ll ill/ll!!! lllll/II/Il I! W W Ill/Ill!!!

3 1293 00005 9786

 

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
MSU RTace in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
.—:——. your record. FI___N__ES wiH
be charged if book is

returned after the date
stamped below.

 

A: J.-
wu-
1;:

awf;

I
33.?
~

g:

C“?
1

19;; k

 

 

 

 

 

Acceptefi by the faculty of the Department
Coumunication, Collefe of Communication Arts,3 Wic i_an
State University, in partial fulfillnp ent of the reouirencnts

A

for the Doctor of PrilOSOphy defree.

 

Director of Thes

Chddance Committee: 67L5%AK97(:;j7Z§€A// Chairman
7/4 n/(Mz’ [(1%)

--—.~.--.. . _.-—..—.‘-.._—..._——

’ . - . 4.4 11. .71? .
/ {if/$110"

“M.-—-v~. -.

 
 
 
 

 

"Tl

Cffj‘jgnrlnv OF‘ 171-; 71L _.1 3 07.8 )f‘ {.3311 *HI‘DH‘MTC”

nc‘o 'r (1" 13h? v’V‘ r1 1.11.1“ oxvrrfirwl—vl(
"\Cij -./L \) Lf’r‘.:n‘\5J ’3 CU u[-Ii\1kl.J \.\‘.. L.-I.L-.J .s)

1- . , f.‘
a? nearence a. 5'3?“ au_u

C 1". Ir 1 v» 1 .fi . r‘ C ‘ I ‘ . \ A l‘r- r1~~ 1 .
seenin_ more precise HEHQUXCQ 0, source evaltaticu *or CthULlCQ“

._)

tion research and practice, Berle, Lemert and Vertz developed a set of

.I-1 .I‘.‘ ‘. _. - ' .. :

Loan 60 aercent oi tne total variance in sou CG evaluations.

T! was an attempt to invcstifiate the feneraiitv or

‘tl' co ‘.‘ ,n° fl... t1‘; r371 thorn '3’" 14-11 1 rvvx 11 '1 ‘1 4‘ can i- "Flo
nose GlflEKplOLo to o 1- 1 e cu LULC o as and LO s2” lw otocr
di.men n81ons shoul1 ee conSiverel.

A :ene ral 3no othesis derived -rom Oscood's refiiation I“mot .esi

If)

["11 '

was: Lne greater the similarity and the laraer the number of stimuli
to which two or more "rorns of persons Have been exposed, tie nore
similar will b; the dimensions of ne ininc develoned 531d used by those

groups. Evaluations of sources were taken as meanings receivers have

H1
0
’5
U)
0
C
*5
O
(D
0')
Q}
U)
C)
['1'
Po
1
1:.
H.

I.

The main dependent variables were: (1) the similarity or factor
structures, and (2) the discriminatinj power of ter"s used in evaluat -ini
sources. The indenendent variables were lanjuafie of resyonse, lanfiuafe/

cultural comrunity of respondents and exposure to LSn trainin".

Respondents were drawn from four nonulations: (l) )ilin”ual I)O-

1:
*5
14-
<1;
:3
m

U
A
Z )
v
\f
14o
}.-J
14-
'3

- 1
1':
:1
}_I

lunclis h livcrians, (2) bilindual Yoruba—Enrlish Xiq‘

_)

T - ~ 1 T" C" - ~ - ~- 1
.Ja'KJI’QIICG 4.4 . UL..0;JaL 1‘.

.

Portueuese—Englisn Brasilians, and (u) a non—Lnjlish sneaxinv popula-

tion of drasilians. ‘alf o; the “ilincuals were randomly assitned to
respond in Rn‘lish, the other half to respond in mother tonfue. For

each language/cultural eroup, there was a sample of persons who had

been in the USA six months or lonter for technical traininig and a sam—

lar in occupation and social status, who had not been to the

1-1-

ple, sin
USA for trainine.

Data were scores from two Q—sorts of 66 terms by each espondent,
the terms obtained by a modified free association technique and from
previous work. The terms were sorted into nine ranks from most to least

descriptive of two persons in the resnonlent 3 fi ld of work; the first,

he considered the ”worst'1 source.

L)
U)
D)
1.4
1...:

Two dimensions of source evaluation, clearly defined acro-
laneuage/cultural groups, may be labeled ”trust” and ”qualification".
Three other less clearly defined structures may be labeled "friendly-
sympathetic", ”dgnamism,” and ”organized—clear.” Five to seven factors
were required to account for 50 to 60 percent of the variance, factors
six and seven being less clearly defined across groups than the others.

Comparison of factor structures indicated that groups which had
been to the USA for training and reSponded in the same lanjuade, Enslish
in this case, produced more similar factor structures than eroups which
had not been to the USA and responded in different laneuaees, each in
their mother tongue. There also were statistically sidnificant differ-
ences in discriminatint power of the 56 terms as measured by differ-

ences in mean scores for best and for worst source sorts. uifferences

in discriminatin: power amon~ liniuaue/cultural sroups were consistent

Lawrence T . Earls-aufh
Witn tee general hypotneSis. CPOU?S PCSQODdlnT in Portunuese were sim-

ilar in discriminatinfi power of ter:

”a

s to other groups respondinfi in
Portuguese; but the croups responding in Portuguese were sifinifiieantly
different from groups respondin: in Ibo or Yoruba.

A set of scales selected from the 86 terms used in the Q—sort was
recommended for future use in source evaluation. The selection was
based on those which discriminated west stronjly between best arrl worst
sources, described clearly defined factor structures, and had the high:
est average negative correlations between members of presumed bipolar

pairs of terms.

GLEERALITY OF TLE DIALJSIONS OF SOURCE nVALUATIOH

ACROSS LARGUAGL/CLHHWLQXL SYSTLUS

V ,

["1
NY
Ah

‘arbaujh

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPRY

Department of Conmunication

1967

C)

/J{:'),’L/’5

7/

PREFACE

This paper is div HI ed into five main sections. Part I contains a
background statement, a statement of the problem with supporting evi-
ience from past research and writings, and a rationale for the study.
Tile literature review has been incorporated wne re it seemed most appro-
priate as supporting the background, problem statement or develo~ ent
of rationale.

Part II outlines the methodology, again with some supportine state—

ments from previous research where these scene app‘opriate to support

H

Part III contains the findings judged most relevant to tests of th;
hypotheses stated in the rationale section. It first Cives a resume of
the factor structures obtained. This is followed by data on the coeffi-
cients of similarity computed for selected comparisons anon: the
structures and the cata showing the discriminating power of the vario‘s
scales.

Part IV is the summary of tne findin:s and some statements rasardin;
the ir. plies itions f the findings for connunicators.

Part V is the ap pa ndix. It ccnta ins detail ed tables of the factor
loadings and the discriminating power of th e teris, word lists usei for
scale selection, a record of translations and back—translation, instruc-

tions to respondents and field stiff, and a tabl; showin: selected char-

acteristics of the samples of resnondents.

[—10
Ho

li'l

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER Page

(3

 

I BACKGROUND, PROBLEM, AND RATIONALE
A. Background
Importance of source evaluation as a
study area . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Work which stimulated the questions being
studied . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
B. The Problem
1. Preliminary statement and variables . . . 7
2. The problem in relation to past research
and writing . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Generality of dimensions of source
evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 12
a. Evidence for common dimensions . . . 12
b. Evidence questioning the extent of
common dimensions . . . . . . 16
c. Evidence for unique meanings . . . 19
d. Comparison of the Osgood and the
Sapir-Whorf positions . . . . . 20
e. Need for special scales for source
evaluation . . . . . . . . . 22
C. Rationale
1. Some basic assumptions . . . . . . . . 24
2. A theoretic model . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Application of the model of source
evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . 28
H. Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
a. General hypothesis . . . . . . . 3a
b. Empirical hypotheses . . . . . . 39

II METHODOLOGY
A. The design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #7
B. Sampling
1. Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . #9
2. Terms used to describe sources . . . . . su
C. Procedures
1. Translation . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2. Instrument preparation . . . . . . . . 62
3. Test administration . . . . . . . . . 63
u. Pretest of the instrument . . . . . . . 63
D. The Analysis
1. Factor analysis . . . . . . . . . . 65
. Comparison of factor structures . . . . . 67
. Discriminating power of Q-items . . . . . 70

. Polarity of terms . . . . . . . . . 7l
. Final selection of scales . . . . . . . 71

cas'u)'0

lll

Page

III RESULTS
A. Factor Structures
1. Some general information about the factor

rotations . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2. Nature of the factors . . . . . . . . 7n
3. Synthesis of the factor structures . . . 86
u. Comparison of factor structures . . . . 91
a. Data used . . . . . . . . . 91

b. Tests of hypotheses 1-5 . . . . . 9n
5. Discriminating power of terms . . . . . 10%
6. Negative correlations between presumed bipolar

pairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
7. Scales recommended for future work . . . 115

IV DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
A. Factor Structures . . . . . . . . . . . 116
B. Hypothesized Relationships
1. Comparison of factor structures . . . . 118
2. Discriminating power of terms . . . . . 120
3. Bipolarity of responses . . . . . . . 121
C. Implications
1. For source evaluation by communicators . . 121
2. For future research . . . . . . . . 122

V REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l2u

VI APPENDICES

A - Instructions to Respondents and Staff . . . . 128
B - Characteristics of Sample . . . . . . . . 135
C - Terms People Used to Describe Sources . . . . in?
D - Terms Used for Q-Sorts and Back-Translations

of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
E - Factor Matrices for Each Cell in Design . . . . 153
F - Differences Between Mean Scores for Best and

Worst Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
G - Correlations Between Presumed Bipolar Pairs . . 204
H - Coefficients of Similarity . . . . . . . . 206
I - Preportion of Variance Extracted by Rotations . .. 211

iv

- Y“

"1" I": .-
lllLJUA-U

13

la

15

16

17

18

19

2O

21

22

23

2M

25

26

27

LIST OF TAZLES

kLmber of Completed Tests oy Groups . . . . . . . . . .

Factor Structures with Descri.p tion of Factors by Grouns

w.
H-

Distribution of Coefficients of S

m larity, Random Data
Distribution of Coefficients of Similarity, Respondents'
Data: 0 O O O C O O C C O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0

Average Coefficients of Similarity for Four Lan3ua3e of
ReSponse and Exposure Combinations . . . . . . . . .

Factor Pairs i-Hee tin Lower Limit of Best Fit, Ibo and
Yoruba Compared w1ith Monolin3ual Portuguese . . . . .

Alg3regate1 ieasures of Similarity Comparin3 Ibo, Yoruba,
and Portusuese Group; 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A3,re3ate Measures of Similarity Comparing English
ReSponse with Mother Ton3ue Response, All with USA
Trail-lint: . 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O O 0

Number of Factors Heetin: Lower Limit Criterion for
En31ish Response and Idotrler Ton3ue Response Groups .

Aggregate Measures of Similarity Comp arin3 En3lish
Response with Moth er Ton3ue Pespons c with and without

USA“ Tlfiainini; O O O O O I O O O O O O O I O C O O O O

A33re3ate Measures of Similarity Comparin3 USA Trainin3

with No USA Training for English Response and Mother
Tongue Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Aggregate Measure of Similarity for Random Data . . . .
Analysis of Variance of Discriminatin3 Power of Terms .

Differences Between Mean Differences of zest and Worst

Source Q—sorts by Pairs of Lancua3e/Cu1tura Groups for

One Source Evaluation Term . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Avera3e of Hean Differences Between Q—sorts of Best

Source and Worst Source Across Eleven Laniua3e/Cu1tura

Groups I O . . C O O O C O O O O O O O O C O O O O 0
Age Level of Respondent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Years of Schoolin3 Completed by Respondents . . . . . .

neli3ious Affiliation of Respondents . . . . . . . . .

.1

98

101

I...
13
IO

111

(D

TABLE

29 Occupational Class of Respondents . . .
30 Exposure of Respondents to USA Training .
31 Involvement of Respondents in Formal Organizations

32 Language Facility of Respondents

33-5” Factor Matrices for Each of 22 Data Sets, Listing
Factors, Factor Loadings, and Factor Purity Scores
55 Differences Between Mean Scores of Best and Worst
Source Q-Sorts for the 66 Terms . . . .
56 Correlations Between Presumed Bipolar Pairs . . .
57-61 Coefficients of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/
Cultural Groups . . . . . . . . .
62 Percent of Variance Extracted by Rotations .

vi

Page
1H2
1H3
141+

145

158

202

204

206

211

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES Page
1 Application of Mediation Paradigm to Source
Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2 Combinations of Values of Variables and Predicted
Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3 Terms Which Discriminated Most Strongly . . . . . 107
4 Basis for Ranking Countries by Technological

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

5 Q-Sort Items Given Respondents in the Four Languages
used 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1.51

6 Back-translations of the 66 Terms . . . . . . . 155

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In systems terminology, a product is the result of the interaction
of all the elements within a system. This applies to a thesis, as well
as to outputs of other systems. The work required for completion of
this thesis involved the interaction of many elements, especially the
generous help of many peOple. I shall try to list a few of those whose
help was most apparent, recognizing that I will be omitting many who
had some effect.

First, I want to thank my guidance committee -- David K. Berlo,
Hideya Kumata, Erwin P. Bettinghaus and Mason E. Miller -- for their
help in framing the research design and for theircounselregarding
the field work and analysis. I also should include Malcolm MacLean, Jr.
in this list. Although Dr. MacLean had moved to Iowa University and
did not continue on the guidance committee officially, he continued
to offer suggestions regarding the work.

Charles F. Wrigley, Director, Computer Institute for Social
Science Research; and Albert Talbott, Technical Research Adviser in the
Department of Communication, challenged my approach to the statistical
problems arising and offered valuable suggestions for handling these
problems. Verling C. Troldahl, also helped me think through solutions
to some of the data analysis problems.

Two groups of graduate students helped with the mountainous set of
details of instrument preparation, test administration, and data tabu-
lation and analysis. Helping with the instrument preparation and data

collection were: Richard Joyce, John Powell, Roger Haney, John Winterton

viii

and Eduardo Ramos. Assisting with the data tabulation and analysis
were: Cedric Clark, Meni Jain, David Reatty and Miss Am] Tina.

MSU staff in Nigeria and Brazil -— Cordon Whitin3 and uilliim A.
Merzog in Brazil, and Gerald D. Hursh and Arthur Miehoff in I
provided a crucial service in mana3in3 the data collection in those
countries. They patiently coped with the problems of workin3 this
task into an already crowded schedule.

The Agency for International Development and other COOperatin3
Government Agencies were most helpful in locating and securin3 the

cooperation of international visitors to provide the needed data. Sev—

U

elped administer the test materi—

:Jl

eral colleagues at other universities
als to Nigerian and Brazilian students located in their area. Among
these were: William Frank, Donald Darnell, Terry Welden, J. K. McDermott,
Luis Fonseca, Robert Bostrom, Don Wells, Richard Budd, Philip Tichenor,
John Thurber, Thomas Kilsen, Robert Jarnagin, Robert anhretson.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to more than MOO Nifierians and Bra—
zilians who spent about two ho rs each in completing the Q—sorts to
provide the data for this study.

Finally, I must thank my wife and children for their support and

patience throughout this work.

CHAP‘ER I
BACKGROUND, PROBLEM, LITERATURE REVIEW

AND RATIOMALE

A. Background

A broad objective of communication research and practice is to in-
crease the ability to predict reSponses of those to whom messages are
transmitted. Planners and observers of communication events, as well as
sources of messages, are concerned with these predictions. Evidence of
the magnitude of this concern is the millions of dollars spent by adver—
tisers to find what effect a given advertisement had and what can be
done to sell more of product ”X”, whatever ”X” may be.

On a somewhat less grandiose scale, several analogous questions are
posed in organizations: Who can say what to the workers to get them to
reduce waste of materials or increase output? What will be the effect
if A rather than B talks to them? Should he talk to them one at a time
or as a group? Should he talk to them in the work area, in the confer-
ence room, in his office or ??? What should he say?

These questions may be grouped into three categories of stimulus
elements that are present in every communication situation —- the source
of the message, i.e., ”who says it”; the message code and content; and

the social and physical situation in which the message is transmitted.

f'.‘ x-- r- , V“ r 0‘ > L" -€-‘~ \-‘ 1 - ~ Av r "r‘ J“ .
llle p agent :1 tKL-:"‘l, J-O‘~JLl-.‘C;) C’n OLE ‘,!. LLICJSQ 5-L’L. 1.1.1th.) 9 L11: SORJIAWJS o 'A. v I,

study is based on the irrattttion tnst .'A: se"s it‘ makes 1 cii Licnca It
the way recei er; respond to L6533’35. Chara seems to Le widesp"eas belief
in this as ~tion. :ciolnzs h v: (isc.ssc1 1 under so -gal n:.:in a.
.Tne neacin s CML so c of tHQJH usin t1- vn ious ne3tb1.)cntx et1cs of
s§eager (Andersen 6 CleVen'er "u? (rv lJEB 'cCros<qy, lieu); ‘rusti e 01
source (Um: rif, 133a; Lorre, 1833; Asch, lSUB; Lionber3er, 1339); credibil—

ity or source (fiovland, ct al., 1953; Lerlo, Lemert and hertz, ISLc); and
1dual (Turner, 1955; Star, et al., 1958; Siefiel 6 Siefiel,
1957; Raven, 1959. Mewcomb, 195s, Iaccobv, et a1., 1961; hartlev, 1960).
Each of us can think of persons whose statements, written or spoken,
we tend to accept without cuestion. he also can think of nei sons whose

statements we accept only after extensive and careiul CupC'll . But w

'10

don't need to rely on our own re lections to support the assumption. 2x—
perimental situations also have been used to demonstrate the effect. Ander—
sen and Clevenger (1963) reviewed several studies of this type, includin”
those by hovland, et al., (19'3) and haiman (lUHS).
Asch (1946) que tioned whether the sou: ce and :essage e11ects can be
separated, but did not deny that the source has an effect on the reSponSe.
If we accept the assumption that “who save it“ makes a e1‘ierence in
the receivers’ responses, we are still faced with the cuestion of what
kinds of evaluations of source produce what kinds of effects. before we
can answer that question, we have to have some evaluations of sources
and some understanding of the criteria people use in judging sources.
Hovland and haiman used sources whom most persons would agree were
cuite different in the way receivers would judfe them. haiman used the

U. S. Surgeon General, an anonymous Northwestern University SOphom re, and

the secretary-general of the communist party Speaking on a health tOpic.
Hovland used a probate court judge, a person with a criminal record, and
a layman chosen from the audience to talk on handling juvenile delinquency.
In the two situations the Surgeon-General and the Judge produced more atti—
tude change among the receivers of the messages than did the other sources.

Movland discusses two criteria of judgment -- perceived expertness and
perceived trustworthiness. Maiman got ratings from the receivers on the
perceived competence, fairmindedness, sincerity, physical appearance, con—
ceit and likableness of the source. While these criteria for evaluating
sources may be helpful, they lack the precision needed if we are to use
source evaluations to help us predict communication effects. Some means is
needed that will provide reasonably precise measures of receivers' evalua-
tions of sources with some indications of the components of the evaluations
and the extent to which these components are independent.

Berlo, Lemert and Mertz (1966)1 have been deveIOping such an instru-
ment. Two factor analytic studies have been conducted. A preliminary
study, with Michigan State University students and students' wives, was
conducted without hypotheses as to the nature and number of evaluative di-
mensions. A second study, based on hypotheses drawn from the first study,
was conducted with a sample of the adult pOpulation of Lansing, hichigan.

Taking the measurement of source evaluation as similar to the general
measurement of connotative meaning, Berlo et al. chose an analogue to the
procedures followed by Osgood et a1. (1957) in constructing the semantic
differential.

Following the logic and method of Osgood et al. in constructing the

dimensions of connotative meaning, Eerlo et a1. obtained a set of polar

 

1 This work will be reviewed at some length here since it is not yet

published.

adjectival pairs consideiee relevant to evaluating sources 0‘

messages.
They obtained most of thes; bv interviewinf a sample of residents of Lan-

sing, Mich. The instructions were:

Think of a person (or organization) about whom you are likely
to say, ”If it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

H

Think of a person (or organization) about whom you would be
likely to say, “If he says something is so, or says it is
good, I would tend to doubt the statement.”

For each source which the lespondent identified, he was as
cribe at some length the qualities which made the source acceptable or
unacceptable as a source of messages.

From the interviews and a review of the literature, Berlo, Lemert
and Hertz constructed a set of 128 pairs of polar adjectives which had
been frequently used to describe highly acceptable or highlv unacceptable
sources. To accommodate to the capacity of'szeledxmmic computer, the
number was reduced to 83 pairs by asking six faculty judges to group the
scales on the basis of judged synonymity in meaning. When two or more
scales were judged as highly similar by five or more of the judges, the
more easily understood scales were retained. “More easily understood”
was based on frequency of occurrence in the Thorndike-Lorge word count
list (lguu).

In the preliminary studj, 91 Michigan State University students and
students' wives evaluated each of 18 sources on each of the 83 scales.
Scales were reversed randomly and pages were ordered randomly within sets.

The 18 were selected to represent four categories of sources:

1. Public source, no context -- The New Yorx Times, Dwight Eisen-

hower, Nasser, Nehru, The John Birch Society, Krushchev, J.
Edgar Hoover, The American Medical Assn., and the American
Broadcasting Company.

2. Public source, relevant context -— ?hrushchev on Soviet foreign
policy, Nehru on neutralism, and Churchill on foreign policy.

(I?

3. Public source, irrelevant context -— Perry Come on organized

crime, dasser on smoking and lung cancer, Khrushchev on mod-
ern art. '

H. Interpersonal source —- Each respondent was asked to recall
the names Of three people he knew well: one whose Opinion
he reSpected highly, one whose Opinion he did not respect,
and one whose Opinion he neither spected nor disrespected.

Four factors accounted for nearly 62 percent Of the variance. Two
of these —— safety and quali"ication ~- accounted for 52 percent (27.8%
and 2H.O% respectively) of the total variance. A dynamism factor accounted
for 7.8 percent and a sociability factor accounted for 2.0 percent of the
variance.

From these results, three main factors of source evaluation were
hypothesized and the possibility Of a fourth was explored.

Scales for the second study were obtained by selecting six scales
from each of the three main factors, choosing from among those with the
highest loadings on -ne factor and low loadings on other factors. Four
were selected for the sociability factor, two with clear loadings on that
factor and two which also had loaded on the sociability factor but which
had relatively high loadings —- 67 and 66 -— on the safety factor. Two
scales were added to those for each of the three main factors to test
for stability and adequacy of the ”general meaning” of the factor. An-
other seven new scales were added. It was hypothesized that these would
cluster with other sociability scales if there were such a factor. This
provided a total Of 35 scales for the second study.

Twelve sources were used for the second study, three for each of the
four categories. They were:

1. Public, no context -— John F. Kennedy, G. hennen Williams and
Fidel Castro.

2. Public, relevant context -- Adlai Stevenson on the United Nations,
Eddie Fisher on show business, and Mao Tse—Tung on Red China's
omestic problems.

0

3. Public, irrelcva 1t COItext —- hic}<ey Hantle on organized crime,
ilichigan Lt. Gov. T. John Lesins‘: :i on smoking and lung cancer,
and Jimmy hoffa on abstract art.

u. Interpersonal —- Same procedure was used as in study fll.

Respondents were selected by randomly selecting columns within the
Lansing telephone book and randomly selecting names within the columns.
Since considerable verbal skill was involved, if screening questions
showed the person called had not completed the sixth grade Of school, the
person was not as? ed to complete the scales.

Again three main factors accounted for about 60 percent of the total
variance —- safety, 33.8%; qualification, 15.6% and dynamism, 10.5%. The
eight scales hypothesized to load hL ghest on the qualification factor, and
no others, did load highest on that factor; the same was true for the dy—
namism factor. All the hypothesized safety scales had their highest load—
ings on this factor; but the scales included as sociability scales, includ-
ing the seven new ones, also loaded highest on the safety factor.

Berlo, Lemert and Hertz suggest the following scales as most repre—
sentative Of the three factors for those who ma" wish to use them as an
index for evaluation Of sources:

SAFETY -— safe-unsafe, just-unjust, kind—cruel, friendly—unfriendly,
honest—d dishOIMcs .

QUALIFICATION -— trained- ~untrained, en,erienccc inezperier need, skilled—
unskilled, qualified— unqualified, in; formed -uninfO rmed.

 

DYHAU SM -- ajzressive-meek, emphatic-hesitant, bold— mi‘id, active-
passive, enerfietic—tired.

These dimensions s.een to encor}: as and Specify somewhat more pre eci ely

the Hovland and haiman conceptualizations of source crediWDili y and ethos.

;. Tne Problem
1. Preliminary Statement of the Problem and Variadles_——

Berlo, Lemert and Hertz studied dimensions of source evaluation in
one language and in one locality within the USA. Their work leaves unan-
swered the question of how neneral these dimensions will be found to be.

As one moves into another country where cultural values and lanfua e
are different, will there be variations in the way people evaluate sources

'—
—_

of messages, and will the variations be treat enough to produce di ferent

dimensions of source evaluation? Does the language in which one responds
influence the way one judges sources and will this also affect the result-
ing dimensions of source evaluation? Does visiting another country for
several montts influence the evaluation of sources? Are there some scales
for evaluating sources of messages that will be used by people generally,
regardless of the language/cultural community of which these people are a
part?

Those are the questions with which the present study is concerned.
Obviously, a necessary first step for the comparisons is to determine the
dimensions of source evaluation used by groups of persons differing in
language and culture. To permit the comparisons implied in the questions
above, we need sampling units from some different language/cultural groups.
It also would be helpful to have bilingual persons from a given culture so

that some of them could respond in one language and some in another lan-

guare, thus permitting comparisons to see if languane of response makes any

_)

difference in the dimensions of source evaluation.
One approach to choosing the needed sampling units would be to select

geographic areas which are far apart and presumably of quite different cul—

tural patterns and languages. To Sharpen the comparison, one could also

C3

take a country where the cultural patterns are presumed to be quite similar
but different languages (mother tongue) are used in different sections Ol
the country.

A South American country and an African country would be expected to
provide sampling units that reflect a sharp contrast between cultural and
language patterns. Some African countries would be expected to provide
sampling units within the country where many cultural patterns are simi—
lar but different languages are Spoken. Sampling units such as those Would
permit comparisons between two language/cultural groups that are expected
to be relatively similar, and comparisons between those units and a lancu—
age/cultural group that is expected to be vastly different.

To provide a firmer base for comparing the effect of lanzuane of re-
sponse, it would be helpful if one common language of reSponse could be
used for half of the respondents from each of the language/cultural groups.
Selecting bilingual English/mother tongue reSpondents would permit such a
control.

Since many persons of the type described are in the USA for technical

training there are potential respondents from which one may draw. But this

poses a problem. Does common exposure to USA culture and lanfiuage aff

(D

ct
the way people make judgments of sources of messages or of other objects?
To control for this, one would need a sample of persons who had not had
contact with USA personnel and had not been in the USA.

By making 'SA exposure and language of reSponse independent variables
in a study, additional information could be obtained and the range of the

generalizations potentially extended.

Three independent variables, which have been sketched above may

 

be stated and epe rationcli :.ed as fOlJO-IS:

a. Lanquafe/cultural_community of 'hich responcents are merbers.
This tigflxa identiEZEEI?E??§75EEEEE}I&ETE§£§§TI“T3id”E’BEET’IJS
peeple who live the re speak and read a cor.mon lan"ucfe or
lanqua es. In Jrazil, e.g., bilingual ph(lLSQ-POPtU”LCoe
would be considered one lanf age/cultural community, while
monolingual Portufu uese would be considered another lanfiuaie/
cultural co .unitz

 

b. Lanfuafic of rrsnons Test material may be prepared in ea ch
of the lan ua es used in the study. Then the values of this
variable become Enxlish and the mother tonjue of each laneuaoe/

cultural comrunity included in the study.

 

for training ior S lbhths or lenier may
who have been exposed to USA culture, ile those who ha
not been in the JSA and have had no contact with USA per-
sonnel will be considered as not exposec to USA culture.

 

c. Exposure to USA culture. Persons who have been in the USS
b _

laritv in (i ;U-

I—lo
F4-

how a basis ior cetermininj tne diifeience or
f". C‘ -' F‘ 1 (a n _. 1"“. r 1' n" i-‘f":3~\(~J-_-L. 1' "“1‘."."\/ ”174‘ 1'3’11 If"\ *""C.‘ .“1£“'L‘
0101-10 0 IDOuICV vvaiduLiOu (1.01;; (ll lbfsuL. -mnvuuv‘v LhiLLLC. UIOU-po .1L.o
be established. As noted earlier, one qu:t iirst (Heter. m1 the Linen—

sions f source evaluation for each of the lanzuaje/cultural proupinns

0

being used. The factor analytic method used by Berlo, hement and hertz
may be tamen as an apprOpriate :e thod.

Using the Lerlo, Lcmert and Hertz method yields factor structures
which are taken as the ui1ensions of source evaluation. how some method

(ed to con:are the factor structures obtained in each of the st p-

P c
U)
:1
0
C4

ling units, but no completely satis actory metnoc sec?" tu me ava_'i,l-.
- . .. o I _ A. ’) -' q. x... a 4‘." -, f“. -‘_ I.._ )g. . 7‘ : I-“ I . . o .
no ever, in discus Sln» tie pionien with hr. unaries F. Uri ley, .irector,

Computer Institute f r Social Science lesserch, Lichifan State University,

he said that the most promiSinj alternative is LAC coeiriCient c: ldCCOT

' " ' --, : -..~-:- “or” W '-.. i'a -...‘, a. .‘ 107.0 r‘ ‘. .
similarity (oarlow and DuIL, ius+). .rianuis and Us oou (ivqu) also have
used the coefficient of similarity to compare factor structures in tuelf

studies of tne dimensions of meaning.

I._.J
C)

Computationally, the coefficient of similarity is:

Coefficient of Similarity : r152
«T2 «4
I:
.L i
l l

where flf2is the sum of the cross—products of the factor saturations of

 

the two factors being compared; and le and f22 are the sums of the
squared factor saturations for each of the factors being compared.

A limitation in the application of the coefficient of similarity
is lack of a sampling distribution. Since there is no sampling distri-
bution of the coefficients, we do not have a statistical test of the
significance of the difference between two coefficients of similarity
or of the size of coefficient required to say it is significantly dif—
ferent from zero.

There is a formula which is used to compute a lower limit of best
fit, this limit being the value below which we are not willing to say

that the two factor structures being compared are similar. The formula

is:

 

.1+l/\I’k'
2

where k is the number of factors in each of the pairs being compared.
With the limitations on application of the coefficient of similarity,
one tends to look for additional measures for comparing the similarity
or difference among factor structures.

Another indicator of the similarity or difference in the basis of
source evaluation among language/cultural groups would be provided in a
comparison of the power of terms to discriminate between best and worst

sources. Furthermore, it would be convenient to have a universal set of

scales that could be used to evaluate sources in any language/cultural

ll

community. One of the requirements of such scales would be that they
would discriminate strongly between best and worst sources and do this
equally well for all lanfiuaje/cultural groups. One indicator of this
would be that the same terms always loaded highest on the same factors
for all language/cultural groups. A more exacting test of discriminating
power of the terms would be provided by a t-test of the differences be-
tween mean evaluation scores for best source and mean evaluation scores
for worst source for each of the scales. The scales could then be ranked
according to differences in mean scores and the rankings compared across
language/cultural groups.

Since the Semantic Differential is being widely used for universal
sets of scales, a measure of polarity of responses to the terms would
be useful for users of that instrument. This would require using some—
thing other than the Semantic Differential for evaluating sources in
this study, and Q—technique would offer an alternative.

Now, three dependent variables have been considered and may be

 

stated and Operationalized as follows:

a. Similarity of dimensions of source evaluation. Coefficients
of similarity among factor structures for each cell of the
design will provide this measure.

 

Universality of scale terms for evaluating sources. For each
language/cultural group used in the study, the scale terms may
be ranked according to their power to discriminate between
best and worst source, then a coefficient of concordance com-
puted as a measure of the universality of the discriminating
power of the scale terms among the populations studied. Dis-
criminating power of the scale may be obtained by the magni—
tude of the statistically significant differences between
means of scores for best source and means of scores for worst
source for each term in each subsample of respondents.

 

c. Polarity of scales which identify factors. This variable may
be operationalized from visual inspection of the magnitude of
the significant negative correlations among the pairs of terms

in each subsample of respondents.

 

i-l

l l

11

AA-

 

.--.- .—- .—.— -

 

2. D'scussion f the Problem in Relafltio*.1 to past Research 35d Vritinss

L

'4[‘—\ - . \ (-s ‘1-‘ *' v~ ‘ 1 - - ‘ .vx - -—-\ —- o9— A s .p— . ~‘ I ~‘
”hat PQlathhouluS would one es ect anon LAP v3r1anles° uaat eo

ast research an‘ theoretic writings suggest as answers to the ques-
tions being raised? Work from two theoretic areas will be reviewen

here. One is the comm meanine structure work Os , ed and associ-
ates, which Berlo, Lemert and Hertz used as the cont3xt
The other is the cultural—relativity HCP\ “est oftc n re;We1re to as the
Sapir—whorf hypothesis.

Je'll look first at 171ncc for commonality of rimensioas of
source evaluation. Then we'll look at evidence which questicns the

r O O :

+rfi - ‘- ‘ . 7", ‘ .-‘ . C " r *1” - I '~‘ “‘ ‘ V rv- ‘ I'V' ""- ‘
ts oi common theflalOHS oi mzdlifl and GVJ< encc su_;estini uMquC—

[—1.

li 3—;1

ass of m eewni nfi dimenSions.

9

H]
F

_\ . .3. s. H. '. .\ “ 3.L.' . .'; '\ ,_ 7 .1.’ , I: , .. .. ..
One 0 the isfues in relation to tie us ooh .Jesis o; a corded

- '3 _ - 3 1 4—1. Cs" .3 Y -:- . a fiJ-‘Y '4‘- .1-) ' Y',. 4.}...
meaning 8 tructure and the nadir“n“03i cultur al r3l ivitr LAQSIS is -nc

< O
I
:_

. .3- .. . ‘._ ,3'. -1 - .3 ,__ a ' L. , , ._. ‘ ,...,. '-. n I . h-“v I .. . —'— n.
c::terit LO yhliCL. 1:35;; t:»e txOLJ-LlCHK3 Law; <331J he: ct(3g3 , CL uTLC: c:;ta: *,

-~ us 4‘! ,3- ‘»~ 1 \ '- . fl ?‘ e r . - i'. «3— -. . - J I . 4—: -‘ w - ~ y~- -. 1\
or inucncimxxit. It is 1n173c that, 1“: addition to ">YNJ(TL1” some in—

‘ ~

sirhts into the bases people use in evaluating sources tnis study also

f.

-.,-.. ., - ". - ,.. . .l-L‘, - ‘- .., ' ._" . 4.’ ,_ .:.. ., \ “-9...‘ ‘n‘; ' ’.__,\
mm] contribute to some gurt-er Clarilication o; the rflluLlonofllp se—

 

 

A o C 5 -Y. O a ‘ 0 5 a c- \fi 5 ‘ —. ,. , ‘ - L. I ‘
a. Gene D‘li \ o; the Dimensions e; 713C- nvalu_tioa ——
L”: A.
‘ O ‘5 .. ,« A _ -. O 3 I ,‘ 55 5 I 5 o r— 1 o '5.
a. thnvelice :roz3 ctxarcs1 (fljnefhfil’lis r37 TJGTULLC r is :;*L;1e 341 *z a
v ~ ‘I C ‘ u- ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ . v .‘x : — J- — ,x '\ .-— 2 Y ‘ - - ,\ i n -Y. .. J- . -7 1 ~ -
worn oi Os<ooe anc his asqo ia.3s. es eon s strx lee Tim 0 cenciaae

,. .3. ' ... a" ' c ,- Y 4- I- - ‘. .' ‘ ,,--.- A .‘ mp.
r 'bCLlV‘E AK". chili. . S LI‘L:CI-L1.‘C~3 .‘TJ‘..'_C;‘1 Cg.‘ ones oCI‘Ooo
l 7‘} r1" ‘ '1' ','_\ 1+ ') l 5“— 1 ‘*\r‘ “I T" \ ‘1. “:‘CI‘X ‘n’b'fl t 7“ .13 71": 0" C (W 34"} '-.' " '7‘ ? » 7‘

Un‘JLLC—A‘jv Cu hula ..)rOLL’_’Q O L3-A.tl1(/L45‘1L Ci.‘_.f_.'.v. ~4AA ~v-- I.“ ilk) 3 VV -.‘. --~- L.._A-.A (,»

lan*uafle grous, wi ll n3 ‘ n or a fiv~n s:1m—

(D
U)
rt
(‘D
#5
(7)
}-—J n
O]
2'}
p.
' 1
s.
F:
(Nu
is,
p.
r:
P '
'3
F."
”2
(D
D)
"t
h
,2:
C
r
3
i

I

l
f.)

” ’\
\
F
O

ulus, OSfood stat

1:“ . .. .-. ’. , ”P.--“ - Y 4.}, --..‘.. r: r .X',”
Pei -I€DCC (3.2033 l.-1 Slum}. lC Space -- Iiil CD FI‘C OVle‘ 33 the Deal: iOl" ..“.c.i,.l..5

F4
(A)

The research literature contains reports of several studies by
Osgood and his associates showing support for the common meaning struc—
ture thesis. Meaning structure is operationalized as the factors result-
ing from a factor analysis of respondents' ratings of a sample of con-
cepts by means of 7—point scales f bipolar adjectives. (Osgood, Suci

and Tannehbaum, 1957) An example would be:

good bad

 

weak strong

 

Kumata (1958) was the first to test the common meaning structure
thesis cross-culturally, using the semantic differential as the instru-
ment for measuring meaning. In his study with bilingual Japanese and
Korean exchange students in the USA and with monolingual Japanese in
Japan and Americans living in the USA, he found that language itself
did not produce different dimensions of meaning. he did, however, find
differences in meanings of concepts as a function of culture. But there
appeared to be underlying dimensions in making connotative judgments
which cut across language and culture.

Among the problems in interpretation of the results cited by Kumata
are: the possibility of enculturation of the exchange students, the
limitations of translations, and the assumption of cultural differences
when in fact there may be more similarities than differences for the
cultures used.

Triandis and Osgood (1958) followed the Kumata design with mono—
linguals from the USA and Greece. They found support for a general se-
mantic structure, but they also found differences in the meanings for
certain scales and the meanings for concepts. The first common factor

was an evaluative factor for both groups, accounting for #3 percent of

F4

' X

the variance for Americans and 3* percent for Greeks. The second fac—
tor was a dynamism factor, accountind for 17 percent of the variance
for Americans and ld percent for Greeks.

The coefficients of similarity for factors one and two in the
tucy were 0.93 and 0.8l reSpectively. Uhile this of—

fers firm support for a common meaninq structure across the two lancuace/

limits to the ex~

m
0
'51
(D

cultural groups, factors three to five indicate
tent of generality between the two groups. These three factors were
less readilv interpretable and the coefficients of similarity ranged

from 0.5M to 0.70, not reaching the criterion of 0.7r «t by Os ood as

J J

U)
C)

the value below which the factors were no lonjer accepted as similar.

Suci (l900) compared semantic structures amonfi Zuni, Navaho, hopi
and Spanish speaking subjects. he also found support for common meaninf
structure, but the coeff'cients of similarity and the percent of vari-
ance accounted for were less than in the two studies cited above. Fac—
tor one (evaluation) in Suci's study met the criterion of 0.75 for co~
efficient of similarity among u of 6 comparisons, Havaho—Luni and Nava-
ho—Spanish being the exception. On factor two (activity-potency), no com—
parison in which the Navaho appeared reached the 0.75 criterion.

Percent of variance accounted for by the first three factors was
39 percent for the havaho sample; 52 percent for Hopi; 64 percent for
Zuni and 68 percent for Spanish.

Suci's reSpondents were from a language/cultural area in which
Whorf had worked and reported support for his cultural relativity posi-
tion; but Suci obtained evidence for s'milarity of meaning structure
as that concept is defined by Osgood an‘ his associates. however, there

also is evidence for some differences among the language/cultural groups.

[.1
(n

"\Y

ine coefficients of similarity among some qroups were lower than the
criterion previously set as standard; and the percent of variance ac-
counted for showed considerable variation among the languafe/cultural
groups.

In more recent work, Tanaka, Oyama and Osgood (1963) found cross-
cultural generality but cross-concept uniqueness in factor analysis of
semantic differential scales for three classes of concepts -- 14 abstract
words, 16 color blocks and 1H line forms. The rcSpondents were 108
Japanese college girls and 67 USA college girls.

Another study by Tanaka and Osgood (1965) investigated the meaning

structures for 2H perceptual signs -— color and line form combinations --

judged on 10 semantic differential scales by 3 language/cultural groups ——
Finns, Japanese and Americans (USA). From the findings, they concluded
there was a common semantic structure across language/cultural groups,
but even higher consistency within language/cultural groups. And they
found somewhat different structures between the 2H signs and verbal sym-
bols.

hofstatter (1063) collected semantic differential data on the con—
cepts ”sun” and ”moon" from subjects responding in Italian and subjects
responding in German. Although the gender of the concepts is reversed
in the two languages, the semantic differential ratings corresponded
closely. He concluded that connotative meanings are the same regard—
less of the grammatical differences; but he may have been using two
concepts which are highly stereotyped across cultures.

