 2. Non-documented C. Approach to Argument 1. One-sided approach 2. Two-sided approach D. Use of Analogy l. Analogy 2. No analogy E. Use of Narrative l. Narrative 2. No narrative F. Use of Humor 1. Humor 2. No humor II. Arrangement A. Nature of Introduction 1. Audience-centered 2. Non audience-centered B. Structural Clarity l. Cuing 2. NO cuing C. Nature of Conclusion 1. Summary 2. No summary Research Variables Defined I. Invention A. Topic Selecting: The topic of the Speech Speech and the point of implied or advocated in behind this observation included the subject of the view that the speaker either The rationale the speech. and the procedure used for handling it will be discussed in the section enti- tled "Theoretical Hypothesis." Use of Evidence: Three types of evidence are proposed by James McCroskey, these being labeled as first, second, and third order 11 data. First order da 11McCroskey, 92, cit. , Pl). ta would be a statement made by 93-97. Speaker without reference to outside sources. The speaker acts on the assumption that because the audi- ence is fully aware of the matter, he need give no reference to verify it. Second order data would also be a statement made by the Speaker without reference to outside sources; but, in this case, the assumption is that the credibility of the speaker is sufficient to give credence to the statement. Third order data would be a statement made by the Speaker, but supported with reference to a source or sources outside of the speaker. For the purpose of this study, evidence was noted which correSponded to McCroskey's third order data. It was referred to as documented evidence. For example: If the speaker said, "Sixty people died this morning in ' this would not be con- an airplane crash near Detroit,’ sidered documented evidence. But if he said, "This morning's State News relates the account of sixty peOple ' this was dying in an airplane crash near Detroit,‘ recorded as documented evidence. Approach to Aggument: The one-sided approach presents only the point of view of the Speaker without reference to the argument or arguments on the other side of the issue. In the two- sided approach the opposition point of view or argument 10 is also presented either in its entirety or in part. D. Use of Analogy: Reasoning by analogy is defined by Hance, Ralph and Wiksell as "the process of making a comparison between two cases that are similar in many rCSpects, then inferring that they are similar in further respects."12 An analogy may be literal or figurative. To say, ”As went the war in Korea so goes the war in Vietnam,” would be a literal analogy. An example of a figurative analog would be, "As a flower unfolds its petals to the beckon- ing rays of the sun, so the child's mind opened to the stimulating instruction of his tutor." This study did not attempt to distinguish types of analogy, only that the Speaker did or did not use analogy. Therefore, whether the analogy was literal or figurative was not recorded. E. Use of Narrative: The narrative consists of a set of real or fictional details usually arranged in chronological order and 13 used for clarifying or proving a point." It is 12Kenneth G. Hance, David C. Ralph, Milton J. Wiksell, Principles of Speakigg, 2nd ed. (Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1969), p. 101. 13Ibid., p. 92. 11 frequently used to obtain and sustain interest. Use of Humor: Webster defines humor as an ”expression . . . of ludicrous or absurdly incongrous elements in ideas, ‘ o . o _ "14 : Situations, happenings, or acts. This served to define humor in this Study. Use of Rhetorical Question: Rhetorical questions are questions presented to the audience by the Speaker but which require no oral answer. Their basic purpose is to provoke thought. II. Arrangement A. Nature of Introduction: The introduction is that part of the Speech that pre- cedes the main body of discourse and whose purpose it is to prepare the audience for the subject to be delivered. In preparing the audience for the subject, the speaker should keep two objectives in mind; (1) to prepare the audience emotionally to receive the Speech and the speaker, which is called developing l4 Merriam-Webster, Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Springfield, Mass: G. & C. Merriam Co., 1956) 15Hence, 92, cit., p. 284. 12 rapport; (2) to lead the audience into the intellectual development of the Speech. McBurney and Wrage consider the first objective the primary objective: ”The basic function of the introduction is to establish good Speak- ing relations with your listeners or with those you wish to enlist as listeners."1 In this study two approaches to the introduction were noted. The first was called the ”audience-centered approach." In this approach the Speaker attempted to develop some rapport with the audience through such methods as (a) the use of interest-arresting devices e.g. humor, narrative, rhetorical question, or a sensational, stimulating statement; (b) reference to the occasion that brings them together; (c) reference to some inter- est, need,or circumstance affecting the audience; or (d) reference to the speaker's own interests, needs, or qualifications with respect to the subject, occasion, or audience.17 The above methods for gaining rapport served to establish whether or not the speeches selected for this l6 ‘ James H. McBurney and Ernest J. Wrage, The Art of Good Speech (New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1953), p. 227. 