Osgood (1962), in an article reviewing some of the work on general—

ity of affective meaning systems, points out that although semantic fac—

O.

tor structures have remained stable across groups, this .oes not imply

that these groups shared the same meaning for specific concepts. here
he is emphasizing that what is common is the set of reference axes which
people use to assign meaning to concepts, not the meanints per se. He
also notes that the factor structure has been quite unstable across con-
cepts. Not all claims for common dimensions come from Osiood and his
associates. Ralph Linton (1952) put it this way: ”Behind the seeminjly
endless diversity of culture patterns there is a fundamental uniformity.”
While the preceding studies and writings offer support for some
common dimensions of meaning across language/cultural groups, they also
contain data which suggest limits to the extent of the commonality.

‘

0. Evidence questioning the extent to which common dimensions of

 

meaning apply is more explicit in recent studies than in earlier ones.

 

Tanaka, Oyama and OSgood (1963); and Tanak“ and Osgood (1965) found cross-
concept uniqueness in studies with different classes of concepts -- ab-
stract words, color blocks, line forms and color and line fo n combina-
tions.

In the 1963 study, Tanaka, Oyama and Osgood found that some scales
were stable across concept classes and language/cultural groups; some
were unstable across concept classes but stable across subject iroups;
some were factorially unstable and susceptible to interaction with sub-
ject groups. In the 1965 study by Tanaka and Osgood, Mann-Whitney U
tests yielded significant differences in loadings between the factors
across language/cultural groups. Tanaka and Osiood state that the
higher consistency of subjects' meanine systems within than across lan-
guage/cultural systems may be due to concept-scale interaction whic.

higher across languaje/cultural boundaries.

l7

Dominance of one language/cultural group on one factor and tan
dominance of another group on another factor in some of the studies cited

q

above suggests some ‘ifferences in the structuring of meanings. K

0.

wever,

D

the evaluative dimension (one of Osgood's three 'imensions of meaning)
seems to appear in all the factor analytic studies using semantic d'f—
ferential data.

A study by Darnell (196H) examines the relationship between the
evaluative factor and the activity and potency factors reported by
Osgood. He found support for an evaluative component in both the acti-
vity and potency factors. Further analysis of the Troldahl-Lemert data
on source evaluation also called attention to lack of independence amen:
the factors. It produced zero order correlations of 0.57 between the
qualification and safety factors; 0.38 between the qualification and
dynamism facto s; and 0.51 between the safety and dynamism factors.

While concept-class differences and lack of independence set limits
on the application of common dimensions of meaning, thev do not negate

J

the usefulness of the conceptualization of common dimensions of meaning.

Admitting the existence of concept—scale interaction in the work
of Osgood and others begins to focus attention on the Sapir-Whorf work
with its claims of the uniqueness of categorization and labeling within
a language/cultural community. sgood explains concept-scale interaction
in terms of the high denotative characteristics of the scales in relation
to a specific concept; and much of Whorf's writing is in terms of the
denotative referent and the differences in the referent pattern among
cultures.

Hhorf notes lack of translatability of some concepts from one lan-

guage/cultural group to another, and Osgood (196”) notes that translation

would seem to be the most likely source of bias if the similarities
found in previous studies were artifactual.

In attacking the translation question, Osqood designed a study
with 16 language/cultural groups using an elaborate procedure for scale
selection. There is still some question as to whether the translation
problem was controlled. The selectivity due to translation has been
moved from the qualifiers (adjectives) to the substantives (nouns) used
to obtain the qualifiers. It's the substantives that are translated in
the new procedure. Some of the substantives such as SUN, LUCK, WEALTH,
POISON, and HEAT were highly stereotyped across all cultures; others
such as HAN, HOMAN, LOVE, DOG, FISh, and KARO tended to be amorphous
(diversely qualified) everywhere.

Another Osgood procedure in the lgbu study was the elimination of
those qualifiers which failed to elicit verbal Opposites according to
a standard procedure which is not reported in the Osgood article. This
also limits the pOpulation of qualifiers. Osgood states that the evi-
dence (using the scales which were selected) did support the generality
of meaning dimensions. And he notes that functional use of oupositeness
was evident in all languages studied.

In spite of the limitations noted, Osgood and his associates still
make strong claims for common dimensions of meaning. This may be some-
what a function of the method employed, factor analysis, which focuses
attention on common variance. The method also permits measures of
Specific variance which would allow one to go beyond the common dimen-

sions of meaning to those which are specific, if reliability measures

are included in the study design.

c. Evidence for unique reaninrs within a language/cultural com—

 

1

nunity has receive1 much attention under the label of the Sapir-Uhorf

hypothesis. Sapir and Hhorf emphasize that lan uaic influences one's

perceptions of his world, and it seems evident there is a relation be—

,.

tween language and perception, lanquage and thought, and lanjuaee and
culture, but the causality question is a sticky one.

fihorf sees languare imposing a uniformity of world View upon those
in the same linguistic community. He says:

he cut nature up, organize it into concepts and ascribe signi-
ficance as we do, larfely because we are parties to an afireement
to organize it in this way —~ an afreement that holds throughout
our Speech community and is codified in the patterns of languafie.
The agreement is, of course, an implicit and unstated one, BUT
ITS TERIS ARE ABSOLUTEsY OLLIGATORY; we cannot talk at all ex-
cept by subscribing to the organization and classification of
data which the agreement decrees.

. . . We are thus introduced to a new principle of relativity,
which holds that all observers are not led by the same physical
evidence to the same picture of the universe, unless their lin-
guistic backgrounds are similar or can in some way be calibrated.

And here one may argue that each individual is unique, even in the case
of identical twins.
Sapir (Mandelbaum 196u) notes:

. . . Vocabulary is a very sensitive index of the culture of a
people, and changes of meaning, loss of old words, the creation
and borrowing of new ones are all dependent on the history of cul-
ture itself. . . . Distinctions whicn seem inevitable to us may
be utterly ignored in languages which reflect an entirely dif—
ferent type of culture, while these in turn insist on distinctions
which are all but unintelligible to us . . .

In a sense, the network of cultural patterns of a civilization
is indexed in the language which expresses that civilization. . . .
We see and hear and otherwise experience very largely as we do be—
cause the languaqe habits of our community predispose certain
choices of interpretation.

Brown and Lenneberg (Saporta, 1960) have looked at the lanzuaqe—
meaning—behavior relationship from the point of view of codability; and

the have found a ositive correlation between the codabilitv of colors
P J

and the ability to discriminate among colo s in a test situation. Cod—
ability here refers to the number of words the respondent has in his
vocabulary to designate the categories into which he has divided a set
of events.

Brown and Lenneberg admit that their correlational evidence does
not establish causality; and they offer a guess that the features of
language and thought probably deve10p together. hey see Whorf, on the
other hand, claiming more than a simple relationship between language
and thought; they see him claiming that language is causally related to
cognitive structure.

What we have seems to be a chicken-egg situation. Proof is lackilg
that language shapes finer and finer discriminations in the absence of
cultural need to make the discrimination. But, no doubt each of us can
think of a word he has found in the lexicon and then sought a referent
for it, thus becoming aware of a physical object which was unknown to
him previously. On the other hand, examples abound of new words being
added to express elements in discoveries.

It appears that language may be the antecedent sometimes and the
consequent at others and that efforts to determine that it is one or

the other may not be too fruitful.

d. Comparison of the Os:pod and Sapir—Hhorf positions brinfis into

 

focus two points of emphasis, which may not be as contradictory as some-
times claimed.

The Osgood emphasis is on common meaning dimension with a recog-
nition of individual differexces in both denotative and connotative
meanings. The Sapir-Nhorf emphasis on the other hand is on the relation

of language to other behavior, with many of their examples showinj

differences in denotation and the way the categories constructed for
denotation affected behavior.

Osgood admits differences in both denotative and connotative mean—
ings of concepts among individuals; he merely claims a common set of
reference axes (the factors obtained) is used in making affective judg—
ments. These judgments, once made, will affect other behaviors of the
person.

Sapir and Whorf make a strong claim for similarity of meaning with-
in a language/cultural community, even stronger than Osgood it seems;

but, they stress differences in meanings and structuring of reality

among language/cultural groups.

(I)

It appears that similarity Ol meaning for Sapir-Whorf, however, i
different than Osgood’s common dimensions. Sapir—Whorf appear to be
talking about shared denotations and connotations, while Osgood is talk—
in: about a common set of references axes that may be used to measure
the connotative meanings of any individual or group of individuals tc
determine the extent of sharing or differing in the meanings held for a
given concept.

As noted in the precedix; pages there is ev_denee for common di—

1

mensions of meaninr in the sense of common dimensions used by Osgood;

J

and we would eXpect then that common dimensions of source evaluation

1

could be identified. But thexe also is evidence that: (l) the dimen—

r.

sions of meaning differ for different concept classes, (2) there is
concept—scale interaction which is greater across laniuafie/eultural
groups than within a given language/cultural group, (3) the systems of
categorizing and labeling elements within one's perceptual world vary

from one language/cultural group to another, and (H) individuals varv

u

as to the meanings they have for given concepts.

e. heed tor special scales for source evaluation is suifestcd bv
evidence in the studies reported above. Repeatedly in the work of
OSfOOd and his associates concept-scale interaction is noted. Os:ood
has attributed this interaction to the highly denotative characteris-
tics of some scales in relation to specific concepts.

It is doubtful whether the denotative aspects can ever be elimi-
nated from a scale. If this is the case, then the best safeguard against
distortion in evaluation would seem to be to select scales Specifically
for concept classes, if not for specific concepts. The association
approach to scale selection used by Berlo, Lemert and hertz cited
earlier would provide such a safeguard.

The work of Osgood and associates has been based on semantic dif-
ferential measures. This method of scaling assumes bipolarity of the
terms used as scales. Even though, as Osgood notes (1954), functional
oppositeness seems common, there is some question as to the use of
Oppositeness by different persons, even within a language group. Thus

there is some question as to the validity of the basic assumption or

m
:5
Cl

bipolarity in people's responses to semantic differential scales,
some research has directly attacked this question.

Work by Mordkoff (1963) and by Green and Goldfried (1965) shows
that bipolarity of the terms does not hold fienerally. hordkoff hypoth-
esized that the averaged semantic differential ratings of two nominally
opposite adjectives would be zero. Testing this hypothesis, he found
three of l6 presumed bipolar pairs deviated significantly from the

null at the 0.01 level and one deviated at the 0.05 level.

23

Green and Goldfried found that ten of fifteen pairs of adjectives,
which the authors considered most obvious opposites, had significant
negative correlations on a few more than half of the concepts judged.
Two pairs had both positive and negative correlations; and one pair had
no significant correlations.

Green and Goldfried found more significant correlations occurred
on some concepts than on others. They concluded that to the extent
bipolarity is a ”reality," it tends to be specific to concepts rather
than to a generalized phenomenon. They also concluded:

The weight of evidence is that Osgood and his associates have im-

posed an arbitrary and artifactual structure in the domain they

call semantic space. It does not follow that the semantic dif-
ferential is useless, but it does follow that researchers should
bear its characteistics in mind when they use it to obtain and
interpret data.

It seems advisable to select specific scales for source evaluation
as one concept class, and to consider a scaling procedure that will
not force the bipolarity assumptionl Q-technique (Stephenson, 1953)
would permit treating each member of the pairs of presumed bipolar op-
posites as individual scales. This would not force the bipolarity
assumption and would at the same time permit analysis to indicate the
extent to which respondents gave symmetrically Opposite responses to
the members of each pair. Data on the oppositeness of the responses
would then be useful in selecting scales that might be used in semantic
differential type measurements of source evaluation.

Taking source evaluation as one concept class in the general study
of meaning, we are now ready to build a rationale to study the following

questions:

1. What are the dimensions of source evaluation within a given
language/cultural group?

 

2. how sisilar are the (itenSions 0: source evaluation aceo‘m
language/cultural groups?

3. Is there a universal set of scales thnt may be L ed to cis-
criminate between ‘3ood‘ source and ba(‘ source or differ—
ent levels of “:OC‘ness“ and badness ?

C. Rationale
1. Some 3as ic Assumptiops_—-

Our evaluations of entitie , including sources of messajes, are
expressed in verbal lanjuage. Although there are overt behavioral cues
that expres as our evaluations, these generally may be translated into
a verbal code. It' s the meaning of the verbal codes used to structure
evaluations of sources that concerns us here, placing us in the context
of studying meaning.

both Osgood and Sapir—fihorf admit language is learned and has the

qualities of other learned behavior.

becomes habitual, people frequently re

pretation.

 

bike

-

sponding Wl

much of hunan behavior,

it

thout conscious inter

From tiliS starting point, we may state two ratEer basi cassu.“ptions:

Assumption 1. People learn to structure their world.

Assumption 5 2. The words peeple use to express tie way they
structure their world are leainc d in association
with the elements in the structu ure.

2. A Theoretic model —-

Since part of one's world is his evaluation of sources of nessaies,
it follows that one learns a sti ucture :ior evalua ting sources and
learns words to espress that structure in“ the ele ents of ich it is
comprised. hus it seems that one of the leam in' nodels E/utd prev;\:
a basis for anal'cin~ the structure of source evaluation. o.e such
nonel is the representational mediation model of Ossood. A brief review

‘3

of this model will be used in develOping postulates and finally the

hypotheses to be tested.

The representational mediation hypothesis is derived fr m an asso—
ciation base, as are all approaches to learning. It differs from some

other approaches in handling the intervening elements between stimulus
and reaponse, positing rwp..ssl(mediated response and mediated stimulus)
bonds between the external stimuli and the overt rCSponses. These
bonds taken toqe her are comprised of the accumulation of previous asso-
ciations and the evaluation of the consequences of reSponding in certain
ways to given stimuli.

Osgood diagrams the application of the mediation hypothesis to

verbal learning and behavior as follows:

 

 

‘ 11

° ,\‘t

/ 7

/
/
/
/
/

4 ts. \ :3.

r All I U. I

At the early stages of verbal learning, a verbal symbol ([8]) be-
comes associated with an object (8). The verbal symbol as stimulus

T‘
.L

then elicits a response similar to that elicited by the object. or
example, if I have sucked the juice of a lemon (é) and experienced the
sour, tart taste which makes my mouth ”water” (Rt), the use of the ver-
bal symbol "suck a lemon” I! TJlll elicit somewhat the same response
(RX) as sucking the lemon. The saliva will begin to flow and my lips
may tighten a bit.

however, the response to the words, ”suck a lemon,” will not be
identical with the response to actuallr sucking a lemon; response to

the word will be some fractional part of the response to sucking the

lemon. Compared to suckin: the emon, response to the words may produce
somewhat less saliva flow, less tightening of the lips, and the quiver
of body muscles which may accompany sucking the lemon may not be ob-

4.1

servable in the response to the words ”suck a lemon.” Another example
is the response of a woman who fears mice. She probably will produce
many of the same responses to the words, ”there's a mouse,” that she
produces when she sees one of the furry creatures by her foot. But,

the response will tend to be less intense and some parts of the response
observable in the presence of a mouse may not be observed when the words
are the stimulus.

Obviously, much language learning is much more complex than this
rather simple association of symbol with object. hany of the words we
use are the result of associations with othe rwords or with chains of
other words rather than direct association with physical objects. Many
words also are used to refer to abet 'ract relationships among objects
or among other relationships one or more steps removed from association
with physical objects or events. Let's look first at a paradigm of
this pattern of association, then look at an example to explicate this
aspect of language learning.

I:

The association of word with word is diagrammed as ollows by

Osgood:

WH/Pml W} Sml _...9 R
I -___:b.1._)/ I‘ma ~_”> Sma ._.._} Rxa

S c R
/ aw} ma .__-... Dma “"9 :-:a

Osgood used the term assigns for verbal synl;ols learned by asso—

° ° '-‘ ‘ - ‘ . a a- ,. ' _ - ‘ 21¢ :.. ”fin
elation with other verbal symbols, the meaning bei1_a llturallf assi_ncu

r .
)
..

D)

' V . .L-’ , ‘ , .
r Signs rather taan by as

I‘-
..|

to them via a. with 0th:
Portions of the rehre

sentational behavior (Prl — rm )
411 .l‘n

73

transfer to a new pattern of

objects.

 

ciated with the

stimulation /S/,

“meaning” in the Osgood model.
learning of an assign would be learning neanings
it“, i th '—

An example of the
3 en an airplane.

for the word ”airplane” by someone who has never
out the object present, we might say that it flies throufih the air like
t, an endinc and a StC€”lH”

\ e a A » .‘

a bird gliding; it is metal and n
wheel like an automobile; the engine has a prepeller which is
automobile fan, except that it is out front and pulls the airplane throunh
If “propel‘er” is a new word, it could be learned in

y say-

,3;
Cr”

the air, and so on.
”auto fan”; and it could be further explicate.
or otherwise moves

U)

association with

ing that a “propeller” propels, i.e., pulls, pushe

something.

For the person to acquire meaninf for the assigns in this process,
he must already have learned meanings for the signs with which the
Again it nust be emphasized that the

assifins are Leing associated.

They are representa—

they

Cl.

rm's are representational mediated responses.
tional in that they are only a fraction of the total response. an

are mediational in that they produce distinctive self—stimulations

which would not occur without the previous association of non—object

:n, we learn the referent and the

0
an -
bol‘ ‘

and object patterns of stimulation.

Whether it is a sign or an a
feelings toward the referent together. Uith some words we may be more

y arouse in us, while with other worcs we may
' feelings and be pore aware

aware of the feelings the
ositive or negative

be less aware of any p

of the physical referent.

l_p

Ine wore "snake,“ e. .. nay arouse very stronj feelinfis for some
persons, while probably the word “table” merely eenotes at oniect with-

out much posi“ive or no ative reeling about it. A person who fear*

f."
{1)

snake lS aware of a geLeral physical referent; he coes not eistinjuisn
between poisonous and non—poisonous snakes, and has a stronfi negative
feeling about all snakes.

u. Applicat on of the Yodel to Source Avaiuation ——

 

Ti

1‘ A g -. A ‘r. - I ~- : ‘ ::-v q,: '5 ~-- ’1 ‘ : Arap‘ .-.= ‘ - ‘,-
evaluation oi ele an s in tne worlu arOunn ‘s is QQQUMCC to ya

a universal behavior. Pchle evaluate the consequences of alternative
responses to stimuli aid respond to future occurrences of similar stin—
uli accordingly. Let's see how this way work with source evaluation.

:iVidual as receiver of messa es has

'- " ‘ W I " —-— -c v‘~ -- “3" 7\ ‘ ~.r'~ ~ ’ ‘ ‘ 7‘ A . I" v u" ' 4-.' ‘
-asuonaeo to messa es iron many sersons, ane Ac has evaluatee LAC con—

‘ ‘ I“ - " I 1 r ‘ “w -‘ w.— .r- . r~~ 1‘ .- ~ 'I \ ~--‘ -r‘ . - r~
we see tntt he learns tnat PCQJCLQC t to rerson A PESulta in con3e-

evaluates the consequence and lee‘ns now to responc to the

.13
c
(D
:5
O
(D

1 O

‘0
O
(T)

.1:

source in the future. he associates verbal symbols with tynes or
sources, tne types being forneu as a result of -orsequences exnerien‘ee
directly or vicariously in resyoneinf to ressages From the sources.

If meanings for sources of messages an; ror the symbols used to

refer to sources are learn=e in the way described above, then the asso-

ins in the paradifin illustrates the

O-
C“.
0)
O)
[—1.

ciation of object, Sign an‘
Pattern for one factor of source evaluation as Cetermined in the LauSlu’

Richifan study.

Suwmmo 11 \m\

 

 

 

 

”Hymn 1: .H
.coflposae>m oopsom 09
rumowsum cowytfloom mo Cowpeowaemc .H esznwm mpoommwamwm 11 m
.m mossom ow mmsocmwg one ow, .A11111111Hnm..2£HAT111 A Coocewsocxe mwv
mo coapmoemmmhmos Hmcoflpoesw \\& Amosdom pswpoeeoo 4V \rwm\
e ma coflsz oopsom doom ow \
mmcoemvs may %0 coflpswcomosees ram AT1111114lem...Es_A111.A .mw:wmkm mHV
HGCOflpoesm m mfl erCOHLenxe was N \.H4 Aoossom poopomsoo <V \mmm\
seaflenw "omueosco “peepomsoo no _A ..F_ e; Am111 1
Op omsoemmy cowoflaefi mob m .m.m...-§ A Umpoowom wflv mm
nfl,. \fi Aeogsom pSOpeCEoo <v \ m\
. A1111... ; / ,. “-11 1.1111--.
rm -m...:p J A pcewoceoov
\7 A ma mogsom Uoou <v \me\
_
A .o>wpflmom an Hafiz maexflav . A . _ 1.
A mOUQOSGomooo any one mow>oo m_< soaaomv em .111eem...Ep Aoossom ooom m ma <v flmm_
A .m>wwflmoe mm: mosezaemcoo mov
A COHyeSHm>o mesowsme ow meme come mssv
A xmwu pasoflmwwo m peep ma oocoswomsoov o
.mmmmmeev
Maw cowmeseasooms soaaow ow mfl oncommee Apvm A Aowmmmes mzflpprmsmsp.m mossomv m

30

By definition, the total system of rm...sm bonds for a person
represents his accumulation of mediated responses to past stimuli and
the tendencies to reSpond (mediated self-stimulation) which they arouse
within the organism. Sources of messages are defined as one type of
stimulus or one part of the stimulus complex for the receiver.

The mediation hypothesis shows an r bond developing for each

m...sm
sign and each assign. The paradigm shows this in terms of a word being
associated with an object and other words becoming associated with that
word or with one another in sequence. But there's another way. Rather
than direct association of a word with another word, the rm...sm bonds
may develop from the context in which the word appears.

If a person had not developed a meaning for the word competent, for
example, he might attribute meaning to it if he saw it in the following
context: "It would require a very competent person to understand such
a difficult task.” There is an implied association with other words
that could be substituted for the word competent in this statement. It's
almost as if the word competent had been omitted and the reader had
filled in other words that would be meaningful to him in the context.
Since the word competent is already there, the meaning assigned to it
would be similar to that of other words that would be meaningful to the
receiver in this context. It is the structural arrangement of the words
around the word competent that arouses a certain response toward the
person referred to. As a person perceives a word in a new context, his
meanings for that word are extended.

In the example above, it was claimed that the structure of the lan-
. guage predisposed a certain type of response to the unknown word in

the familar context. If there were not the consistency in language

?l

structure and the parallel i:etw on one's lan: uace and the way he per-
ceives the world, it would not be possible to attribute the “i11ten:ed
meaning to an unknown word from the context in which it appears. Assum—
ing that we learn our languaje as we learn about the world around us,

nevitable that there is a strong relationship between cur lan-

H-

it is
guage and our ”world View.” “Korld View” as used here is dDOthP label
for the accumulated mediated responses and sc if —stimulations zit in
the or"an sm, the accumulated rm...sn bonds.

If we look at the whole spectrum of the demands of life, we would
expect sonc sinil arities and sore differences among resaondents ire:

different lanfuaje/cultural groups. We would expect that the more alike

the demands of life for any two or more persons, the more alike the
ca tezgorization anc structurin" of t e el-emcnts experienced. The more
alike the categorization of ex: erienced elements, the more alike the

lin uis tic coces used to refer to t.c cent OpiullL exfieriences, source
evaluation being one exarple.

Source evaluation is assumed to be one of the types or judgments
which are cornon to all lan uaf;/cultural groups. The evaluation is
implied in the question: how do I respond to those from whom I receive
messages?

We assume there are some behavioas common to sources of mc-ssafes
retardless of the language/cultural groups in which they live; and we
assume that those receiving the me ssajes will associate cons eeuences of
responding to the messages with the particular behaviors of the sources
of those messages. These messaje sources are the external stimuli
which produce the rm...sm bonds relative to source evaluation. He al3o

assume that these behaviors are catrm; orised and labeled; and ‘hat when

v 1r v\ - -1 ~~r 4“ » 4' -‘.<" (1 ---'. -.« . —‘ ~ n ~ A v~ ~~ r- . u "N w (W
we aSk I‘QSLJOIICIC‘JLILO cO kLCQCL‘LUC CH1 lLEdl DOUBCC, we llfle L'ilVC-l lat/Clo

's‘;ht into the

p.
f.)

associated with the r,...sIn bonds and thus get some
nature of these bonds.
Where respondents have had similar experience with sources of

,- n11

messages, we would expect the rp...sm bonds to be simil r. The highest

fl!

similarity is expected in highly homogeneous language/cultural groups
which have limited communication outside the group. but, increasing
technolog*, especially communication technology, has brought a steady
decline in the number of language/cultural groups which have such li—
mited communication.

1
l

If we take two persons, each from c

n

i-

v-

ferent language/cultural

groups, we would cx_ect their patterns of rm...sr bonds to differ to

L

1
the extent that their life experiences differ. If these persons are
now taken into a new situation, we would expect that they would be ex—
posed to new stimuli, adding to their set of rm...sm bonds.

As these persons merely increase the number of stimuli to which
they have been exposed, the probability of their being exposed to simi—
lar stimuli and developing some similar rm...sm bonds increases. This
is an application of the addition and multiplication principles of pro-
bability. If in addition, the new stimuli are experienced within a
common language/cultural situation, such as the USA, we would expect
an even higher probability of their sharing rm...sm bonds.

This leads to the expectation that two persons from two differ-
ent language/cultural groups who come to the USA for training would be
more alike in their patterns of source evaluation than would two per—

sons from those two different groups who had not been exposed to new

and similar source stimuli.

ihere are many ways of incre ing the number of stimuli to which
peeple are exposed. The increase may come from just having lived more
years; or it may come from formal study, as well as from visiting new
geographic areas and societies. If t1e form al study involves learnin"
a common language, and if we accept that there is a positive rela—

tionship between language and ”world view,”

then learning a common se-
cond language also should in creas e the likelihood of shared rm...sm
bonds, hence shared patterns of source evaluation.

Where respondents have had similar experiences with sources of
messages, we would expect the rm...sm bonds to be similar. with respon-
dents whose experiences have been in a highly technologically develOped
lane uagc /cultural group, we might exp ect t11e' to place most emphasis
on possession and use of technical knowledge by the source. where the

respondents' experiences have been in a less technoloci call and more

k

strongly ki11sh1ip oriented group, we would expect less emphasis on the

source's posse sion of technical laoxlec~e and more emphasis on his
persona relationsl1i swith people.

Both groups of respondents may take into account both teclni cal

knowledge and Jersonal relation MJDS of the source in their evaluations;

A'.

but, the two groups 11av 1-Ieij_;ji1 the two «Factors ("if"1e1ntl.y.

J

H. nvpotneses —-

 

Fron the mediation hypothesis paradigm, we deduced that persons

~

ex1os d to the largest number of stimuli and relatively sin lar stimuli

14o

I ‘I ‘ 7, ‘1 .‘ - ‘1‘ 'fi - r‘ ‘A '7‘ v x 1‘ "w V‘\ I ‘ .’._ -v -9-
will snare more rw...sm bonus Lhcfl ners0ns who have been OAJOSQQ LO
1' ll] ~ ‘
,— _ -‘ O o n , 0‘“ o ," V. .. ~ .7 .. ._ oh, 1 -‘f‘ 1‘ ‘ H
rewer and less m11jla'r sti-uli. inese bends weie eeii1eu as tAh mean—

ings a person has for the stimuli witd which the bonds are associated.

Y ,- lei- ' , ... ’ .. ’ ,-‘ . . . .' ., '- .131. . - -4 J? , -, A ,. .
we nay ~aia sewe inSi.,1L.hiio LJG nature oi c.seisxm1c>‘rp...s
‘ ‘ ‘ '_ I}

" i ‘ ‘x' i: v -. v- 1 ~‘ . ""fi ‘1‘ V‘- '- . —\ i'. ‘ .~.- --“ J . ' J- r‘ v—‘ , - ~..~\ ‘ ‘1" -. -.
JOHQS L] OJSDPVlu' Jlo henaVior, anin5 mid to intrOspect, and asxin,

L J

0)
JJ
0
*‘J
O
i. 1
C.)
('3
(I)
1")
u?
H o
.._J
:3
[>4 a
9

him to give verbal ass ciates for the concept cla
we are interested. having obtained a set of elements via association
or introspective reports and observations, we can put them into a scale,

C ' .1.

use the scale with a sample 0; subjects and factor analyze the result-

ing data. The factors will indicate the common dimensions of meaning
for the concepts oeins studied.

Although factor analytic studies often are conducted without
explicitly stated hypotheses, some implicit hypotheses (or at least
assumptions) are required in order to design the study and to decide

what data to put into the factor ana ysis.

a. A general hypothesis that guided the design and conduct of

 

this study may now be stated, based on the rationale developed in the
preceding pages:

General

hypotheSi —- The greater the similarity and the larger the number
of stimuli to which two or more groups of respon—
dents are exposed, the more similar will be the di-

mensions of meaning developed and used by those groups.

0)

Applying this to source evaluation, the hypothesis would read:
The greater the similarity and the larder the number of source
characteristics to which two or more groups of persons have
been exposed, the more similar the dimensions* of source eval-
uation will be among these groups.
Similarity of stimuli here may be taken to include the similarity
of various source objects (persons) and their qualities, and the simi-

larity of classifying and labeling the characteristics of sources as

objects. This focuses attention on the structuring of source character—

 

* Factors, in factor analytic terms.

istics among different languaie/cultural groups.

To the extent that the structuring of source evaluation is the
same, the labels for the elements and classes within the system should
be readily translatable among the language/cultural groups.

listed on p. 9 are presumed to incorpor—

U)

The independent variable
ate some of the elements believed to contribute to similarity of stimuli

'J ”1‘

to which respondents are exposed. inese varir‘le" are: (l) lanfuafie/

t

cultural community of which respondents are members, (2) exposure to
USA culture, and (3) language of response.
The relation of the first two to similarity of stimuli is suite

apparent, but the third, lanjuage of response, ray be less apparent.

here it is assumed that the language of response will result from r ...sv

“I i‘;

bonds acquired in the context of a given lanfiua e —— English or any
other language. Similarity of lanquage of response is thus related to

similarity of stimuli connected to the reSponse via the r“...s, bonds.

all n;

In an effort to provide a ran e in the values of the variables,

f
x.

q 0

hence a range in similarity of stimuli to which respondents had leen

V 1 -‘~ r r—v —‘ 1 ‘ 'fi r-w. v f“ — .‘\ '3 qr? J- .1, v ' ‘- .5 .
exposed, four language/cultural groups were selected ior stuey. ladse

B

we‘-: bilingual Sn lish—Iso speakers from hiveria; bilinjual Sifilish-
Yoruna sneaners from Jiperia; bilinfiual Enfilish—Portufuese s
from Brazil; and monolin;ual Portuguese Speakers from Brazil.

The Ibo and Yoruba from Nigeria were selected to provide respon—
dents 1rom relatively similar cultures, but havini differ-ant languages.
The brazilians were selected to provide the contrast presumed to exist
between Indo-Eurogeaa languapes and African languages, and the contrast

Dresuneé to GKlSt between South MLpFlCJD and “JFlC&n cultures. mono-

lingual Portuguese from brazil were included to previee a comparison of

the effect, if any, of knowing a second languaie. Other criteria for
selection, and some of the similarities and differences among these
groups, will be discussed in Chapter II.

The la mn uages of response will be En lis' h and mother tongue for

the bilinguals and, of course, mother tongue for the monolinguals. For

-‘

each language/cultural group, there will be a sam Ml of persons who

have been in the USA for training and another equivalent sample from
each language/cultural group who have not been in contact with USA

personnel.

Preliminary to stating the e2M11 rical hypotheses, three assumptions

-

were stated and a set of e pected relations anon; the variables were
derived fr m these as Mien . The assumptions were:

1. The measures* of source evaluation for forei:n nationals who
respond in English will be more like the USA measures than will
the measures for foreign nationals who respond in their native
language to the source evaluation instrument.

2. The measures * for foreign nationals who speak both Enelish and
their native language will be more like the USA measures than
will the measures for foreign nationals who Speak only their
native language when both groups respond to the same source
evaluation instrument.

3. When reSpondinj to the same source evaluation instrument, the
measures* for foreL n nationals who have EID training will he
more like the USA measures than wil the measures for foreign
nationals who have not had AID training nor exposure to USA
persons in their country.

I"

Fourteen conbinations o: the independent variables are shc"n belor and
the following codes will help in followin: the predicted relationships.

In these co es, the subscript l is used to indicate the value of the

var ia le characte izin 3 respondents assumed to be most like USA reagen-
dents in their evaluation of messaie sources; subscript 2 indicates the

 

e measures are the dependent VCIlQfllQS Operationalizeu on

. 1v —.. ' 7- . ,. ' '- V - 4... -: ,.. ,- A“ v. ..‘,. - ‘ - a m ,f L
value of the variaule union Characterises rfiqyOHLUntb dSoU ea to he

least like U83 res

r‘
4.

)oncents in their evaluation or messa e sources.

The code use; ior responding language (L) is:

F‘]

P.
U)

The code used for languajes in which respondent is proficient (S)

Sl inglish and native

82 Native only

The code used for AID training (T) is:

tl Engages in AID trainin

.7
J

t2 Has not had AID training nor exnosure to USA persons

I

Given the above assurgtions

ables, we can derive the following

Plsltl I‘lSl'tl r-lsltl

r2sltl rlSl't2 I‘lSQ‘tl

r232tl PQSth r152t2

r2S2t2 r252W r2S2t2

.L.

J?

The fourteen conbinations o.

(L

an

equal weightini of the three vari—
orders:

These groups are most similar to one
another and to the USA samples.

a.

These groups are next most similar to
one another and to USA samples.

Groups in this set are still less
like one another and the USA.

Groups in this set are least like
one another and the USA grouos.

the values of the variables which

will be used in this stucy for the cross languaje/culture comparisons

are shown in Figure 2. This firure also shows the predicted similarity

or difference based on the asswn

L

tions and orders stated above.

Coa4inations of '
and Predicted ”

Language

“

 

of Language AID Predicted similarity or diiie erence
response froun trainin: (based on above ass urntior
(1) English English- rlsltlcorbinBLIOI aw. : predicted
(rl) Ibo (31) Yes (t1) to be rest si.3ilar in factor sturc—
ture and other no usure s of axe. anin

(2)

(3)

(A)

(7)

( 5)

(9)

English
(r1)

English
(Pl)

Enfilish
(r1)

English
(Pl)

English
(Pl)

Portu-
guese
(P2)

IJO
.PQ)

Yoruua
(P2)

English—
YoruDa (81)

EmiliSfl—
Portuguese

(Sl)

English-
Iho (sl)

Eajlish-
Yordxa(sl)

lixvlish-
Portu ues e
(81)

Enilish-
Portuguese
(Sl)

bnglish-

Enfilisn—
Yoruba (Sl)

 

W as

droeped
get reSpondents.

ilo (t2)

30 (t2)

Yes (t1)

YES (I: l)

Ye A r(~tl)

1219, as ure 8

when the

to the USA respondents.

rlslt2corbinations are predicted

to be less like the USA factor
3‘ ucture and other measures of

CI
meanin: than rlOthcouninations
re (1L \r3 Lid/‘3).

rgsltl combinations also are fire-
dicted to be less like the USA

than rlsltl comginations

are like the USA measures, but
there is no lo ical base for fre-
ictin; vim tier rCsltl's are .oI-

tip

F10.

i}:e USA n rlsltq co
r

a

\J.

nolitical ujheaval in hireria wade

39

Figure 2. (continued)

 

 

Language
of Language AID Predicted similarity or difference
response group training (based on above assumptions)
*(IO) Portu- Portuguese Yes (t1)
guese only (32)
(P2)
(11) Ibo English-

(r2) Ibo ($1) No (t2) P2S2tl and r251t2 are predicted to
be still less like the USA measures,
but again there is no logical base
for saying that either of these com-
binations is any more or less like
USA measures than the other.

*(12) Yoruba English—
(rz) Yoruba (51) No (t2)
(l3) Portu- English-

guese Portuguese No (t2)

(P2) (81)

(In) Portu- Portuguese Least like USA and other groups
guese only (32) No (t2) (r232t2)

(P2)

 

b. Empirical hypotheses for the predicted relationships shown in

 

Figure 2, pp. 38-39, may be stated as follows:

Empirical
Hypothesis #1: Similarity of factor structures will be greater

among respondent groups which have the same values
of the independent variables, with a progressive
decline in similarity among groups as the difference
in values of the variables increases. English lan-
guage of response, e.g., would have the Same value,
Ibo with Yoruba would have somewhat different values
of the variable ”language of response”, and Ibo with
Portuguese would be a still greater difference.

 

*Set ten has drOpped due to lack of respondents. It was found that
those who had been in the USA six months or more no longer clearly met
the criterion for monolingual.

*Set twelve was drOpped when the political upheaval in Nigeria made
it impossible to get respondents.

Hi)

The pattern indicated in the combinations of

Variables and pre—
dictions listed on pp. 33—39 would put the monolingual POPtUfl uese who

have not en to t1e USA (1-3 7t2) at one end of the ordering and the

1s lt1) at

bilinguals who have been to the USA and.reSpond in En :lish (r
he other end.

Having looked at this overall pattern within the similarity matrix,
we may now look at some of the relationships within that overall pat-
tern. These will be specified in hypotheses 2~5.

Empirical

hypothesis #2: The coefficient of similaritv will be lowest be—

tween monolingual Portuguese with no exposure to
the USA and the hijerian language/cultural groups
who have been to the USA and who respond in Eng—
lish. (Set {14 in the list on p. 39 will be com~
pared with sets #1 and 52, p. 38).

These coefficients of similarity are expected to be below the low—
er limit of best fit? It is assumed that the monolingual Portuguese
with no contact with us A have been exposed to fewer stimuli than any of
the other respondent groups and that the stimuli to which they were
exposed are least similar to those which the other groups have experi—
enced. Thus a different structure of source evaluation is expected.

The Portuguese have been compared with the Ni uterian language/cul—
tural groups, anticipating that possible differences between the Afri-
can and Indo—European language/cultural patterns would offer the sharp-
est contrast among the respondent groups. In addition, we have the
difference in language of response and diffe ence in US . contact.

The lfi Ge rians who have been to the USA and reSpond in En lish are

1'0

expected to have been exposed to the largest number of similar stimuli

 

l+l/3L<
* Lower limit of est fit = , where k i
sol re

b the number of fac—
tors in each of the pa air of utions being comja

s
d.

l.

of ary of t1e rec*out-mt troups.

._‘

leamnulin L and thalabels fo

. 1
r r" '1
{t 1.101;

which they have learned both in their

"ripi irzcal

‘7 I]:
B'DO othes "0' "

;,\)o .L.

T)

we

13 cient of

coefi

English—Yoruba resuonuent“

tween eith the“

sponnents.

£31“ Cl

[71‘

lil

e sets listed be

and the predicted relationships ale:

Facsirtr: for sed:,’l WJi” sset: .: >> Fa
?acsins for set Tl Wit set j 2'>’Fa
Facs ims for set 58 Iit11 set l):>la

Facsirs for set is :it‘ set J>I"a
The first thO co par isons are

two are rqsltl co >1raticn

CL

coefficients of sinilarity

Inc and the Lni.lls1-Ioru. 0 1a ve been

lish are C pectcd to be above the li it 0
source evaluation for these two sample un

liKe those obtained by

study. bince vezr a les the present st

used by berlo the coefficier

.,

utea; visual ection will have to be

'0

Iith the Lens in; results.

In the discussion under hypothe,

laritx between the Nige

 

calls for a tee t of that ex,ecta tion.
* Facsim is an abbreviation for cocf

.
I'. wr‘l)
”Ohm.

for CC‘ .I‘

SJ (3pc til»

1"

CO

(JDCL

COTED are (,1

untry

sinii -arit/

wi
‘4“113'1—

I?

CSlLLS for
cs its for
csims for

uzs For

.611"

1.1 {:0 ,7

.t of simil

reli

rian samples was mentioned.

' ‘1 - c'V ‘rv'7\
lne dSoLUJU

fici

LilC‘ Cc; LC fOI‘ H313

of source

,‘ ' H‘s 'cr
and in the UsA.
IOF banfll fiz—Ibo

1V; i‘i"" _,,,,,
be ;l_1er than

ll
isn—

.1. 01‘

U)
\D

l”\
k 1

U)

U)
Q

r-i'rtrf'r—t

Cl)

rlsltl coxbinations

risons be
1e L8: as
(.4. r._'-
QL ilLo
are

El PC :1

ritv

Lenert and hertz in the

ot

~.

'30 OR

ent of

for C0

3?ortu ues

exnected

can not

tion underlyinfi

re
1.}

< .
..yv\ -—w‘ «(‘1
11‘] 1,30 Lla',\3-;

y—w
;J

".
‘_‘

F40 Ira-:0 [—40

ri-

"V

b-

rtr‘f

-r’
'1;

I
N
.4.
I
I
:2

.-v

sin , lice
tical to T

CO???—

110

f!

D

:3nal i DOD

contextual patterns

5.11“.- LL

he...
3J9
S
”a
; J

imilarity.

prediction is that the cultural patterns 0? the Ibo ane Yoruba respon-

dents are quite similar, thus providing a high level of similarity in
the stimuli to which they have oeen exposed durinfi nest of their lives.

3

. ’0

the comparisons to he mane here will include responses in both in lish

and mother tongue. Only sampling units having USA contact can be used

since the data are not available from the “No USA contact” Yoruhas.

Elmpiri cal

hypothesis is: The coefficients of similarity will he hither
anonfi the languafe/cultural groups when they re—
spond in English than when they respond in their
mother tongue.

This test required comparing the similarity of Ibo to Yoruba when

responding in Enslish with the similarity of Ibo to Yoruba when they

(I)

reSpond in mother tongues; and the imilarity of these two to Portu-
guese for responses in Endlish and in mother tongues. The sets listed

on pp. 38-39 to be compared and the predicted relationship under this

.’\)

Facsims for set fl with set # '>>Facsims for set i 3 with Szt f 9
(Pisiti) (r23ltl)

OE

Facsims for set in with set224 :>.Facsims for set ill with set €13

(Pisitz) (P281t2
Facsims for set {1 with set 53‘E>Facsims for set # 8 with set 3 7
(rlsltl) (rQSltl)

f

u

Facs-ms for set #2 with set #3 Facsims for set U 9 with set # 7
(rlsltl) (PQSltl)

To the extent to which there is an interdependent relationship
between language and rm...sm bonds (world View), we would expect the
language in which a person reseonds to affect the structure of his

judgments.
Empirical
hypothesis £5: The coefficients of similarity for respondents who
have been to the USA for training will he hisher
than for respondents who have not been to the USA
for training.

hatching for laniuaje/cultural group and for laniuase of response,
we're testing for the influence of USA exnosure on the structure of
source evaluation. The Yorubas and monolingual Portusuese were not in-

cluded since data were not available for those srougs both with and

without exposure to USA. lni

U)

left the following cozparisons under
hypothesis #5:

Facsims for set fl with set #3 j>Facsins for set # 4 with set S 6
(Pisitl) (P151t2)

Facsims for set fi7 with set $8 j>facsims for set fill with set $13

(PQSltl) (PQSth)

Empirical

vaothesis #6: The discriminating power of the scales for evalu-
atint sources will differ amonx the lansuate/cul—
tural jroups.

To the extent that language/cultural grouns vary in the values
that guide their behavior in reSponding to other persons, there will
be differences in the importance they assijn to various characteristics
of sources. There also may be differences in the wav they catejorize

.1

earlier. And with dif1e_ances in cat—

3
H
p—r
O
rt
(f)
C

these characteristics, at
egorizin: there will be differences in laLelin:. these diffeiences
should be reflected in measures of the power of the terms to discrimi—
nate between best source and worst source. This power may Le pers—

P

r— ‘ ._~ , . 1 rv
11erencc3 uetween the Lean scores for

+4-

tionalized by computing the 5
best source and the mean scores or woest source.
1"

' 4-. - '- ‘- . w 1a y 4—;- (~ . (w ,‘ (a («‘3 l “ yw ‘3 "j. ,‘n 1. v ,C- ~fi~~ “4-; V t‘ —.—l—
H Lest Ol— tillb Li‘,‘UOLilte.J (Al-JO O‘LC'U C1 file‘s/ix- .; ._.'l_0i..zr_:x....0n ..£_'.L
J .. -

for future study of source evaluation.

"(
H

\
O)
0
‘2)
E‘
( J
C )

will help in selects
It would be encouraging to find several scales that discriminate

strongly between best an*1 worst source across all lanfuafe/cultural
Cor yeastnijrj:scurce

. " " . ‘ ‘V " ‘ . r: "‘ ‘ ' \‘ur: a '7 2“
groups, permittinm election or a set cl seales

C’)

evaluation a ross lenjuage/cultural Troups.

In selectinq scales for future work with source evaluation, one
should keep in mind that semantic differential may sometimes be tL‘
most useful scalinj procedure. In selectiné scales for use in semantic

differential, it would be useful to know w}

,_J

ich telws yield the hifihest
degree of oppositeness of response. lnis was the reason for including
the third dependent variable -- polarity of terms.

The evidence in studies of peanini indicates that some pairs of
te ms are perceived as bipolar by espondents, while others presumed
to be bipolar are not so perceived. From this we would expect to find
some pairs of source evaluation terms with high neeative correlations
indicating bipolarity, while others which were selected for opposite-
ness may have low negative correlations or even zero correlations.

Pretest data indicated that the responses were not consistently
bipolar across best and worst source evaluations. A ”bad” source was

"good“ source was not necessarily friendly.

unfriendly, e.g.; but a
The final empirical hypothesis involves exploration of the polarity of
source evaluation reSponses with terms which were selected to include

presumed bipolar pairs.

0

Hypothesis fig: Bipolarity of the ranking responses in evaluating

sources of messaqes will not be consistently de-
monstrated for terms which have been selected as
paired opposites.

Although the terms to be used in this study will be selected as
bipolar pairs, Q—technique may be used as a scalinq instrument to avoid
the bipolarity assumption required by semantic differential. 5y usinn
Q-technique and taking each member of a bipolar pair as an individual
scale, the bipolarity of responses may be checked. This may be done

by studying the magnitude of negative correlations between members of

presumed polar opposites.

The predictions in all seven hypotheses are expected to hold
whether mspondents are evaluatine their be mat” source or their IWorst“
source. If the data yield commonality of evaluative structure and high
a recuent amon: saxples for terms which discriminate most between best
and worst source, a set of scales Which may? be usel for source evalua-
tion across lan7ua;7 e/cultural 7roups may be one practical result of the
study.
hhile it is hoped that the study may yield a set of source evalua—
tion scales that may be Esed across lan uacc/cultural crou)s, a more

ambitious aim is that it will contribute to clarification of some of

the theoretic issues pertaining to cross— cultural fenerality of meaning.

RU

Two elements in the present des- may tend to restrict tne aoncar-
ance of differences in results among the lanfiuafie/cultural 7rouns. One
is the selection of respondents from the same rather narrow socio—eco—

1

nomic level —— mieele management an' psofesSional workers —— in all
language/cultural groups. There rev be a hi hlv .3111 r set of stimuli

1 O u o O ‘ 0 .‘v ‘7'— .1 3.2‘ .I.’ .- u. ‘ >. ‘ . w .73
to union tu18 tyne of werson is EAJOSQQ tarou_xout tee world. From tee

ra ti nale, exposure to sinilar sti7uli would result in similar r ...sm

:1
raw).
:5
\.J.
C
C
L—J.
J
{I
O
a“:
*3
O
.W
L"
O
h
_‘
i-‘
LA
I

- . ‘34-’ - -. ..‘..L. .
evaluative ratte Jr

C‘ '
0
CJ
‘\
U)
Q)
3
f‘ .
d.
E
U)
C")
i—J I
E—j c
”U
L3

A second element which nay restrict the anpearance of differences

a;

in results among the languafie/cultural groups is the translatability

vn". . I" .. ”a 3 ~ A» - J— .w“ '* \4- "-3— . -~ ‘ 7 _‘ r v l- —
nrob len. “Jen one is forced to control L} e test stiuulu; pre77nt7~ to
7 . 7 7'7 73“ .l. H ‘ -nv‘1]"‘*~" "‘7'“ “+7.“ 1‘ ‘f‘ "(“W‘v‘w at: ‘1 7'" nb‘v’fl. ‘4‘“ l“
QI’OVlLLQ COmp aruOl .L L.) 01 IN; 0 LL-_L=:“ 3 LI.‘, an cJ-:._L.l-1,J.n H VIL, ule. .LOLi ...o 1“.qu .I- _- L Lu- (1
1 ‘ " . —-‘ ‘V \ '|\\ 4".- .-\ V -—~‘ -1 , -v >\ a \
Dy (JemanCIs IOP tran a] tion equivalence. It waj a; twat tie OUly ter a

~' ' ' q . .. 3.1... .3 x I,‘ 1,.“ aims} - a .A a».
whicn surVive a synoajnitj criterion Lu JdCA‘Lruuolatlon are those

whica have hifih commonality of meaninh across lcm: /CVl.rra lt7s.

l:, 111 the iimx: o? tnefr: Lfo litzflnttions, <' iTCIKJH3‘U are :tnu2d in
tests of the (Levp QVVCL‘4¢QR ti7 restlt fill' >ECOV7 note conVintinf.
-. ’-'. f‘ 7 1‘ 7 r‘ .‘7 'r ' ‘ r‘ \ : . 1"
II no rirrcrances are TOUQC. howchr, lL Haj re (Le to t.e overrlnin,
J22" -1- r- .x.‘,i .‘,(" - (3‘ ,3, “n+0 :1 -1’ .s IF t7 1.7.1.4.“ 03.1.1... .1 .‘
€lI€CL or Lue Uzolgh ,lLLQULQ ,ust entiopco. i 1e .ett,r QLLLmt_Ln

Althouen it has stated above that the yredicti

are expected to hold for evaluations of best and no

,—
.—.
4-

data will be checked

‘1

and worst source. Some unpublished work

‘TatiVG concepts (worst source

that evaluations of n

I

variability within a sample t s I

nan do evaluation

(best source). inspectel for that

ences between best and worst source judenents.

between evalua

° 4—”. ‘- ." ,.
in LUQ nqnotneSus

rst sources, the

tions of best source

my Lanbury (l983) indicated

) produce hijher

O

positive concepts

,.

and other lifter-

A 28 cell desi.7 n was
Chapter I,
The followin:
pendent variables des

best source and worst source,

jects of

CHAPTER

diacram snows

cribed

judgment.

UCS

tne variou.

I

P0

to t3s

with an R-type idCtOP analysis

I

7n

.J

t the

corlinations of the

in Chapter I (see p.

f "T3C31:h

Ior each cell of tr

eses clevelone

uin
e d<3 sijn .

three inde-

9), plus a fourth,

unich represents two levels

of the

D-

 

Language
group

E-:::DOFJed to Ljsdi‘i

- ”M?“ .—.: .- .....—...—. o..-

tion oF --

Llcsponse
lanfuaee

uescrip
LCS
SOUI‘CQ

Without USA Exnos

 

MOPS L
source

desc
best
source

11%

-- -.-—--- ‘—.—- - M-“

ription o‘

'| l'OI‘E‘) t
source

 

Englisn- Bn7lish l 2 3 u
Ibo
1130 5 E 7 Q

 

U3
IL.J
C)

English—
Yoruua

English

 

Yoruba

H
(.0
1}";

 

 

t:
><
,_J
1
1...!
f—Jo
CI)
'3
}_J
\J
H
C)
}_1
K J
t)
:\

English-
Portutuese

 

\)
H
R.)
h.)
\ J
(A)

Portu7uese

 

Portuguese

.. f‘r‘ J.
.

only Portuguese 23» '\n - 27 2’

 

 

3' - “ .‘7. 7‘ “‘1" 7“ '77 7.- T. .5 ~ ~ ‘fT 47‘ .73 71 A .
0 Due to tne political uLneaVal i: Hi.cria, one o; tni aieas usct
v I «- 0 - _ 'f "‘ .1 K —~‘ —. - -. h . A! ‘J_,-‘ Y v .7! v.‘ .\. ,
for an llSJ7101uJa S kugid 1“>)O“' La LOP- Lot

for samplinf, data
i e

. -‘ c w _ - f-‘I .- ._" _ ' V“. r1 '. _ .A _‘ :
available. Ta 3 -li «sated 4 cells irow ti; Lies; n. LJ. more cells
‘ ‘ . (I. ‘ ’ i ‘ 7 -~ .~\~7~ 7. T H" - — V 1 I ~'\ - r- . : '—~—~ I“ ' -l~. ‘- :3 ‘ \ (‘7‘ AH
Viere OPOTT‘BC "inf-3:1 lit ”’38 ZI-OLLAlke txit‘i-t. ."-JL£'T)_L._'-‘.L 1a..('....'. fen'lllaxn; ~ '. IO ' if. we. s...
.L '
.. n w i “ '\ ‘ ’ _fl"‘ A ' 1 ‘ _‘ '1
i" 'tWC\ Ttuzx si'< 7iorrt as :10 lcx"<.:1 co7al_;. _»3 ea, six "“‘t .3: . a 1-.
.L- ..A~.v .4‘ —-u .. -

It: 7

*ges "zmource :un3 oneiwiuional can: for txx3 resrmrieents [N7 asxin7;
‘ .. 1." 1 .r: - .. .' ._: ' 1,- ' .:: 4: . 1. 1mm ,. “an“
tnem to tainm oi a terson hllnln taair lield oi horn was e st r ewlt

" ' w ‘ “‘1 ‘ 7’1 \ \ I‘ . ‘r (7‘ - 7. .7 ~ : ,W ' “N 7 V. . -‘ v» f\ -<,-‘ — .
tney would tend to accent Wit out duestioa. lais chlu re lJQ .elson

.' ti. a ' " ' @111 .C .r ~~w737 Y .1. A“, +‘.,{\.. .H. ” , “l l r. x.‘ fin vs 4, A ._ 4- {T .‘V, V... , T
-n AlALlr Ilk..L(_. OJ. '--(JJ_.‘\ M'..K,’... L...\L _' th‘»kJ-(.A i, .L ‘ 5.}; LV 0 LO .C/l. 1:1ij Lib... :Ui
. ' 4.1- ° ‘.—3 ' f" » 5 ' C ‘ W TV a - «w- 4—1. .. . ' m‘ ‘, ' .-t.

Jitnin tneir ilult, l; tde coult cases; :7,one tie, filoflef, i.e., tee

person they theuiht J13 the best source of nessaies.

Enorst“ source was (n7r twoneiizei by aslin7 res;on< 3nts to tnink
a person within their yield of work whose statements they would
son Jh m the7 would cons iter tie ors source of niornation in their
Field of work.

evaluations of the sources
they chose. They were asked to sort )6 terms in"o 9 ranks from most

to least descriptive of the persons they has selected as nest ane Iorst
sources. The 66 terns are thos that SUPViV3Q translation and sa7nl717
criteria from anon: terms neOJle often ure to describe sources or nes~
'es. Hethod Oic selection of the terms will be described later.

P
L-

Althoujh Osgood, Kunata and others in their studies 0; the dinen~

q _ ,

sions of meaning used semantic differential, as die nerlo, Le enert and

.l—

IIertz in their study of source credibility, O—sort was selected for

this stud; for the follo:.in7 reasons:

H
”D
O
rt
(‘3
C.
C!

1) Ser antic ciflercnti l assumes the pairs of terms se
polar opposites. Some work by Danbury (l953) and Darnell
(lean), as well as that of Hordkoff (1963) and Green and Gold—
fried (l965) citec earlier, indicates that the nresuued polar

terms may not be interpreted as tolar onnos1tes n7 passendents

2) Some preliminary trials Mzi 11 respondents Iron various countrie

fl
.3

showed a tendency for than to nark down one side or the other

‘.- ~~ ~v w ~ 1 ... 4—1 ‘ ,-‘ ’4- . a - ‘- _ ‘
of tJG seales even wien the nresuneu polarity Jas alternated,

l .e o 3 :ZOOC—i o o I o o o :Dild
Intfair . . . . . . fair
StI‘OD r1: 0 o o o o o o idea}:

H.

There also was a tendency to mark all end scale nos tions. Q-

sort with a forced distribution forces the respondent to make

more discriminations; however it also may he arfued that it

forces disorininations which respondents do not usually make

H.

be

(I)

in judging the concept n: used in the test.

3) Danhury (1963), comparing semantic differential and Q—sort in
a source evaluation study, found sfnilar factor structures
emerging from both procedures.

)

So, it was decided to use Q-sort in the present study, not forcing
the assumption of polarity and leaving open the possibility of checkin:

the polarity of responses to the terms which are presumed to be bi-

d be

FJ

polar. However, if one knew the polarity of responses, it wou

fferential measure

+4-

useful in selecting terms for use in a semantic d

of source evaluation. This can be checked with the Q-sort data.

s. Sampling

 

Since a major aim of the study was to xplore the differences in
semantic structure of source evaluation as we move from one linéuafie/
cultural group to another, the important point in selection of respon—
dents was to get language/cultural groups that were p sumed to reflect
degrees of difference. Brazil and Nigeria were selected as two coun—

tries which would provide the differences soufiht.

Takini Eraz il and Aircria as countries from which to sample 0:—
fered the followin: advantaoes:

1) 30th Indo—L11r0pe r unu African lnnfiuaée/cultural iroues.

2) One count ry, Nigeria, in which there are irouos Sfifloiifif dif—

ferent lan~uajes but sharinc many cultural patterns.

3) TifferenCus in levels of technological develonrent.

M) Feasible means of data collection.

Althouih it is cirricult to claim that any tn irouos have Pifiilar
cultural fatterns, the loo of Eastern uigerian and the Yoruba 0-
Nigeria were selecte. as tn 0 lar*”“'c/cuttural grours witn'n one CJUH“

try wniic11would s

w w
A

were nany cultural natterns but have oifiorcnt lanju~

ages. icing Lijcrian they would be cxgectoo to be more like on: another

‘ ’ . 1’ ' I "\ '. . :\~ —‘r : i.‘ '1'.“ J“‘ *‘\ Y “: ‘7 ‘u' "‘ A "\ I
'tnan eiiiuar woult11xz like .11M2il. ~C)UL Lie l-<3 aiu Lae 1C3fiil1 ACC'JQ
1a 3" v v\ ,. . 7'“ '-\ . -—\~~ 1 .1 «- 1 fl f‘4‘ . ‘5» . -:-~v - ‘.
nave mane re: ter uroiress in euucation ado acce«t:c ChPLQLJ.mllLJ to m
- . 4.: -V .--- '- ': A. .A' - A - - —, -. . 1
4reater~<3xten been rfi =—r LU” al gltnj s 13 ex};llu4 11*. (Jr? P (1(lt —

turally oriented in t eir econong, Vut the Ibo nay h~ sorewhat Lore
business oriented than tle Yoruba. jot» have been under tfie inrluence

In their earlier history, the Yoruba develooefi lar"e kinfoois,
while the traditional social unit emoni LVe l
and villa(e. Cultural §.trorr” still reflect Lore centnalizotion a.oni
the Yoruba and more e alitarianisu anon. the Igc.

or. Arthur nienof

fusion research nrogect in bi eria in lUCG, saiu he was 1 trussee by

the devotion to cooperative activity and +4cnnolOfical cavelooment
among the loo. For axe ple, a villa;e will pool its resources to send

a young man to collo*e. in: SQlCCtiOH or

Level or technolO”ical fieveiognent gas referrcu to in the ration—

‘ . . 1 , ' — , ,:\ * rf'. , .~ '.~ . .. ,
ale as one eic1ent : .t ,i 1t contiijute to ciiicreaces in source eval—
_ a “_ - FT. ‘7‘ 1. ".. ,. \ o '_ ._‘ ‘ s «f‘ .v w ‘4... n - _ o —-\ p... A ’
uation. braiil ano nlficrld, GCLOPUqu to One set 0. criteria, reilect

.. 7:.C" v» ,— ' v- '. ”F- ,' i. :1 -‘.. .;'r.-- :2 w -1. 7?. ’ 5:-
some oliicreUCes in LdlS re ard ano pOiJ ul YUP urea tie sin in tmlb

Dr. David T. new

in

- 7. . ‘-I a» ‘.: fi-- 0 ,.v o ‘.. I 1- A‘-_!. \ r- ,‘1‘
s, SUClOlo'lSt at iluui UleQQSlty, u ioru, onio,

recommended five Leasures (Appendix 5—0) whicn he considers useful for

ranking countries as to level of technolonical development. ihese are:

..

urbanization, percentafie of ponulation enfa;ed in airiculture, per cap—
ita gross national product (23?), economic development status, and
literacy rate.

Data for these measures snow that in comparison to other countries
of the world, higerir ranks low on Cl? per capita, low on urbanization,
medium on percentaee of population in agriculture, low on literacy
(lO—SO% literate), and very low on economic development. hrazil ranked

'2

low on GNP per capita, hijh on urbanization, meoium on nercentaee 0:
population in airiculture, medium on literacy (SQ—90% literate), and
intermediate in economic oeveloonent.

Another factor in the selection of Brazil and hideria was the
availability of Michigan State University research teams in these two
countries to facilitate data collection.

It is not presumed that the sample 0? any of the lanfuage/cultural
groups is necessarily representative of the rest of the continent on

which it is found nor of all social levels within a lanfiuaie/cultural

group. This is not required to test the hypotheses, sinc; the :ein

1"

,. . ' .- n‘:r-- - i ..- .1. - ._. 1.1.
COMCEI‘H l8 13.x: £1-91 (ill.Jc:1x;;-Cz;iq 2:.,i31. (1 .011” 1.1.121'11‘2 C/C'Lllldlf‘iil ”POLY-fl.

: 1'4- -'~ . "-."r‘ . v- ~-v ‘~~- —: ‘z“/\ r‘ ~1-z- -‘ -'- . “‘- -f-"
~11. L ., J-l...l. tci- 1.01.3 C"? L}... 1;, ...O;;:.'“.' cult. O 1.. 1‘31“ 7‘? “)Oul'C :7 L0 CC-‘._L'<;C't C 1: La
,— ' ~ -. I- O .1 - I 1“ A U *‘ ‘ A _ “5 ,5 r- 0 . . 1 :
Iron PGldLlVElf lfiuCCcSSlJlC persons or the nos 1‘; type resultea in

sewer than that in most cells, as will be seen in Table l.

4- '1

--~‘ " *--V‘\r r: - 4". F) ‘J— ‘ x ‘11,, — - -~ a .
Taole l. nunwer o. Cmo.i._c et-u 1est ic eoul s n_ udu :5 -/C ulcurni Croins

_.—-.__- .-- -....- o-Q- c»-..“ - -fl—fl -. *4”-.. -..._---.- - --.------.- -.-...~..~—.._.-._..‘H-

 

\. -- o
. .O o . ()- 1‘.~J— A.
n--—. ---.'-o -~--— --—-- -_.-— -—<-~*-.—-—.—_

Language/Cultural Groug In Ln lish In hative

I .
l1r] .K-

,. ._ - .-\. \v.

 

1-- -.~.-. -- ----- -- -.-—.._.. .-_.‘ v..- _.—o. H

 

.—..-.--—- __,-1._- a—'-- "a...

,

J

0
v .. -—.. f.
.Wit: out LSA cxsosure Ho

' u 4— .. ~ r“ w _ 1‘: r
with o3. c: nosure U7

1‘ 1) U1

,
\J

j sn-Portujuese without CSA
ex osurc 20
hnjlish—Portu_uese wit} USA

e;r>o sure 'LQ 1;
Honolin”ual Portufiuese without

USA e<:osure CG HO

h)
C4)

C0

‘7‘. . -' i- *f ‘.- . ’ .13.. ' '."‘ '1 ._ . - ’3
inlplis.r-.orm-n1 11141 ooh e :xxsure .l- 9?
DTAL lWO 231

 

 

 

 

In selectinf res; ndents, field research tears 11au two restric—

q

tions placed on the: in oditi ior1 to the lanquafe require ent set above.
First, respondents were to be from among nersons who had not visited
the USA and who had had limited (yreferably no) contact with LEA ner-
sonnel. Second, they were to be of as nearly the same social class as
possible to those in the sample of trainees selected in the USA.

Baseu on the lists of those 420 had attendee conmunication so i—
nars conducted by hichijan State Universitv for the Ayency for Inter—
national Development, intervieners were structed to select teachers,

xtension workers, community deveIOpnent officers, enfineers, public

‘

health officers, anf nersons working in nicdlu nanasement le‘m. ls of

public or private organizations and businesses. A list of he cha m(t~
eristics of those in the sameles is in aspendix 3~2.

Of the bilin,uals selected, half responded in hnglish and half
res eonee d in their mother tonrue. Ass':n"“nt to response language was

L \ . .

random with the exception of ten brazilians.* Uith these ten the

ic1ent in English were 3iven the English languaje sets ane the

th

most pro
least proficient in 5.lish were given the Porttguese sets. The Q-sorts
from these ten reSpondents were used in the anal sis since it did not
destroy their value in tests of the relation nszu ips involvinfi two of the
independent variables: (1) language of response and (2) exnosure to USA
training. It did reduce the grobaoility of findinfi any difference be—
tween those who had facility in both lanfuaies and those who had facility
in only one of the languajes. The sarples involved in the breakdown

were still treated as seearate frcc>s in the analysis, however, on the
chance that a difference might be stronfi enough to appear even with the

contamination of part of one of the groups.

H ‘. —. .,.. ,.. w .3: ~-..'.-' -. ,-; ---, W.
1ne.sa ple units en osee to Usn trainin, Icie 01tainca {LOm LJCQC

,7 ' N T, F _, - “ .- 4-, -.. ~. .. ° . .., FL- ,, ‘ .‘.. -5, -.._..'.. ., .1 ,. ' .,J- ‘ , 1* ,.. . _ °
attenu1n,. tfle [MOHCJ tor I11Lc1‘11c1t1011fll 1.x; vCiQ..-..1C11 1. 00.,1111L1111Cc't101‘1 .11, , l-
7)" ,1 'tq’.‘ ‘\Xf If. "‘f‘."’ Qtfl‘t’x VT {\U".‘V‘“:“‘Y .1; q’.p-,-( l ']~W'2 ‘f‘_,_'.“'q0_‘.
Hal 1.) com. UC L1,. -. J .1lC...l_;<iD 1,, c. L L17.-. I :;l’b-1_ 1. ',~ 3 .2115 ._._L .1. fin ,-11C_! nl’ \;._ J-r,.n

students at Michigan State university, and by colleagues fron the fol—
lowing univers sities: Cornell, Kansas State, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa

State, Western Hichigan, Ohio State, Wilberforce (Lenia, Ohio), ?iscon—

i., Purdue, ColoraCo, Caras.a, UniverSity o: Kichigan, Indiana, lint:—

U

7\

'-- ,9. -', ',*Hfi-.'--...s .- t‘ . ,‘ 27-... 'v,-.2. ”1 ., ‘1 '
eta, Pl Lt:))ur’:-i ’ I'4C10.1_L;i 1 LOLI 3 AXOIJCIICLL (1Q3AA'J—‘i‘ Lon ) U. 0 (a O) 3 U (IULAAv-f‘Lj -[A—ll_

U)

nois, Western Illi 01.8, and 'iari (foo re, onio).

 

" ‘ x" '21 .-.,.':.r‘. 7.! .: .1. 47,—.“ .. .‘..,,4.. _.C' ..,
One or tne tieix1ssba11 lallee LO “Cuthmv instructiohs.

(-

In the present stun; and others like it, one o: the crucial dues—

tions becomes how to get a representative sample of linguistic codes

rw

that people use in regerring to sources of messajes. Hhat words do

oeonle associate with “good” source and with ”Lad’ source? One way is

an association technique.

'T‘

We can ask: what adjectives would you use to describe a person

whose statements vou would accept without ouestion i.e. a wood source
J _ - 9 3 .

of statements? hhat ad ectives would you use to describe a person

L_.‘

whose statements you would never accept without question, the worst
source of statements you can imagine? Thus we would obtain the labels
peeple give to those characteristics associated with “good” source and
with ”Dad” source.

Two other approaches may offer help. One is intrOSpection, the
other is previous research in the field. We may introspect ourselves,
and we may ask others to introspect. In each case, we're trying to
bring to light the pattern of rm...sm bonds. All three approaches were
used in the present studV.

The first step, following the Berlo, Lemert and Hertz pattern, was
to use the word association approach. One—hundred—twenty people from
Africa, Asia and South America in three of the MSU/AID communication
seminars were asked to list five words they would use to describe the
best possible source of messages in their field of work; they also were
asked to think of the worst possible source of messapes in their field

ectives they would use to describe that

L._J‘

of work and to list the five ad

source. In addition, the same questions were asked of fifteen Brazil—

ian, and fifteen Ibo and fifteen Yoruba speakinfi Hirerian students at

Michigan State University. The USU students, all bilinguals, were asked
to respond in their mother tonjue. Although those in the seminars had
been invited to reapond in their mother tongue, most responded in End—
lish.

The structure of the Nigerian langua:e is such that no extensive
class of terms comparable to English adjectives is used; phrases or
statements are used instead. Dr. Charles Kraft, linguist in the Rich—
igan State University African Studies Center, said that in his opinion
the use of phrases for the Nigerian languates and use or single words
in English would not alter results.

Approximately 250 adjectives and phrases were obtained via the
association approach. See a pendix C for the list.

The terms obtained from the seminar participants were combined
into presumed polar pairs (active—passive, educated—uneducated, etc.)
then submitted to another group of AID participants. These partici—
pants were asked to do two thinqs: (I) check each pair of terms to
indicate whether they believed the two words in each pair were oppo-
site in meaning, (2) check the twenty pairs of terms they believed were

most important in judjinfi sources of messajes.

If 15 percent or more of the reSpondents said the words in a pair

I

.s deleted from the list of scales used.

(

were not opposites, that pair w—

J.

A

also, for a pair of words to be in the list c

m

terms used, at least l5
percent of the respondents had to check tae words in a pair as being
among the tx-zenty they thought most important in judging; messagje sources.

Use of these criteria yielded 100 terms (firt

-.‘.. - ' ; A " ’fll Hi, ..;.'1 t:.- I‘.-_"‘ r. . —..—.
tially used in GCQCPlQlu‘ rest' and norcL‘ setrces.

II '~ "‘ “‘--."\ 4‘: ‘ "‘ 7"" vs‘ - .‘s r r- :~’-<‘.~-"I" -»r- < -‘ -/-
..Ore ”CL-a1". 11).} (LC. "CL.A.."V",‘;3 51.11-. -.,1.I‘Q_.".c:s ’.7-‘I\J C'LJLt.._L11‘-:k:. 5:10.. 1.9 Jul 53.8

w . .v‘ ’ ’“' : ‘\ * (.‘ ' r v " ". J'- — fir“
‘ l lltl, LAC]. 130 LA: 1) Li L. L. ’C .L‘... l i .‘fCeIt- LLLV ' pm)“. LJ' C! )1": ., F L11 0 1. v
ter 3 Je1n~ tvnlic3“es of thc'se o t1i :row tic -[d eartiCinagts.

l' -

“1" . -v -‘-v — . ." r‘ I‘ ‘ *" I. -- \"’ .‘\ \ . . ' ' ’V‘- v Q. J“ r- - V ' ‘1 “ . '-
lhirtJ-tao pairs were selecteu .ron the “l erian aha Portd_uzse flnLqu

- .-‘ . ',~ ~~ '1 J-‘i " — ° I v. - - ' - ‘.- . - . ‘ ‘ - 4.1
lan<uaj,e lists and the shy lisn. translations 0. these were aeeec to the

u a o 1 'r.

lOO terms gleaned from the conmunication zinar nart1c1“ants. this

D)

"ielded 164 terrs used to CC scribe soxmlcas of "es sa‘

(J
u)
0

The list of lbs terrs was checked to see that it includes at lea1st

three pairs from each of the Lerlo, Leme‘t and hertz factors of source

from each of seven cate wori sdevelOped from intro pective reports and
previous research. (The seven cate ories are listed and explicated
below.) Eben we were satis ied that those requirements had been wet, we
arranfed for the Ibo, Yoruba and Portufiuese translations of the terms.
the seven categories developed from introspective reports are
expressed in the follo-Iinj questions chich people were askin: in (e-
cidinq how to r spond to sources:

1. What does he (or she ) know about tlfi s toric?

2. How will he use what he knows to help or hinder he in achievin:
WU foals?

3. flow consistent is he in trar sntittinj what he knows? Are his
reports consistently sueJOYTed by later e arts or con mi tently
not U““OPLGQ h}! later eveimt ?

‘ ‘ he's saying and t1e

u. how easy is it for he to understand wna'
implications of these statements for he

5. What powericers'he have to convey Hes 3'1 3.3 to the receiver
and how does he use that power?

6. how flexible is he tion and transmission : 1-es—
sages and in his ot h

L)
6
co

7. how efficie ent i

For eacn of these we may ask what are the characteristics of per-
sons that are post likely to be used in evaluating a source on each of
the areas covered by the questions? At this stace of dcveloyinj an
evaluative structure, we may alternately construct cateaories and seet
characteristics (by word association or otherwise). The categories
may suggest characteristics that may be used in evaluation and the
characteristics obtained may sujgsst new ways of catefiorizing. These
questions become the basis for hypothesized factors of source evaluation.

Characteristics of sources that seem to fit semantically within the
frame of the first question (What does he know?) are: educated, skilled,
trained, experienced, competent, informed, etc. These will be recog-
nized as the qualification factor obtained in the studies by Serlo,
Lenert, Hertz, Danbury and Troldahl.

The second question (How will he use what he knows?) seems to e,-
compass such characteristics as trustworthy, friendly, sympathetic,
just, kind, respectful, concerned, unselfish, patient, safe, etc. 1hese
appear to be related to the perceptions of the source's intentions in
relation to the receiver(s).

The consistency question (#3) does not appear to be mutually exclu—
sive from the second question. Berlo, Lemert and Hertz (1966) found
the consistency elements split off into the safety and Qualification
factors. It does, however, seem to encompass something different than
intentions; but it also relates to how the source uses what he knows.

Some of the words in English used to refer to the characteristics
used in evaluating one's consistency are : reliable, logical, rational,

accurate, correct, dependable, trustworthy, consistent, etc. Two as-

pects of consistency commonly used by researchers are implied by these

(f7
1

- ~ \ . \-:O I”. . ~—-.-- 3 l' ‘\ r‘ . v' v a 1’ . - q " 1‘ -'-.--‘
ternal consisten y. Han internal censistenc , me are lOOnlfl at wnetn

er what the source says one time is consistent with what he says an-

other time. With external consistency, we‘re askinfi whether what the
source says is consistent with some outside criterion, with somethinf
other than what the source has been 3;

Regardless of what the source knows, or how he uses x-Ihat he 3~:-1_,r~.~zs,
can I understand his nessafes easily? Some of the characteristics as—
sociated with this catefory are: clear, understandable, conprehensi-
ble, etc. Let's take an example. I have two sources. I jud e that
both of them know what will help me and both have favorable intentions
toward me. hut, one 0: than is easier than the o
and interpret. I will evaluate the easier one more positively anc se—
lect that one as my source of messages. 1:1is is what we t‘zould QZV-Z'T‘CC'C
if the reward/effort ratio onerates here.

The power catefory als rev he relatec to the intenCi ns categofy.
Power may be a more important facccr in terns of the notential for in-
Cucin: 'n others responses that may afiect re, more tgan in the Speed
or slowness with which Hesse cs are transmi'ted to TC. Some of
words used to express characteristics or pers ns on the power :accor

are: powerful, stronj, agfressive, active, enerfietic, decisive, arbi—

V _‘ '1‘". .' ‘7 . 55—}? ~ vs 1 5’ ‘N ~ .‘ . "" r‘ v-\ v v. - l, 4"
II‘G V61?” Ewell. Lg")? .‘3‘3 (_.lil21.?3-;C83 .Ln CVCllLLA-tll-lj Tyre: 90.132? - JCLOI",
o ,- 0 I, ‘ ‘~ __ . u ,5 : “_ u, o _: - -‘ ' (fl 1 r‘
it indeed such a factor is ioune in the analysis. I

,—

‘. -.. fl, ,. .‘1‘. n..—....., ._ 3..» , . -. .. I . . -, -1. .. .1~' ‘
lCI‘enCes (.LO CLD‘J’Dle, I IIOLJJA CL-Dbunt) LAdt inn; Cve..lL1(;L.L0n 4.5) L. f3:‘1.-1.s. C

l-
:n

D.

(I)

rt

- ‘. -L«‘. '~"\ . 1.. -. \ . f" ‘~ -\ —1 .T‘ a. ‘ \ AV '
CCLESQC UQUCCS 1-,1‘3 purl-CT} 1121.": 0-3le VLCJ. l}. 0.. (.3.

38831011 BIN". U38 OI DCI‘FCI“ 3):,7 11303;; in CEULIIOIILLJ 2031.110115. ii Iii-”31801“.

'4

who has e>2perienced ne_ative conseluences of extloitive use of power
would be expected to rate negatively those he perceives as very power-
ful, strong and active. On the other hand, a person who has ‘sad nefa—
tive experiences with weak, procrastinating authorities Jxey rate nienly
positively those he perceives s powerful, stronj, active ans decisive.
I would expect power to be curvilinear in its relation to nosi-
tive and negative ran} injs of sources. Tue highly qualified3 untrust—
worthy source With higi mower would be ranked lower than a niéhly

. ‘

qualifie', untrustwortay source with low newer. A highlv ouali

1
I

highly trustworthy, powerful source Lould 3e expected to rank niinest
among those soueht for information.

Flen14111 v se me 5 to connotate a willingness to cnenje, a willini-
mess to look at the new and not cling tenaciously to what has been and
is now. Some of the words used to exnress chiracteristics of flexi—
bility are: flexible, onen-nindcd, modern, u; —to-C3te, reasonable, etc.
.3

the aSSOClPthHS "iver when .eople are asxee to d

4

5cril’

(I)

(J
2:.)

food source and in their introz~571ective Ivztl‘orts are such terns as:

r‘ ' . ‘ , 1 , 3-1.11. ‘ ,, :7 v ,V‘ - .1, ‘, M‘._ , ‘ .._
e11%1c1 nt, or,an1zeo, sJSL~uat1c, ournose-ul, auu card»1e. 1 e.“ . 1L
HO cat 3:7 r3 j' ,x(' '3" '7 ”'0‘1hrnl r") '- :71. C: Ari our c'-,rv'tn-fi (1‘ "\“P' 1‘ .711: 1T“:‘L‘1vw7n'\] ",7”? 7‘“ C)
1.1 L, V C3 (4.. J 0.0 Ct - 41.... A 1. 1.. 1...--. k...- _._C.\, VI. , ML. 1.1. 1.11 ..-1- VJ 1 , -(-\... ..

(D
O
m
I.
O
2
O
I‘
.1
Ho
“5
D)
Z)
L"
C
1
*5
D
3
7)
3
’3
L;
(.1
‘J
C)
(3
€
(v
"1

questions on p. 58 and
the suucategories indicated by the terrs usee to cescriee the sources
of messages may be considered a sansle of the poeulation of cathorlms
and E )ca*e_or1es used bv Teenle throu‘mout the norlfi.

Lens :11; into a.ffmfixx7 aialfsis (qtfixct

tue output. So, it was to rake the iatut as refresentat1ve as iossi—

e1e of the Dorulation Cf source evrluatlon r‘”'orc“s test the scale

items used were checked against the herlo, Lerert and hertz scales,
introspective reports and the word association responses.

It also was assumed that the seven questions stated above miiht
be factors of source evaluation, so an effort was made to equalize the
number of scales believed to be encompassed by each of the seven cate-
gories. This should reduce the likelihood that the proportion of vari-
ance attributable to each factor is a function of the number of scales
attached to each factor rather than the importance which the reapondents
assign to the factor.

A list of the scales used is in appendix D along with the back-

translations from each of the languages.

C. Procedures

1. Translation procedure --

 

A back-translation procedure was followed which required one trans-
lator to translate English terms into the native language. Then a
second translator in each language did a back—translation, translating
the native languages back to English. With the Portuguese, there was
a high degree of synonymity. Hany of the back-translations produced
exactly the original English terms. As expected, the hizerian lanfiuages
were more difficult to translate and the back—translations produced
fewer duplicates of the original English terms.

Where there were discrepancies between the back-translation and
the original English terms, both translators for the language met to
discuss the differences to see if a consensus could be reached. With
some of the terms, they agreed that the translations were too ambiguous
to be meaningful. One example of this was the pair of terns t’scien—

tific-unscientific.” The Yoruba translators said they didn't have

El

scientific as a ieneral concept within the lanjuafe. The Ibo transla-
tors could translate scientific as of tais :orlc, and unscientifi

as “not of this world.”
After the two translators had conferred, a third translator was
used to give another back-translation of the Ibo and Yoruba terms.

The following criteria were then used to select sixty-six tenns
(presumably thirty-three polar pairs) to be used in the test instrunent:
a) Those listed most often by the respondent grouns when they
were giving the five words they would use to describe 'best”

and “worst” sources.

b) Include at least three pairs from each of the three Berlo—

Lenert-Hertz factors.

c) Include at least two pairs from each of the seven categories

H
i—l o
(I)
('i‘
(D
Q,
Q
5
*0
0"
CD

0
.5.
Ho
0

d) Thos h yield exact back—translations or synonyms of the

lisn terns. (Thesagggs_by Roget as a guide to
synonymity.)

e) In case of decisions beyond these criteria, rand mly select
to obtain the desired sixty-six terms.

Sixty-six terms were selected. This nuuber is within the recon-

3

Kent the task

H1

mended range of uo-ea items in a Q—sort, and or resnon-

dents within a reasonable time. Pretest of the instrument showed that
more than half of the respondents required about one hour, a quarter
required 12 hours and about l0 percent required two hours to complete
the test.

The list of terms in each langua e and the back—translations are

contained in Apaendix -.

‘

62

The Q—sort terms were printed on the back of Iii cards.

cards we: then sent to the contuter lab and the column code

into the cards for each term, alone vfith deck 1’nber and reap

)

number.