17 The last three methods listed above are from McBurney and Wrage, p. 227. 13 study were audience-centered. The "non audience- centered approach," as defined by this study, is that introduction which leads into the subject with no attempt at establishing rapport. Structural Clarity: The designations used in this category were structural cuing, or no structural cuing. The question asked here regarding structural clarity was: Does the speaker use verbal cues that make his Structural units stand out bold and clear, or does he move from one point to the next without reference to the way in which he orders his ideas? This cuing might be done by a naming of the points to be covered in the speech at or near the beginning of the speech. It may also take the form of numbering, e.g. point number one, followed by point number two, etc., or first of all, secondly, etc. Or it could be done by naming, e.g. We'll talk, first of all about farm- ing . . ., now let's consider urban problems . . ., etc. No value judgment was made concerning the quality of the transitions or the arrangement of ideas. Obser- vation was restricted to whether or not the speaker cued the audience to his ordering of ideas in the ways mentioned above. 14 C. Nature of Conclusion: The function of a conclusion is to round out the thought or thoughts expressed and to bring the speech to an end. While there are numerous ways in which this may be done, for the purposes of this study, only the summary conclusion was considered. It was defined as: a reiteration of the main points or point delin- eated in the speech. If this was not done, the con- clusion was categorized as "no summary." Theoreticaljflypothesis The testing instrument selected for determining the extra- vert-introvert subjects whose Speeches were used in this Study was the Eysenck Personality Inventory. Eysenck described the typical extravert and introvert this way: The typical extravert is sociable, likes parties, has many friends, needs to have people to talk to, and does not like reading or studying by himself. He craves excitment, takes chances, often sticks his neck out, acts on the spur of the moment, and is generally an impulsive individual. He is fond of practical jokes, always has a ready answer, and generally likes change; he is carefree, easygoing, optimistic, and likes to "laugh and be merry". He prefers to keep moving and doing things, tends to be aggressive and lose his temper quickly; altogether his feelings are not kept under tight control, and he is not always a reli- able person. 15 The typical introvert is a quiet, retiring sort of person, introspective, fond of books rather than people; he is reserved and distant except to intimate friends. He tends to plan ahead, "looks before he leaps", and distrusts the impulse of the moment. He does not like excitment, takes matters of everyday life with proper seriousness, and likes a well-ordered mode of life. He keeps his feelings under close control, seldom behaves in an aggressive manner, and does not lose his temper easily. He is reliable, somewhat pessi- mistic, and places great value on ethical stan- dards.18 The author of this study based his predictions about encoding behavior upon the characteristics listed above and upon other relevant findings in Eysenck's works. The underlying assumption leading to most of the hypo- theses to follow is that the extravert, due to his interest in people and his greater experience in mixing with people, would be more inclined than the introvert to consider the interests and needs of his audience. Therefore, his message would be developed in a more audience-centered way than would the message of the introvert. The introvert, on the other hand, because he is reserved, distant, and intrOSpective, would be more subject-centered and source-centered than would the extravert. In other words, the basic hypothesis or the prediction made 18H.J. Eysenck and Sybil,B.G. Eysenck, Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory (San Dnago, California: Educa- tional and Industrial Testing Service, 1963), pp. 4, 5. 16 was that the essential differences of these two types of persons would lead to differences in the way each would encode a message. The following categories develop this basic hypoth- esis more specifically. I. Invention A. Topic Selection: H. J. Eysenck, along with others, made a study of social and political attitudes, which indicated that in many cases there is a personality basis contributing to the formation of attitudes of this nature. Results of certain studies along this line point to a correla- tion of "tough-minded" social attitudes with extra- version and ”tender-minded" social attitudes with introversion. The chart on the following page illus— trates the significance of this. As can be seen from this chart, which shows factor-analyzed groupings of attitudes on social subjects, the "tough-minded" personality type would have a predisposition toward certain social attitude formations, depending on whether he had radical ten- dencies. Likewise, the "tender-minded” personality type would have his peculiar set. In as much as a O C O 19 0 positive correlation does eXist between extraverSion- 19ibid., p. 386. 