.0
(D

punched

once

HL.

Nine yellow rank cards were provided, one for each of the nine

ranks in the Q-sort. The number of descriptive terms which 13
were to put in each rank was stated on each of the rank cards. T

ranx cards also were prepun had with the rank number. This ;-

spendsx nts

he

machine tabulation of the data when it was obtained. It also permitted

machine asserblinj of the Q—decks.

To help respondents with the sorting, three blue rank cards were

provided to sort the sixty—six terms firs t into most descriptive (blue

card A), least descriptive (blue card C), and uncertain (blue card 3?).

_W

‘1‘

’—

were give n in the language in which the reapondent did the Q

fl
Ff.
:

H-
Sq.
Lu
5

was done to get the responden

sorting the ite:s into ranks.

Personal data on each respondent —- aze, occup _ation, school;

-8 OIVt 0

he instructions for the Q—sort are in a*: pendix A. Instructions

This

in the given laniuafe before

1%...

language facility, etc. —— were obtained at the end of the Q—sort
See appendix B-l for a COpy of these questions. Since these ques

~ 0 C

were answered after the Q—sortsa nc-L thus would not influence
Sponses, they were given in Ln lish to all except the Portuju

respondents.

The Q—sort cards for best source sorts were put in a no.

Ll

Q—sort re-

ese-only

envelop e with a set of the blue and a set of the yellow rank cares.

The envelope for the ”best source” sort was marked “A”. An identical

set was prepared for ‘worst source” sorts, and this envelope was marked

H?” M
.2

. hese two envelopes were then put in a 9” x l2” enveloye with a

3

(

copy of the instructions and the questionnaire for personal data.
Although the instruments for the various lahfiuage/cultural groups
were kept in separate boxes, each envelope was labeled to ratch the

code Sheet as a further precaution avainst mixing of data.

 

The person administering the test read the introduction from the

instruction sheet with the respondent, then asked if there were any
questions about the plan for the study. Than he explained t1? reneral

procedure for the Q—sort and asked the respondents to beiin. If respon—

n-"‘\v‘x.“'- 4‘“ "
(slit-“Lind LL11;

dents had questions about the procedure, the peeson admin

test answered them.

(I)
0
P1
5—1
.fi
\f‘l
t)
G
(D
C.
fl
0
(D
}._J
T‘
U
DJ
fl
(L)
LJ
(‘1'
J
D
O.
(’\
w
(‘7
F
;—J
m
m
d
Q
Q
m
b»:
,_J
,J
“\
A
d
h
(.3
k‘\
p
‘1
m
w
r
C
S

 

Li. Tirate“: of tie instruigio ——

A pretest was conducted to provide a clecP of tie test addinistra-
tion procedures, and to permit further screenin: o; the terms used in
the instrument. The pretest was given to eifhteen Portufiuese—cnlv
respondents and to twenty~five respondents from other lan,uaje grtups
who responded in Lnjlish. Sixteen sehedulas were selected for analysis
from eaxni of the 13h) langimwxx3 ?orflnrjugse atmlihiglis ). :1 correlthtxi

‘- '- -. - r— (‘r :5 I: ' '3 "a“ 'L‘ —, v: v“‘. —‘-.1 v' f: ' Va ‘ "‘ .«- . “~ - "s - —A- , ""\
L-test wdS used lor each tent, Saturatelu ior the LL lish and xor the
D 4‘ t" ~ (“(3 rev-Ht \ or“ " "‘ xfl" t} '3 “ '71 r""'\ ' /‘~c";¢‘ 4“?" '3“ 1W“.*‘*fi r‘ ‘ {_\" 1'- an
LOFLUHUGQQ P:Q)Cnscm, LO LEQC u; Dbl JYUOLfltolc LuQL m—uh aborso «Cl

7‘ .

”best” source were e.ual to mean scores for “worst“ source. Alpha .30

- 1 - - . ~ A I; i “\f“ .‘w- -‘ ”an -'--'— /~ / —— ‘. . - 9 0 .‘s u. ‘- ' . a v w .

two—tailed (t x.lo flab Used as t1: 12Vci solos unicn teris were re—
” .- - -‘ tn .. ’11:". 1 ‘. w -r- J— A. .~"'. A: "\ ' v \v .7 F!“ '* -~
your pairs l terns wnlCfl did not UlSClelhdtB betwenm JCQL due

a , , , ,A T ,- _. 1 .rr- 1.',._--',. .- A. p .- ‘z a. .A- . - .’

worst sources were creamed lolloninu the uretest. These here. flexi-

_ ”f -,.;. ' .H
m? “Ll-lilblv'e — LL11—

H'
O
“F

{—10
+4-
0
"5

0
Q1
H
g.)
C4
i"

ble—rigid, dogmatic-not doiuatic, sen
imaginative.
Six pairs of tcrms were dr jped due to translation ambiguities.

ic, ornanic—not dynamic, just—unjust,

J

I"

Tnese were: scientir c—unscicnti:
reasonable—unreasonable, precise—imprecise, producti'e-ungroductive.

hardworking and tired were drOPped when energetic-lazy showed a
higher negative correlation than enerfietic—tired or hardworking-lazy;
furthermore, respondents remarked that a source could be both energetic
and tired. Modern—old~tashioned was dropped and up—to—date and out—of—
date retained when the latter pair showed higher negative correlations
in the pretest and when old-fashioned did not discriminate between
best and worst source.

The following pairs were added to replace those dropped from the
list used in the pretest: active-passive, decisive—indecisive, innar—
tial-partial, kind-cruel, trustworthy—untrustworthv, intelligible—unin-
telligible, persuasive-unpersuasive, certain~uncertain, patient-impa-
tient, humble—arrogant, approachable-unapproachable, and mature—imma—
ture. These terms translated with a minimum of ambituity and they
were terms frequently given by both Nigerians and Brazilians in the
association phase of tne study.

Some measures of polarity of the terms were computed, but since
the Q—sort does not force the assumption of polarity, 'hese measures

were not a deciding factor in selection of terms from the pretest data.

i—‘o

The strongest measure of polarity s the negative correlations oh-
taincd from the intercorrelations used for the R—tyne factor analysis.
Another measure is the discrepancy from symmetrical ranks (Q—l, 8-2,

7—3, 6-4 and 5—5 bein: symmetrical in a O—rank scale.) II the two ranks

for a

’0

ositive term and a nefative term in a presumed polar pair to—

taled more than ten this was a nositive discreeancr; i1 they totaled

‘

less than ten this was a nefative 1iscrananCV. The means of these dis—

n

crepancies were computed and a t-test was run for each pair to deter—
mine whether the discrepancies were significantly different from zero

at the .05 level, two-tailed. Adout half of the pairs in the pretest

met this criterion.

 

Lu The analysis
1. Factor Analysis —-
An R-type factor analysis, using principal axis solution and vari-

max rotation, was run :or each of the twenty—two cells in t

deSign. in the analysis, the rang in whiCJ ;n item was elacee in tne

(1‘

Q-sort was taken as the score for each res: ndent on each term; and

.m. t .-,x +,.w ”i-, ~n+ ; H:+1 +3 i .. J c n ‘ .C
COFCS iOP Cuts Lil“ neflf COPPQlaLGJ HLLJ Lhe aCCPGa -OT uflCu Oi

(‘f
5
0')

~ 3’. -~ .I _ _ _.__ ,c f A . y n f __ l. ‘3 a“ ‘3‘ 1
The niel-Jri it] criterion (niel lfleu) Has used to LGCLLU utea to
. .i C. - V, ._,.-.-' .. ,-. '. ~ '- ‘ . ..... ' -. .. 4- 4- f", - - .'—' v -." .- 4—‘ ',. A:
SLO) lacter otations i- the co ,ater cutert. JPUPdLlOnell:, Ldlu Cil-
'. . r‘ "\U’\ 5: fi' - v . T-w ~,‘ - o v\ 4-" . ‘, -~ ~~‘,, [a - q - V 7 ,, r- s A ,‘,- r—‘ . -x‘ .
terion is as lOllOwS. UJLwPLlnC tue nl,uest loaaln, .or each varianie

7"1‘

. ‘ : p\ .: ‘xn. V’-"'l'\r‘ ‘.-\ K“ ‘\‘-' ' "rfi" "v
as each new factor 18 extracted. ine criterion states idnL eaca f cto1
:uust turha at leiffi: three Inadeidaxvas. Ixxx'the ifffl: FactCI'rxu lengir‘

has three underlines, we save extracten one yathr meronc tne CTltCllOD

. .. .. ,g 1 . A 1‘ ’ - ‘.~ - \ 1‘ ,1. o ‘ .. O '_‘ 4. . -- r‘ . . I; -.
3'01... C-1 («.1..(A 11(_\t L-axv~3 tlkL‘lje 1,1L.{\1‘3TIJJ.;;.JLV) .1...“ Li ,‘C C.‘ . [.;>

m
:1
{\
Fl
E_l
d
th
m
0
n
O
6

can be seen, this methoa requires C :tr actin” one more factor than will
be kept in the analysis.

The first step in describing the factors was to li: 3t tne 11i“w1 st
loaded variablw for each factor for all rotations hetinninf with the
3-factor rotation and continuing through the 7-factor rotation for each
cell in the design. lhe criteria for selectins the hi Iest loaccd
variaoles were: (l) tne hiZJCSt factor loadinf for a variaale must he
0.50 or above; and (2) the nex hi best loadins on a iactor for tnat
variable wast not be sore than half the piimary loadinj.

”ine des criI) tions oi the factors for several rotations in e: 011

('2
(D
}_J
F.)

a I ‘ - ' .. O r.
_.

r‘ -I . , . - . .. . ,1, , - _.r_ ,. . .-. ,' , .;.E- 4‘» .-- .- ,‘
o: the QQSlgfi orOViuee a LMCLR cl the stasility o the lactors.

,2‘.
C.)

could see which variaol as COIttnaec to cluster totether ane whicn vari-
ables split off as more factors were extracted.

Factor purity scores were cornuted for all variables for the 5, 5,
and 7-factor rotations, these rotations ha vin been selected as poten-

. ’11. -- ~-.» -' . “-1—- 7 five» l‘r‘ r" - ,(fi 1vq ah ~-~v~1V4‘ ,"1 "\ ’71. -: f. w\ r- 4-.)‘1/3
tld )7 mOSL L.ec_l.nlri_..11.i_o 111an QCOIY...) sable. COI..LJLLL‘.,\'. UV e;..-V-..Ulu-'I l..‘.-K..

,. .- 1- ., i .0 o u .n ’4‘
squares or tne nigneSt loacin: on a variaale by nc,t1e communality on

that variable. The purity score so d:2rivee pave the pIoportion of vari-
ance ext “acted by the factor on z-rhich the variesjle had its :‘Pififil‘y
loading.

selection of the rotation on which to co §>uI:e turity scores was
based on: (1) Facsins (coefficients of similarity) conruted within sam-
ples comparing the factors in each r tation wit ‘1 the factors in all
other rotations, (2) percent of total variance accounted for h
factors and by each new fc actor extracted, and (3) on whether the fac—
tors were (“”CLleJlD in a way that was nsychOLo ically Leaninsfnl to

the res MarcIers working on the stud".

"‘H» , "T-f' .F-~"‘:'\ - ,,.' -' 1 h- 7' I— n- x 3. -,., -T. .13 .--I~' .. ,.!2 ,_ - ..
luv: COU‘iilClgu Lo 0 glullel‘i Ly t-l‘Ox/LLCLL cu; .lflciiksclLlC/I. v.1 tn: ()4ch—

-C K- r. -I- -fi ,A .,, .. 7,. ,l .,.-- 1:... A .;--4.’ . ,-. . _ -
Ol tli‘: .LCLCLOI'Q ablOoo G-ciCIl o‘chLBtJLil“, l'OequOM. ”11311 C. l'koLLllUt:

L

H.
*4
i "
(’1'

ceased to add a new iactor or the separation of a factor into two dis»

tinct factors, or when a rotation reflected iracturin; of a factor wit;

.7 4.3.1. 4-1-, ., .‘-..:- :T
"c1 t..lu.L L112; .-C)l.lt_ 0,.

_l.
C
fx
1
(J

out producing a new s“atle factor, it was
optimum rotation had ween reached. In all cases, factorinfi was con—
tinued until at least 50 yercent of the total variance was accounted
for by the factors obtained. the last factor added in each of the
samples yielded at least four percent of the variance accounted for. In
each sample, the facsin criterion resulted in fewer factors than pro—
vided by the Kiel-Hrifilcy criterion.

The factor purity scores helped sharpen the final descriptions of
the factors. In describing factors, the variables with the highest
purity scores were taken as most descriptive of a factor. Only rarely
were variables with purity scores of less than 50 used in descrisin; a

factor.

2. Congarison of Factor Structures ——

 

Coefficients of similarity were comouted for the 5,6 and 7-factor
rotations across selected cells in the desitn. The capacity of the
computer program would not permit c mparison of all twenty-two cells in
the design in one matrix, so the cells selected were those which would

permit tests of the hypotheses stated at the end of Chapter I.

The formula for the coefficient of similarity is

 

ducts of the Lactor loadines for

2:
:3.
(D
*5
(D
H1
1...:
{64a
[.4 .
CD
r+
:3 ‘
(I)
U)
C.
O
H)
ff.
ED;
0
"5
O
U}
(D
"J
"5
O

’) , ,_ ‘
g are tne suns o: the
L.

68
squared factor leadings for each of the factors.
The criterion for accepting factor structures as similar was the
lower bound of best fit. It is determined by the formula 1 + l/\fi'

2
where k is the number of factors in each cell of the pair of cells be-

 

ing compared. By this formula, the lower bound of best fit for com-
paring two u-factor solutions would be 0.75. One over the square root
of u would be 1/2; one plus l/2 would be 1.5 and 1.5 divided by two
would be 0.75.

The coefficients of similarity give a basis for making a "similar -
not similar" judgment based on the lower bounds of best fit. However,
the empirical hypotheses ask for more refined judgments of similarity.
Search for statistical tests to provide a firmer base for such judg—
ments led to discussion with Charles F. Wrigley, Director of the
Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State Univer;
sity and with Albert Talbott, Director, Research Services, Department
of Communication, Michigan State University.

Dr. Wrigley stressed that lack of a sampling distribution for the
coefficients of similarity and the small sample size being used in the
study leave us with considerable uncertainty as to what we have when
we use the coefficients of similarity to compare factor structures. To
provide a firmer base for judgments about the relative similarity of
factor structures among the various cells in the design, he suggested
develOping four random Q-sorts of the items used in the study and fac-
tor analyzing these. This was done and the factor structures from the
random sorts were included in computing the coefficient of similarity

matrices.

- -' A r ‘ - -, ‘ - r=‘.. .. ‘-. -m 4- .-.:.... .7- -' 1.-
Jairs or: the tour runner, Q— sort L3. ._e tzlen accredit, me stasis lar 11w -
° .- -1 «4—. ...-' f? _" H“ .A. ' . ’1' 4.'. A (7.x-t-m a?! '—-4- ‘ ,. -I- - I .’-.

in: the steength oi the co qulSOHS c; Cub sets ,1 «ate cellecteu .ror

the various lan;uate/cultural irou s
m‘ U Q ~C 4‘" \. F . . A ‘2 v 1': . van" H "‘ “"U " ~I fl -r'-v~ .
1N0 uses 0; LBS coefJiCieJ s 0; s Hilarity Jere chlCYCL to pro-

tje number of coeffi-

o
C;
S
O
1‘"
0‘
L)
('f‘
O
P
H
W
Fi'

vide a test of the hypothes-e s

f best fit compared to the

i:
O
1*

cients of one set reaching tie lower lin

r-

number 0t cce ifi cie Mn 3 of another set reachinfi the lower lirit criterion.
The other use involve ed tle cor; utation of sums of squared coefficients
for the six factors in the six is ctor rctations and the mean of the six

coefficients in the 81X iactor rotations. The mean was computed by

f. ~,‘o 0

taking the mean of the sums or the squared coetric1ents and extracting

the square root. The same computations were pads for the six sets or

rem the

H1

coefficients obtained )airs of random Q—sorts.

Having the range and the deviations from the means of the values
obtained from the random sorts provided some added :e cling of confi-
dence in the inferences from the responCents' data. Perhaps future work
with random sorts will provide enough cases to develop some sampling
distributions and tests of statistical significance which are not now
available.

To test empirical hypothesis #1, coefficients of similarity for
the six—factor rotations for worst source sorts for the eleven languafe/

cultural groups were put into 31X matrices, one for each factor. The

hypothesized order of the rlsltl to rzsztg combinations of the values

of the independent variables as llSt‘C in Figurc 2, p. 38 was tested

by averaging the coefficients for the languafic/cultural groups which

fit the combinations, i.e., rlsltl, rqsgtq, etc. i1ese averafc s were

then put in a ratrix and the arranjenent stu iecl to see i' the values in
the matrix followed the hypothesized order.

3. Discriminating Power of Q—items --

 

As in the pretest, t— tes ts of the diife fences between the wean
scores of the Q—sorts for best source and the mean scores of the Q~sorts
for worst source were computed . min each cell of: the d sign. These
data permitted culling those scales which did not significantly dis-
criminate between best and worst sources of mess ates.

F

To test hypothesis 6 and to permit further te stin , or hypotheses

-

2—5, the mean di erence scores for each of the eleven langua"e/cultural
groups were correlated with one another over the sixty—six scales.
This produced an ll x ll correlation matrix xmli ch was then factor
analyzed to see whether factors would emerge which would match the lan—
guage/cultural groups predicted to be most similar. Z-transfornations
were used in testing the significance of the differences between select-
ed correlations within this ll X ll matr'x.

Further analysis of this part of the data involved comparing nean

Ar

it erences between selected pairs oi scales over the eleven language/
cultural groups. A two—factor analysis of variance de-8 sign with repeated
measures on the same subjects (Uiner, 1362, pp. 302-317) was used to
test significance of differences in discri ina hi1-j power of the scale
items. To handle the unequal frequencies in the subclasses, an :FwPO‘

'- ..',—. ,.._,_

imate method of conputing sums of squares (Halker and nev, laud, 5n.
Those itens showin: the hirh est power to discriminate across lan—
guage/cultural groups were retained for future use in source evaluation

work.

4. Polarity of Terra ——

 

. ,3; .. ' 9r; 1, --. ', . .2 -. .f- 4 -.°..... ;: --.
.7HOLACSLS 1 comes muszr u.e GLULJJMXLUV o_ le-

’—

I" ‘ r '1‘ ‘ "1 ‘ *‘, r“ ‘5" "' "— ’ ..' * v " f" . 4"“ V ' y' 1 '1' ". 1‘ .‘N -"‘ 'L. 7‘ v, - ’\
0130112368 to .43ka T31 pt) muffin L 3 “”3 CL‘ 3Ool use; , tun“. CO '12.“ 3 - 4-...‘-0.L..) Oi en- 10.,-
.‘; I "‘VT" . "5-1:; 1. r‘ 3r- WV .31 3"“: 7 n ‘.7/.'\V1"‘\ ' "I'.-""." -q ‘ ‘ ‘1
,(.,tlis.) \J‘vl’v lS Ltd. J H q: CCIL CV t1L.LC’.lQ M‘vi'.’ (AV-Z1- 2.. _.(_3. 1.0:.
x ‘ ' - ., -3 ., ' a 4.1 H i. ..,._ <7 _i_. _ ' _,l .5, .L. . in - . ' +- -- _,
eaC.l .LJJ..L)O]_CLIfl pail”, Ubluk‘ LDC 1.:—LI‘LlllSJ-OJ.’..rC1.-Ll(-Jtl 111‘ LLIOC: CIALLL LrCl&.iLJ—ll.‘ for

le Sizes (hcherar, 1303, p. lUO). The terms uCICC t1en

.—. 1-, ." ... ”H . "V f. ,, (‘4. ._, - ”F. f. . _‘ ’ \, Z“ _ J i. ' -rj. ._"‘,
ranked lPOm nibaest to lOwest avers e correlation. Iron this rennin ,

r..- 4.‘ '1 m H ,1 1--- .--. . . 4. , -1“. °....._...

iLClC ntial use, sh ale SOMQQRQ want LO use that ins ru—
. r‘ - .- - ,.. .. ,, ..‘I....-- ., ,...» I-..”

ent rather than u—sort for QOurLG eJaiuctien uLQlLdJ.

5. Eir al Selection of Scales ——

 

3'2- 'V.. __ '.. an- .1- --,~. .1— m‘ ‘ a . —'~ .z’.‘ , . -- _,._' v ,. .,~.‘
'Jfle aim or 141.1.) QLLCJ’ latte; LC llnCt C2. Set 0*. bOClfi‘CC e” gigaLiQn QL<-J.L.

F'

that could be used for future work with several difgcrent lanjuaje/cul-
tural groups. with the three tv es of Ldta available to guide this sele —
tion, the following criteria were set:

a. Hi7h loadings (at least 0.5;, preferahly hijher) on comren

factors across la n ua,c/cultur“- groups.

Power to discrininate between nest and WCPQ t sources across

0‘

language/cultural groups.

least 0.50 or larter) between

(D
(.12

c. in negative correlations
emmers of hrssun d binola rgmaius.
The terms will be ranked according to the power to dis rininate
and according to the ma ; mitude of the averafie negative correlations. If

these rankings coincide with the high loadings on the factors, we will

and

rt

have a set of bipolar scales that will discriminate between hes

WOI‘St sources and GUCCI. 1T3c 188 12.917810 (1.73 Isen 1011f Of SOUI‘CG CVillUrfl'thR.

CHAPTEK III

RESULTS

In this chapter, four_types of findings will be presented: (I) fac—
tor structures obtained and the scales which are most descriptive of
those structures; (2) comparison of the factor structures; (3) the dis—
criminating power of terms across language/cultural groups; and (H) the
strength of the negative correlations between the presumed bipolar pairs

f terms used in the Q—sort scales.

A. Factor Structures

1. Some General Information About the Factor Rotations -—

 

The listing of the loadings on each variable on each factor for
each language/cultural group is in appendix E. The variables are list-
ed in rank order by magnitude of factor purity value* under the factor
on which the variable had its primary loading.

The criteria used in selecting the best factor rotation for each
language/cultural group were:

a. Coefficients of factor similarity across the rotations within

a sample group should show stability of factors once they are
extracted in a rotation. Some factors will emerge on the 2-

factor and 3-factor rotations and remain stable across all

 

* Factor purity as used here = (Primary loadinc) 2, where h2 is
the communality.

 

h2

72

further rotations; others will fracture and become virtually
meaningless. Stability is defined here as showing a coefficient
of similarity of at least 0.60 or greater.

b. The variables which emerge with the highest and purest loadings
on a factor must form a cluster that is psycholoyically mean—
ingful, in the judgment of the researchers working on the study.

c. The factors in the rotation selected should account for 50 per—
cent or more of the total variance.

Using these criteria, 5—factor rotations were selected for two of
the sample groups, 6—factor rotations were selected for eleven of the
sample groups and 7—factor rotations were selected for the remaining
nine groups.

The Kiel-Wrigley criterion (Kiel 1966) yielded one 7—factor solu-
tion, three 8—factor solutions, seven 9—factor solutions, two lOufactor
solutions, four ll-factor solutions, three lZ-factor solutions, and six
solutions of more than 12 factors, with the highest number of factors
being 15. The random Q-sorts produced one ll-factor solution; one 12-
factor solution; and two solutions of more than 12 factors, one of which
had 15 factors.

The proportion of the total variance accounted for ranged from #5.?
percent to 70 percent in the rotations selected for further analysis.

The “5.7 percent, one of two below 50 percent, was for a 5-factor
rotation, and the 70.0 percent was for a 6-factor rotation. The lowest
one was the monolingual Portuguese group without USA training when judg-
ing their best source. The highest one was English-Portuguese respon-
dents without USA training responding in English regarding their worst

source .

.

\4
r-

...

. Iature of the Factors —~

[\3

 

'—
r.

The two dimensions 0; source evaluation used by Hovlaaf ct al. are
very much in evidence in the factor structures obtained in the present
study, but there are other dimensions t1 'at emerfed too. Three of these
dimensions appeared rather consistently.

One dimension was formed by such variables as symgathetic, unsy
pathetic, friendly, unfriendly, approachable, unapproa che.b le ,kind,

ill be reco fnized as the

0 mV
1

cruel, cooperative and unCOOpera ti ve. his
dimension that Berlo, Lenert and hertz labeled sociability.

The dynamism dimension which Zerlo, Leiert and hertz found in their

study also appeared rather consistently. The variables which formed

F‘-
<:
(a

U

this dimension were: powerful, powerless, strong, wealc, active, pass
energetic, lazy, courageous and cowardly. In the present study, these
often tended to cluster with other dimensions rather than form a dis—
tinct factor.

Among several of the groups there was a dirension characteri/ zed by
terms such as organized, disorianized, systematic, unsystematic, certain,
uncertain, efficient, inefficient, clear, unclear, comprehensible, and
incomprehensible. These variables also were among those which did not
consistently form as a distinct factor.

The nature of the structures for each of the twenty-two sets of
respondent data may be seen on he following pages. Tuey ha ve been

on for "best source“ appears at the to

P-

arranged so that the descript

ll)

of the page, and that for "worst source” c.ppears at the bottom of the
page. A synthesis of the factors will be presented followinj the dos—

criptions on the next thirteen pages.

Table 2 .

75

USA Training_ReSponding in English

Factor Structures for Ibo-English Respondents With

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

not untrustworthy, not dishonest, not insincere,
patient, not partial, impartial, not unreliable,
reliable, safe, not dangerous, trustworthy.

efficient, systematic, not unsystematic, compe-
tent, organized, not disorganized, comprehensi-
ble, not incomprehensible, experienced.

persuasive, not unpersuasive, friendly, sympa-
thetic.

not uneducated, not inexperienced, not untrained,
not incompetent, clear, not unsympathetic.

not passive, not cowardly, not powerless, power
ful, not weak.

energetic, courageous.

trained, not unclear.
Total

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of

 

13.1

8.1

7.6

7.3

Variance

 

not organized, disorganized, incomprehensible,
not comprehensible, not systematic, unsystematic,
not competent, incompetent, not clear, unclear,
not efficient, inefficient.

untrustworthy, not trustworthy, not sincere, in-
sincere, not reliable, unreliable, not honest,
dishonest, not safe, dangerous.

not approachable, not friendly, not c00perative,
not kind, not patient, not sympathetic, not hum-
ble, unapproachable, unfriendly, cruel, impa-
tient, unsympathetic, unc00perative, arrogant.

not experienced, inexperienced, immature, not ma-
ture, not trained, untrained, not persuasive, un-
persuasive.

not strong, not powerful, powerless, weak.

lazy, not energetic, passive, cowardly.
Total

16.7

11.6

12.9

O5 (.0
I O
\I (.0 M

3

76

Table 3. Factor Structures for Yoruba-English Respondents With

USA Training Responding in English

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor Descriptive Variables %

 

of Variance

 

Fl organized, not disorganized, systematic, decisive,
persuasive, trained, not untrained, active, clear,
not unintelligible, comprehensible.

F2 trustworthy, not untrustworthy, not insincere, not
unreliable, not dishonest.

F3 not weak, not powerless, not cowardly, unsympathe-
tic, unapproachable, not approachable.

F“ cooperative, not unc00perative, friendly, not out-
Of "'date 0

F5 courageous, powerful, strong, unclear, not up-to-
date.

F6 not cruel, not partial, kind, not unfriendly, not
mature.

F7 not incompetent, not uneducated.

Total

Worst Source Sorts

 

lu.6

10.3

5.9

7.1

of Variance

 

Factor Descriptive Variables %
Fl not organized, disorganized, not certain, uncer—

tain, not clear, unclear, not comprehensible, in—
comprehensible, unsystematic, not systematic.

F2 unc00perative, not c00perative, unsympathetic,
not energetic, not friendly, unapproachable, not
approachable.

F3 cowardly, not courageous, not strong, weak, not

powerful, powerless, passive.

F not trustworthy, untrustworthy, not impartial,
partial, not unpersuasive.

F5 not educated, uneducated, not trained, untrained,
not experienced, not intelligible.

F6 not patient, impatient, not humble, dangerous, not
safe, not mature, cruel.

Total

15.2

10.6

7.6

8.“

8.6

11.6
61.7

Table 4 .

77

USA Training Responding in English

Factor Structures for Portuguese-English Respondents With

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables

 

trustworthy, not mtrmflorthy, not unreliable,
not unsystematic.

not unfriendly, friendly, sympathetic, not un-
sympathetic, kind, approachable, not unappro-
chable, cooperative, not uncooperative.

decisive, powerful, strong, active, not passive,
not weak, not indecisive, partial.

persuasive, not unpersuasive, certain, not un-
certain, not out-of-date.

clear, not unclear, intelligible, not unintel-
ligible, not incomprehensible, systematic.

trained, experienced, educated, not inexperienced,

not uneducated.

honest, competent, not impatient, not arrogant,
not dishonest.
Total

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

Descriptive Variables

 

not sincere, insincere, dishonest, not honest,
not trusWorthy, not safe, dangerous.

unfriendly, not friendly, not kind, unsympathe-

% of Variance

 

7.7

11.3

8.9

7.5

7.8

6.4

% of Variance

 

9.0

12 5

tic, not sympathetic, unapproachable, not approachable. °

not active, not energetic, passive, weak, lazy,
not courageous, not strong.

not clear, unclear, unintelligible, not organ-
ized.

not up-to-date, out-of-date, incompetent, not
competent, inexperienced, not experienced, not
trained, untrained.

partial, not impartial, not humble.
immature, not mature, not certain, uncertain,

unreliable.
Total

9.6

Table 5 .

78

Factor Structures for Ibo-English Respondents with USA
Training Re3ponding in Ibo

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

trusmorthy, not untrustwOmhy, reliable, not un-
reliable, honest, not dishonest, not uncooperative,
not unsympathetic, sincere. 13.9

strong, powerful, not uneducated, educated, com-
petent, not unpersuasive. 11.6

This factor is not a strong, clean factor. Commu-
nalities are in forties and fifties. Highest loaded
variables (fifties and sixties) are: not inexperi-
enced, efficient, systematic, not out-of-date, not

incompetent. 7.5
certain, comprehensible, approachable. 7.5
not weak, not passive, not cowardly, not powerless. 6.8
not unfriendly, mature, not unclear, clear. 6.3
sympathetic, not cruel, kind. _jLfii

Total 59.9

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

not strong, untrained, not trained, not energetic,
not friendly, not kind, cruel. 13.3

not comprehensible, not mature, not decisive, not
up-to-date. 8.7

unapproachable, not approachable, not intelligible,
not clear, unclear, disorganized, unintelligible. 8.5

not competent, incompetent, inexperienced, not ex-
perienced, out-of-date. 12.2

not reliable, not impartial, not trustworthy, not
sincere, dishonest, impatient, uncooperative, not
honest, unreliable, untrustworthy. lu.7

passive, weak, lazy. 6.7
Total 6u.l

79

Table 6. Factor Structures for Yoruba-English ReSpondents With

USA Training Re3ponding in Yoruba

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

honest, not dishonest, trustworthy, not untrust-
worthy, reliable, intelligible, clear, not up-

mature, not immature, not impatient, patient,
humble, not arrogant, approachable, not unsym-
pathetic, sympathetic. 10.8

not incompetent, not uneducated, efficient, not
inexperienced. 8.3

not unreliable, not unpersuasive, not ineffici-

ent, unc00perative. 7.u
experienced, educated, competent. 6.9
not sincere, not out-of—date, powerful. 6.5

courageous, strong, impartial, not unclear, not
unfriendly. 7.1
Total 58.7

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

not patient, disorganized, unsystematic, impa-
tient, unapproachable, not systematic, not safe,
incomprehensible. 12.u

not strong, weak, passive, cowardly, powerless,
not courageous, not powerful, indecisive, not
decisive. 13.5

uncooperative, dangerous. 6.8

insincere, not sincere, not impartial, uncertain,
not reliable, unclear, not clear, partial, not
active. 10.6

not intelligible, unintelligible, not certain. 6.6

not educated, not trained, untrained, uneducated,
not experienced. 7.6

not friendly, unfriendly, unsympathetic, not sym-
pathetic. Approachable loads highest on this fac-

tor but it also loads on factor two and three so that

it lacks purity. 8.0

Total 65.5

80

Table 7. Factor Structures for Portuguese-English ReSpondents With
USA Training Re3ponding in Portuguese

Best Source Sorts

 

 

Factor Descriptive Variables % of Variance

Fl not immature, mature, not kind, not unintelli-

gible, intelligible, uncooperative. 7.0
F2 friendly, not unfriendly, not unsympathetic,

cowardly, not energetic, weak, approachable. 9.3
P3 trained, up-to-date, experienced, not incompe-

tent, competent, not untrained, not uneducated,

not inexperienced, educated. 7.0
F4 reliable, not impatient, patient, not unreli-

able , out -of-date . 6 .6
F5 not untrustworthy, sincere, trustworthy, not

dangerous. 7.1
F5 impartial, not partial. 5.5
P7 not disorganized, organized, efficient, not in-

efficient, systematic, not uncertain, certain. 8.7

Total 51.2

Worst Source Sorts

 

 

Factor Descriptive Variables % of Variance
F1 weak, not strong,passive, not active, not ener-
getic, lazy, not decisive, indecisive, not safe,
uncertain, not certain. 1H.0
F2 not honest, dishonest, dangerous, not sincere,

insincere, not impartial, partial, not trust-
worthy, untrustworthy, not kind, not sympathetic,
unsympathetic. (Kind, sympathetic, and unsympa-
thetic have substantial secondary loadings on

factor three) 11.u
F3 unfriendly, not friendly, unapprochable, not

approachable, not cooperative, uncooperative,

not humble, arrogant. 9.u
F4 not competent, incompetent, not up-to-date, out-

of date, not trained, untrained, not experienced,

inexperienced, uneducated, not educated. 10.7
F5 not organized, disorganized, not systematic, un-

systematic, not reliable, unreliable. 7.1
F6 not mature, immature, unclear, not persuasive. 7.1

Total 59.7

TaueB.

81

USA Training ReSponding in English

Factor Structures for Ibo-English Respondents Without

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

not immature, sympathetic, patient, not impa-
tient, up-to-date.

not lazy, not incompetent, not untrained, not
cowardly.

friendly, not unfriendly, kind, not uncoopera-
tive, cooperative, not unpersuasive.

not unreliable, not untrustworthy, not dishonest,
not insincere, uneducated, trustworthy, not dan-
gerous , reliable .

not disorganized, intelligible, competent, not
inexperienced, decisive.

powerful, strong, not uncertain, not unclear,
not sincere.

energetic, educated, not organized, not safe, not
clear.
Total

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

Descriptive Variables % of

 

7.3

8.2

7.7

7.“

6.0

7.7

51.2

Variance

 

not active, not strong, not energetic, not kind,
weak, not powerful.

unpersuasive, indecisive, not decisive, not per-
suasive, incomprehensible, not comprehensible.

not approachable, unapproachable, unsympathetic,
not organized, not humble, arrogant, not sympa-
thetic, unfriendly, not friendly, impatient, not
patient, uncooPerative, not cooperative.

untrained, uneducated, not educated, not trained,
not competent.

dishonest, not trustw0rthy, untrustworthy, not

efficient, not up-to-date, not reliable, insincere,

not sincere.

partial, not impartial, inefficient, not experi-
enced, inexperienced.
Total

8.2

7.8

13.7

8.2

8.7

5.9
52.5

82

Table 9. Factor Structures for Portuguese-English ReSpondents

Without USA Training ReSponding in English

Best Source Sorts

 

 

 

 

Total

Factor Descriptive Variables % of Variance
F1 impatient, not lazy, not patient, strong,
decisive, not indecisive. 9.4
P2 not educated, not out-of-date, not untrustworthy,
persuasive, not comprehensible, uneducated, up-
to-date. 10.7
F3 not disorganized, active, energetic, not inef-
ficient, weak, organized. 11.3
F4 competent, experienced, not sincere, not inex-
perienced, not incompetent, cruel, not honest,
not unclear, not untrained, insincere. 12.u
F5 intelligible, not safe, not unintelligible. 8.7
F5 not unsympathetic, sympathetic, trustworthy, co-
Operative, not unapproachable, not unreliable,
reliable, approachable . 11 .4
Total 63.9
Worst Source Sorts
Factor Descriptive Variables % of Variance
F1 not efficient, untrained, not decisive, not trained
not competent, not active, inefficient, passive,
indecisive, incompetent, disorganized, not intel-
ligible, lazy, not powerful. 18.5
F2 not sympathetic, not approachable, unapproachable,
unsympathetic, arrogant, not humble, partial, sys-
tematic. 12.8
F3 uncertain, not certain, immature, unclear. 11.3
P“ not honest, dishonest, not impartial, not sincere,
cruel, not kind, dangerous. 10.6
F5 not mature, cowardly, not comprehensible, incom-
prehensible. 7.6
F5 uncooperative, weak, not energetic, not strong,
powerless, not courageous, not cooperative. 9.u

83

Table 10. Factor Structures for Ibo-English ReSpondents

Without USA Training Responding in the Ibo

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables

% of Variance

 

 

competent, not uneducated, educated, not un-
trained, not inexperienced, not uncoopera-
tive, eXperienced, trained. 10.2

organized, not disorganized, systematic, sym-
pathetic, not unsympathetic, not impatient, pa-
tient, not arrOgant, trustworthy. 9.3

not unfriendly, not weak, sincere, not courage-

ous. 8.6
strong, energetic. 6.8
persuasive, up-to-date. 5.1

not insincere, not unintelligible, not uncertain,
not inefficient, not untrustworthy. 7.4

Total 47.4

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables

 

% of Variance

 

untrustworthy, not sincere, not trustworthy, un-
c00perative, not c00perative, insincere, not
efficient, unreliable, not honest. 12.0

not strong, not trained, not energetic, not active
not powerful, lazy. 9.3

not patient, impatient, unsystematic, not systematic,
not organized, not humble. 7.4

uneducated, inexperienced, passive, not persua-

sive, weak, unfriendly, powerless. 9.2
unsympathetic, not kind, cruel, not sympathetic. 6.7
not comprehensible, unpersuasive, unintelligible. 5.7

Total 50.3

84

Table 11. Factor Structures for Portuguese-English ReSpondents

Without USA Training ResEgnding_in Portuguese

Best Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

experienced, strong, not comprehensible, not or-
ganized, not indecisive, not incompetent, not
inexperienced. 8.0

not unclear, educated, clear, not unfriendly, not
partial, powerful, impartial, energetic. 11.2

efficient, up-to-date, persuasive, approachable,
not kind, certain, not unapproachable. 9.2

sincere, not cruel, not untrustworthy, not dis-
honest, not insincere, unsystematic, honest. 9.6

not cowardly, inefficient, not lazy, courageous,
safe, out-of-date, humble. 9.0

patient, not unreliable, uneducated, not arrogant,

sympathetic, not unsympathetic, not impatient, not

immature. 10.1
Total 57.1

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

inefficient, not efficient, disorganized, not

organized, indecisive, not decisive, unpersua-

sive, not persuasive, incompetent, not competent,

not active, lazy, powerless, uncertain, unc00pera-

tive. 14.1

not sincere, insincere, untrustworthy, not trust-
worthy, dangerous, not clear, not energetic. 13.5

not sympathetic, unapproachable, not approachable,
unfriendly, unsympathetic, not intelligible, unin-
telligible, not friendly, not kind, cruel, incom-
prehensible. 11.4

uneducated, not educated, untrained, not trained,
out-of-date, not up-to-date, not experienced, in-
eXperienced. 8.7

immature, not mature, dishonest. 6.1
Total 53.8

85

Table 12. Factor Structures for Monolingual Portuguese Without

USA Training Responding in Portuguese

 

Best Source Sorts

Factor

FJ.

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

mature, not immature, not uncertain, not unper-
suasive, certain, energetic, not indecisive,
courageous, persuasive, powerful, comprehensible. 10.6

not untrained, not inexperienced, competent, ex—
perienced, not sympathetic, not incompetent, not
weak. 10.3

not cruel, not arrogant, not Systematic, uned-
ucated, kind, not dangerous, unintelligible. 8.0

not disorganized, intelligible, efficient, safe,
not inefficient, not incomprehensible. 8.9

educated, reliable, friendly, not unfriendly,
not unreliable, clear, not unclear. 7.9
Total 45.7

Worst Source Sorts

Factor

F1

Descriptive Variables % of Variance

 

 

not efficient, inefficient, uneducated, not ed-
ucated, not competent, inexperienced, untrained,
not up-to-date, incompetent. 11.5

not sincere, insincere, untrustworthy, not trust-
worthy, dangerous, not reliable, arrogant,
dishonest. 10.2

unfriendly, not friendly, uncooperative, not kind,
cruel, unapproachable . 9 .6

not patient, and not approachable, both of which
have secondary loadings on the preceding factor. 4.9

not strong, indecisive, not powerful, not energe-
tic, not decisive, uncertain, not safe, not cer-
tain, disorganized, not organized, not persuasive. 11.8

partial, not impartial, immature. 4.8

incomprehensible, not clear, unclear, not compre-
hensible, unintelligible. 7.5
' Total 60.3

{W ’_"

UL;

3. Synthesis of the Factor Structures --

-——.—~.

 

As noted earlier, the two dimensions of source evaluation used by
hovland, et a1, and which Berlo, Lemert and Hertz found accounting for
the highest proportion of variance, were very much in evidence in the
factor structures obtained in the present study. These two factors did
not always account for the highest proportion of variance in the pre-
sent stud\, however.

The factor structures have been reviewed and seven dimensions which
were identifiable among several of the respondent groups are presented

below. These are called dimensions to distinguish them from the fac—

 

tors extracted in each of the twenty—two cells in the design. They are
labeled I, II, III, etc., but this should not be taken to mean that the

a

factors making up dimension I were those which consistently accounted
for most variance extracted or were consistently cleanest across all

language/cultural groups.

a. Dimension I: All but one of the language/cultural groups

 

studied had a factor described by the variables trustworthy, untrust-
worthy, sincere, insincere, reliable, unreliable, honest, dishonest, and
partial and impartial in some combination. As will be seen later in
this chapter, trustworthy and untrustworthy discriminated most strongly
between best and worst sources when compared with all other terms.

Of all the sample groups, only one yielded no clearly definitive
factor encompassing the variables just listed. That group was the mono-

1

lingual Portuguese with no USA training judging their best sources. All
the factors for that group were somewhat confused.

The percentage of total variance accounted for by this factor

ranged from 7.1 to 13.9 percent. It was generally one of the strongest

CU
\1

factors, although not consistently so across all groups.

The highest percentage of variance accounted for by any factor in
the rotations was 18.5 percent and the lowes was 5.1 percent. The fac—
tor accounting for 18.5 percent of the variance was a combination of
qualification, dynamism, and general efficiency. The lowest factor was
described by two variables —- persuasive and up-to—date.

b. Dimension II: The oualification or expertese factor of Berle
1 .. 3

 

Lemert and hertz, and of Hovland, et al., also was found in all language/
cultural groups in varying degrees of purity and strength. The variables
loading on this factor were competent, incompetent, experienced, inex-
perienced, trained, untrained, and to some extent, up-to-date and out-
of-date.

The percentage of variance accounted for by this factor ranged
from 6.1 to 18.5 percent, the 18.5 being the one noted above which en—
compassed variables usually associated with dynamism and general effi-
ciency. Two language/cultural groups, when judging their best sources,
each yielded two factors encompassing some of the qualification variables.
These two groups were the Ibo-English without USA training responding
in English and the Yoruba—English group with USA contact responding in
Yoruba.

The qualification variables were interSpersed with the dynamism
variables -- powerful, strong, decisive, energetic, active -- for four
groups. These groups were: Ibo—English without USA training respond-
ing in Ibo regarding their worst source; English—Portuguese without

USA training responding in hnglish regarding their worst source; English—

; responding in Portuguese regarding their

Portuguese without USA trainin~

best source; and the English—Ibo with USA training reSponding in Ibo

88

regarding their best source.

Another group, the English-Portuguese without USA training respond-
ing in English regarding their best source yielded a factor which in-
cluded the qualification variables interspersed with sincere, honest and
unclear.

The pair of terms ”educated” and'hneducated” discriminated reason-
ably strongly between best and worst sources, as will be seen later.
However, the factor analysis did not consistently put these variables
on the same factor with the others which Berlo, Lemert and Mertz called
the qualification variables. This does not seem surprising when we
consider that the respondents were from cultures where formal education
is respected but has not been available to many of the authorities with-
in the culture; and we asked people to describe a person as a source in
their field of work. It may be that the denotative aspect of meaning
is Operating more strongly with ”educated” than with the other "quali-
fication” variables. Also, non-formal educational experience may still
be given higher credence than formal education in those cultures.

c. Dimension III: The dynamism factor of Berlo, Lemert and Mertz

 

appeared less clearly as a separate factor than did the ”trust” and
"qualification” factors. In only nine of the twenty-two sets of Q-sorts
did the dynamism variables clearly cluster on a single factor. And
even within the nine groups, the variables often associated with dyna—
mism sometimes split among other factors.

The groups yielding a definite dynamism factor were:

i. English—Portuguese with USA training responding in English

regarding their best source. (Table 4, p. 77)

ii. English-Portuguese with USA training reSponding in Enjlish re-
garding their worst source. (Table 4, p. 77)
iii. English-Portuguese with USA training responding in Portuguese

regarding their worst source. (Table 7, p. 80)

iv. English-Portuguese without USA raining responding in Portu—
guese regarding heir worst source. (Table 11, p. 84)

v. Monolingual Portuguese without USA training giving judgments

of their worst source. (Table 12, p. 85)

*1

t
:3

vi. Yoruba-English with USA training responding in - glish re—

garding their worst source. (Table 3, p. 76)

vii. Yoruba-English with USA training responding in Yoruba regard-
ing their worst source. (Table 6, p. 79)

viii. Ibo-English without USA training responding in Ibo regarding

their worst source. (Table 10, p. 83)
1x. Ibo-English without USA training responding in English regard—

ing their worst source. (Table 8, p. 81)

The percentage of variance accounted for by this factor in the nine
groups ranged from 7.6 to 14.1. In two of the groups, iii and vii in
the list above, the percentage of variance accounted for by the so-
called dynamism factor was the highest of any of the factors.

Another pattern was observable within a few of the groups when the
number of rotations was increased. This was the tendency for the dyna—
mism variables to separate into two factors that might be labeled pos-
session of power and use of power. This was found with the Ibo-English
with USA training responding in English about their worst source, and
somewhat less clearly with the Ibo-English with USA training reSpond—

ing in Ibo regarding their best source.

‘. 3
L)

d. Dimension IV: One noticeable difference in results of the pre—

 

sent study and those of Berlo, Lemert and Hertz was the strength of what
they labeled the sociability factor —- friendly, sympathetic, approach-
able, kind, etc. In three of the respondent groups, this factor account—
ed for the highest percentage of the total variance and in three groups

it accounted for the second highest percentage of the variance. The
highest percentage of variance accounted for was 13.7.

The Portuguese language groups were m st evident among those where
this factor was clearly established. It was a strong factor for th
Yoruba responding in Yoruba and the Ibo when they responded in English.
When the Ibo speakers responded in Ibo and the Yoruba responded in Eng-
lish the variables appeared in the factor structures, but tended to be

split between two factors and mixed with other variables.

e. Dimension V: The variables which combine to form this factor

 

are: organized, disorganized, efficient, inefficient, systematic, un-

systematic, certain and uncertain. In five of the data sets, this fac-
tor also encompassed the terms comprehensible, intelligible, and clear.
Competence and dynamism also combined with the variables on this factor
in some cases.

In thirteen of the twenty-two cases, the primary variables on this
factor were quite visible as separate definitive factors or in combina-
tion with the intelligibility, competence and/or dynamism variables. It
was only in combination with the other variables that this factor ever

accounted for the highest proportion of the variance.

f. Dimension VI: In five of the twenty-two data sets, there

 

emerged a factor in which the variables with the strongest and cleanest

loadings were: clear, unclear, intelligible, unintelligible, compre—

9 l

hensible, and incomprehensible in some combination. As noted earlier,
these variables sometimes combined with those taken as most descriptive
of Factor V. The percentage of variance accounted for by this factor
ranged from 5.7 to 8.7, somewhat less than the other factors considered

thus far.

g. Dimension VII: Another pair of variables that in some cases

 

emerged as a separate factor were partial and impartial. In three of
the twenty-two sets, these variables formed the core of a factor; while
in eight of the data sets, these two variables combined with other vari-
ables in a factor, most often in the ”trust" factor. When they formed
a separate factor, the percentage of variance accounted for was between
5.0 and 6.0.

A look at the seven factors discussed above will show that five of
these show stability and strength across more than half of the lanfuate/
cultural groups studied. The last two factors show much less stability

and strength.

u. Comparison of Factor Structures Across Lanfiuaje/Cultural Groups --

_ V.- o-.—

 

 

a. pata used for the comparisons covered in this section were co-
efficients of similarity, and some of the problems in handling these
data have already been noted on pp. 67-70 of the methodology chapter.
As noted in that chapter, four random Q—sorts were analyzed to strengthen
the basis for inferences about the factor structures in the absence 01

‘

more precise statistics and samplinv listributions.

In the raidom Q-sorts, none of the pairs had a coefficient of simi—
larity of 0.50, the highest being 0.H7. This is quite a bit less than
the lower bound of best fit which was 0.72 for the S—factor solutions;

p

0.70 for the G-factor solutions; and 0.09 for the 7—iactor solutions.

The two tab

1.
_LCS

.1-';.£71,. Jilfiq M'a-j
ilallctl .LO.L.LO‘-'I “51.x. p/.~'Q_;;llL "

--

 

 

n inspection of the »

istribu—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

tion of the coefficients ofs inila Iit} for the randon data and that
collected from six of the responeent QPOEpS.
Table l3. Dis ribution c: Coefficie .ts of Si‘ilir‘ty for 0 Pairs
of Factor flotati\ns from Four uCtS of Kincom 0—serts
V l P C "c' , t he. of Factor Pairs for
a ue" CI OELLlClen " r. .
i ’, , ,_ ° Lacn Value Level
or Similarity
-Factor G-Factor 7—Facter
Solution Solution Solution
0.31 — O.HO 5 ll 6
0.11 — 0.20 ll 7 12
0.07 — 0.10 l U 2
31’) 36 112
The following able shows the (‘.istri:)ution of tzie coef‘i cients of

similarity obtained from comparisons of six

'\V

1,.

ire of respondent froups.

 

 

 

Table 14. l)istri bution of LoeiJICients of slnilaritr for 0 Pairs* of
Factor Rotations from Q—sorts of ?e tonuer ts' So rce L aluations
Lo. of Factor Pairs for
Values of Coefficients Each Value Level
of Similari v
L“ s—Factor 6 —Fac tor 7— Fa ctor
Solution Solution Solution
0.07 - 0.10 O C O
0.11 — 0.20 0 l l
0.21 — 0.3 l l 0
0.Hl — 0.50 H 7 10
0.6l - 0.70 la la 10
0.7l — 0.80 5 6 5
0.80 and above 1 l l
30 36 H2

 

 

Yoruba and Portu—

* These pairs included the comparisons of the Ibo,
guese with USA training respondin: in Eng lish and responding in mother
tongues.

In contrast to the random sorts listed above, 27 of 38 pairs of
factors obtained with the Q—sort data collected from respondents had
coefficients of similarity of 0.50 or above. Seven of the nine which
were less than 0.50 were among pairs where low similarity had been pre—
dicted.

The factor loadings in the random sort data displayed non-meaning-
ful patterns. Terms considered Opposite in meaning often would appear
on the same factor with the same valance, e.g., courageous —o.u9, and
cowardly -o.u9. Often the variables that cluster on a factor in the
analysis of data from respondents would be distributed across all the
factors in analysis of the random data.

The comparisons of the random sorts with the data collected from
respondents have provided some confidence that the results obtained from
analysis of respondents' data reflect more than random variability.

Problems with curtailed distributions in the Q-sorts of best
sources produced factor structures for these sorts which were somewhat
difficult to describe in some of the groups.

The difference in means between terms presumed to be positive and
terms presumed to be negative were larger for the judgments of best
sources than for the judgments of worst sources. The standard devia—
tions for the best source sorts were significantly lower than for the
worst source sorts, leading one to expect a higher probability of signi—
ficant differences between the means of positive and negative terms with—
in best source samples than within the worst source samples. The cor-
relations between positive and negative terms, however, were generally
lower for the best source sorts than for the worst source sorts. This

led to the suSpicion that the curtailed distribution of the scores in

91+
the best source sorts was producing low correlations.

McNemar (1962, pp. inn-45) discusses this problem and provides a
formula to adjust the correlations when one of the variables has a cur-
tailed distribution. But, he points out that there is no satisfactory
formula for adjusting when there is a double curtailment problem as is
the case in the present data.

When the formula for single curtailment was applied to data from
one language/cultural group, it was found that this adjustment increased
the correlations from ten to fourteen correlational units. This, and
the fact that in 690 of 726 cases the standard deviations for "worst
source" sorts were larger than for ”best source" sorts, seems to support
the claim that curtailed distribution reduced correlations; and the re-
duced correlations in'Mrn resulted in less clearly defined factor
structures among the "best source" sorts. This was taken as justifi-
cation for using the ”worst source" sorts for the factor comparisons.

b. Tests of hypotheses 1-5, using coefficients of similarity

 

measures, indicated SUpport for hypotheses four and five; partial
support for hypotheses l and 3; and lack of support for hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 1 stated that the re3pondent groups could be ordered

 

from most to least similar and that bilingual respondents with USA

training and responding in English (rlsltl) would be most similar to

one another, followed by r2sltl or rlslt29 which would be followed by

r2slt2, with r2s2t2 last.

As will be seen in Table 15, three of five factors met the lower

limit of best fit criterion for the groups predicted to be most alike,

i.e., the rlsltlgroups. In contrast to this, none of the factors met the

95
lower limit criterion among the groups predicted as least similar, i.e.,
the r2311:2 groups; and three of five coefficientsibr these groups were
in the range of coefficients produced by the random Q-sorts.

s t

The data did not support the claim that groups in the r1 1 2 com-

binations were either more or less similar than groups in the rzsltl
combinations; and there was no basis in the rationale for expecting groups
in one of these combinations to be more alike than in the other. On four

of five factors, however coefficients for both of these combinations fell

between the coefficients for the rlsltl and the r251t2 groups.

Table 15. Average Coefficients of Similarity for Four Language of
Response and USA Exposure Combinations (Six-Factor Rotation)

 

Coefficients for Each of 5 Factors

 

Respondent Groups

 

F1 F9 F3 FLL Fa

rlsltl Bilinguals with USA

training, English reSponse 69 71 7O 79 64
rlslt2 Bilinguals without USA

training, English response 63 65 5M 50 65
PQSltl Bilinguals with USA train-

ing, mother tongue response 58 59 63 62 57
r2slt2 Bilinguals without USA

training, mother tongue

response 59 98 31 #5 53

 

Appendix H contains a matrix of the coefficients of similarity
obtained when each of the language/cultural groups was paired with each
of the other language/cultural groups. These are the date that were
used to obtain the averages listed in Table 15.

Hypothesis 2 was not supported. It stated that the coefficients

 

of similarity would be lowest between the monolingual Portuguese without
USA training and the Nigerian language/cultural groups with USA training

and responding in English. It also was hypothesized that these

t

A
(35

coefficients would be below the lower limit of best fit.
The coefficients of s'milarity between these Portuguese and Nigeri-
an reSpondents were not below the lower limit of best fit as predicted.
The following table shows the number of factor pairs meeting the
lower limit of best fit criterion when the six highest factor pairings
within each factor of a 6—factor solution were selected for each pair

of language/cultural groups being compared.

?

Table 16. Number of Factor Pairs Meeting Lower Limit of Best Fit

Criterion for Three Language/Cultural Groups (Six-Factor Rotation)

 

No. of Factor Pairings
Meeting Lower Limit

Language/Cultural Groups Criterion in 6-Factor
Solution

 

Ibo vs Yoruba, both with USA training
and reSponding in English 3

Yoruba with USA training responding in
English vs Monolingual Portuguese
without USA training 3

Ibo with USA training responding in
English vs Honolingual Portuguese
without USA training 2

 

The factors which showed high similarity for the Ibo—Yoruba compar-
ison and the coefficients of similarity were:
1. Organized, systematic, clear, certain, efficient. (facsim —-
0.86)

Approachable, c00perative, friendly, sympathetic. (facsim --

Ho
[—10
.

0.77)
iii. Exierienced, trained, educated. (facsim -- 0.70)
A fourtx factor which appeared quite similar from the factor des—

cription of the two sets was one described by the variables trustworthy,

sincere, reliable, impartial, hon st, etc.; an? t produced a facsim of

w-

O.67. This comparison, however, did not reach the lower limi t of bee t
fit. It appeared to be a somewhat stronger and cleaner factor with the

Ibo than with the Yoruba. The dynamism factor also did not reach the

f“

lower limit cri terio., the coefficient being 0.56 with the criterion at

0.70; and it contributed the lowest proportion of the variance of any

factor in both groups. he variables usually considered dynamism vari-

ables had Split into two factors in the Ibo group.

' ..I..' ,

The three factor pairs meeting the lower limit criterion for L.€

u.

nd non-English speaking Portuguese at a the co-

CU

comparison of Yoruba
efficients of similarity were:
i. COOperative, friendly, kind, sympathetic, etc. (facsim -—

0.7u)

ii. Trustworthy, sincere, impartial, etc. (facsim —— 0.73)
iii. Educated, experienced,t rained, etc. (facsim —- 0.72)

As with the Ibo-Yoruba comparison, the dynamism variables yielded

a coeffiCient of similarity of 0.66, the ”dynamism” variable es conninin:

with ”or _anize c” in the non—anlish sneaking Portuguese group.

& - _

The two factors meeting the lower limit criterion in the Ibo-
Portuguese comparison were:

i. Friend y, kind, COOperative, etc. (facsim of 0.63)

ii. Trustworthy, since,s, etc. (facsim of 0.30)

Others proclucinj coefficients above 0.60 were: experienced, edu—
cated, etc., with a facsim of 0.63; and orga i ted, efficient, strong,

etc., with a facsim of 0.66.

similarity and the :nean of

C)
:5
rt
(.0
O
*h

The sums of the squared coeffici

the coefficients for each of the three pairs of cor )arisons was hithes

.1...
L.

I ‘7 .‘ w, A
or the Yoruba—Portu_ues~ a..

’ 3 ‘7 “4.
L14. 118:; L

for the Yoruba-Ibo, next
for the Ibo-Portuguese.

Table 17. Suns of the Squared Coefficients of Similarity and the Leans
of the

Coefficients for Three Language/Cultural Groups With USA
Training Responding in Englisi

(Six—Factor Rotation)

 

.' .C
beans oi

Sums of Squared
the Coefficients

 

Language/Cultural Group Coefficients

Yoruba and Ibo 2.92 0.70
Yoruba and Portuguese 2.86 0.69
Ibo and Portuguese 2.55 0.65

 

 

._

While the values of the aggregated coefficients of similarity re-

flected rather small differences, the differences were in the predicted

direction.

Hypothesis 3 stated that coefficients of similarity between English-

 

Ibo and English-Yoruba reSpondents will be higher than between either of

them and English-Portuguese respondents. It was supported, albeit quite

tentatively when the responses were in English.
The difference in magnitude of the sums of squared coefficients of

similarity was in the predicted direction, as shown in the list below.

Table 18. Sums of Squared Coefficients of Similarity and Means of

Coefficients for Comparison of English Responses vs Mother Tongue
Six-Factor Rotation)

 

 

Responses, All With USA Training
Language/Cultural Sums of Squared Means of
Group Being Compared Coefficients Coefficients
Ibo and Yoruba reSpondin: in English 2.75 .68
Yoruba and Portuguese reSponding in
English 2 .70 .67
Ibo and Portuguese responding in
English 2.63 .66
Ibo and Yoruba responding in mother
tongues 2.24 .61
Ibo and Portuguese responding in
mother tongues 1.71 .53
Yoruba and Portuguese responding in
mother tongues 1.63 .52

 

Considering the lower li nit of best fit criterion, the Ibo—Portu-
guese respondin: in English yielded four of six factor pairs that net
the criterion; the Ibo—Yoruba reSpondinj in Enfilish yielded three of
six factor pairs which met the criterion; and the Yoruba—Portuguese
responding in English yielded two factor pairs which met he lower lirit
criterion. None of the factors in the three comparisons where esponses
were in mother tongue met the lower limit criterion, although the Ibo—

Yoruba comparison had one factor which was close —— 0.69MB with 0.70

beine the criterion.

0

Looking at the factors which were similar across these groups, it

may be recalled that the three factors for the Ibo- Yoruba resp on din:

in English were: (i) organized, (facsim -— 0.83) (ii) friendly—sympa—
thetic, (facsim —- 0.77);and (iii) experienced (facsim —- 0.70). The
factor described by trustworthy, etc., did not reach the criterion,
having a facsim of 0.67.

The four factors that were irilar for Iho and Portuiuese 51b bje cct

L".

with USA training res pondinq in En lish were:
1. Organized, systematic, clear, comprehensible, intellifiible.

(facsim -— 0.7M)

ii. Friendly, sympathetic, approachable. (facsin -— 0.7M)
iii. Trustworthy, sincere, honest, safe. (facsim ~— 0.70)

iv. Experienced, trained, competent. (facsim —— 0.70)
The dynamism variables were split between two factors for the Ibo

0 V

roup, yielding coefficients of 0.58 and 0.H6 witn factor three of the

4

Nr

)

Portuguese group.

The relatively hljh similarity amonfi the three lanéuage/cultural

1-.

groups when they had had USA training and responl ed in English was

app rent when we added the comparison of the Yoruba-Portuquese trouns
to those already nosed. While only two factor pairinjs met the lower

limit criterion for these t.JO "roups , two other factor pairinqs were
very close to the criterion. The first two factors listed below are
those that met the criterion and the next two are those which nearly

met the criterion:

1. Organized, sys temn tic, clear, conprehensible. (fa csim ——

0.75)
ii. Educated, trained, experienced, competent. (facsim —- 0.72)

iii. Courajeous, strong, powerful, active. (facsim —— 0.69)
iv. Trustworthy, impartial, honest, since e. (facsim -— 0.‘
A factor encompassing the variables friendly, sympathetic, etc.,
was present in both groups but the facsim was 0.60; and another factor

encompasSin" the variables humble, patient, sa_e and mature in the
Yoruba group showed sore mi ilarity to both factors one an: two (trust
and friendliness) for the Portuiuese group.
0.54.

Although none of the comparisons reached the lower li it of b:8t
fit among the thie e languaqe/cultural groups when they res ponced in
their mother tongues, the trust factor showed the highest similarity.
The closest fit on the factor was between the Ibo and Yoruba with a
facsim of 0.69. As is evident from data in Table 18, the lowest afiise—
ment was an. on ~ the Ibo—Portuguese and Yoruba—Portuguese when they re—
sponded in their nother tongues.

hypothesis u stated that the coeffi nts of si.ni larity will be

 

higher among the langua fe/cultural groups when they respond in Enilis»

than when they reSpond in their mother tongues. This hypothesis

F4
7:)
}._J

received the most n Sitive support of any of the hrnotheses comparini
factor structures.

In support of this hypothesis, it was found that more factors net
the lower limit of best fit criterion amen: the crouns rcsnondinr in
Englis h than anon1 the groups resnondinfi in mother tonhues. The follow—

in: table shows this more clearly:

(J

Table 19. Number of Factors Yeetin: the Lower Limit ofI est Fit Between
Groups Responding in Enjlish alld Those Respondin: in mother Tonfue
(Si;— L‘actor Potation)

 

-- “-—- -—-.—.

 

 

 

Languafie/Cultural English 'otner Ton_ue
Group Being Compared RGSDODSG Response
Ibo and Yoruba with USA trainin:; 3 factors 0 factors
Ibo and Portuguese with USA training 4 factors 0 factors
Yoruba and Portuguese with USA traininq 2 factors 0 factowo
Ibo and Portuguese without USA traininq 0 factors 0 factors

 

While none of the comparisons of groups without USA training had a
factor that reached the lower limit of best fit criterion, the Groups
re5pondin; in English had three factors with coefficients of 0.65, 0.65
and 0.6”; for the groups without USA training reSpondine in mother ton—
tong ues none of the factors had a coefficient as high as 0.60.

The sums of the squared coefficients and the means of the coeffi-
cients for the set of six factors for each of the comparisons were
higher for the English responses than for the mother toneue resJonses.

The similarities in factor structures, as well as sore of the dif-
ferences, among the three sets with USA training resnondin1 in? inclish,
may be noted in Table 20 and in Tables 2—7. Five factors from the 6-

factor solution apnea r with reasonable clarity across all three sets.

These might be labeled: (1) or ani? ed and clear; (2) friendly, svmpa—
thetic, and anproach $919; (8) exneriencec, trained and efiucated; (H)

trustworthy, sincere, and impartial; and (S) dynanic -- strong, courafe-
ous .

Table 20. Suns of Squared Coefzicients anc Jeans f Coefficients
for Groups ReSponoinv in Snelish and Gro ps n
Hother Ton'ue (Fix—Vactor Hotat tion)

’—-‘---.--—...-—o..-.-.. __.

 

 

 

 

rnflish Nether lOD'UG

Lanwuawe/Cultural ”rouns FEGDOxSG Res.onse
Suns Means Suns Keans
130 and Yoruba, USA Trainini 2.75 0.88 2.24 0.61

Ibo and Portuquese, US! Train—
in" 2.

C)

63 0.66 1.71 0.53

Yorvb a and Portu uese, USA

 

 

 

Training 2.70 0.67 1.63 0.52
Ibo and Portugues ewithout

USA Traini in: 1.90 0.50 1.31 0.U7

Ste set of facto ors c0"jarin* the Ibo and Poztu uese without USA

respondin: in Ln sli ' yielded less definitive Factors. Heu-

ever, four of the Five factor structures noted in the nreceéin~ sire»

F1“r\;‘ fi Y. “3 4.1 f. (79-. _3,r.‘; C .
lua‘dk)e.' VK‘CL ‘1 Lllr‘; \-"L1'..J...—g'l, ,
J

graph were identifiaLle in this pair too.
qualification, trust and Frienrrnip factors.

.'
I

figi 1e none of the factor pairs ret the lower lirit of nest

u.
fl

P.
U
3
H
T7
O
r
5
W

criterion at n: the sets resnonu tcnfue, sone of the same
variables ap>eared in factors across all four sets in the couparison.
The iFactors encorpassi: .‘g variables which occurred across all the sets

might be labeled (1) qualigication, (2) trust anc (3 ) cvns mism. Other

variables appearing on factors but clustering less cl eaer inclu,-c.

{_J.

approac able, orianized, intellitible, ccrnrcien i512. ?ctient, Curta_n

J

3 O
anc UCTSUCSlVG.

w, .1 -. . X ‘-_., is. -'- 47. 'r .r: . _.__ -3 :.... ." ‘ ‘.°.‘ __ ‘ - 4"
SQODUZBTILS VILO have 1%-:‘311 I-C' L'!C‘ mud ,_OP c"11J.11-'..;1‘~ hill ne ill-23x19 tilc‘j‘; 50.7."

t. ‘. - * a . , .3. '7 »~ ..- .' ' .- . a . - ‘1
tHOSC who nave not bLQfl to tee eSn lor trainin . It was sen ortcc av
.J

J

l

'1 gl'xoY "-3 Q ‘t‘J l? ‘1"1‘1'v0 7‘7t“?* 1 1' ‘1“ ‘7'“: ". “f" In * ’2 t“'?<" r“...
(.e .4— '11 Leif} 'IO (.11.. .LKA \: CM— L~~ ai— POL-”)8 aV'I‘l.I—.-;_C~ ’..J_\... ’01 1L_!.) CO..

<3

5‘
J!

tile

‘

" fl 1“ ”- .L. . ‘\ O 0 ~ A _ “ f"? r ‘ V
n Hal Ibo ant the Lilinwual Portuctese. :ne lorsoa

f—lo

arison, tne til

E7-

data for those without USA trainin: were not available, due to the un-

at the time of data collec—

3...
O
(D
H
J)
H o
(‘1’
C
:13
rt
1""
O
:3
Q-
(—+.
:7
:1
p:
1
O
‘3'
P'
”U

settled polit'
tion.

When the groups responded in Lnflish, four of Six factors were at

or above the lower limit of best fit For those with USA training in con-

5:

trast to none of the factors at or above that limit ior the frouns with—

~

out USA training. When the groups responced in the r tether tonfucs,

P0

neither those with USA traininj nor those without USA traininfi yielded

t criterion. Those with

{—1.

factors which set the lower limit of best f

1 a
{

USA training die rocuce somewhat lar er coefficients of similarity,

'23

however.
The followins table will Show the relationships of the suns of

,-

squared coeificients and the mean coefficients for each or the cells

P.
:3

this comparison.

Table 21. Relationship Between Groups with USA Trainin: and Grouns
Without USA Training for Responses in English and Pesponses
in Mother Toncues (Six—Factor Rotation)

Languace of 'ithout
Response US Training USA Traininn

.. o- .a —.--.u' _- 0- .-

 

 

 

 

 

Enslish

(T) C.)

’1

CD
FtOIa
O O
(.0 ()1 O
H

7

O
Rother Tongue 1.71

0

(1'1
1)
O
0

x
\]

 

.h.- -—.—‘--i-«-- o .._o. --...-. -..—-- a _-_....-,.- --.,".-.- c... -.- .—. ‘-.-.... - -—-...-. a m-fl—

(* Ton firures are sums of squared coefficients of similarity;
lower figures are means of the coetficients.)

:10};

Althoufih no statistical test of the sifirificance of the differ—

ences between the cells is available, it is encouracine that the dif-

w.

ferences all are in the predicted direct on. The yrouns with USA train—
ing yielded larger coefficients of similarity than those without USA
training; and the qroups reSjondins in Enclish had larder coefficients
than those respondins in mother tonfues.

To provide a stroncer base for inferences, we may afiain refer to
data computed from the random Q—sorts. The sums of the squared coeffi-
cients of similarity shown in Table 22 for all possible pairs of the
random Q-sorts are considerably lower than those for respondents' sorts

shown on the precedine pases.

Table 22. Sums of Squared Coefficients of Similarity for Six Pairs
of Comparisons of Four Random Q—Sorts

»-- -.-—---.-—.—-‘--—._ -...---- -——--._.-o-.—.>---u._ —-- .—-o -

 

 

 

 

Decks Paired Suns
09—19 C.uu
09-33 0.25
09—29 0.02
19-29 0.51
19—30 0.24
29—39 0.29

 

*“- -‘v- c“

 

o“..- ~.—

It will be noted that the ranse of differences among the values
for the random sorts are less than that for the comnarisons in hypo-
theses four and five and for part of hynothesis three.

5. Discriminating Power of Terms —-

- ---.«-. ~--.—-. . .---. --

 

a. The t—tests of the 726 differences betwee. the mean O—sort

.H—OWO‘

 

values for ”best source” and the nean Q—sort values for I’worst source”

showed all but 24 were statisticallr sienificant at the .05 level,

2-tailed. From this it was concluded that most of the terms discrimi—

nate between ”best” and “worst” source of messafies for the eleven la.—

ome terms consistently discriminated

(“
3

Cuage/cultural groups studied. .

'r_.1
L D
U]

(D
‘L:
'3
l
:5
{L
rt
:3
D
3’
fl)
3
s
(D
U)
Q
‘1.
(J
K)
P-
tn
f n
(D
*3
t0
7.5
O
{3
u)

more strongly than others, he
between lan’Hace/culttral Troupe. Lhe dif;
best and worst source ranted from 0.02 to #.88, where 8.00 was the max-
imum difference pos Sl ible

The list of differences between the me an scores for best source
and worst source is in appendix F. The data in that table provided the
basis for analyzing the relative discriminatinq power of the terms.

ffe rences were from one lancuare/

o.
l“

Fifteen of the nonsicnii icant

cultural group, the Ibo—English reapondents with USA training respond-

(D

ind in Ibo. Six of the remaining nonsignificant differences w re from

{J

A

the Ibo—English respondents tithout US“ training resocndinj in The.

reSponse might su piest translation problems; but, the terms yieldin;
nonsizni fi ica nt diffe, erences EH828 not consist- nt acres both Ibo response
groups. The translators also claimed that resp nd mzt should not have
had any di ffi icu ulty with the intended interpretations of the Ibo terns.
Another pos siole explanation for most of the nonsignificant die
occurring in one lancuape of reSponse is limited facility of the re—
spondents in reading the laneuaje. The field stafi reported the sev-
eral of the Li erian respondents had digiicult3r reading the dijerian
language in which they were respondinfi. It may he that those who had
been in the USA had even less facility in ’he languare than those who
had not been to the USA. Aeeuuate evicence was not availm le to con-
firm either of those rossibil’ties.

There was little overlap of terms anon? the i+ nonsierificant di

,— o - 0 V ‘ ‘0 1- h . ~ . .' "f‘ ’fi ”f: o -.. o o
rerences, 2l terms in tie list orOLLCLa, the 2% cases 0; nonSi nifi—

cance. The three which occurred pore than once anon? the lariuaee/

l f‘ a -

-‘-‘ w~ A I ~x" ~~ r - -- - l 'v -‘ »‘ 73!: t~ "-1 f‘ ‘r‘
cultural krouns were. Out—c «hate, COWdrth, 1PM s- e. -me other ternp

which produced noz_s s1.jni:icant differences Letneen the mecns for “Jest”

and ”worst” sources were : annroachahle, unaneroachahle, courageous,

1

deCiSive, stron , erss1ve wowerful, triencly, unshiendly

I
U
H

o a“, “.01. ‘. - o "q o ,—. 1 : ’ o [3-qu —
unclear, inCO‘Jeeneislule, uncertain, or afianL, innatient gamJlO,

C.
J.
J

N

(.1.

r.

,..

i I

(3

O

erronant, an1

(x
.

V'i ' F ‘-‘1 ‘— ~ . v .v-i
:ourteen o: the 2d terns w

{~3-

, . T-Tr. Cu, ' - , .-.J- .4. . . — A
ch cl.) mil in atec most stronfl; across

-

the eleven language/cultural groups nitht he enco ea ssed unee r hovlenfl's

v4.

exnertness and trus'worthiness einens

-

ons of source evaluation. 1 rust—

1 9 w

worthgl and untrustworthy had the nienest differences between mean Q—

ues for “best” aha ”worst"y sources across the eleven groups. flext

l_l

va
1Wi 11est were comnetent and incompetent. Followin: closely were: sin—

eere, insincere, ilone‘ st, eishonest, efficient, ine‘

unreliable, experienced, inexperieneeu, eeucated, une (ucated, kinCL

Ho
51)
H
.

cruel, par ial and impart
Terms which yielded the lowest differences between the means for
”best source” and ”worst source” Q—sorts were: polerful powerless,

stron,, weak, persuasive, uneersuasive, nassive, ener_m tic, svstena—

.l. ‘-

tic,w my stematic, impatient, courageous, unapproachable, anproacnahle
unfriendly, out-of—date, intelliqible, unintelligible, sage and incor—
prehensible.

To obtain a set of source evaluation scales that nifiht he used

_.A

effectively across several lan unei/cultural firoups, we wante to

, o o

eliminate those which die not discriminate st ronely, and keen these
which consistently discri 1in ated strongly between the "host“ and

”worst" sources of messaees. We also wanted to have sca.les which would

represent the various dinensions of source evaluetion ob aineu in the

F J
C)
\1

'—

Iactor analysis.

1.1

If the terms that discriminated host strongly between 'west" and
”worst” sources are grouped according to the factors which were mosc

comron among the respondent groups, the sets 3: can in Figure 3 are

 

 

 

 

 

lounc
Figure 3. Terms Which Discrim.m ated lost tStron”-j Between
"Best” and “'ors t” Sources, rouped by Common Factors
T‘ 'C' 1"
Fl -2 4.3 LL’,
Trustworthy Competent Sympathetic Efficient
Untrustworthy Incor petent Unsympathetie Ine ficient
Sincere Educated Kincl Orgaris d
Insincere Uneducated Cruel Lisorganized
Ionest Experienced Humble Nature
Dishonest Inexnerienced Arrocant Immature
Reliable Trained Friendly
Unreliable Untrainet d
Fr F F
J 6 7
Lazy Clear Impartial
Active Unclear Partial
Decisive
Indecisive
Certain
Uncertain

 

 

 

 

1.

b. A factor analysis of the eiscriminatinq power of the set of

 

,

66 terms across eleven languafe/cultural iroups was usee to seek Further
support for the hvnothesized di ffl renees bet. :een lantuace /cultural
groups. In this analysis, the mean differences between ”best” and
”worst" source sorts for each term for one crouo were correlated with
those obtained for each of the other crou,s. This produced an ll x ll
matrix for the factor analysis in which the first princin ail axis factor
extracted 92 percent of the total variance. This was taken as an inci—

1 O

Cation of a nifih degree of similarity in discriminatinj power 01

crouhs.

eleven

1‘8

:01.

«2 1:
x.)

'3

t

a CI‘O‘

.4-
SEN.

a

terms as

(‘1‘
L)()

of

\f““

CO T32.

I‘— -'-
V
~N
1.x-
‘ O
- , ~\ I-
I A] K~l.1;'
o
l“
A‘
l

)—
v

+-

L

+

B

.L.

L
Ci

I. \4VA
11

)

gonna

v‘
..
‘ o
' v'-\,.

“in?

L: g.) L

Al.
x)
oer
...
x
o

(l
k.

~

‘lec
c.

a
-)
f-

.

asreerent

V
-_»"\ r. ~-\
» A

‘r‘r‘
Ll-.~O
f

“:1"

W“

J.
O
l
l
:‘J.
‘(J
rv

\J

1"

A‘J‘hfi

l

‘
(1
k..-
.
swr-
_.-A ’
.‘f
l
A .. (u
ll'JLJ

a:

1" in Do

0
rouos in e
VL.
-g-‘
L;

1

al

J

resnonci
'ain
'17"?

K,

f‘
__.. A
Tfl'{\ .

Q
Q
‘ O

)f".(“‘f
Ike») 70
\LA..._e

I
"~‘ I S .

g

'0
o
,
,_J
\J
G
a

s .'

l

V

N
van 0
tr
OH
(:33,

f

LL

,1

O
-\
7?. l .
k1],
‘ffl
«s

7‘.

.:l A
T.’
I‘
~

V‘J'.
NF
‘- ’

3C“

othe
1*"0
\~..‘\t
rir‘ A
UQAI
r<
O
i;
’1
-.)
e
2?;

1n'.":‘.
_ . ‘Ji‘ K..-

f“7'\
AL , .41
J—
DCCTIJ
'Kleffl
fihr‘
(.g);')
”)5
‘Ju
\\-t
4—7
LLI

"fl-
Ll
{1"l
.)
‘CCLC

L110

.-. I

.-..VJ.

h (\A

,—
._,.;-n -
O

resnond

‘1' Ir

ovh(\
“Cut
n

OCUS

IC;E3C3
to

-

I'T ‘
k
,— ‘I’I
.
,

.
.

"ze lo

L.

4“
‘Ttl;
115(1
A (“an
\J o J [\J
LDC

1C

4..
__ya‘v.

Ial U
in*
1d Yorm
a'r‘fi'm’f‘. ,3-

of

7“-
4

s

~ O

UCRC

.

nort

I
/
3r.
0
«A

A

3 11:
.‘J

3w
23/:
O
llf’1
54‘ a); 1
tr
i

:3
\a

Hie

A

lowest

ff!]
-4
1

h

D

I .
up)”
yak,
I30

T3

PO
«(3"
(v

ii -[
T'C‘
\-'g)

v

-

80.736
1;;

u
l
L
.L.
1,
A»

C
_CS .

ate
a?
~ortqu
oruba v
L

L"
v
*3

IJitho
TDCJJ17

-. o
0
ln
‘7

anlC

iot

\
l

erent lancu

V

ever,
tnem

.J.

‘V . A (o-,*\ ‘ -— 1 . . r‘. ‘rv ' 1‘ - . C~C’A A j ‘ . —- I- ~ . .‘
pairs ranced iron C.qu to O.t/l, CH3 eiilerence netleen those hairs

m ‘ ‘ I V. vv «a. w 7‘ . .
ine t1ree DalPS which showed tae lONtut a_reeaent Here.

i. Yoruba with USA tr;i.inj rtsron«

1 a
. .

ane the bilin“ual

H o
[—1.
L
b4:
0
"5

I
C.)

’3 . NM}. 1 1".“ - a: ' f . 7’- ' . F , n
LOP-ttl‘filuoe witgout any. tar lining resnoncin’: in Portuguese.

ii. Zilinjual Ib witlout USA traininfi re010n1"“” in Ibo and nono—
linrual Portufiuese without USA training respondin: in Portu-
guese.

iii. Bilingual Ibo with USA training re spondini in Ibo and mono-

linjual Portusuese without USA traininfi responding in Portu—
guese.
While the agreement between the l wn_1a e/cultural "roup was hiéh
in all cases, the lowest correlation being 0.855, t1e differences be-
tween t11e highest and lovzest agreement pairs were consistent with the

‘

hypothes ized effects of lannuaje/cultural differences.

c. esults from an analysis of variance of the discriminatin:

-—— ~—.~~.

 

 

power of the terms also supported the General hypothesis. There was a
significant interaction (Table 23), indieatins that the discriminatinv
power of the terms was not uniform across all laneuage/cultural groups.