17 .mom .a ..ocH .mcom a heads aeoh xuow 302 .mmmamcomuom cuss: mo ououosuum pea .h .m xooomzmom mmmzomoziimmozw» _ -E<¢0<:0 SDI— - m3... Itcdeoz no 004013.» . «Zia! a!» a 0..., :00 oz- :06.de pr ‘04- 8 «DO-USUC «turbo «3-1.3.5 3.304 39.34) 2.5a Jd).>aanl mu.i....ju.uu.o 45.0.»11 fine «3310 44003. C592. w>O¢ 441054! a) .20 stadium? . Cawaoce 20.53.4129»! 34210 10.402 ImEmwsz 0201! CO b10_l U >1 _. 2...... sad . 1 JD 3. ¢u§ IUD: (On a 00 I00» «3!. 2020004 32.401— 10.. «30>: old... 4.de ITJOIC railwa «gamut. uJuOua x «we 0323b... _§ :23 20:4... 10 I 30020 - 3430.202. so: . 0 ¢ 10.h30). 20.53 3:3» _ :03. .. «(33100 E 3.22.3.0 50.3. :<¢0( Said: mzuwwmao mmeOwOZ. IIIUDOP 18 introversion and tough-mindedness-tender-mindedness, the writer was interested in seeing whether the tOpics chosen for speeches, along with the point of view of the speakers on those topics, followed the pattern suggested by the results of the study shown in the chart above. The question was: do extraverts tend to select subjects and advocate the point of view on subjects that a typically tough-minded person would? Likewise, would introverts tend to select subjects and advocate the point of view on subjects that a typically tender-minded person would? It was hypothe- sized that extraverts would select more tough-minded and less tender-minded topics than introverts, and that introverts would select more tender-minded and less tough-minded topics than extraverts. B. Use of Evidence: Personality tests show that the introvert tends to be troubled with inferiority feelings.21 This is another way of saying that he lacks confidence in himself. This lack of self-confidence is reflected in his tendency to underrate his performance.22 21H.J. Eysenck, Dimensions of Personality (London: Kogan Paul, 1947), p. 245. 22ibid. 19 Because of this personality tendency, it was predicted that the introvert would lean more heavily on docu- mented evidence than would the extravert. Due to his weak self-concept, the introvert would hesitate to rely too much on his own credibility and would there- fore, seek support for his remarks from other sources. The extravert, being the opposite personality type, has a strong self-concept which is reflected in his 23 It was predicted tendency to overrate his performance. that he would rely more heavily upon his own credi- bility, and therefore, utilize less documented evidence than the introvert. Approach to Argument: The introvert is pictured as a careful, orderly, ethical, bookish person, who lacks self-confidence. His lack of confidence in his ability to make sound decisions, plus his ethical, or fair-minded attitude,could lead him to employ the two-sided argument more often than would the extravert. On the other hand, the extravert might employ the two-sided argument using the opposition Side as a straw 23 Ibid. 20 man, e.g. presenting the opposition argument and then discrediting it. More often, however, the extravert would tend toward the one-Sided approach because of his high self-concept and his bold, aggressive manner. Due to the fact that there was a theoretical basis for using the two-sided approach by both personality types, no directional prediction was made for possible observed differences between personality types. Use of Analogy: Analogy is a type of reasoning that appeals to the imagination. It carries with it the additional qual- ities of impressiveness and persuasiveness. Speaking in regard to the figurative analogy, Baird remarked: "The more obviously figurative resemblances are chiefly explanatory, persuasive, or pleasurable."24 The literal analogy, though not as strong in the pleasurable qualities as is the figurative form, still possesses the qualities of explanation and persuasiveness. Be- cause the analogy is pleasurable and persuasive and because it appeals to the imagination, it would tend to be audience-centered in nature. Therefore, it was 4 A. Craig Baird, Rhetoric: A Philosophical Inguiry, (New York: The Ronald Press Go. 1955) p. 65. 21 predicted that the extravert would make greater use of this type of reasoning than would the introvert. Use of Narrative: The use of narrative is an effective way of holding attention and of illustrating a point. Because of this, it ranks high on the list of interest-arresting devices. In fact it has been placed first in one treatment of Materials of Experience.25 By virtue of the fact that it is attention-arresting, it becomes an audience-centered technique. This study hypothe- sized that the extravert would be more audience-centered than the introvert and, therefore, would be more gener- ous in the use of attention-arresting materials. The hypothesis here was that extraverts would make greater use of narratives than would introverts. Use of Humor: Because the extravert does appreciate jokes and the introvert does not appreciate jokes, except as they may be highly c0gnitive, the prediction was that extra- verts would use more humor in their speeches than would introverts. Humor is also considered attention-arresting; 25 Hance, Ralph, Wiksell, pp, cit., p. 111. 22 therefore, the same rationale applies here as with the use of narrative. Use of Rhetorical Question: The rhetorical question serves at least two functions: (1) to provoke thought, (2) and to arrest attention. These two functions make this device audience~centered in nature. Therefore, as with narrative and humor, it was predicted that rhetorical question would be more frequently used by the extravert than by the introvert. II. Arrangement A. Nature of Introduction: Because the introvert is described as an introspective individual, fond of books rather than people, it is assumed that he would know less about those things that interest people in general, and, also, be indif- ferent to what interests people. For this reason his introduction would tend to be non audience-centered. 0n the other hand, the extravert is sociable, likes people, has many friends, and, in general, is able to get people to like him. His interest in people would probably carry over to the speaking situation and lead him to a more audience-centered approach in develOping his introduction. Therefore, it was predicted that 23 extraverts would present more audience-centered intro- ductions than introverts. Structural Clarity: There was reason to believe that a difference could exist in the tendency on the part of one or the other personality types to use structural cuing. The intro- vert, being concerned with a well-ordered, neatly developed speech, might see cuing as a clear-cut way of setting forth his points. On the other hand the extravert might also utilize this technique only for a different reason. He might see it as a way to facilitate the audience's comprehension and retention of speech materials. Therefore, no directional hypoth- esis was made concerning structural clarity or cuing. Nature of the Conclusion: Under the "Nature of the Introduction", it was hypoth- esized that an introvert would be more subject-cen- tered and an extravert would be more audience-centered in their approaches to the audience with regard to speech arrangement. It was assumed that this tendency would pervade the entire Speech, including the con- clusion. It is believed by the writer that a summary conclusion is more content-oriented than audience- centered., Based upon this assumption, the prediction 24 was made that the introvert would use summary as a method of concluding his speech more often than the extravert, whereas the extravert would use non-summary conclusions more often than the introvert. CHAPTER 11 DESIGN FOR THE STUDY Subjects The subjects for this study were drawn primarily from the Communication (Public Speaking) 101 course taught during the Winter quarter of 1969, at Michigan State University. Some of the subjects, however, were drawn from a Speech (Public Speaking) 104 course taught at Lansing Community College during the same term. Because the structure of the 104 course and the text book for the course were the same as those for the 101 speech course at Michigan State University, there was no distinction made between the two groups of subjects. They were considered as having come from the same population. The subjects who were selected from these classes were chosen because they scored high or low on the Eysenck Person- ality Inventory. Fifty subjects were selected, 25 extraverts and 25 intro- verts. The subjects were drawn from those scoring l0 or below or 17 or above on the EPI. The low scorers were the introvert subjects, and the high scorers were the extravert subjects. There was a balance between sexes with 23 female subjects and 27 male subjects. 25 26 Content requirements for the spgeches used in this study: What a speech Student does in a Speech will to a large degree be determined by the requirements of the course. Listed below were the requirements for the speeches delivered by the subjects in this study. Speech Topic 1: Each student will prepare and deliver a speech offering direct support for a single point on a topic in the area of current events. He must be sure that his topic is a single point worthy of consideration, and capable of expansion and clarification. The point should be developed with materials which the student has recently read and heard. How, for instance, did you react to the latest military crisis? Why did you react in this way? After thinking about the general area you should synthesize your idea to a Single declarative sentence (purpose sentence). State it simply: ”The United Nations organization is going broke." After determining the purpose sentence, you should set