The treatment by subjects analysis within each lanjuafie/eultural
group produced differences between terns that were sifinifieant beyond
the 0.01 level when the null hypotl1esi was: The mean of the Q-sorts
for best source for term one minus the mean for the worst source for
term one equals the mean for the best source for term n_ninus the mean
for the worst source for term n: The eleven treatment by subjects

analyses also provided the error terms for the overall analysis variance

which was an ll X 66 two—factor ESlTn with repeated measures on the same

{11.)

sunje cts within croups. The sumna y da ta for th is analvsis are in Ta ml: 9

u

110

Table 23. Analysis of Variance of Piscriminatinc Power of Terms

Across Eleven Languaee/Cultural Crouus

“—---"--.a--. -... .- .—--»~--— .4. -A-m —-- -»V.. -Vh-h-D-.— .—-. _. H “'.-..----—. ".A---o—..4 -.-.-~-—--.-I—.—-~a

 

Source of Variation df HS F

 

ug—w-M—o. v-“ v.. H ~---.——-—~oo-.- . .- -.—.-—. .vc.-——--~._m--..—.w.—. -—. --.’—.—.v—.——.~

 

 

 

A (between languare/cultural troups) l0 0.0288l6 2.u59n
8 within A (Error term for A) U00 0.000687
B (between source evaluation terms) 63 H6.u8790 l00,579.87**
A X B 650 O.M5993 $95.52**
B x 8 within A (Error term for
B and A X E) 26,000 0.030H52
TOTAL 97,125

* Significant at 0.05 level, 2—tailed.
** Siqnificant beyond the .Ol level, 2—tailed.

The significance of differences between the 3 300 pairs of compari-
1_,. 9 l .1.

sons among 66 terms and 55 possibl

(D

pairs of the eleven lanquage/cultural
groups were not worked out to appraise all the “simple“ effects. how—
ever, a range statistic was computed employing the Tukey Test a (Winer,
1982, pp. 87 and 309—31l) and this value may be used in appraising the
data in Table 2H and in appendix Table 55. The difference obtained by
this method is a conservative estimate since it uses the maximum ranre
for computinj differences required for significance, and the smallest

of the unequal cell frequencies was used in the present computation.

The error term was a within cells mean square obtained by poolin:
sswithin A and SSBXS within A as suegested in Hiner.

With this estimating procedure, a difference between the means be-

q

tween A within 1 will be considered significant at the 0.05 level when

i

that difference is 0.58 or greater; a difference of 0.70 or greater will

be considered significant at the 0.01 level, 2—tailed. Thirty of the

differences in Table 2% were 0.58 or greater; 27 were 0.70 or greater.
Table 25, p. 112, shows the 66 source evaluation terms ranked

according to the average of the mean differences between best source

and WOI‘St SOUI’CC evaluations.

lll

CF.CI
bm.0+
CH.A+

C q

C

C"
I

LDC)

o
3

(\JL‘

0
- C
+ +

1.1:]? 1"..- (1‘

 

-J...‘ ‘0! 1‘...“

 

mm.c1
mm.ou :c.o1
mo.o+ :m.a+ am.a+

Arm. O N).

cc c :m.ot .m.ov

C.“
LI)
0
r—i
I

I71; '1‘.

. WSOCH

maesaoo mo QOMpoomfiU any Ca we: cowpomswozm
.omcommen osccoe nmbyoz wmpmoflocw Aazv
.emcoones euedwcma nmwabcm wepmowwnfl Ammv

 

w:.o+ HQ.H+ mo.H+ mm.o: mm.H+
oc.c+ 3m.H+ mm.a+ om.c+ we.H+ mm.o+
bw.CI m:.cl mm.01 ©¢.HI mo.©1 m:.HI

:m.o+ .a.c+
ma.o+ as c

mm.a+

mm.o-
em.on

(7?

1
+
(‘4
L\ C:
C C)
+ +

mc.H+ mm.

1.
we H1
11 0
rm 01

©®.OI OH.H+

ommsmdpnom Hosucwaoco: .

Ahrv mwoszvnom .
AHSV OQH .

mm mmmsuswnom .
?#3 02H.

"maacumpe ems

AKIV $0035.5PPHOnH .
neuv OQH .

Ammv mmmsngpnom .
AmmVMflfipow.
HN.OI mmv 00H .

 

Ammnmv Aomnwv Amsnmv
OH 6 m b @

 

".

 

1' . 1".-. ’l.’

m
b

.d
Oi

 

 

:peeeaohoo;
mkwmm >m musom1o eopzom emsom one 9mm; we

I t

”unwcflmnh <mD
, |.. A... .7. ). I..- ._.|:../ VII. l_. 1,
AU lfv AC iv A“ ..._.V A3;l7\ AHCITV Abmlh..v mCSOCHU
m m H
: 5.90% MAE. rHOmm. ”(b.3096 HM..MS#HSU\0.63.»..CMJ WC
WOUCQFHQWHMWQ C603 POM/“Suamwm mmUCO..H.mu.wWHQ .jm mwfifldrw

1‘2

n

Table 25. Averafie of flea Jifferences retween O—sorts of Test Source

‘ .. o . - 5 "1 T_. . n. 4. .. ..
anc worst source Across MlQVQD sensuaoe/cultural Creeps

 

F‘ ’OV“?”(3 r- p‘ A '1”’) {'-
[XVV‘C._.'\- OI.- k/Cru ‘t. 0..
U a. ' 4:5,. - ... .n . v a *1: -1: - f...
Terms Sorted Lean BlilCTGUCBD Terms Sorted Lean Lif-erences

w. .‘... -49--.- —. ‘- -- -.-—. ---_. v- --*-C‘»-'—- - -. - - ~-v- - -- .- -—- -‘- M ‘a <- .. H- -—..—-—-.»--

 

 

-.——-——..-

”1
CO
'2‘

_. ,
1w.” C"."“.‘.T‘IC
——, ., .‘~~ s— \\-. l

1.:
l

r
x.
O

Untrustworthy
Trustworthy
Competent
Incorpetent

Y‘ .L. ‘-.;_
H l
. - LCD—{-KLLQ

OJ
.
VA
./‘J
{I}
54
I
' - ‘V
\3

-AJ (.0

H 1’ J Ln
{0 U1

0

(_J 1

}-_J

O

\1
j

on , I I C

' ("fv"\ “‘""’ “1
.JrlmTV Y ':~L.‘I‘-3L4-C
.

o
n 4‘

1n. 7n
A’lVLiL \J’.’

.L-4
O

\1
:1
. "1

,

I r\ '.‘ -~ 3 ‘ . '71"
Sincere 3.0s3 bntraited l...u
" n r'1_‘ r I:
honest 3.0 ire n l.7 -

Insincere
Dishonest
Efficient
Unreliabl—

J
D w
._J
1:)
r—o
,_ )
7
LJ
r-J
t-’.A
F4
(L.
1.4
O
K'I
( -
.

M (A)
7 L3 C)
(J

14 U1
(3
(1‘
*3

v?" {—1- Ho
{‘1

(D t“). \)
’r._l
\]
C1

1.) \J

0
CW
1”)
’0 (
1' rt }-
__ |-’
D
Ff
L—J
('3

-..”.(rl

M to M
O
LR~4=_
11:0

('3
"5
P-)
lj AJ
SJ 5
u.
(A
.Q
Hi4
L}:

Reliable . 3% F

Inefficient 2.380 Corar’lv l.‘23
Danfierous 2.8ln Unclear 1.03”
Cooperative 2.23U Safe l.871

Experienced
Inexperienced
Partial
Educated
Uneducated

7‘0 PO
0
O f‘ D
):‘
\J
3
5
0
CJ
'—’ O
[—1 :3
;Jo ’1!
f. o r. J
”.7 C»
-4
(:1
i- 1 I...)
o o
’ L I
I I ( N
J I'.‘ 1'

1\) h.)
l...)
q
I)
P—‘I
Li
f'
1’) '
}-_J
F“ (I)
[—50
H-
Li
f.)
(7‘
F“
-3

M

o

H

’.)

J:

f.)

t"?

I

O -.
l

l

LJ

r“:

1”

;__J }._l

o

!__’J +4

Impartial ._ . ll? \‘1 ‘ l‘i331£.]:f l. “.133
Cruel 2.1.09: L-nivrs i's"'«':1“‘i(: l.7”?
L822"! 2 . 09.1 ”1:25;: * . :1 '17 '1
Uncooperative 2.026 Systthtic l 3:3
Syrpathetic i. 23 Urannroacnable 1.31%
Mature n.02. passive 1.31?
UPTflR‘ZGd .W7? iner'etic l.3F2

7\‘.
Ih-Jo
p—l
.4
\l
P l-’
o
Q
}_1
.3
i)
:2
2

l

l
(D
O
"I
(1‘)

1e+e
‘0
S

Indecisive l x; .i -c

Uncertain l.CCl Penn‘asive l.220
Arroiant 1.930 Unnersuasive l.2f2
Decisive 1.97“ Powerless l.2”2
Humble 1.33U Stronfi 0."““
Disorfianised 1.832 Powerful 0.7.8

— c ‘w--..—‘—-. .- .----- -VMm‘—oc-~“— 0...-.-A- . - - ,- o- _ - - - 1.-.- . .—-». -.— - - g“-.- _- c ‘ — . .».~ 0‘ . § - ---—o--7—.-o—-o—-

6. Nevative Correlations Vet1zeen Prestred PoL r Pairs ——

”"pp:j::js_z stated that the
not be consistently dencnstrated for the ter.s that we:- presured to be
polar oppos it-s. Using nerative correlations between members of the
presured bipolar pairs as an in icator of the binolarity of rankinf re-
Sponses, support for this hypothesis was found.

The mean nejative correlations* between the pres u e,d bipolar pairs
across the twen ty—two data decks (eleven luacua’e/cultuial sroups sort-
ine for ”best source” and for ”worst source ) ranfied from —0.2; to -L.Lo.
The correlations for the infi vi ual dec<s r'n‘e~ from 0.l5 for the pair
of terms powerful—powerless to —0.9l for the pair of terns sympat1etic—

V '- -1 . H fi" . x -\ ‘A 'fi 17 .r 5 - . " 1! fl . 1
unsympathetic. Competent—incompeten and CapBPlCRLQQ‘lMEAPEPlCDCQC

yielded ne3ative corr rela tions of —0.00 for one sroup.

As noted earlier, the Q—sorts for ”1mor t source” _airly consist entlv
produced nore variance than the Q—sorts for "best source.“ This yielded
higher correlat ns within the ”worst source” mat Mic s and it is acain

reflected in the higher ne3ative correlations between p e81red bipolar
pairs for ”worst source” Q—sorts than for ‘best source“ Q—sorts.
Some of the diirorences between sorts of ”best source” and ”worst

r.

source” and some of the ul fierences among terms are readily visible by

L

r.

looking at the table or correlations. -his is in appendix G. It also
is quitea apparer 1t fro om lookin" at this Kalle that t1e correla ions

were lower for the four sets of data derived by a table of random (1i its

than for the reiular Q—sorts.

 

f.

* Mean correlation was computed by ‘sini the formula waich ennloys
a weighted averayc of z transformations as diven in Yofiemar, 1062, n 1H0.

1...:

} J

The correlations; for the presumed bipolar naiis with the four ran-

lations in the random sets were above —O.HQ and only one was above

—O.50. The random sets are exclucel from the averafies listed below.

to lowest mean nefiative correlation:

educated— —une ducated .66 inpartiel— partial .H
trustworthy—untrue tzorthv .65 decisive~ indecisive .5
friendly-m friendly .65 clear uncl-ar .S
appraochable— unapproacha ’le .6u kind—cruel .3
competent—incompetent .64 certain—uncertain .5
organized-disorganized .62 :ature—immature .5
honest—dishonest .6l —to— date - out-of-date .S
trained—untrained .6l sincere-insincere .5
erp erienced—inexperienced .61 inte el.li3ible— unintellin ble .5
s mpathetic- unsvmp athetic .60 active—passive .M
persuasive—unpersuasive .60 connrehensible-incompr hensible .u
efficient-inefficient .60 strong—weak .u
umble—arr03ant .H

patient- in‘patient .58 enerjetic—laz .u
vsteratic- unsys cematic .56 courajeous—cowardly .H
cooperative—uncooperative .56 powerful—powerless .?
reliable—unreliable .56 safe-danjerous .2

It is interesting to note that those antonyms formed without the
prefix un, in, or dis yielded the lowest ne3ative correlations.

o.-—

In selecting scales for future work it is convenient that all but
three of the terms that discrir in ated most stronely between "best” and
"worst” source had nefative correlations of 0.50 or more with their
presur ed opposite Of the txelve terms with t:1e hi hest ne ative cor-
relations, all but two *— approachable-unapproachable and persuasive—
unpersuasive -- were amonq the list that discriminated most stronrly
between ”best” and "worst” sources.

Powerful—wean had stronfier neeative correlations in some of the

data sets than did powertul—powerless: and active—lazy showed} 1i W1 ear

DOC»)

1)L‘J\J

r
\_

LOP—‘F—‘MM

‘F‘
J.

1‘4
l4

correlations than the terms wit

IT
3.
p.
(_)
'J
d
.3
Q

*4
9
p
CJ
(3
b
\J

.)
a)
I.)
{‘J
P0
*5
C)
$‘\
Ho
:3
“f
(D

rvj

'!__J
f"
U

I

' N '1“ ‘. ...-. 4- . 1 '- , . 1. -° .
min . inis sup est exolorin; some other consinations of terms, es~
. '1 1. '1 T\ r— tar) ,1-7 A ~j. (‘vq . j:\ .1 fir‘ . -F .1 . .1 -~ “ fl . 'f" (‘ r~ 1 >V~
FEClQl _‘f c.1210.” tut, cl“, LL {1.14.0.3 varlcvu 1.1,...) 9 .1..- JlWOlQI‘ OLTJOol .8.) an; RECYCGH.

7 C '11 c 77;: 'o'orr‘vr‘v‘fii : h 1“)"- 1": 7'7 vu'
o uCc»....C..> A“ CO.1......£.~.<.:C. .KO‘. ..JLL-PL ‘nClIx '—

m -- -.‘—.——.- --- a.“ - w-..“

 

Based on the factor structures obtained, the alscrifiinatini power,

1

and the nefiative correlations between presured oipolar pairs, terms in

1

~et on p. lO7, are rec0¢mcnood as those from which to select SC“l€S

(_f
:3‘
(D
U)

IOP future work. If bipolaritv is souiht, it would aspear wise to

delete humble—arrosant from the llS and to combine active—lazy in—

.__.4

stead of the oairinc set us whet t1e oresent studv was planned.
_ 1 i .. .7 ..

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
A. Factor Structures

Characteristics of the factor structures across the groups showed
similarities to the seven categories on page 56 which were used as a
_guide in selecting the Q-sort items. It had been suggested that the
seven categories might represent dimensions which people consider in
their judgments of sources. Although the factor analysis produced
meaningful 7-factor solutions, even more by the Kiel-Wrigley criterion,
the same seven factors were not consistently obtained across all groups.

Two factors did appear consistently across all groups. These were
the so-called trust and qualification factors. Three others which
appeared with high regularity, but not as cleanly as the first two, were:
(1) dynamism, (2) friendly-sympathetic-approachable and (3) organized-
efficient-systematic.

One of the apparent differences between results in this study and
those of Berlo, Lemert and Mertz is the greater strength of the factor
described by the variables friendly, sympathetic, approachable, kind, etc.
This was a weak factor in the Berlo, Lemert and Mertz work, accounting for
less than 5 percent of the variance. Hovland, et al., make mention of
it but do not give it much attention.

In the rationale, the possibility of a strong factor of this type

(friendly, etc.) among the sample groups with strong kinship orientation

116

117

and low technological development was discussed. While the present
study did not provide a definitive test of the relationship of the
"friendly, etc." factor to level of technological deveIOpment and kinship
orientation, the findings are suggestive. One of the problems in such a
study would be to control for individual variability within countries in
the level of technological (modern) and kinship orientation.

Another apparent difference between the present results and those
of Berlo, Lemert and Mertz is in the proportion of variance accounted
for. Generally, the trust factor is high in both studies, but it reached
a top limit of 13.9 per cent of the variance in the present study com-
pared to 33.8 percent in the Berlo, Lemert and Hertz study. While Berlo,
Lemert and Mertz obtained three factors which accounted for approximately
60 percent of the variance, it took five to seven factors to extract
50-60 percent of the variance in the present study.

The difference in proportion of variance extracted between the pre-
sent study and the Berlo, Lemert and Mertz work may be a function of some
differences in the designs. In the present study, Q-sort was used in-
stead of semantic differential, forcing more discriminations by the respond-
ents; foreign nationals were used as subjects instead of USA re8pondents;
samples of respondents fer each analysis were smaller; ideal-type (best-
worst) sources were used as the concepts for judgments; and an effort
was made to introduce some additional scales.

Even though there are differences, the present study and previous
work highlight some common dimensions of source evaluation. The four

dimensions which Berlo, Lemert and Mertz labeled safety, qualification,

118

dynamism and sociability appeared rather consistently across all the
sample groups. A fifth dimension in the present study was described by
the variables organized, systematic, comprehensible, etc. Some of these
loaded on the first three factors in the Berlo, Lemert and Mertz work.

Further factoring broke the structures apart still more; sometimes
in meaningful patterns and sometimes fracturing the patterns in ways
that did not seem meaningful. One instance where further factoring
seemed meaningful was in separating the dynamism factor into what might
be called possession of power (strong, powerful) and use of power (ac-
tive, energetic, courageous). In some situations this may not be a mean-
ingful distinction; but if one is trying to understand what a source
must do to improve his receivers' evaluation of him, it might be a
necessary distinction to guide modification of his behavior.

While studies such as the present one call attention to Specific
elements people consider in evaluating sources, they do not go far enough
to indicate under what conditions one factor becomes more important than
another in determining how the receiver will respond to the source and
his message. More work also is needed on the inter-relation of the
various dimensions. One Specific relationship that needs to be explored
is whether dynamism is curvilinearly related to trust and friendliness.
Which is worse, e.g., a high dynamism, low trust source or a low dyna-

mism, low trust source when expertese is high?

B. Hypothesized Relationships
1. Comparison of Factor Structures Among_Language/Cultural Groups --

a. The general rank ordering from r1511:l to r232t2 appeared with

119
the exception of the r2s2t2 (non-English Speaking Portuguese) group. It
did not show the lowest agreement with other groups as predicted and this
is difficult b eXplain.

As noted before, one of the difficulties in all of these comparisons
was the lack of tests of statistical significance for coefficients of
similarity. The effort made to counter this difficulty was to compare
the measures from respondents' data with measures from four random Q-sorts.
Two types of aggregating measures were used: (1) the sum of squared coef-
ficients of similarity, and (2) the number of factors meeting the lower
limit of best fit among the language/cultural groups. As shown on pages
92 and 104, the measures were consistently lower for the random decks.

In addition the factor structures were compared visually for the appear-
ance of the same variables across the various language/cultural groups.

Claims for support of the hypotheses were based on the consistency
with which differences in coefficients of similarity were in the predicted
direction, and on the number of coefficients meeting the lower limit of
best fit criterion. The lower limit criterion was met by more of the
comparisons predicted to most similar than by those predicted to be
least similar under hypotheses one, four and five. Differences in coef—
ficients of similarity were in the predicted direction on four of four
comparisons for both hypotheses three and four; on both differences for
hypothesis five; and on 18 of 20 pairs for hypothesis one.

Further confidence in he validity of this claim accrues when the
differences in coefficients of similarity across the random Q-sort

samples are compared. With hypotheses four and five, the range of

120
differences between the sums of squared coefficients of similarity for
the pairs being compared was 0.H0 to 1.07; in the random sorts the
differences ranged from 0.01 to 0.38. This added confidence holds in
hypothesis three when the comparisons are for the groups responding in
mother tongues where the range is 0.53 to 0.61; but it does not hold when
the groups reSpond in English where the range is only 0.05 to 0.12.
Table 22, p. 10”, shows the sums of the squared coefficients for the
random sorts.

2. Discriminating Power of Terms --

 

This part of the analysis was more directed toward obtaining useful
scales for future work than with testing the theoretic hypothesis. The
t-test and analysis of variance were used, not to draw inferences about
some hypothetical population, but to obtain a rigorous way of describing
differences between respondents' scores on judgments of best source and
judgments of worst source.

With this way of analyzing the data, the expertness and trust-
worthiness variables were dominant among those with the highest
discriminating power. Variables from the other dimensions also discrim—
inated well between best and worst sources; and the variables did this
unite well across all the language/cultural groups.

In the rationaleit was claimed that people might use common refer—
ence bases in the evaluations but categorize and label differently. While
the evidence obtained in support of that notion was not dramatic, it was
observable in the correlations of the discriminating power of the terms
across language/cultural groups and in the 2-factor analysis of variance.

One of the things revealed in this analysis is the weakness of safe-

dangerous, as a pair of variables to discriminate between best and worst

121

source. Without further analysis of the Berlo, Lemert and Mertz data

or collecting additional data from a sample of USA reSpondents, one has

no basis for knowing whether the difference in power of safe-dangerous is

a cultural phenomenon or an artifact of the factor rotation in the Berlo,
Lemert and Mertz analysis. That difference in results with safe-dangerous
does demonstrate the value of going beyond the factor analysis in selecting
scales that will discriminate between good and bad sources, or in selecting
scales for any other kind of judgments.

3. Bipolarity of Responses --

 

This phase of the study, while somewhat incidental to the main pur-
pose, has served two useful functions. It helped separate those scales
which, according to the negative correlation data, participants were less
likely to see as opposite characteristics of the sources they judged.

As noted earlier, this will be useful in selecting scales for semantic
differential use. This part of the study also helped focus attention on
the problem of curtailed distributions which were reducing the correlations

obtained.

C. Implications

1. For Source Evaluation by Communicators --

 

The findings from this study provide a set of source evaluation
scales which may be used cross-culturally, and used with more confidence
that we will be tapping the evaluative dimensions these people use in
judging sources. The findings also indicate that while the general bases
of source evaluation are similar, there appear to be variations in the

semantic structures.

122

The communicator will do well to prepare himself for differences,
such as the relative strength of the friendly, sympathetic, etc. factor.
If we conclude there is a difference between two language/cultural
groups when there is not, the consequences would seem to be less serious
in the communication situation than if we were to infer there is no
difference when, in fact, there is.

As happens to one involved with translations from one language to
another, the differences in categorizing and labeling became painfully
apparent. The lack of one-to-one translations was re-emphasized by the
translation experiences and the findings of the study.

The findings suggest, too, that there is some gain in similarity
of the bases of judgment when people have had a training experience in
the same country and when they use the same language.

2. For Future Research --

 

The findings in this study have indicated that there are similarities
among language/cultural groups in their evaluative structures, and
that there are some differences too. It leaves unanswered how the
structures may vary with concept classes. Osgood has found there are
differences in dimensions of meaning with different concept classes.
Is there a set of concept classes that is small enough in size that it
would be feasible to obtain dimensions of meaning and sets of scales to
use with people from different countries in work involving those concepts?
With the differences claimed in this study among the language/cul-
tural groups, the question of differences among the sub-language/cultural

groups within a country comes up. Is there variation in the structure

123

between status levels within a country, or even within a city? What
difference, if any, would be found between the source evaluation struc-
ture for residents in Southside Chicago and University of Chicago fami-
lies, e.g.?

To what extent, if at all, will scores on an evaluation instrument
composed of the best scales identified in this study help predict re-
ceiver response to a message from different source types?

The findings seem to support the appropriateness of the general
theoretic framework for attacking questions regarding differences in
behavior among people from differing language/cultural groups. If this
is so, the theoretic frame may fruitfully be used to explore other

questions cross-culturally.

12a

REFERENCES

Andersen, Kenneth E. and Clevenger, Theordore, Jr. "A Summary of Ex-
perimental Research in Ethos,” Speech Monographs, June 1963,
30:59-78.

 

Asch, S. E. "The Doctrine of Suggestion, Prestige and Imitation in
Social Psychology," Psych. Rev., 19H8, 55:250-76.

 

Bandura, Albert, Ross, Dorothea, and Ross, Sheila A. "Vicarious Re-
inforcement and Imitative Learning," Journ. Abn. Soc. Psy., 1963,
67:6:601-7.

 

Banks, Arthur S., and Textor, Robert B. A Cross-Polity Survey, Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1963.

 

Barlow, J. A., and Burt, C. "The Identification of Factors from Dif-
ferent Experiments,” British Journal of Stat. Psych., 195a,
7:52-6.

 

Berlo, David K., Lemert, James B., and Mertz, Robert J. “Dimensions
for Evaluating the Acceptability of Message Sources," Research
Monograph, Michigan State University, Dept. of Communication.

Brown, Roger, Social Psychology, New York: The Free Press, 1965.

 

Casagrande, Joseph B. "Language Universals in AnthrOpological Pers-
pective," in J. H. Greenberg -- Universals of Language, Cam-
bridge, Mass.: The M.I.T. Press, 1963.

 

Chomsky, N. "Review of Verbal Behavior, B.F. Skinner," Language,
1959, 35:26-58.

Danbury, Thomas: Unpublished work on Source Evaluation, Department
of Communication, Michigan State University, 1963.

Darnell, Donald. "A Technique for Determining the Evaluative Dis-
crimination Capacity and Polarity of Semantic Differential
Scales for Specific Concepts." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 196”.

Green, Russell F., and Goldfried, Marvin R. "0n the Bipolarity of
Semantic Space,” Psy. Monog., 1965, 79:6:599.

 

Haiman, F.S. "An Experimental Study of the Effect of Ethos in Pub—
lic Speaking," Speech Monographs, 19u9, 2:190-202.

 

Hartley, Ruth B. "Norm Compatibility, Norm Preference and the Accept-
ance of New Reference Groups," Journal of Social Psychology, 1960,
52:87-95.

 

125

Hoftatter, Peter R. ”Uber Sprachlicke Bestimmingsleistungen: Das
Problem des grammatikaliscken Geschlechts von Sonne and Monal,"
Z. ext. Angew. Psych., 1963, 10:1:91-108.

 

Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L., and Kelley, H.H. Communication and
Persuasion, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1953.

 

 

Kelly, George A. The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York, N.Y.:
W.W. Norton and Co., 1955, Vol. I.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York:
Holt, Rinehart 8 Winston, Inc., 1969, pp. 650-87.

 

Kiel, Donald F. ”Effects upon the Factorial Solution of Rotating Varying
Numbers of Factors with Differing Communality Estimates." Un-
published M.A. Thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1966.

Kumata, Hideya. "A Factor Analytic Study of Semantic Structures Across
Three Selected Cultures." Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Uni-
versity of Illinois, Urbana, 111., 1958.

Linton, Ralph. "Universal Ethical Principles -- An Anthropological
View," Moral Principles of Action, Ruth Anshen, 1952.

 

Lionberger, Herbert F. "Community Prestige and the Choice of Sources
of Farm Information,” Public Opinion Quarterly,l959, 23:110-19.

 

Lorge, Irving. "Prestige, Suggestion and Attitudes," Journal of Social
Psychology, 1936, 7:386-902.

 

Maccoby, E. E., et. a1. "Social Reinforcement in Attitude Change,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63:109-15.

 

Marston, A.R., and Kaufer, F. H. ”Group Size and Number of Vicarious
Reinforcements in Verbal Learning,” Journal Exp. Psy., 1963, 65:
593-96.

 

McCroskey, James C. "Scales for Measurement of Ethos," Speech Mono-
graphs, 1966, 33:1:65-72.

 

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., 1962, pp. inn-us.

 

Mordkoff, Arnold M. "An Empirical Test of the Functional Antonym of
Semantic Differential Scales," J. Verbal Learning and Verbal Be-
havior, 1963, 2:50u-8.

 

126

Morris, C. W. "Foundations of the Theory of Signs," International En-
cyclOpedia of Unified Science by 0. Neurath, R. Carnap and'C.
Morris, Chicago, 1939, 1:1:77-137.

 

Newcomb, Theodore M. "Attitude Development as a Function of Reference
Group -- The Bennington Study," Readings in Social PsycholOgy by
Maccoby, Newcomb and Hartley, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1958, pp. 255-75.

 

Osgood, Charles. Methods and Theory in Experimental PsycholOgy, New
York: Oxford UhiverSity Press, 1953, pp. 680-727.

 

"A Question of Sufficiency, A Review of B. F. Skinner's
Verbal Behavior," Contemporapy Psych., 1958, 3:209-212.

 

"Psycholinguistics," in Kock, Sigmund -- PsycholOgy, A Study
of A Science, McGraw-Hill, 1963, Vol. 6:2”4-316.

 

 

. "Studies on the Generality of Affective Meaning Systems,"
Amer. Psychologist, 1962, 17:10-28.

 

. "Semantic Differential Technique in the Comparative Study
of Cultures," Amer. AnthropOIOgist, June, 196%, 66:3:176-200.

 

. "Dimensionality of the Semantic Space for Communication via
Facial Expressions," Paper delivered in seminar at Michigan State
University, Dec.. 1965.

Osgood, C. E., Tannenbaum, Percy H., and Suci, George J. The Measurement
of Meaning, Urbana, 111.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1957.

 

Osgood, C. E., Sebeck, T. A., and Diebold, A. Richard, Jr. Psycholoinguis-
tics, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univ. Press, 1965.

 

Raven, B. H. "Social Influence on Opinions and the Communication of
Related Content," Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholOgy, 1959,
58:119—28.

 

Rosenzweig, Mark R., and Miller, Kenneth M. "Comparisons of Word Associ-
ation Responses Obtained in the USA, Australia, and England," J.
Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1966, 5: 35-41.

Sapir, Edward. Culture, Language and Personality, (selected essays,
edited by David G. Mandelbaum) Berkeley and Los Angeles: Univ. of
Calif. Press, 1964.

Saporta, Sol. Psycholinguistics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
1961.

 

Sherif, Muzafer. "An Experimental Study of Stereotypes," Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1935, 29:371-375.

 

 

Siegel, A. E., and Siegel, S. "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and
Attitude Change," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyghology, 1957,
58:119-28

127

Staats, Arthur W. “Verbal Habit Families, Concepts, and the Operant
Conditioning of Word Classes,“ Psych. Rev., 1961, 68:3:190-209.

 

Star, Shirley A., Williams, Robin M., Jr., and Stouffer, S. A. “Negro
Infantry Platoons in White Companies,” in Maccoby, Newcomb and
Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology, New York: Holt, Rinehart,
Winston, Inc., 1958, pp. 596—601.

 

Stephenson, William. The Study of Behavior -- Q-Technique and Its
Methodology, Chicago, 111.; The University of Chicago Press, 1953.

 

 

Stogdill, Ralph M. Individual Behavior and Group Achievement, New York:
Oxford Univ. Press, 1959.

 

Suci, George J. "A Comparison of Semantic Structures in American
Southwest Culture Groups,” J. Abn. Soc. Psy., 1960, 61:25—30.

 

Tanaka, Yasumasa, Oyama, Tadasu, and Osgood, C. E. ”A Cross-Cultural
and Cross-Concept Study of the Generality of Semantic Space,"
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1963, 2:392-M05.

 

Triandis, Harry., and Osgood, C.E. "A Comparative Factorial Analysis
of Semantic Structures, in Monolingual Greek and American College
Students," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958,
57:187-96.

 

Turner, Ralph. "Role-taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference Group
Theory," American Journal of Sociology, 1956, 61:4:316-28.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Desigp, New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962.

Zipf, G. K. Psycho-biology of Language, 1935.

 

APPENDIX A

Instructions to Staff and Respondents

128

Source Evaluation Study

Instructions to Respondents

Each of us talks to many people nearly every day in doing our work.
We also receive letters, memos, pamphlets and other written items from
many people. What we hear or read from some of these people we tend to
accept without question. However, what we hear or read from others we
do pp£_accept without further checking. It is not just what is said,
but “who says it” that determines whether we accept or reject what we hear
or read.

Each of us can think of both kinds of people in our work. In this
study, we are trying to learn the different ways people describe these
two types of persons -— those whose statements we accept without ques-
tion, and those whose statements we do pp£_accept.

Please read the instructions carefully and try to do what is asked
at each step. You probably will find it easiest to read one paragraph
of the instructions, do what it asks; then go to the next step and so on.
Work quickly, but carefully.

We think you will enjoy being part of this study.

129

Instructions

First, within your field of work, think of a person whose statements you
accept without question. Consider this person as your best source of
messages.

Write that person's initials (or name) on the back of envelope "A”.

Open envelope "A” and take out the cards you find inside. You will find
a set of white cards, a set of orange cards, and three blue cards. The
white cards each contain a word or phrase which some people have used to
describe sources of messages in their field of work. We want you to use
the white cards to describe the source whose initials you have written on
the envelope.

Now, spread the blue cards on a table in front of you as follows:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I l a
!
l
( A B C
Most Least
Descriptive ? Descriptive
A l

 

 

 

0n blue card A, place those white cards which you think best describe the
ssource whose initials you wrote on the envelope.

 

On blue card C, place those white cards which you think least describe the
source whose initials you wrote on the envelope.

1

 

On blue card B, place those cards which you have difficulty deciding whether
to place on blue card A or on blue card C.

 

Now, spread the orange cards out in front of you so that they are in order
from 1 to 9 as follows:

 

 

RANK ONE

LEAST DESCRIPTIVE

Place 3

white cards here.

 

 

 

 

"a
}_1
OJ
0
(D
1 U1

white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

RANK FOUR

Place 11

m

white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

RANK SEVEN

Place 8
white cards here.

 

 

 

 

RANK FIVE

Place 12
white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

RANK EIGHT

Place 5
white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

'1'"'"'""

RANK T313131:

Place 8
white cards here.

.- m-.——~..

 

RANK SIX

Place 11
white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

RANK NINE
HOST DESCRIPTIVE

Place 3
white cards here.

 

 

 

 

 

131

Take the white cards from blue card A (most descriptive).

 

Select three of these white cards you believe most accurately describe
The source whose initials you put on the envelope. Then put these three
on orange card number 9. Now take the five cards you think next most
accurately describe your source and put them on orange card number 8.
Continue in this way going from most to least descriptive. Do this until
you have used all the cards from blue card A.

Now take the white cards from blue card C (least descriptive). Select
FEE three cards that you believe least accurately describe the source
whose initials you wrote on the envelOpe; put these three cards on orange
card number 1. Put on orange card number 2, the 5 white cards which you
believe are next least accurate in describing your source. Continue this
way until you have all the cards in order from least to most descriptive.

 

The pile on blue card B (?) are to be used to fill the middle categories,
putting on each orange card the number of white cards stated in parenthe—
ses on the orange card.

 

When you have all the white cards sorted on top of the 9 orange cards,
check each pile to be sure that you have the number of white cards asked
for on each of the orange cards. If you have too many or too few on any
of the orange cards, move the white cards (still keeping them ranked the
way you want) so that you have the correct number in each pile.

When you finish sorting the white cards into the 9 piles, put the number
two pile on top of the number one pile, number three on top of number two,
and so on, ending with pile number 9 on top. Keep the cards in this order,
put the rubber band around them and put them back in the small envelope

in which you found them.

YOU ARE NOW READY FOR ENVELOPE "s"

Think of a person in your field of work whose statements you do not accept
without checking. Consider this person as your worst source of messages.

 

Write that person's initials (or name) on envelope "6".

Now take the white cards from envelOpe "B" and put them in order from
most descriptive to least descriptive of the person whose initials you
have written. (REMEMBER, YOU ARE NOW DESCRIBING THE WORST SOURCE, i.e.,
THE PERSON WHOSE STATEMENTS YOU DO NOT ACCEPT WITHOUT CHECKING.)

Use the blue and orange cards, as you did with the best source, to help
describe your source, putting on each of the orange cards the number of
white cards indicated on that orange card.

 

When you have all the white cards sorted on top of the 9 orange cards,
check each pile to be sure that you have the number of white cards asked
for on each of the orange cards. If you have too many or too few on any
of the orange cards, move the white cards (still keeping them ranke the
way you want) so that you have the correct number in eaCh pile.

132

When you finish sorting the white cards to describe the worst source,
again put the number two pile on top of number one pile, number three
pile on top of number two pile and so on until number nine pile is on top.

Put tile rubber band around the cards k~ee,infig them in order and IQtUI‘n
3 ,. 3

This completes the sorting, and there are just a few remaining questions
which you can answer quickly.

133

Source Evaluation Study

Note to Field Staff

The purpose of this study is to explore some of the bases people use
to judge sources of messages and to test some hypotheses about language
and meaning. We want to know how the basis for judging messaje sources
is affected by language and cultural differences.

One theoretic position holds that the basis for judgment is the same
regardless of language; another position holds that the judgments are a
function of language and will vary as language varies. We're trying to
explore this with three different language groups —— Ibo and Yoruba in
Nigeria, and Portuguese in Brazil. The findings also should be useful to
extension workers, teachers, etc. in knowing how their audiences are likely
to respond to different kinds of message sources.

Test materials for the reSpondents from whom you will collect data
are packaged in sets for each respondent. Each of the 9 x 12 enveIOpes
contains test materials, instruction sheets and questionnaire for one
respondent. (The questionnaire is the last item to be completed by the
reSpondent.)

To help you anticipate the kind of questions respondents ask and
places where they may have difficulty with the procedure, I suggest that
you complete a Q-sort with one of the decks of cards marked ”sample”.

TEE instruction sheet should give you the information you need to complete
the sort.

The words and phrases on the white cards were selected from those
which we have found people use to describe sources of messages. They
have been collected from persons Speaking several different languages.

In administering the test materials, I suggest that you read through
the first two pages of the instructions with the respondent. Then demon-
strate arranging the rank cards and sorting. When the respondent finishes
the sorting, be sure to check with him to see that he has the proper number
of cards in each pile and has them stacked as directed. The order of
stacking is important since the cards will be fed directly into the cal—
culating equipment for machine tabulation.

 

 

 

Be sure to have the reSpondents open the "A” envelope first and com-
plete the sort for ”best source” before opening the ”B” envelope. Be sure
also that they tape the black protective cards around the set of IBM cards
in the same way they found them. Then put the packet back in the envelope
and seal it. When the ”A” deck has been sorted and sealed in the envelope,
the respondent is ready to open the "B" envelope and begin the sort to des-
cribe ”worst source". Again check with him at the end of the sorting to
see that the proper number is in each rank (pile), the cards properly
staCked, the protective cards on each side of the deck, the rubber bands
around the deck to keep the cards in order, and the deck sealed in the "B”
envelope.

13”

The deck number and respondent number at the top of the questionnaire

should match the numbers on the envelope in which all the test materials
are packaged. Please note on the outside of the package any discrepancies
you find in the numbering.

sure
back
mark
been

When you have completed the data collection for a respondent, be

the ”A” set and the “3" set of cards and the questionnaire are put
in the same 9 x 12 envelope from which they were taken. Put a check
on the outside of the package to indicate that the test packet has
completed.

Now return the package to the person from whom you received it so that

it may be shipped back to Michigan State University, Department of Communi—
cation, East Lansinv Michigan 48823.

03

APPENDIX B

Characteristics of ReSpondents in Samples

135

 

Respondent No.

 

Now we need some information about you to help in grouping the responses
on the card sorts which you have finished. Will you please answer the
following questions:

(8. WHAT IS YOUR AGE? (Check the line which includes your age.)

25 years old or less
2F—35 years old

36-u5 years old

HB—SS years old

56 years old or older

*—

——-———
no...-
-—-.—._

(9. Mom MUCH FORMAL SCHOOLING HAVE YOU MAD?

Completed the equivalent of a bachelors degree in a university

and have studied some beyond this degree.

Completed the equivalent of a bachelors degree, but no study

beyond this.

Attended a university, but have not yet completed requirements
“ for a degree.

Completed secondary school, but have not attended a university.

Attended secondary school, but have not completed requirements

for graduation.

Attended elementary school, but not secondary school.

Other (specify other schooling)

__—

o...

 

 

(10. WHAT IS YOUR POSITION (OCCUPATION)? Please describe briefly what
you do.

(11. WHAT IS YOUR RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION?

Christianity

Islam

Other (Please list)

No religious affiliation

 

“‘—
”_—
.—.—.—-
a...

(12.

(13a.

*9

__fllua.

lub.

luc.

136

HOW MUCH AKD JHAT KIND OF CONTACT HAVE YOU hAD hITh PCRSOHS :ROM
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

Have been in the USA for training or study for 6 months or
longer.

Have been in the USA for study or training for 3~5 months.
Have been in the USA for study or training less than 3 months.
Have not been in the USA for training or study, but have
worked or studied with a USA person in my own country.

Have not been to the USA for study or training and have never
worked or studied with a person from the USA.

Other contact (please specify)

 

 

(Please add any comments which you believe will help clarify
the nature of your contact, if any, with USA persons.)

HEAT ORGANIZATIOHS (OF ANY TYPE) DO YOU BELONG TO OR OThERHISE
PARTICIPATE IE? (Ifrone, write 'none'; otherwise list the
organizations.)

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THESE ORGAN ZATIONS?
List offices held, committee assignments, and other activities.

WHAT LANGUAGE DO YOU USE MOST IN YOUR WORK IN YOUR COUNTRY?

*-

 

 

AT WHAT AGE DID YOU LEARN THIS LAEGUAGE?

 

EON WELL DO YOU SPEAK AND READ TEIS LANGUAGE?

very well

quite well

satisfactorily, but not well
: poorly

(15a.

15c.

__(lBa.

16b.

__(l7a.

17b.

17c.

137

WHAT OTHER LANSUAGES, IF ANY, DO YOU ‘SE Id YOUR UORK?

 

AT HEAT AGE DID YOU LEARN TEIS LANGUAGE?

 

MON hELL DO YOU SPEAK AND READ THIS OTHER LANGUAGE?
very well

quite well
satisfactorily, but not well

WHAT LAECUAGE DO YOU USE IN YOUR HOME?

 

AT WHAT AGE DID YOU LEARN THIS LANGUAGE?