about explaining why you reach this conclusion, calling on any materials that you feel are pertinent to the topic. This Speech is a three-part process: (a) State the point (purpose sentence) in the introduction. (b) Support and clarify the point. (c) Restate the point and conclude. Speech TOpic 11: Each student will carefully choose and limit a topic, according to the princi- ples and instructions in Chapter 8. He will collect his materials, recording them according to the instructions in Chapter 9. Then, following the deductive speaking plan described in Chapter 11, he will outline and organize his speech for pre- 2/ sentation. (See note) After considering organization, the student should establish evidence and reasoning as major concerns in this Speech. He should support the major points with "fact" and "Opinion” evidence-- such as examples, narratives, statistics, quota- tions, etc. So, state the purpose sentence; sup— port and clarify the points with evidence; and restate the point and conclude. The time limit for each speech was four minutes, and all speeches were to be delivered extemporaneously. The reading requirements were the same for all Speakers. However, some of the speakers were assigned to prepare their Speeches according to Topic I, and others according to Topic 11, while still others were to combine both t0pics. The topic assignments were distribu- ted between the introverts and the extraverts as indicated below: TABLE 1 The Distribution of Tepics I and 11 Among Subjects Extraverts Introverts Topic I 7 7 Topic II 12 11 Combined Tepics 6 7 Note: The chapters in Topic II were from Hance, Ralph, Wiksell. (See Chapter I.) The content included: Chapter 8-- How to Select and Adapt a Subject. Chapter 9--How to Collect Materials for a Speech. Chapter lO--How to Outline a Speech; and Chapter 11--How to Organize a Speech. Also included for reading with Topics I and II were: Chapter 5--Persona1 Proof, or the Ethos of the Speaker, and Chapter 6--The Materials used to Develop a Speech, e.g. reasoning, evidence, etc. 1Department of Communication, "Syllabus for Public Speaking 101" (Michigan State University, Prepared Fall, 1968), pp. 8, 9. 28 AS can be seen from the topic distribution above, the bal- ance of topic assignments between extravert and introvert sub- jects was so close as to rule out topic assignment as a confound- ing variable in this Study. Evaluation of the Testing Instrument: H. J. Eysenck in connection with his work in the area of per- sonality, developed a questionnaire designed to measure extraver- sion-introversion and neuroticism. This questionnaire was called the Maudsley Personality Inventory. The Eysenck Personality Inventory is basically the same as the MP1, with some improvements. The Maudsley Personality Inventory has been described and evaluated by Arthur R. Jensen, associate professor of educational psychology and associate research psychologist of the Institute of Human Learning at the University of California, Berkeley, California, as follows: The MP1 consists of 48 items, of which 24 are keyed to N (neurotocism) and 24 to E (extraversion- introversion). Unlike some personality inventories (e.g., the MMPI), none of the items could be con- strued as socially objectionable; thus the inven- tory can be used with adolescents or adults in al- most any setting. The MPI derives much of its importance from its theoretical underpinnings. Probably no other psycho- logical test--certainly no other personality inven- tory-~rivals it in psychological rationale. This is particularly true of the E dimension, which has been the subject of intensive experimental research in Eysenck's laboratory for more than a decade. 29 NORMS. A great deal of normative data are pre- sented, both for English and American subjects. The American manual presents American college norms (per- centiles and stanines based on 1,064 university under- graduates). Means and standard deviations are presented for 32 different groups, including various psychiatric, prison, and industrial populations, totaling over 7,000 subjects. . . . RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY. Split-half and Kuder- Richardson estimates of item intercorrelations for each scale are between .75 and .90 in various samples. . in short, the reliability of the MP1 is among the high- est to be found for personality inventories. The MP1 has also been studied for effects of various types of "response set." These seem to be negligible. Assessment of the validity of the MP1 is a com- plex matter. There can be little question of its factorial validity. That is to say, the N and E scales invariably have high loadings on factors that are also heavily represented in other measures considered to be indicative of neuroticism or extraversion, and there is little factorial overlap between the scales. . . . Descriptive validity of the MPI has been adequately established by the method of nominated groups. Judges rated people on the basis of observable characteris- tics in terms of neuroticism and extraversion. These ratings show highly Significant correlations with the relevant dimensions measured by the MPI. In summary, the MP1 is a brief and highly reliable measure of two relatively independent broad factors of personality-~neuroticism and extraversion- introversion. Much sophisticated research has gone into its construction, and the large body of norma- tive data, plus the psychological theory and experi- mentation associated with the MPI, make it one of the most important of all personality inventories. . . . The American edition of a new version of the MPI, called the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI), has been published by the American publisher of the MP1. The EPI is described in a preliminary edition 30 of the manual (August, 1963) as an attempt to make the MPI scales more useful for certain purposes. The EPI measures the same two factors as the MPI, but the slight correlation that exists between N and E in the MPI scales has been removed entirely, by adding, and subtracting, and rewriting items and subjecting them to repeated factor analyses. Also, many of the items have been reworded in such a way as to increase their reliability when used with subjects of low intelligence or little educa- tion. . . .2 The Eysenck Personality Inventory: The EPI is composed of 57 items instead of the 48 items found in the MPI. The additional nine items are "lie" items, to be explained below. The EPI, which requires a "yes" or "no" answer for each item, contains questions like the following: "Would you be very unhappy if you could not see lots of peOple most of the time?" and, "Would you say you were fairly self-confident?" The test has three rating scales--Extraversion, Neuroticism, and a lie scale. The lie scale items were included to help the tester to know how truthfully the subject was responding to the questions. Twenty-four of these items measure extraversion (E)., 24 items measure neuroticism (N), and nine items measure lie (L). For the purpose of this study, any subject who scored five or higher on the lie scale was not used. 2Oscar Krisen Buros (ed.), The Sixth Mental Measure- ments Yearbook (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1965), pp. 136-139. 31 While subjects were scored on neuroticism, these scores were used merely to determine if there was a correlation between either E or I and neurotisism. The Table below shows that the neuroti- cism factor was balanced between the E and I subjects. TABLE 2 The Distribution of Subjects on the Neuroticism Scale above 12 12 and below Extroverts 10 15 Introverts 11 14 The mean for the group of selected subjects was 12. Above this mean were 10 extraverts and 11 introverts. Below this mean were 15 extraverts and 14 introverts. Therefore, there was no significant difference between groups with regard to neuroticism. The Extraversion Scale: The E scale, which is used in this Study to select subjects, provides for a score from 1 to 24. The EPI norms based on 1,931 adult, normal, English subjects published in the EPI manual Show the 50th percentile to fall at 14, with 10 being at the 18th per- centile and 17 being at the 79th percentile. Within the basic speech course population, initial testing was done on 144 students. The results approximated a normal curve with twenty-three stu- dents scoring nine or lower and twenty-five students scoring 17 or greater. The two extreme groups fell approximately one Standard deviation from the mean. 32 Method of Control: All of the speeches were recorded while the Speakers were delivering them before their respective classes. The recorded Speeches were then numbered and keyed for identification. Care was taken to remove personal identification from the recordings so that the Speakers were not identified on the taped speeches themselves. No effort was made to separate personality types. The order in which the speakers were taped became essentially the order in which they were found on the recorded tapes. Four 5-inch tapes were used. Speeches were recorded on both sides of the tapes. The use of several tapes made it possible to shuffle further the 50 speeches so that speaker identification was not obvious. This care prevented the evaluator from as- sociating a speaker with the speaker's tested personality type; which, in turn, lessened the chance that knowledge about a speaker's personality type could influence the evaluator in his analysis of a speech. As a type of reliability test, a speech instructor was asked to select randomly five speeches from among the 50 and analyze them. He independently analyzed these Speeches using the criteria found in the section of this study entitled "Operational Definitions." The results were: 0f the total of 50 items analyzed in the five Speeches, the coders agreed on 47, an agreement of 94 percent. 