 

HAVE YOU STUDIED LAUGUAGES OThER THAN THOSE YOU HAVE LISTED AEOVE?

yes
no

u...“

IF YES, HEAT OTHER LANGUAGES HAVE YOU STUDIED?

 

 

HOW COMPETEHT DO YOU FEEL IN THESE LANGUAGES?

Thank you very much for your help. If you would like a copy of

the summary of the study results, print your name and address on the

blank 3 x 5 card which you will find in the envelope. Give this card to

the person administering the questionnaire.

Deck A

02 -

03 —

Ou—

12

13

14
15

16

Bl

33

34
36

English
U.S.A.

English
U.S.A.

English
to U.S.
English
English
U.S.A.

English
sure to
English
U.S.A.

English
sure to
English
English

A.

U.

U

138

Code for Deck Numbers

Ibo speakers responding in English with exposure to
Yoruba Speakers reSponding in English with exposure to

Portuguese Speakers responding in English with exposure

Ibo Speakers responding in Ibo with exposure to U.S.A.
Yoruba Speakers responding in Yoruba with exposure to

Portuguese Speakers responding in Portuguese with expo-
S.A.

Ibo Speakers responding in English without exposure to

Portuguese speakers responding in English without expo-

.S.A.

Ibo Speakers reSponding in Ibo without exposure to U.S.A.
Portuguese speakers responding in Portuguese without

exposure to U.S.A.
Portuguese only speakers responding in Portuguese without expo-
sure to U.S.A.

139

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00H 0: 0.00 mm 0.00H 0m 0.00H 0m 0.00H 0: q<eoa
m.m H :.0 H 0.m H 0.m H H.m H sHaeHoz
m.m H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 hmeHo no 0m
0.0 a :.0 H 0.m H 0.0H m H.m H mm . e:
0.0m w 0.5m m 0.0H m 0.mm m :.0H m m: . 0m
0.0: 0H 0.:: 0H 0.0: mm 0.mm HH «.00 :H mm - em
0.mm 0H 5.0m 0 0.0: on 0.m H m.0m em mmmH no mama» mm
& .03 w .oz Hw .02 w .0: w .0: mm<
s0 em 00 - 0m :0 u :m 00 u a H0 Hm
soofidm xoea
Aoenchcoov mm oanme
0.00H 0: 0.00H 0m 0.00H 0m H.00H :: 0.00H Hm 0.00H s0 Seaoe
H.N H 0.0 0 0.m m 0.m H m.m H 0.0 0 .sH0wp xx”
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 wmeHo ho 0m
H.m H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.: m 0.0 0 0.0 0 mm - e:
0.:H s H.s m 0.m m s.mm 0H s.H0 0 H.m 0 0: - 00
0.0m mm 0.0m mH :.:: 0H H.0m 0m 0.H: 0H 0.0m Hm 00 . 0m
0.mm HH m.mm HH :.:: 0H :.HH m m.m: :H H.0m mH mmmH no mpmw» mm
w .02 b .02 w .0: e .02 w .o: e .02 one
SH 00 SH m0 :H - :0 0H - 00 NH - m0 HH H0
Q @035 2 M0 6Q
mpcmwcommmm we He>oq mm< mm edema

 

 

 

 

-
"l

c.00H o: m.mm mm 0.00H cm 0.00H om o.ooa w: J<BOB

 

 

 

 

 

1M0

 

 

 

 

 

0.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 H 0.0 H H.0 H 0H00h oz
0.0 0 :.0 H 0.:0 00 0.0 0 0.00 0H cho Hoocom 000000E0Hm
mumaaeoo p.coflo pso
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0H 0 0.0H 0 0.0 : .Hooeom 0000:0000 00000000
0.00 0H 0.H0 0 0.0H 0 0.0 H 0.0: 00 Hooeom 090000000 0000H0500
0.00 0 0.0H : 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 000000 on 020 .00H000>H00
0.00 0H 0.H0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.: 0 009000 000H00000
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 00H0 000000 090H00000
w .0: w .02 w .02 w .0: w .02 .Mdfiaoozom mo whee»
00 u 00 t0 - 00 :0 u :0 00 u 00 H0 - H0
903:5 Z .4069
H0000Hpcoov 00 0H000
0.00H 0: 0.00H 00 H.00H 00 H.00H :: 0.00 H0 0.00 00 00000
H.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 H 0.0 H 0.0 0 0H000 0:
H.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 0 cho Hoogom 000000S0Hm
epmaeeoo p.apflo #52
0.: 0 0.0 0 0.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 H .Hooeom 000000000 00000pp<
0.0 : 0.0H 0 0.0 H 0.0H 0 :.0 0 0.0H : Hoogom K02.00800 0000Hasoo
0.00 0H 0.00 HH 0.00 0H :.HH 0 H.00 0H 0.0: 0H 000000 on 000 .00H000>H00
:.0H 0 0.0H 0 0.0H 0 H.0 : :.0 0 H.0 0 000000 000H00000
H.00 00 0.00 HH 0.00 0 H.00 00 0.00 0 0.00 :H 00H0 000000 000H00000
0 .oz 0 .00 0 .oz 00 .oz 0 .o: 0 .oz mcHHoocom mo 09000
0H - 00 0H - 00 :H - :0 0H - 00 0H 1 00 HH - H0

 

memes; xoog

 

mpcmpcommom ma pmpmameoo mcwaoozom mo memo» hm magma

lul

 

ii-.. 'l'n'u

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.:0H 0: 0.00 00 0.00H 00 0.00H 00 0.00H 0: 00000
0.0 H :.0 H 0.0 H 0.0 H H.0 H 0H000 0;
0.0 0 :.. H 0.0 H 0.0 H H.0 H cpowHHHmwm msonHHoh 0:
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 00H200
0.0H _ :.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 H H.0 H 00H000H00
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 :JCH:
0:0 , H00 is 0.0 H H10 0 0.0 0 HsHmH
0. 0 00 0.00 00 0.:0 0: 0.00 0H 0.00 0: sthmethao
2 .o. N .ouII. U. .o: 0 .0; 0 .o; o00umflawmm< mooHOHHew
00 00 00 I .0 :0 1 :0 00 z 00 H0 H0
0H 0 H.133 .3 MO 3:
AooscflPSOUV mm eaamh
0..:H 0: :.:_H 00 H.00H 00 0.00H :: 0.00H H0 0.00H 0 00000
I o .1 Q o W, 1‘ JIW‘ is! I.» O o Iv Nul- \l“
H 0 H 0 0 . 0 I o 0 0 H c 0 H 0 o H :0c00 00
0.: 0 0.0 H 0.0 0 0.0H 0 0.0 0 :.0 0 eoHsmHHH000 qaonHHoh on
0.: 0 :.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 00.000
H.0 H 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 amHhmbHcp
0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 secH:
0.0 0 H.0 N“ 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0H :: 0.0 0 :0H0H
:.00 H: 0.0; 00 0.00 00 H.:0 00 :.00 :0 0.H0 :0 00H00H00Hhco
0 .0x 0 .o: a .34 c .o: a .o: a .03 coapmwaflmm< m:o.mflamm
0H . 00 0H 00 :H - :0 0H s 00 0H - 00 HH H0
.Hon0003 ofioec

 

mpcmozoem.

m wo cowpmHHme< msomuwaem

mm eaodh

1H2

 

 

‘ -'l-|

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.330 0: H.000 mm 3.000 cm o.coa om 0.000 a: A<WDW

0.0H 0 0.0 0 0.0 H 0.0H 0 H.0 H 0H00h oz

m.m H c.o o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o pGOUSHm

0.0 o m.m H 0.0 o o.n a 0.0 o mocmwom amaoom

m.ba h m.m H 0.90 m 0.0H m $.30 b PceEcmm>ow

m.ma m 9.0 w 0.0H m o.mm m m.© m mmOCHWSA

0.0 0 0.00 HH 0.0: 00 0.0 H 0.00 0H H00H00000000 .00HHH20

c.m m m.m m 0.0 o o.m H 0.0 o 90pmmpmHC0E©<

0.0m OH m.>H m 0.9m ma c.mH m 9.0m ma powwosou

c.c o m.m H 0.0 o o.m H 0.0 c decommmmmoma

o.ma o w.ma : 0.0 c 0.0m : H.m H HMUHCSUOB

w .0: a .0; w .03 w .03 w .0; cowpmasooo
0m mm am I om :m I :m mm I mm Hm I Hm
9002f. ”H M0000
Apescflpcoov mm OHbmH
H.nea n: H.00H em 3.00H om m.mm m: m.mo an 9.00 hm A<HQB
H.0 H 0.0 0 H.HH : 0.0 H 0.0 H 0.0 H Sikh oz
m.o m o.mm m c.3m ma c.c o o.a: ma H.mm ma FamoSQm
m.: m 0., o 0.0 o 0.0 o :.w m h.m H mocoflom HmHoom
o.c c m.b m H.HH 3 m.m H :.o m m.oa 3 pcoEcsm>ow
H.m H 0.: o 0.0 H m.m H 0.0 o 0.0 a mmmcflmsu
0.0 : 0.0 0 0.0 0 :.: 0 0.0 H :.0 0 H00H00000000 .00HHH00
m.m : c.o c c.m H 0.9 m o.c o H.m m QOpMmeHCHEpc
0.0: mm 0.00 m :.m A m.mH o H.0H m 0.0H : Lovoospm
m.: m c.o c 0.0 Q m.mH 0 m.c o 0.0 o ascoflmmmmomm
0.ma m m.mm m0 :.m0 0 m.mm 3m u.mm 0 m.:m m Hmowczoea
“W o: a .02 9 .oz 0 .WW 0 .0: m .om cowpmmdooo
0H 00 0H. 00 :H II :0 0H I 0.0 0H I 00 HH I H0
0H 00.0.0.0: 0..“, x0 m0
mwcoccommom mo mmmHo HmcoHemmzooc mm mamme

143

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.<mD :0 W.W..HHH.»,HVHH.Hm m3... OE... 209.95. 3.003 <00. 20 u...
..000 .EH HfiHKHH 0w 00.000 H2, 0.H:%H 0m 0.000 Hi“ .gfiwfib
m.b m 0.0 m c.m H o.m H m.: m HHamg ox

:.mm mm 0. m 00 0.0m mm 0.00 00 0.0m :m <m; gogm somgoc :00? -Ostym 90
UQHHOE 9w>®c mojmeICHCngp an: on

n.um mH 0.5m HH o.c: cm 9.3: a >.m: Hm mpHcsoo

3:0 00 compo; <mu :HH: UmHJSHm
Lo 00x00; 033 >UZPmImzHcHaLH 400 03

0.m w 0.0 0 0.H0 H0 H .0 .0 .0.0 0 asymméfi
m cwcw mmmH AUSHQIHCHGHmpy <03
0.: c 3.0 o 0.0 c 0.0 H. 0.0 0 maybe: mIm mwsymecHszpp <mn
0.0 0 0.0 m c.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 9H0... HQ 33:02 0 A.,...dedeCHGQw 4.5.3.
I! a on a .0: m .o. m .01 m .03 meUQOL <mm 300; powpaoo .

>0 0m 00 I 0“ :m I :m an I mm Hm I 00
.c.msw x000
AUQSCHucooV omQHLwB

0.000 m: 0.000 mm 0.000 00 0.000 3: 0.000 00 0.000 mm H<BQB
0.0 m o.o o H.HH *0 0.3 m Hun m 0.0 o mHnmg on

0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o m.m «H 0.0 o 0.0 o <ma sopw somgom gHH: Umespm go
00x90: hm>oc “adameMCHchgg <m3 o:

m.: m 0.: a 0.0 o 0.3 o m.m 2H 0.0 a mnpasoo

GEO CH comp
90 @9032 pan

m away mm

mm 403 200: UoHUSpw

503mewchHmpp <mD o:
mnpaoE

m0 mvsmemcHCHmpp 0m:

 

 

H.m H 0.0 o o.m m m.o m m.m H m.mH m mnpcoa mIm musmemchngH Hm:
m.mm o: :.om pm 9.9m mm m.ww mm m.mm om H.Hm cm @905 go mawcos o mcsmemchnge «ma
a .02 w o: 0 .00 w .o: a .o: w .o: mcomgmm <ma ng: Hompcoo
0H no mH mH :H I :o mH I mo mH I mo HH I Ho

 

L§?BQVUQ.

 

Hmccowamm <m: oy.mch0m&B <m3 Op mpcmwcommm

x mo ogzmoaxm

om mHnme

 

 

 

'5..- ‘J-II'I -II'I'I - II ‘ll‘..- .'I‘

 

0._ mam 0.. mw.Hw: “mm 00.0;00. H00 00.0100 00m 0. 00m 0+: .0H00070
m.» m :.n H 0.0 : o.cH a m.m~ m mHflxwg on
0.0m mm b.0m m0 0.30 50 0.m0 0 :.mm 00 mp0>0000 00 m0£mgoqflmE :00www0cvm00 0:
0.0m 0H 0.00 m 0.00 mH o.c: m H.0m mH mco0pmm0cougo ogos go oco mo gonzo:
o.m m m.mH 3 0.0m mH 0.0H m H.0m m mcngo Hco go

NIH :0 00000 00000EE00 00\C:0 m000mmo m000:
w:000000:0m00 0003

:0 m :0 upmoa 000009500 00\0:m 000000 mUHO:
c.: c c.o o 3.0 o 0.3 o H.m H mo0p0>0pom Ho0ooam
00000 :0 mwawwcm 0:0 m:0000N0:mwmo 0005

00 m :0 mpmom mmpp0fiuoo mo\0:m mmo0wmo m000:

CC
’3

o
O
‘3
C\'

o
3‘
CW

0
O
C-
C)
.4.
O)
r-1
1‘)
O

C

 

a .0; 9 .cn a .0m 0 .0m 0 .0: 0:0000N0cmww0 005000 :0 pcmum>00>00

 

\. L
00 I mm on I 0m :m I :m m I ma Hm I 0m

CU

 

Losiiwufioa

 

luu

0003:00000v Hm 00009

 

:.l

 

 

 

 

 

 

e.goH a: o.scH mm H.coH on 0.0; 3: c.90H H. o.ooH pm 04000
0.0 m 0.0H m 0.0H o o.mH o m.0 m 0.0 H mHmog 0:
w.m: Hm o.mm 0 m.mm NH n.0m NH m.mm m 0.Hm m 000>Hpow
:0 00:0000305 :0000N0cwm00 0:
..mm 0H 0.mm OH H.HH : 0.0m 0H m.m: :H 0.Hm m oco00ou0ommgo ogoe go oco 0o gooso:
n.mH a 3.00 0 0.0m HH :.om m m.mH o :.Hm 0H mcoHyoNHgomgo NIH g0
mpmoa 00000EE00 00\0:m mmo0mwo 0000:
0.: m 0.0 o 0.0 m 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o mco0pou0omugo ogoa go m cH
00000 00000EE00 00\0:0 000000 mUHo:
o.c o @.m H x.m H c.c o m.m H 0.m H mo000>0poo HoHoooo gospo c0 mommy
Icw 0:0 m:00pwm0:mmao 000E 00 m :0
mpmom 00000EE00 00\0:m mmo0mwo mVHO:
0 .00 w .0; w .03 w .0: w .0: w .0: w:0000m0:0000 005000 :0 p:0€0>00>:0
0H I co mH I no :H I :0 mH I no «H I No HH I Ho

 

009$:MKUQH

 

mc00pmx0cmwpo Hmsgou :H m0:00:onmom go 0:0:0>00>:H Hm 00205

:mHHw:m #0: x

.

 

 

 

 

 

:.coH o: 0.00H om 0.00H 0m 0.00H om 0.:oH a: 4:909
0.0: 0H :.H: mH o.m H o.mH m H.m H “Hoop o:
m.mm m 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o 0.0 o HosuoHHocoz
0.0 o 0.5m w o.mm :H 0.0m : o.mm HH 0:0 :H >0:0H0Hwo:& :xH: 00H: HmsmcHHHa

. m 0.0m mH 0.0m 3 m.mm >m :po: :H m0:0H0H%090 :mH: LPHB HMSmCHHHn

o.m ”um m.w
m 0.0H m o.m H H.m H oco HHco

:H mucoHonogm :mH: 09H: Hm:u:HHIHpH::
0.:H «: m.0H m 0.0m 0H 0.0: m m.mH 0 HH0 #0: 0:0 0:0 :mgp
000E :H 30:0H0Hwogg :tHL :pH: stm:HHIHpH:z

9.0 o o.o o o.m H 0.0 o m.: m HHo cH HoooHonogo zmHo 20H: HosmoHHIHpHo:

w

0
C0
r—J.

 

 

 

 

 

145

m .0: 2 .0; o .00 9 .0: . .0: waHHomh mIGSKCMQ
I. \ I k I UPI! & Ir 0 c
>0 I 00 cm I an :m I :m mm I mm .Hm I fim
thZSMIEOH
:0 03:11:00 v mm 0H are

 

 

 

 

 

w: 0.00H mm o.ooH on o.ooH :: o.ooH Hm 0.93H on 04:00
I o.o o o.n m m.m H 3.0 m o.c o mHoo: ox
o 0.0 c o.o c o.o o 0.0 c 0.0 o HoomoHHooog

 

 

 

: o.o o 9.0 0 m.mH o 0.0 o >.m H 0:0 :H
h0:0H0Hm0:m :wH: :HH: Hm:m:HHHn
m o.m: NH m.mm :H m.m m m.mm 0H H.mm mH nPOQ CH
M0:0H0H%000 CQH: :HH: H0:V:HHH0
4.; D. D 3 T. C C m . \Im NH O. C G r. 0. a GED NHZO CH
hocmHonogm 53H: 00H: Hmsw:HHIHHH:0
.H 0.0m :H :.:: 0H m.n: oH 0.Hm nH H.:m om HHo 0o: 0:: oco cos: o:o& oH
M0:0H0Hm0:m :MH: :HH: HmSH:HHIHHHJu
0: H.0 m H.HH : 0.0 m 5.0 m b.m H HHm :H
50:0H0Hmogg :mH: :pH: szw:HHIHpH:L
4 .0: w .0: a .0: a .03 w .mw 0 .0m hHHHHomu mwmflm:dq
0H no mH I ma :H I :0 mH I mo mH I we HH I H:

 

poafism x00:

 

00,000....0coommm mo .H..HHHH00,m 0003...:me mm QHHBH

“IL

146
A Basis for Ranking Countries by Level of Technoloqical Development

(Cross-Polity* Study Variables and Classification)

I. Urbanization

A. High (20% or more of population in cities of 20,000 or more and
12.5% or more of population in cities of 100,000 or more)

B. Low (less than 20% of population in cities of 20,000 or more and
less than 12.5% of ponulation in cities of 100,030 or more)

II. Agricultural Population

Low (16-33%) and very low (under 16%)
Medium (Bu—66%)
ligh (over 66%)

OWZD

III. Per Capita Gross National Product

Very high ($1200 a aoove) and high (3500-1199)
Hedium ($300—$99)

Low ($150—299)

Very low (under $150)

UOUJ>

IV. Economic Developmental Status

DeveIOped (self—sustaining economic growth; GNP/capita over $600)
Intermediate (sustained and near self-sustaining economic growth)
Underdeveloped (reasonable prOSpect of attaining sustained economic
growth by the mid-1970's) and very underdeveIOped (little or no
prospect of attaining sustained economic growth within the fore-
seeable future)

0073>

V. Literacy Rate

High (90% or above)
Medium (SO-89%)
Low (lO-u9%) and very low (under 10%)

OLUZD

* Arthur 8. Banks and Robert B. Textor, A Cross—Polity Survey, The
H°I-T- Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1963.

 

APPENDIX C

Terms People Used to Describe Best Source
and Worst Source of Messages

Terms People Used to Describe best

acquaintance (close)

active

adamant

adjustable

advises many peOple well
aggressive

ambitious

an author

an authority

appreciative (of my efforts)

bad

bad attitudes
bad behavior
bad personality
bad voice
beautiful

bold

broad knowledge

capable
careful
cautious
characterless
cheerful
Christian
colleague
common sense
compromising
concise
conservative
content (with own ideas)
c00perative

courageous

courteous

cultured

attitude

deceitful

dependable

develops new ideas
devoted

diplomatic

discourteous

discreet

discriminatory in belief
dishonest

dislikes helping others
disobedient
disrespectful

dogmatic

drunkard

dull

1&7

Source and Worst Source of Messages

easily annoyed
educated
efficient
elastic
elderly
energetic
enlightened
enthusiastic
envies neighbors
evil-hearted
experienced
expert

faithful

foolish

formal

friendly

gets along well with people
good
good
good
good
good
good

attitude
behavior
character
xpression
judgment
good personality
good voice
gossip
grateful

handsome

hard working
high—tempered
honest

humble

ignorant

ill expression
imaginative
immature
impatient
impolite
important
inaggressive
incapable
incomprehensible
indifferent
indolent
industrious
inefficient
inexperienced
inexpert

influential
informal
initiative
insincere
inspiring
intelligent
intolerant
irresponsible
irritable

jovial

keen sense of humor
kind

kind—hearted
knowledge (has)
knowledge (lacks)
knows nothing

lakshmmr

lazy

learned

liar

listens

loud

loves others

loves to help others
low social class

mature
money-mad (loves money too much)

no initiative
no self—confidence
no self-respect
nonchalant
nonconformist
not courageous
not devoted

not influential
not learned

not listener
not moral

not progressive
not respecting

not willing to take responsibility

obedient
objective
open-minded
passive

patient
persuasive

1H8

Ph.D.

playboy

polite

poor common sense

poor judgment

pepular

practiced exentsively in field
progressive (interested in progress)
pugnacious

qualified

reckless
reasons logically
relative (kin)
reliable
researcher
resourceful
respectable
respected
respectful
respecting
reSponsible
right-minded
rigid

sad

seeks welfare of country and people
self-centered
self—confident
selfish
self—respecting
sense of humor
shallow

sincere

skillful
slippery
sociable

stable

stout

stranger
stubborn

studied in field
stupid
sympathetic

tactful

tactless

talkative

tall

(good) teacher (produced many students)
thoughtful

timid

tolerant

trained
trustworthy
truthful

ugly
unapproachable
uncautious
uncompromising
uncooperative
uncultured
undependable
understandable
understanding
undiplomatic
uneducated
unenlightened
unenthusiastic
unfaithful
unfriendly
ungrateful
unhelpful
unimaginative

149

unimportant
unintelligent
unqualified
unreliable
unresourceful
unselfish
unsociable
unstable
unsuccessful
untrained
untrustworthy

vague
village-head

wayward

willing to help people

willing to learn

willing to take responsibility
wise

writer of books (in fields)

flppllal J ::I X: D

Terms Used for Q—sorts and Lack—translations of

Figure 5 Q—Sort Items

Respondents to Describe Source

 

rm

lne Eng li
translation, t

sh word will be lis
as n the Ibo translation and the Yoruba tralslation for

—.—.—a ---—

 

followed by the Portuguese

each of the 66 terms. (Each respondent used only one language)

Competent
Competente

Onye mara olu ya nke oma

Samusamu; ye (fun ipo)
I /
Educated/
Instruido
Qmara akw ukwo
Omowe

erienced.
xperiente

Qt utachara ine nile
5basara olu ya
Ml oye

7-1
LX

t:x'rU

Trained
Treinado
Onye azgru azu
Ti Kose
///
Powerful
Poderoso
Onye nwere ike nke uku
L'agbara

Strong
Forte
Onye siri ike
L'agbara

Active
Ativo
Onye di nko
Ni itara

Energetic
7 , I .
Lnergico
Onye nwere ume nke uku

‘- ‘.
huffinal"

Decisive
FlIT‘xP t.
Ika okwu isi
Lepinnu

Incorpetent
Incompetente
Onye nama hi olu va nke qma
Ode; aise sanusamu
/ / / ’
Uneducated ,
hao instruido
Qma a :hi akwukwo
Aimowe
/

Inexperienced
Inexperiente
Qlu amaghi ya aka

Ailoye

Untrained
Destreinado
Onye anazughi azu
Koi Ko'se
///
Powerless
Imp otente
Onye nenweghi ike

Ailagbara
(e.g. ati p6 iSG bi oqa)
// /
Weak
Fraco

Onye nesigii ike
Aila5bara

Passive
Passivo
Onye juru oyi
Ai ni itara

Lazy
Pref uicosgo
U129 :nwu
(odi5hi acno ilu olu)
Yole
/

Onye n'akWUSi jii ik; na okwu
Ailepinnu

- Figure- .5-

Coura eous
Corajoso
'nye naoi:ni atu e5wu
Gb oya

Cooperative
Cooperativo
Iji otu obi alu olu
chosow no
I II I“!
Friendly
Amistoso
Onye neme enyi

1m

\V

I

Impartial
Imparcial
Qna ememotu onye
dika omcre ibe ya
Ai soju saju
l I
Kind
bondoso
Onye obi- oza
Loju anu, .lanu

Safe
Se5uro
r‘be na adi :ni atu egwu
(uzo na adigni oenwu)
N .
Se balopo
a u
Clear
Claro
manaawa
(oworo anya)
Orore ye ni tara
I o :
Connrener81>le
Compreensivel
Iue enwere ike ignota agnota

I .
ch1

(continued)

-_ .- -..—....—. -~—- “u.-‘ - m'- o—ch- .—~.~m—M'-m m .9» MV‘ ”a.

Cowardly
Covarde
n il’-.w
unye Hm dLu evJu nz<e m: u
L'ojo

Uncooperative
‘4» .
nao cooperat1vo
Ocnthi iji otu obi lu
Tai”\’.&..'te

Q)
.0

1...!
.C.‘

Unfriendly
Inamistoso
Onye nadi ni ene enyi
A 1. D3
I
Partial
Parcial
Qna ni one otu onye
cika onere ibe ya
?oju saju

I
Cruel
Cruel
Onre obi ° r n'o
A). . l'l’ig'w
alailOJu an a1lanu

Uaneerous
Perifos
Ebe natu em!
(uzo $5; efwu)

.-/ .\
111 jamba

Unclear
Obscure
Oweghi anya
(oz-zolzizni anya)
Orore ye ni baibai
. I t
Incomprenensible
Incompreensivel
Ine ana enwegni ike ignota
a iota
(““161 Ua/I‘iti

Dishonest
Desonesto
Uzo ya ezi
\’

[isoto
a 1

hi ezi

153

Flees -5..-”

Sincere
Sincero
Ono n We 3i okwu
den.tanje; ai§e meji

Trustworthy
Digno do confianga
Onye anatukwasi obi

(W

H i
oe gnekele

lntellifiible
Inteli~ivel
_Onye enwere ike i"hota
‘/" \ ihe okwuru
Hi itu.o
(nitori ye owo re kunna)
I I

Persuasive
Persuasivo
Onye ji okwu agbanwe obi madu

Le yinilo kan pada
Certain
Seguro 0e si
line were anya
’(ihe amara nke o.a)
Daju

ike ilu olu nke oma
ose nise
III I

Organized
Organizado
Ime ine n'usoro
(Adighi eme agnara)

Seto . O

I

SV'S L8H 1(3th

Sisteznatico

Ime ine n 'usoro

Lét c‘)

(contintzm i)

- - . -_. _‘_.‘._.._.___. -_-.-.-._.__....__.__

Insincere
Insincero
Qnofni n'ezi o}

/\
\'
N
P.
,_

anie; nse n
I I

?J
:0}
0

LJ.
lr-Jo

Untrustwortlrz
Indigo de confian‘a
Cnye anadighi atukwas

Aise :gbekele
I I l

.H-
9
V
P.

Unreliable
Inbrevisivel
Onye (mam-"D1 eji aka
Eiserne ele
I I I
Unintelligible
Ininteligivel
Onye anenwegni ike =
ignota ihe okwuru
Ai Hi ltu:’

Unpersuasive
Na ~o pers suasivo
Onye n'enweqhi ike iji okwu
5bauwe obi madu
Aile ,ir ilo kan1ada

Uncertain
Inseguro
Ine n'ewe5ni anya
(ine ana ana_n1 nke 911a a)
‘I'io—czaj u

Inefficient
Ineficiente
Enne5ni ike ilu olu nke ova
Aimoe cnise
III II
Disorqan zed
Desoreanizano
Ime athara

 

Patient
Paciente
Inwe ndidi
Ni suru

{lumble
lhxnilde
Onye di nwayo n'obi

Ni rele
I I
Up-to—date
Atualizado
Ihe ana €1.16 ‘Ufijbkla .’
Bode mu; t1 159a yi

Agproachable
Acessivel

\ -~v '5‘ v'- r”
Cnye ana enueta nfiua nlwa

mw
se—sunno
' I

lature
Maturo

Ine ruru Ojo

(
Dagba to (nitorina) Mo )on
‘ I I

((onve nwere oii ebere)
N1kedun

Eigufe-§---

154

(COutluUn‘).

__.-_—- —.- -—

 

Impatient
Imnacicnte
Anajni enwe noioi
Ai ni suru

Arrogant
ArrOjantc
Onye nere nga a
(Onye n 'akpa néansa

Sascnan; aini rele
Out- ~of— Ere
Des aliza do

I'xO 370 ELI
I
UnnterQC}iole
Inaccssivol

Onye ana ad

Unsympatnetic
. 1; /,.
Antioatico
Oni ike
(Onye n 'enwo hi obi eberc)
flaju; aini kedun

_H—w.._—...-—-

O Q Q
15n1 enweta nrv
o ‘ o '

155

.3 a CH m. 30 o
1.0.mmanoo “m mpg

"3
”J
(:3

hacpdzoo
comgmg mmcapmm-

x90: Op #263 p.smo

compma mCH9wpc3 cm

v>wmmwg >:mmwm

o>fiwow win
havpmxoo nxmmz macawm #0: ma 0:; 0:0
m>wgn nucogum usogpw

awe: aoch “hpfla

ucogpm 90:03 “:4Hawflm

ciéQEmgo

wfiw vapu #:ozpflz oco

gpvcompm go
pmopm zwws :Ompoa m

wvmflwppm: comamppcd
smaflmaw Mocampp
rflmspm Mao: mwa Socx p ammom
ppCfim x90: mag psonw m: c:»ga>o m:o:x
vapmoswozs Tmucoswo.
voymoswo wmwaJUO
34 24m cmaawxmca
ppmxm wvaaflxw

wpmzoo
msooumpsoo

Mao:
Ehww

hmwa
Umpmmpmcm

m>wmmwm
o>wpom

Mm 9...,
mcopww

h9gmws

dozwwgpm:
609.399

wmocmwpogxocw
wovcowgmmxv

dowmoswoqs
@opmosvw

.mfifiwfioo
mflooumhdoo

OCH

o>fl.floo
mwom:

w
O>

A-
3.3””

aflpomhwcm

dozam;HpH:
fioswmaw

cmOQOHQmaxmcH
vooamwgmaxw

Umpdodvv a:
GopWUSfio

psomewxuozfl
pcopo p 00

.AHH
.mH

.ma
.HH

.OH

O
rv".
xv

[\

In (.0

 

nggow

o H

 

zwwfiwgoamm oaqmuommmm :ww: mo:m3u:wg

mzowywawstB uo>w>gzm coax:

r r p

m mpsmwm

156

:cowogommj

 

caflcwavgzfi nmxwpo:pm:gwcz Cowucnxozj “mafiwwoawopmss wanmaaoacs .m:
Cmom
oanwwagp nucwpngp msgaoxpmjgé “QHAdwaoL uwgom “oaflwpowcwgm maomwamp .H:
hfiyuozwmsgyc: ovanwwamcmwcd mgugozpmSLycs Muzau go uhxixiw pom %c#902wm:9pc3 .0:
mgppo&ywsgp amaamVCmamc mngozwmsgp pmsgw ho pmwcos mappozpmsap .mm
Hampwooow :Pzpp gem Tampa pficmmov mpoocflmCfl oQOOCflmcw . m
moawmooom pzoaufifi spspw pow mvcmym whoocwm mpoocwm .nm
asmwwoocv wuxoogv acceded: mam mmwz mwz Pmmcozmwo pmmcocmwv .am
aswzngp pnmwmgpm «092m 09m mmma mwn pmocos pmmco: .mm
oaoamcmmmgmfioocw oanmocmmeOUc: poc maaflmcmanpoaoocw OHflflmcogongOUCfl .:o
Amaawwcmpwkmfizsv
caamvmmpmgovcs oaamsswwmgmwds magwmcozmhmfioo Hnflmcmnopmuoo .mm
pmmaom: Jaawwcwpmgmvc: poc ngmmao yo: mgsomno pmmaocs .mw
gmoao @Hnwwcm mgmvc: nameao pwwao pmmao .Hm
msopomaww wopmmm ma 0p msopwmcwv machvmmmw .om
:ufi: Hmmu 0p %mmm “manwzofioaaam uopmo% an 0p you mam mwmm .am
H0390 vopgmwgnvoom pom stgo Hodge .mm
flawx umeMmalnoom wzflx wcwx .hm
Hmflppmm mpmxwo many mpoa compwm w HmQHu 0p Hmflwawm Hmfl#hmm .om
Hmmpgwngfl “cozymmgp H6360 o>wm HmfluamQZH Hmwwpmnfiw .mm
maammflhmcs mavcowp%:5 havcowgwcs >H©cmflhmms .3m
havcoflp% zawcmflam mawcoflag havcmwgm .nw
m>fluwaogoooc3 x903 mac EH wmwcflauoco #0: ma m>wpmpmmoooc5 0>Hpmaoaooozs .mm
o>wpwamaoov x90: was GM wovcflEuoco ma m>wpwgmgooo m>flpwpmmooo .Hm
masao> 03H mmm5H5pgom flmwaucm

 

Am .9 “woscflwcoov

m mpsmwh

157

90% mghxm Ho:
90% hkhom on ow

v230% cow
«ma: :40 flfnmfisosu GHQ

madwcomw.fi.1wfiu
.11. 1.4 1
0H .8. 4630.14 c ran.

(‘11

.4851w01930
9... ca 0 3.

.. 11.. .2341-
1..._,. _.......1.\... P.

0 0L x o

H 4.4. .1... .._..O 1m ”.1.

O

4:

m»-+&.q.:

0
:484450
n1..- 1

31.4.... m. £3.40 JQSfJ

m1... . P. C4, .. ....C.. 4.41.15 O 4.30. .. .0 4...... LC

3H14.4aH0H:4:3 “Hafiy;4:bw: C:
o I I . n . 1 o
. )1 1 ha 1 .11- .
mmt4taHngu4. Ham;4: -Cuo.1

980: gm_
~6HH04HZ£3 6

W44“ .4559 .43 .HHLMLHHOMHLV

v r 0 '

n64 .m90_ao c» m :4.H moo.
' O r I

mwxr-? 94.44 ..1. 4.144L44 4 .JH.. ”V47 5 >44nvnV4L44
.q>Hmmd 2%~cm am: -_dLfi?V:oo

HMO “mu Cw HUG. 1.rurC.m1u

H1

H: OH.— xuv.vfl.1..nd(wklm

mp543£I .4

QASHUQ

GHQmLowogmacc:
oHQmaomofimmc

cpwu1401yso
144 R5104-1c3

114.48.... 0.4.444
GHfifisc

LEON” A1HHU..N1;HO

44.40444ofia
I orL.s o
9::194Lmo
441:» :4 flLHt

®>HC 114541. 0.9.1.10 #OC

1n 113 4 A. ..... .
4.. rL 1 r..rHCC
I

wHawfiuaHH 43.4LHC:
vHflstHHHc1GH

UHPC cpc:.>:c:
QHHmzfifim2L>m

mpuuafiwma

8.3 “414.11....

OHanowoammxa:
QHAJMF CU. “504M ,1wm14U

uswnopgu

01.14-143.44
_l v. 1

Z H1... ”TH 4.11.0 4 :4

l1. :1 1

C. 71.4... MCU

m>Hm 6 54.11.3444
.11...>4...74u3 11.9 cm

mHnHwHHHOHcH:3
)HnH HHHm_H:1

‘J
(D

v-l
I Ix
\ -J

1
11’)

[‘x
1.

Li

C’)
.5)

_xJ..

r24“

 

Urarhcg.

03H

I

Am .0 newschcoov

o..2.m7 :P40m

H»-

“.U") : v
[LL 1 .Lu-LJI(\ 4L1

Factor Latrices for Zach Cell in

\L,
,

L")

p.

158

 

 

Table :33 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Ibo-English, English Response,
USA Training, Best Source 7-Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (hz) Purity
Factor 1
Untrustworthy -0.77 0.20 F-S 0.69 0.86
Dishonest -0.79 0.21 F-S 0.67 0.82
Dangerous -0.60 0.18 F-9 0.99 0.82
Insincere -0.66 -0.26 F—3 0.53 0.82
Patient 0.78 0.39 F—7 0.75 0.81
Unapproachable -0.97 0.13 F—6 0.28 0.80
Partial -0.66 -0.19 F-7 0.55 0.79
Unreliable -0.76 0.32 F-S 0.77 0.79
Impartial 0.61 0.28 F-7 0.51 0.73
Reliable 0.65 0.37 F-6 0.69 0.67
Uncooperative -0.69 0.39 F-7 0.62 0.66
Safe 0.58 0.35 F—S 0.60 0.56
Humble 0.98 0.27 F-S 0.93 0.53
Trustworthy 0.57 0.92 F-3 0.69 0.96
Arrogant -0.38 0.37 F-9 0.58 0.25
Factor 2
Efficient -0.81 -0.18 F-7 0.69 0.99
Unsystematic 0.69 0.21 F—3 0.59 0.81
Comprehensible -0.72 0.28 F-l 0.69 0.81
Competent -0.76 0.27 F-3 0.79 0.73
Systematic -0.72 -0.95 F-6 0.79 0.71
Disorganized 0.79 0.50 F—3 0.87 0.63
Qrganized -0.53 -0.39 F-6 0.97 0.59
Experienced -0.55 0.39 F-6 0.57 0.53
Incomprehensible 0.56 -0.51 F-7 0.62 0.51
Unintelligible 0.96 0.90 F-6 0.52 0.90
Unfriendly -0.28 —o.22 F-l 0.29 0.34
Up-to-date -0.97 0.96 F-l 0.68 0.33
Factor 3
Persuasive -0.58 -0.22 F-2 0.99 0.77
Friendly -0.63 0.39 F-l 0.61 0.65
Unpersuasime 0.62 0.29 F-6 0.67 0.57
Sympathetic -0.55 0.99 F-l 0.62 0.98
Kind -0.53 -0.33 F—9,5 0.62 0.96
Honest 0.57 0.99 F—l 0.75 0.99
Cooperative -0.51 0.92 F-l 0.62 0.92
Intelligihle -0.39 0.38 F—7 0.95 0.35
Decisive 0.97 -o.uu 12.2 0.71 0.32

159

 

 

izfi:le 33 (<uontitnrac)
Loaaginais .Jloaciin s on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (32) Purity
Factor 9
Uneducated —0.75 ~0-57 P-3 1-5 0°C!
Inexperienceo —0.72 0.29 F—Q 0.52 0.63
Stron: —0.C0 —0.?l F-l 0.97 0.76
Linsyrpatnetic 0 .66 ~0 .211 F-l. 7 0 . 5 8 0 . 75
Clear —‘. 9 —0.34 F—” 0.38 0.3”
Untrained —0. ~0.93 ~ 0.62 0.‘)

Incompetent ~0
Impatient 0

O
O
C)
H r
O
r

I
J

I
C»
C
{\3
U‘
r—«I

I

0) U1 0; ()
\ILQH
O
C; ‘
.U‘ “
71W
I—JI\3\1
O
C)

Factor 5
P ssivc -0.:'
Cowardly —0.“
Powerless —0.
Weak
Lazy —0
nature —0
Powerful
Indecisive

”I
C)
O
0
to
SC)
b—v-J
'J
I
y~
.1-
N
V
0
LI
O

0.83
0.72
0.70
0.67
0.55
0.35
0.32
0.92

I C
(.0 \J
o
J
01
ifij
I
C.)
C)
o
(n
C) M

C 3 C
I
Q
o
M
U1
"" ””1
I
{\J
o
(4"

yo I ~

I
C
a
Q
C.)
0
IO
4:

I

G; p 1".) \] (A) bx}

D

r")

’3

- C.
O
(J)

'1

CH (.0 ’u
3 I—‘ 00
O
O
’(5
Tj I‘rj
I

\
v—
..-
" \

4

'3
O
O
C.)
h.)
"“1
I
O ' - \—
O O
{1‘ I?
9 CC

I
Q
o
C.)
‘ "'1

I

l

C)

O
F‘ L‘

l .
Inefficient 0.10 0.39 F— 0.62 0.39
Uncertain 0.39 -0.3' F—l 0.52 0.29
Educated -0.23 ~0.2 F—l 0.19 0.27
Active 0.39 0.39 T—7 0.52 0.25

Factor 6
Energetic —0.73
Courageous —0.6(
Out-of—date —O.59
Sincere 0.58
Cruel .93

H

r“
x.
0
(II

”J ”"1
I
0.) IO
(3
O
()1
P.) LO
0
KO
C)

I
COD
0
*I#
F0070)

C)
O
O 0
U1 _,-
\J
"1 "il
I I
.1: I—' I\)
O O C)
O O O
:1 ()3 J;
.\3 CO 4‘:
C O
O I

C
O

C»)
C?)