33 Method of Analysis: The form shown on page 34 was used in recording the analysis of the 10 items observed in each Speech. The items recorded were then tallied on the tally sheets found in Appendix A. Extravert results were recorded on one form, and introvert results were recorded on a second form. The columns were then totaled, and a chi square test was computed for each item. Directional tests were computed on these items for which there was a directional prediction, and two-tailed tests were computed on the remaining items. The results were then recorded and are found in Chapter III. To illustrate the type of observations made by the evalu- ator, two Speeches selected from among those used in the study have been transcribed and are included in Appendix B of this thesis with accompanying comments. 34 PROJECT ANALYSIS FORM INVENTION Topic Tough-M. Tender—M. Use of evidence Document No D. Approach to argument One-S Two-S Use of analogy Analogy No A. Use of narrative Narrative No N. Use of humor _ Humor No H. L Use of rhetorical question R. Q. No R. Q. ARRANGEMENT Introduction Audience-C. Non A-C. Structural clarity Cue No Cue Nature of conclusion Summary, No S. CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE STUDY I. Invention A. Selection of Topic: Based on the results of certain studies carried out by H. J. Eysenck and his colleagues, which Showed a positive correlation between tough-minded social attitudes and extraversion and tender-minded social attitudes and introversion, this study classified Speech topics selected by the subjects as tough-minded or tender- minded and then computed chi-square test on the findings to see if there was a difference. The chart on page 17 served to provide a guide for this classification. All the speeches but one were classifiable based on this chart. The hypothesis was confirmed ( p < .05, See Table 3). 0f the 50 topics analyzed, 13 extraverts chose tough-minded topics, whereas only 6 introverts chose tough-minded topics. On the other hand, 12 extraverts chose tender-minded subjects, and 18 introverts chose tender-minded topics. As was previously stated, one introvert topic was non-classifiable. 35 36 TABLE 3 Results on Selection of Topic Tough-minded Tender-minded Extroverts 13 12 Introverts 6 18 x2 = 3.76, p < .05 Use of Evidence: This category, use of evidence, was developed to measure the use of documented evidence as opposed to the non-use of documented evidence. There was a psychological basis for evaluating extraverts and introverts with regard to this variable. Personality tests reveal that introverts lack self-confidence and tend to underrate their perfor- mance, whereas extraverts have a strong self-concept and tend to overrate their performance. Because of the introvert's lack of confidence in himself, it was pre- dicted that he would tend to rely more heavily on support from others in the development of his points and thus would be inclined to use more documented materials in his speech. The extravert, however, having the Opposite attitude, that of self-confidence, would be inclined to Speak with more personal authority and would rely less heavily on support from others in developing his speech. Therefore, 37 the extravert would use less documented materials. Though the results of this study were not confirmed at the .05 level, a trend in the predicted direction was observed (p < .15, see Table 4). There were 19 extraverts who documented the evidence in their speeches once or more, whereas, six extraverts used no documentation. With regard to the introverts, 22 documented their Speeches once or more, while only three used no documentation. TABLE 4 Results on Use of Evidence Documented Non-documented Evidence Evidence Extroverts l9 6 Introverts 22 3 x2 = 1.22, p <.1s Approach to Argument: A two-tailed test was used in analyzing the results in this category because there were different reasons for predicting why each might use the two-Sided approach in message encoding. The introvert, because of his tendency toward ethical behavior and fair-minded- ness, might see this as the fair way to present a point of view. On the other hand, the extravert could see it 38 as a technique for persuasive purposes. By presenting the other side of the question, the extravert could be able to point out the weaknesses of this other side and Show the positive advantages of his position. The results indicated no significant difference at the .05 level, using a two-tailed test; however, the observed trend indicated that extraverts may tend to use the one-Sided approach more frequently, whereas introverts may tend to use the two-sided approach more frequently (p < .20, see Table 5). The criterion was used for determining whether the Speaker used a one-sided or two-sided approach to his message: If any reference was made to the opposite point of view, this would be considered a two-Sided approach; otherwise, the speech would be considered one-sided. Ten introverts used the one-sided approach, and 15 extraverts used this approach. With the two-sided approach the results were just the reverse; 15 introverts using the two-sided approach, and 10 extraverts using this same approach. Use of Analogy: Because the type of reasoning called analogy appeals to the imagination, is persuasive and pleasurable, it was 39 TABLE 5 Results on Approach to Argument One-Sided Two-Sided Approach to Argument Approach to Argument Extraverts 15 10 Introverts 10 15 x2 = 2.00 p < .20 Ind classified as being audience-centered in nature. The j primary hypothesis for this Study was that extraverts i. would tend to employ audience-centered materials more often than would introverts, because extraverts tend to be more interested in people than are introverts. Therefore, the prediction regarding analogy was dir- ectional; that is, that extraverts would tend to use analogy significantly more often than would introverts. The hypothesis was not confirmed. The distinction was made between those who used analogy at all, and those who didn't use analogy. So if a speaker used analogy, this was recorded in the cell labeled "Analogy." The use of analogy more than once by the same speaker would not increase the total; it would still count as one subject using analogy. Five introverts and seven extraverts used analogy. Twenty introverts and 18 extraverts used no analogy in their Speeches. 40 TABLE 6 Results on Use of Analogy Analogy No Analogy Extraverts 7 18 Introverts 5 20 x2 = 0.44 p< .50 Use of Narrative: It was hypothesized that extraverts would use narrative more freely than would introverts because the narrative is an attention-arresting material of public speaking. In other words, it is an effective way of holding attention and of illustrating a point; qualities which make it audience-centered in nature. Though the results were not confirmed at the .05 level, a trend in the predicted direction was observed (p. < .10, see Table 7). The results were evaluated in terms of use of narrative in the Speech, more than once, or once or none. In other words, if narrative was used only once in the Speech, it would be put in the cell labeled "once or none." If it was used more than once, it would be recorded in the cell labeled "more than once." There were two introverts who used narrative more than once in their speeches, whereas there were six extraverts who used this Speech element more than once. 41 This left.LL$ hltroverts that.1numiln1rratlve rnnx‘twr none, as opposed to 19 extraverts that used it once or none. TABLE 7 Results on Use of Narrative Narrative Narrative More than Once Once or None Extravert 6 19 Introvert 2 23 x2 = 2.38J p < .10 F. Use of Humor: There was a directional prediction made with regard to the use of humor. Eysenck, in his description of the two personality types, described the extravert as one who appreciates humor. Based upon this description, the hypothesis was made that an extravert would use humor more often in public Speaking than would the introvert. An additional reason for making this prediction was that humor is an attention-arresting material of public speaking, which, according to the basic hypothesis of this study, would mean that the extravert would be more disposed to the use of this device than would the intro- vert. The hypothesis was not confirmed. Three extra- verts and three introverts used humor in their Speeches 42 at least once, whereas, 22 extraverts and 22 introverts failed to use it at all. TABLE 8 Use of Humor Results Humor No Humor Extravert 3 22 Introvert 3 22 x2 = 0.00 Use of Rhetorical Question: The use of rhetorical question is a public Speaking technique used to gain attention and to stimulate thought with regard to the point having been made, being made, or that is about to be made by the Speaker. The hypothesis was that extraverts would tend to use this technique more often than introverts be- cause it is attention-arresting and, therefore, audience- centered in nature. The hypothesis was confirmed (p < .05, see Table 9). The cell labels used for this evaluation were "more than one" and ”one or none.” With this distinction being made, the results were: ten extraverts used rhetorical question more than once, whereas only four introverts used it more than once; 15 extraverts used it once or none, to the 21 introverts who used it once 01‘ none . 43 TABLE 9 Use of Rhetorical Question More than One One or No Rhetorical Question Rhetorical Question Extraverts 10 15 Introverts 4 21 X = 3.57J p < .05 II. Arrangement A. Nature of Introduction: The nature of the introduction, as has been classified in this study, is either audience-centered or non audience-centered. The audience-centered introduction (further defined in the Operational Definitions Section of Chapter I) has a prime objective to develop rapport with the audience as an adjunct to leading the audience into the subject. The non audience-centered intro- duction neglects this audience-conditioning approach and gets right into the subject matter. The natural prediction in this category is that the extravert, being more tuned-in to people and their feelings, would be more inclined than the introvert toward the use of an audience-centered approach. The introvert, being more bookish and less tuned-in to people, would, more often than the extravert, use the non audience-centered approach. The hypothesis was confirmed (p <:.Ol, see Table 10). 44 'Thc) eictiuivcrrtr; enn)1t5’i1n: tlle .IutlitniCt‘-etuitt're