Factor 7
Trained 0.63
Unclear —0.63
Certain —0.96

‘3
o
I
T)
o
{I}

O
O
C.) M IO

Q 01 C) 01

I

Q
0
"IT"?

0
COO
O

I
From
C) O O O

O
m
.030
O
\1
4:

Immature ~0.93 —0.9 F- . 9 0.3.
Approachable -0.32 0.29 7—2 0.33 0.6l

160

 

 

Table an Factor Matrix, Bilingual Yoruba-English, English Re8ponse,
USA Training, Best Source 7-Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 1
Organized -0.76 0.17 F-6 0.69 0.85
Active -0.68 0.23 F—2 0.58 0.82
Energetic -0.61 -0.23 F-3 0.98 0.78
Trained —0.69 -0.26 F—6 0.63 0.75
Persuasive -0.68 0.3 F-2 0.61 0.75
Decisive -0.69 -0.29 F-3,6 0.66 0.72
Clear -0.72 0.28 F-S 0.72 0.72
Unintelligible 0.62 0.23 F-6 0.59 0.71
Systematic -0.57 0.28 F-2 0.97 0.69
Comprehensible -0.65 0.28 F-5 0.69 0.66
Disorganized 0.65 0.39 F-S 0.66 0.69
Honest 0.67 0.91 F—2 0.79 0.61
Inefficient 0.60 -0.93 F-6 0.66 0.59
Uncertain 0.62 -0.59 F-7 0.71 0.59
Humble 0.51 0.29 F-6 0.52 0.50
Sincere 0.99 0.39 F—2 0.39 0.50
Untrained 0.53 0.33 F-7 0.56 0.50
Certain -0.52 -0.90 F-3 0.56 0.98
Inexperienced 0.51 0.91 F-7 0.61 0.92
Factor 2
Untrustworthy -0.79 0.09 F-9 0.69 0.97
Trustworthy 0.83 0.20 F-9 0.79 0.87
Unreliable -0.68 -0.19 F-5 0.59 0.87
Insincere -0.78 0.25 F-S 0.70 0.87
Efficient -O.55 -0.26 F-9 0.99 0.69
Dishonest -0.69 -0.93 F-6 0.72 0.66
Intelligible -0.55 -0.29 F-l 0.59 0.56
Safe 0.60 -0.99 F—5 0.75 0.97
Patient 0.90 -0.33 F-l 0.37 0.93
Experienced -0.51 -0.96 F-7 0.68 0.38
Educated -0.95 -0.99 F-7 0.63 0.33
Reliable 0.93 0.38 F-l 0.68 0.25
Factor 3
Weak 0.79 0.26 F-l 0.75 0.89
Powerless 0.71 -0.23 F-5 0.61 0.83
Unsympathetic -0.65 -0.23 F—7 0.56 0.76
cowardly 0.50 0.25 F—6 0.39 0.69
Unapproachable -0.69 -0.91 F—9 0.76 0.62
Incomprehensible -0.55 0.90 F-9 0.56 0.53
Approachable 0.59 0.35 F—S 0.57 0.51
Lazy 0.95 0.93 F-5 0.51 0.90
Sympathetic 0.98 0.35 F-2 0.62 0.37
Competent 0.37 -0.36 F-7 0.91 0.33

161

Table 3” (continued)

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 9
Cooperative 0.75 0.22 0.66 0.85
Friendly 0.69 0.29 0.60 0.69
Out-of-date -0.67 -0.33 0.67 0.67
Uncooperative -0.56 0.35 0.53 0.58
Passive —0.53 0.95 0.59 0.99
Factor 5
Courageous —0.60 -0.16 0.92 0.86
Powerful -0.69 0.31 0.67 0.70
Up-to—date 0.69 0.35 0.69 0.59
Unclear —0.57 0.32 0.57 0.57
Strong —0.67 -0.50 0.80 0.55
Impartial -o.51 0.90 0.72 0.36
Unsystematic 0.39 0.39 0.99 0.35
Factor 6
Cruel -0.78 -0.27 F-5 0.76 0.80
Partial -0.53 0.29 F-5 0.37 0.76
Kind 0.68 0.36 F-2 0.67 0.70
Mature -O.56 -0.3l F-7 0.51 0.60
Unfriendly -0.56 0.90 F-7 0.63 0.99
Immature 0.91 0.23 F-l 0.38 0.93
-0.23 F—2
Unpersuasive 0.98 0.91 F-l 0.59 0.92
ArrOgant -0.38 -0.31 F-7 0.39 0.92
Dangerous -0.38 -0.33 F-2 0.91 0.35
Factor 7
Incompetent 0.78 0.92 0.85 0.72
Uneducated 0.61 0.93 0.69 0.55
Impatient -0.96 -0.28 0.91 0.53
Indecisive 0.99 0.99 0.59 0.36

l6?

Table 1%5 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Portuguese—English,

English Response, USA Training, Best Source 7—Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Commugality Factor
Factor Factor (h ) Purity

Factor 1
Trustworthy 0.63 —0.16 F-6 0.98 0.8'
Untrustworthy —0.66 -0.25 F-2 0.58 0.76
Unreliable —0.63 -0.23 F—6 0.59 0.72
Unsystematic -0.65 0.37 F-S 0.68 0.62
Incompetent —0.99 0.39 F—6 0.50 0.97
Immature —0.51 —0.98 F-9 0.60 0.99
Reliable 0.97 -0.35 F-7 0.51 0.99
Up-to~date 0.56 -0.36 F-6 0-77 0.90
Organized 0.90 -0.37 F-2 0.50 0.32
Humble 0.38 0.29 F-6 0.96 0.32

—0.29 F-7

Factor 2
Unfriendly -0.79 0.08 F—1,3 0.69 0.97
Unsympathetic -0.67 -0.23 F-6 0.57 0.79
Friendly 0.76 —0.27 F-9 0.79 0.77
Sympathetic 0.68 —0.33 F—3 0.63 0.73
Kind 0.60 0.30 F-l 0.50 0.71
Approachable 0.67 0.29 F-9 0.66 0.69
Safe 0.53 —0.30 F—6 0.93 0.66
Cooperative 0.58 -0.36 F-7 0.53 0.65
Unapproachable -0.58 —0.38 F-9 0.59 0.62
Uncooperative —0.53 0.29 F-7 0.96 0.62
Insincere -0.58 0.39 F—7 0.62 0.55
Dangerous -0.52 0.93 F-9 0.55 0.98
Cruel —0.50 0.96 F—9 0.69 0.90
Sincere 0.51 —0.98 F-7 0.69 0.38

Factor 3
Decisive 0.81 0.21 F—l 0.77 0.85
Powerful 0.66 0.22 F-7 0.52 0.85
Partial 0.59 -0.18 F—l 0.99 0.80
Passive -0.55 -0.19 F-9,6 0.92 0.72
Weak —0.56 0.30 F-6 0.96 0.69
Strong 0.66 0.26 F—9 0.67 0.65
Powerless -0.59 0.32 F—6 0.95 0.65
Indecisive -0.60 0.3 F-5,7 0.56 0.69
Energetic 0.50 -0.29 F-6 0.3 0.63
Active 0.57 -0.28 F-2,7 0.58 0.55
Courageous 0.96 0.31 F-l 0.90 0.53
Impartial -0.37 0.29 F—l 0.27 0.29
Cowardly -0.92 -0.28 F—2 0.39 0.95

163

Table 35 (continued)

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 9
Persuasive 0.71 0.09 F-3,6 0.52 0.96
Unpersuasive -0.78 -0.16 F-3 0.66 0.93
Certain 0.57 —0.26 F-5 0.50 0.65
Uncertain -0.59 0.37 F-S 0.56 0.63
Out—Of—uate —0.59 0.30 F—6 0.59 0.50
Inefficient -0.58 0.59 F-7 0.73 0.97
Untrained -0.50 0.98 F-6 0.57 0.99
Mature 0.98 0.3 F-2 0.56 0.91
Factor 5
Unclear 0.77 —0.21 F-9 0.67 0.88
Clear -0.79 0.21 F-3 0.62 0.88
Intelligible —0.69 —0.20 F-6 0.58 0.89
Unintelligible 0.71 -0.25 F-l 0.63 0.79
Incomprehensible 0.69 -0.26 F—2 0.69 0.76
Systematic -0.51 0.91 F-l 0.50 0.52
Comprehensible —0.59 -0.91 F-7 0.65 0.95
Disorganized 0.99 -0.95 F—l 0.59 0.91
Factor 6
Trained -0.80 0.09 F-S 0.65 0.98
Experienced -0.99 —0.39 F-S 0.36 0.59
Educated -0.55 0.31 F-2 0.57 0.53
Inexperienced 0.59 -0.37 F-9 0.55 0.52
Uneducated 0.52 -0.91 F-2 0.69 0.93
Lazy 0.96 0.99 F-7 0.57 0.38
Factor 7
Honest -0.73 F-7 0.29 - 0.68 0.78
Competent —0.65 -0.53 0.80 0.54
Impatient 0.56 0.32 0.60 0.52
Arrogant 0.56 —0.95 0.63 0.51
Efficient -0.56 0.33 0.69 0.99
Dishonest 0.59 -0.99 0.73 0.97
Patient —0.58 -0.93 0.73 0.95

169

Table 36 Factor Matrix, bilingual Ibo—English, Ibo Response, USA

 

 

Training, Best Source 7-Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Trustworthy -0.79 —0.23 F-2 0.73 0.05
Untrustworthy 0.81 0.19 F-9 0.79 0.89
Reliable -0.69 -0.l8 F—3 0.56 0.83
Indecisive 0.55 0.29 F—2 0.92 0.73
Dishonest 0.72 0.30 F-9 0.79 0.70
Honest -0.70 -0.33 F-9 0.72 0.68
Uncooperative 0.69 0.30 F-6 0.72 0.36
Unsympathetic 0.59 0.33 F-6 0.59 0.55
Sincere —0.66 —0.37 F—2 0.73 0.59
Arrogant 0.97 0.29 F-9 0.38 0.57
Unreliable 0.59 —0.31 F—3 0.57 0.52
Safe —0.50 —0.38 F-9 0.52 0.98
Insincere 0.60 -0.39 F—6 0.81 0.95
Partial 0.39 0.33 F-2 0.29 0.39
Disorganized 0.39 0.33 F-6 0.39 0.38
Dangerous 0.36 0.35 F-B 0.39 0.33
Humble —0.91 —0.38 F-3 0.55 0.31
Untrained 0.99 0.91 F-2 0.71 0.27
Unsystematic 0.92 -0.91 F-S 0.66 0.27
Factor 2
Strong —0.77 -0.16 F—l 0.68 0.88
Powerful -0.76 —0.2l F-l 0.73 0.80
Intelligible —0.52 -0.22 F—B 0.91 0.65
Uneducated 0.66 0.93 F—S 0.69 0.69
Active -0.99 —0.28 F—B 0.92 0.58
Educated -0.Bl 0.93 F-9 0.67 0.55
Competent -0.06 -0.93 F—5 0.80 0.53
Unpersuasive 0.53 0.92 F-9 0.55 0.52
Experienced —0.53 0.91 F—7 0.62 0.95
Trained -0.50 -0.55 F-l 0.71 0.93
Incomprehensible 0.53 -0.95 F—7 0.71 0.90
Unintelligible 0.45 -0.04 F-3 0.00 0.31
Factor 3
Inexperienced 0.65 0.17 F-9 0.98 0.88
Efficient —0.63 —0.23 F-l 0.98 0.83
Systematic —0.57 -0.18 F—l 0.90 0.81
Out—of-date 0.56 0.93 F-2 0.55 0.56
Incompetent 0.53 0.27 F—2 0.99 0.56
Organized -0.50 —0.37 F-7 0.55 0.96
Immature 0.97 0.95 F—2 0.52 0.92
Up-to-date 0.90 0.38 F—S 0.90 0.90
Uncertain 0.97 —0.96 F—7 0.77 0.2
Persuasive —0.33 -O.33 F—9 0.90 0.28

165

Table 36 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Ibo-English, Ibo Response,

USA Training, Best Source 7-Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next hizhest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h ) Purity
Factor 9
Certain -0.83 -0.26 F—5 0.78 0.87
Comprehensible -0.65 0.21 F-5 0.59 0.78
Approachable -0.59 —O.38 F-3 0.59 0.58
Inefficient 0.55 0.97 F-2 0.69 0.97
Impatient 0.55 0.50 F-l 0.45 0.95
Cooperative -0.95 0.38 F-7 0.51 0.39
Unapproachab1e 0.96 0.91 F-3 0.59 0.35
Energetic -0.97 —0.95 F—2 0.79 0.30
Factor 5
Weak 0.79 -0.25 0.76 0.82
0.25
Powerless 0.69 0.26 0.59 0.71
Passive 0.58 0.23 0.52 0.65
Cowardly 0.69 0.33 0.77 0.62
Decisive -0.98 —0.92 0.98 0.97
Impartial —0.28 -0.35 0.59 0.25
Factor 6
Unfriendly 0.67 0.29 0.56 0.79
Mature -0.67 0.29 0.61 0.73
Unclear 0.63 —0.33 0.58 0.68
Clear -0.59 —0.39 0.59 0.99
Courageous 0.56 —0.98 0.73 0.93
Friendly -0.99 -0.93 0.63 0.38
Factor 7
Lazy -0.56 0.20 0.92 0.75
Sympathetic 0.65 —0.38 0.70 0.6l
Cruel -0.56 0.3V 0.61 0.51
Kind 0.59 —0.96 0.75 0.97
Patient 0.51 —0.98 0.69 0.38

166

Table 37 Factor Matrix, bilingual Yoruba-English, Yoruba Response,

 

 

 

 

USA Training, Best Source 6-Factor Rotation
Loadinjs Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
honest -0.80 -0.13 F-B 0.08 0.95
Reliable -0.70 0.17 F—2 0.57 0.87
Courageous -0.58 0.29 F—3 0.90 0.85
Friendly 0.57 -0.17 P-B 0.38 0.85
Up-to-date 0.69 —0.21 F—2 0.53 0.78
Clear -0.79 0.30 F-6 0.72 0.76
Dishonest 0.66 0.28 P-9 0.63 0.69
Indecisive 0.63 -0.32 F—6 0.59 0.69
Trustworthy -0.73 0.35 F—3 0.82 0.66
Intelligible -0.62 0.93 F-S 0.63 0.61
UnCIear 0.53 0.39 F-B 0.99 0.57
Partial 0.97 0.39 F—S 0.92 0.53
Untrustworthy 0.57 0.92 F-3 0.71 0.96
Unintelligible 0.96 0.93 F-9 0.63 0.3
Passive 0.35 -0.3 F-2 0.37 0.33
Factor 2
Impatient -0.68 0.25 F-l 0.55 0.83
Sympathetic 0.50 -0.16 F-3 0.31 0.83
Humble 0.67 0.22 F-3 0.55 0.82
Approachable 0.71 -0.27 F-9 0.61 0.81
Unsympatnetic -0.60 0.30 F—3 0.98 0.76
Nature 0.70 0.29 F—B 0.70 0.69
Patient 0.71 ~0.36 F—l 0.79 0.69
Arrogant —0.63 0.31 F-9 0.58 0.69
Untrained 0.56 0.29 F-l 0.95 0.69
Active 0.52 0.30 F—3 0.99 0.62
Immature -0.68 —0.96 F-6 0.75 0.62
Kind 0.52 0.39 F—B 0.51 0.53
Organized 0.38 0.27 F-S 0.28 0.32
Uncertain 0.95 -0.28 F—S 0.90 0.51
Cowardly 0.29 0.93 F—6 0.52 0.97
Trained -0.37 ~0.27 F—l 0.30 0.35
Factor 3
Energetic 0.59 0.17 F-l 0.01 0.99
Lazy -0.51 0.17 F—2 0.32 0.81
Efficient 0.79 -0.30 F-B 0.75 0.73
Incompetent -0.75 0.33 F-l 0.80 0.70
Uneducated —0.53 0.28 F-9 0.93 0.63
Strong 0.55 -0.90 F-l 0.99 0.62
Incomprehensible -0.97 0.30 F-l 0.93 0.52
-0.3 F-2
Comprehensible -0.98 0.38 F-5 0.99 0.97
Powerless -0.99 -0.92 F—6 0. 0.96
Weak -0.50 0.38 F-S 0."7 0.99

167

Table 37 (continued)

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 9
Unreliable 0.81 0.17 F-S 0.75 0.88
Inefficient 0.72 —0.25 F-3 0.65 0.79
Uncooperative —0.52 0.21 F—l 0.39 0.71
-0.21 F-6
Unpersuasive 0.62 —0.35 F—3 0.56 0.70
Unsystematic 0.73 0.36 F—l 0.79 0.67
Safe -0.53 —0.36 F-6 0.96 0.61
Unfriendly 0.51 ~0.38 F-2 0.50 0.52
Impartial 0.97 -0.33 F-l 0.95 0.50
Disorganized 0.51 —0.33 F-3 0.57 0.95
Systematic -0.97 —0.90 F—l 0.52 0.92
Cooperative 0.39 0.30 F-5 .31 0.37
—0.30 F—6
Unapproachable 0.96 -0.95 F—2 0.75 0.29
Factor 5
Educated 0.79 0.10 0.56 0.97
Experienced 0.89 0.18 0.76 0.92
Competent 0.69 -0.28 0.56 0.79
Insincere 0.33 -0.32 0.29 0.39
Inexperienced -0.95 -0.95 0.53 0.39
Decisive 0.91 —0.36 0.95 0.38
Persuasive 0.38 -0.37 0.51 0.29
Factor 6
Sincere -0.70 —0.17 0.55 0.90
Out—Of—date -0.66 —0.23 0.61 0.70
Powerful 0.59 —0.28 0.93 0.68
Dangerous 0.39 0.25 0.29 0.53
Cruel 0.38 —0.29 0.29 0.50
Certain 0.51 0.97 0.71 0.36

168

Table 38 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Portuguese-English, Portuguese

 

 

Response, USA Training, best Source 7—Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity

Factor 1
Immature -0.65 0.30 F-7 0.55 0.76
Mature 0.57 —0.32 F-9 0.93 0.67
Uncooperative 0.96 -0.18 F—9 0.39 0.03

0.18 F-S
Kind —0.59 —O.39 F-2 0.60 0.53
Unintelligible —0.50 —0.29 F—6 0.9o 0.53
Intelligible 0.99 0.33 F-S 0.38 0.32
COOperative —0.36 —0.30 F-5 0.50 0.27
Indecisive —0.93 —0.92 F—5 0.70 0.26
0 .92 F-7

Factor 2
Strong 0.50 —0.l2 F—6 0.27 0.93
Friendly -0.72 -0.21 F-l 0.58 0.90
Unsympathetic 0.60 -0.22 F—l 0.96 0.79
Weak -0.56 -0.23 F—5 0.91 0.76
Unfriendly 0.59 —0.19 F—S 0.90 0.73
Courageous 0.99 0.32 F-l 0.39 0.57
Cowardly -0.53 0.39 F—3 0.51 0.55
Energetic 0.51 0.36 F-S 0.53 0.98
ArrOgant 0.93 0.27 F—S 0.90 0.96
Lazy —0.50 0.33 F-l 0.59 0.96
Approachable -0.57 —0.98 F-9 0.71 0.96
Sympathetic —0.95 —0.31 F—S 0.95 0.99
humble -0.37 —0.30 F-l 0.91 0.33

Factor 3
Educated 0.99 —0.12 F-6 0.26 0. l
Trained 0.69 —0.18 F—l 0.60 0.80
Uneducated -0.56 0.22 F-l 0.91 0.76
Inexperienced —0.51 -0.27 F-l 0.36 0.72
Untrained -0.50 0.25 F—7 0.38 0.67
Up-to—date 0.60 0.29 F-l 0.55 0.66
Experienced 0.55 0.29 F-l 0.99 0.61
Passive -0.91 —0.28 F—2 0.29 0.56
Incompetent -0.57 0.32 F—l 0.59 0.55
Competent 0.96 0.93 F-2 0.93 0.95
Unpersuasive -0.96 -0.37 F—5 0.61 0.39

169

 

 

Table 38 (continued)
Loadings headings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 9
Reliable -0.72 -0.18 F-6 0.58 0.90
Impatient 0.72 0.16 F-2 0.62 0.83
Unreliable 0.61 -0.25 F—l 0.96 0.80
Patient -0.63 -0.38 F—2 0.66 0.60
Out—of-date —0.57 —0.39 F-l 0.58 0.56
Powerless 0.95 0.26 F-3 0.39 0.52
Powerful 0.32 0.25 F-5 0.25 0.91
Insincere -0.92 0.35 F-S 0.59 0.33
Factor 5
Untrustworthy 0.72 0.12 F-3 0.58 0.91
-0.12 F-7
Sincere —0.66 0.17 F-l 0.50 0.88
Trustworthy -0.59 —0.21 F-2 0.95 0.78
Dangerous 0.58 0.30 F-l 0.50 0.67
Persuasive 0.97 0.37 F—2 0.99 0.96
Cruel 0.99 3.33 F-l 0.52 0.95
Honest —0.92 0.3 F-2 0.69 0.27
Factor 6
Impartial -0.75 -0.13 F-9 0.58 0.96
Partial 0.73 0.12 F—2 0.56 0.93
Unclear -0.50 —0.3 F-l 0.97 0.52
Clear 0.53 0.96 F-l 0.69 0.90
Unapproachable 0.96 0.91 F-2 0.59 0.39
Dishonest 0.51 0.93 F-5 0.72 0.37
Comprehensible 0.28 0.27 F-l 0.31 0.25
-0.27 F-2
Factor 7
Disorganized 0.76 0.12 F-3 0.62 0.93
Organized -0.79 —0.19 F-9 0.65 0.85
Inefficient 0.66 -0.22 F-9 0.52 0.89
Efficient —0.71 0.30 F—3 0.66 0.76
Systematic -0.66 0.31 F—5 0.73 0.59
Uncertain 0.59 -0.39 F-l 0.60 0.58
Certain —0.51 0.36 F—l 0.56 0.97
Decisive —0.56 0.92 F-2 0.69 0.95
Active -0.97 0.38 F—2 0.58 0.37
Incomprehensible -0.30 -0.27 F—l 0.25 0.36
Unsystematic 0.91 -0.37 F-3 0.59 0.29
Safe -0.91 ~0.35 F-S 0.62 0.27

170

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table .39 Factor Hatrix, bilingual Ibo—English, English Response,
Without USA Trainini, best Source 7—Factor Rotation
Loadincs Loadings on
Variable on Primary hext highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Immature 0.66 —0.18 F—7 0.51 0.87
Sympathetic -0.75 -0.27 F—3 0.68 0.83
Patient -0.59 —0.38 F-7 0.59 0.69
Impatient 0.52 0.25 F-5 0.29 0.69
Up—to—date —0.57 —0.29 F—3 0.58 0.57
Out-Of—date 0.99 —0.93 F—7 0.97 0.91
Experienced -0.90 0.90 F—2 0.99 0.33
Unsystematic 0.97 0.93 F-2 0.70 0.32
Trained —0.93 0.39 F—2 0.65 0.28
Factor 2
Lazy -0.71 0.19 F—l 0.53 0.93
Incompetent -0.58 0.25 F—7 0.96 0.73
Untrained -0.68 -0.29 F-9 0.63 0.73
Cowardly —0.60 0.33 F-9 0.55 0.67
Weak —0.59 .‘0.29 F—S 0.96 0.63
Arrogant 0.99 0.30 F~3 0.99 0.59
Incomprehensible -0.91 —0.23 F-l 0.32 0.52
Factor 3
Friendly —0.78 —0.17 F-9 0.66 0.92
Unfriendly 0.73 0.16 F—9 0.59 0.90
Kind -0.70 -0.25 F-9 0.61 0.80
Uncooperative 0.63 0.26 F—S 0.57 0.71
Unpersuasive 0.69 0.27 F—2 0.59 0.70
Approachable -0.52 -0.29 F-l 0.91 0.66
Cooperative -0.63 0.31 F-2,7 0.65 0.61
Mature 0.95 —0.22 F—1,5 0.90 0.51
Unsympathetic 0.52 0.50 F-l 0.53 0.96
Persuasive -0.92 0.30 F—7 0.39 0.95
Systematic 0.39 —0.33 F-l 0.99 0.31
Factor 9
Unreliable 0.78 0.22 F-l 0.68 0.89
Untrustworthy 0.59 0.29 F-2 0.91 0.8
Powerless —0.93 -0.17 F—5 0.29 0.78
Dishonest 0.57 “.27 F—3 0.93 0.75
Insincere 0.60 -0.25 F-7 0.53 0.68
Uneducated -0.59 -0.32 F-2 0.61 0.58
Cruel 0.96 —0.28 F—2 0.38 0.55
Dangerous 0.50 0.36 F-7 0.50 0.50
Trustworthy —0.50 -0.39 F—7 0.59 0.96
Reliable -0.52 0.50 F-6 0.63 0.93
Impartial -0.38 0.38 F-7 0.98 0.29

171

Table 39 (continued)

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 5
Disorganized 0.65 0.15 F-9 0.97 0.00
Intelligible -0.70 0.39 F-6 0.68 0.’
Competent —0.69 -f.31 F-6 0.69 0.63
Inexperienced 0.65 -0.90 F-2 0.69 0.62
Decisive -0.55 .33 F~1 0.98 0.61
Efficient -0.99 —0.27 F—l 0.90 0.60
Unintelligible 0.98 0.31 F-l 0.92 0.55
Partial 0.39 -0.39 F-7 0.37 0.92
humble 0.93 -0.38 F—l 0.96 0.91
Indecisive 0.25 —0.19 F—9 0.16 0.90
Inefficient 0.90 0.35 F—3 0.96 0.39
Factor 6
Powerful —0.67 0.3 F-9 0.61 0.73
Sincere 0.60 -0.29 F—9 0.52 0.68
Uncertain 0.57 0.3 F-2 0.51 0.65
Strong —0.96 —0.38 F-3 0.92 0.51
Honest 0.99 -0.31 F-9 0.38 0.51
Unclear 0.52 0.37 F-7 0.59 0.50
Passive 0.95 -0.31 F—7 0.91 0 99
Unapproachable ~0.9 0.37 F—l 0.90 0.97
Courageous -0.95 0.92 F—2 0.50 0.37
Factor 7
Energetic 0.72 0.19 F~1 6.59 0.89
Organized —0.65 -0.23 F~5 0.53 0.71
Certain —0.63 —0.3’ F—6 0.60 0.67
Safe —0.51I -0.29 F¥J+ 0.96 0.63
Clear —0.59 —0.29 F-2 0.50 0.63
Educated 0.63 -0.36 F—S 0.70 0.57
Comorehensible -0.99 —0.3 F-5 0.39 0.99
Active 0.95 0.32 F—2 0.53 0.38

172

w

Table 40 Factor Natrix, Eilinfiual Portuguese-Lnglisn, English Resoonse,

 

 

Without USA Training, nest Source E—Factor Rotation
. 1 Loadinqs Loadinfis on
Variaole on Primary Font highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Impatient -0.62 0.10 F—B 0.09 0.95
Lazy 0.73 —o.2o F—6 0.61 0.88
Patient 0.58 —O.24 F-B 0.45 0. 4
Decisive -O.76 -0.44 F-3 0.83 0.69
Indecisive 0.61 0.50 F-3 0.69 0.54
Strong —0.63 0.41 F-S 0.79 0.50
Unpersuasive —O.48 —0.S7 F—2 0.49 0.48
Clear -0.45 0.39 F-4 0.52 0.39
Powerless 0.47 -0.46 F—B 0.62 0.30
Factor 2
Educated -0.82 -0.35 F-S 0.8a 0.81
Out—of-date -0.77 ~0.38 F-S 0.77 0.76
Untrustworthy -O.65 0.36 F—l 0.63 0.07
Persuasive 0.67 0.37 F—l 0.67 0.66
Incomprehensible 0.53 -O.26 F-S 0.4a 0.65
Comprehensible —0.68 —O.3O F-B 0.71 0.65
Uneducated 0.72 -0.35 F~4 0.83 0.63
Up-to—date 0.69 0.43 F—6 0.78 0.60
Systematic -0.53 0.37 F-B 0.56 0.49
Certain 0.51 0.40 F—6 0.60 0.43
Courageous 0.41 0.38 F—3 0.45 0.37
Factor 3
Impartial —O.Sl -0.10 F—( 0.29 0.91
Disorganized 0.76 0.17 F—2 0.67 0.85
Active —O.67 —O.31 F-l 0.62 0.72
Energetic ~0.74 —O.34 F—l 0.77 0.71
Inefficient 0.62 —0.31 F-2 0.61 0.64
Weak -0.69 —O.49 F~2 0.85 0.56
Passive 0.3“ -0.26 F-4 0.26 0.50
Organized -0.47 0.43 F—S 0.49 0.46
Partial 0.55 0.48 F-B 0.67 0.46
Efficient -0.46 0.44 F—2 0.47 0.45
Kind 0.56 0.51 F—B 0.75 0.42
Trained —O.56 0.47 F-4 0.77 0.41

173

Table '40 (continued)

H- --

 

 

 

 

Loadings Loanings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (hz) Purity
Factor 4
Competent 0.75 —0.?6 F-S 0.66 0.04
Experienced 0.78 -0.31 F—o 0.81 0.76
Sincere -0.77 ~0.38 F—6 0.81 0.73
Inexperienced —0.67 I 0.39 F-l 0.69 0.65
Incompetent ~0.74 0.38 F-l 0.87 0.62
Cruel 0.57 -0.40 F—3 0.51 0.62
Honest -0.60 —0.33 F-6 0.77 0.61
Unclear -0.66 0.30 F—l 0.73 0.59
Untrained -0.64 -0.44 F—6 0.70 0.50
Insincere 0.54 0.31 F—5 0.51 0.50
Arrogant 0.54 -0.43 F-l 0.62 0.47
Dancerous 0.40 0.36 F-l 0.36 0.44
Unfriendly 0.46 ~0.44 F—% 0.51 0.41
Friendly -0.53 0.52 F-3 0.75 0.36
Factor 5
Intelligible 0.78 -0.19 —l 0.67 0.90
Safe —0.78 -0.17 —2 0.68 0 90
Unintelligible -0.73 -0.18 -6 0.65 0.82
Mature —0.53 0.31 — 0.55 0.52
Dishonest 0.56 0.60 0.66 0.48
Cowardly 0.53 —0.45 0.65 0.43
Powerful -0.56 0.47 0.74 0.42
Uncertain -0.49 ~0.46 0.60 0.35
Unsystematic -0.51 -0.50 0.76 0.34
Factor 6
Unsympathetic -0.80 0.22 F—4 0.72 0.89
Humble 0.53 0.23 F-5 0.38 0.75
Sympathetic 0.78 0.41 F-3 0.83 0.74
Trustworthy 0.56 0.35 F—2 0.46 0.67
Cooperative 0.61 0.3 F-3 0.56 0.66
Unapproachable —0.66 -0.34 F—2 0.66 0.65
Unreliable -0.63 -0.36 F—4 0.63 0.63
Reliable 0.62 0.35 F-S 0.62 0.62
Approachable 0.56 0.38 F-2 0.38 0.53
Uncooperative -0.45 -0.42 F—3 0.42 0.49
Immature -0.54 0.47 F—5 0.72 0.40

174

Table 4]. Factor flatrix, Bilingual Ibo-Enclish, Ibo Response,
Without USA Training, Best Source 6—Factor Rotation

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (n2) Purity
Factor 1
Active 0.55 -0.17 F—4 0.36 0.35
Educated 0.58 -0.21 F—6 0.42 0.82
Comprehensible 0.43 0.18 F—4 0.24 0.79
Competent 0.75 —0.25 F-4 0.74 0.77
Uneducated -0.74 -0.35 F-5 0.74 0.75
Untrained —0.61 0.35 F—3 0.51 0.74
Cruel -0.49 0.25 F-6 0.33 0.72
Inexperienced —O.72 0.38 F-3 0.72 0.71
Uncooperative —0.70 0.41 F-S 0.78 0.63
Experienced 0.51 -0.37 F—4 0.45 0.58
Trained 0.56 —0.38 F-5 0.58 0.55
Passive ~0.53 0.36 F-3 0.56 0.50
-0.36 F—S
Partial —0.35 0.31 F-3 0.27 0.44
Intelligible 0.45 -0.42 F—2 0.48 0.42
Certain 0.27 0.25 F-4 0.21 0.35
Unpersuasive 0.34 0.27 F-4 0.40 0.20
—0.27 F-S
Factor 2
Efficient —0.60 —0.17 F-3 0.41 0.89
Trustworthy -0.58 -0.18 F-3 0.40 0.86
Organized —0.72 -0.24 F-3 0.68 0.77
0.24 F-5
Sympathetic —0.65 —0.30 F-6 0.56 0.75
Systematic —0.71 -0.34 F-d 0 69 0.73
Arrogant 0.58 -0.23 F-5 0.48 0.70
0.23 F-6
Patient —0.60 -O.36 F-S 0.53 0.68
Disorganized 0.59 —0.33 F-3 0.53 0.65
Unsympathetic 0.61 —O.33 F-3 0.59 0.63
Impatient 0.57 0.31 F-6 0.53 0.62
Out—Of-date 0.39 —0.21 F-S 0.28 0.55
Unsystematic 0.39 0.29 F—S 0.33 0.46
Indecisive 0.29 -0.29 F—3 0.29 0.29
Unreliable ’ 0.25 0.35 F-l 0.53 0.23
Factor 3
Decisive -0.40 0.16 0.19 0.05
Courageous 0.62 0.23 0.49 0.79
Honest -0.54 0.22 0.37 0.78
Unfriendly 0.58 0.28 0.53 0.65
Weak 0.63 0.35 0.64 0.62
Sincere -0.55 —0.40 0.50 0.61
Lazy 0.51 -0.39 0.45 0.58

175

Table 4]. (continued)

 

Loadings Loadings on

 

Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (n2) Purity
Factor 3 (contd)
Approachable 0.40 -0.36 F-4 0.31 0.50
Immature -O.32 0.22 F-6 0.22 0.48
Powerless 0.54 —O.35 F-l 0.63 0.46
Reliable —0.44 -0.42 F—6 0.47 0.41
Incompetent 0.47 -0.43 F-l 0.60 0.36
Factor 4
Unclear 0.53 0.15 F-6 0.32 0.86
Strong -0.78 -0.24 F—B 0.71 0.85
Dangerous 0.48 0.17 F-2 0.27 0.85
Energetic —0.65 —0.31 F-3 0.60 0.70
Cooperative -O.54 -0.3 F—3 0.44 0.67
Dishonest 0.29 0.23 F-6 0.15 0.56
Unapproacnable 0.54 0.43 F—5 0.66 0.44
Powerful —O.51 0.49 F-l 0.67 0.39
Impartial -0.43 0.45 F—l 0.65 0.36
Safe -0.20 -0.20 F-6 0.16 0.26
Factor 5
Up-to-date 0.57 -0.08 F—4 0.33 0.97
Cowardly —0.29 -0.10 F-6 0.10 0.8
Persuasive 0.63 -0.25 F-2 0.53 0.75
Clear 0.45 0.28 F-2 0.39 0.52
Kind —0.45 -0.31 F-2 0.42 0.49
Factor 6
Insincere 0.80 -0.16 F-l 0.71 0.91
Unintelligible 0.31 0.20 F-4 0.74 0.89
Uncertain 0.70 0.16 F—2 0.55 O 87
Inefficient 0.65 0.40 F-2 0.64 0.66
Untrustwortny 0.58 0.2 F—3 0.58 0.59
Friendly —O.32 —0.26 F—S 0.20 0.53
Incomprenensible 0.43 0.42 F-3 0.41 0.46
Mature —0.43 -0.26 F—l 0.41 0.45
0.26 F-3
Humble —0.53 —0.53 F—2 0.64 0.45

176

rm

table 4:? Factor Iatrix, Bilingual Portuguese—English, Portufiuese

 

 

ReSponse, Eithout USA Training, Best Source 6—Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadinqs on
Variable on Primary Next Kiznest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (he) Purity

Factor 1
Comprehensible 0.76 0.13 F—5 0.67 0.67
Experienced -0.59 0.28 F~2 0.50 0.69
Organized 0.63 0.37 F—2 0.57 0.69
Indecisive 0.62 -0.29 F—3 0.64 0.61
Strong -0.65 0.45 F-2 0.74 0.50
Inexperienced 0.51 0.32 F-6 0.46 0.55
Incompetent 0.55 0.45 F-6 0.60 0.51
Incomprenensible -0.49 -0.44 F—2 0.50 0.48
Uncooperative -0.49 0.41 F-S 0.57 0.43

Factor 2
Unclear -0.72 —0.19 F-3 0.62 0.64
Educated ' 0.71 —0.25 F-6 0.59 0.84
Clear 0.76 0.34 F-3 0.73 0.80
Unfriendly -0.63 -0.23 F-3 0.53 0.76
Partial -0.67 0.28 F-4 0.61 0.74
Passive -0.51 -0.24 F-3 0.35 0.73
Powerful 0.67 —0.42 F-6 0.69 0.65
Impartial 0.61 0.26 F—5 0.58 0.64
Energetic 0.52 0.24 F-4 0.45 0.60
Weak -0.47 0.34 F—S 0.41 0.54
Competent 0.57 0.45 F-5 0.67 0.49
Cooperative 0.26 -0.20 F—4 0 21 0.61

0.20 F-S

Factor 3
Efficient 0.68 -0.18 F—l 0.58 0.80
Up—to-date 0.52 -0.24 F-4 0.3 0.72
Persuasive 0.66 0.30 F-2 0.64 0.69
Approachable 0.72 -0.35 F—2 0.79 0.67
Kind —0.62 0.37 F-6 0.58 0.66
Certain 0.53 —0.38 F-S 0.51 0.55
Intelligible 0.49 0.33 F-2 0.48 0.50
Unapproachable -0.53 -0.4l F—5 0.55 0.50
Unintelligible —0.44 —0.41 F—2 0.48 0.41
Friendly 0.37 0.37 F-S “.34 0.41
Mature 0.53 —0.41 F-4 0.71 0.39

177

Tabb: 42 (continued)

o—o- _.

 

 

Loadinjs Loadinqs on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity

Factor 4
Sincere -0.61 0.2’ F-6 0.83 0.60
Cruel 0.67 —0.25 F-6 0.60 0.75
Untrustworthy 0.76 —0.40 F-5 0.80 0.72
Dishonest 0.71 -0.39 F-5 0.73 0.66
Dangerous 0.48 0.32 F-l 0.36 0.64
Insincere 0.53 -0.33 F-2 0.47 0.59
Unsystematic -0.54 -0.35 F-S 0.56 0.52
Honest —0.50 -0.35 F-S 0.53 0.48
Systematic —0.36 -0.31 F—l 0.29 0.44
Uncertain -0.49 0.44 F-l 0.61 0.40
Trained 0.49 0.3 F-2 0.67 0.36
Active 0.42 0.32 F—3 0.49 0.35

—0.32 F—S

Decisive 0.51 —O.48 F—l 0.76 0.34
Unpersuasive -0.46 —0.44 F-2,6 0.69 0.31
Trustworthy -0.44 -0.41 F-3,6 0.70 0.28

Factor 5 ,
Cowardly 0.67 -0.23 F-6 0.53 0.85
Inefficient —0.66 —0.21 F-6 0.52 0.83
Lazy 0.62 0.21 F—6 0.50 0.77
Courageous -0.62 -0.34 F—6 0.56 0.69
Safe -0.51 -0.31 F-l 0.45 0.58
Out-Of—date —0.55 -0.32 F—3 0.54 0.57
Humble —0.54 -0.37 F—S 0.56 0.52
Disorganized —0.50 —0.42 F-2 0.61 0.41
Powerless 0.53 0.53 F-6 0.74 0.38
Reliable 0.40 -0.39 F-4 0.53 0.30

0.3~ F-6

Factor 6
Patient 0.69 -0.15 F-S 0.52 0.90
Unreliable —0.60 -0.14 F-2 0.40 0.90
Uneducated 0.53 -0.20 F-2 0.37 0.74
Arrogant —0.7l 0.36 F—3 0.74 0.67
Sympathetic 0.70 0.40 F-S 0.73 0.67
Unsympathetic ~0.69 -0.45 F—3 0.77 0.61
Impatient —0.56 -0.50 F-2 0.57 0.54
Immature -0.52 —0.33 F-2 0.52 0.52
Untrained 0.52 0.35 F-l 0.60 0.46

178

Table 143 Factor hatrix, fionolingual Portufiuese, Fortufiuese Resnonse,

 

 

 

 

 

Without USA Trainint, Best Source 5-Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Unpersuasive —0.60 -0.13 F-5 0.37 0.95
Powerful 0.57 —0.15 FaS 0.36 0.90
Uncertain —0.64 0.20 F—2 0.47 0.86
Persuasive 0.56 -0.17 F-4 0.37 0.84
Courageous 0.57 ~0.l5 F—2 0.38 0.84
Mature 0.62 -0.23 F-4 0.47 0.83
Immature -0.60 -0.25 F—2 0.44 0.83
Partial -0.40 0.18 F-3 0.20 0.81
Comprehensible —0.55 0.24 F—S 0.39 0.78
Certain 0.62 —0.25 F-4 0.51 0.75
Energetic 0.59 —0.35 F—2 0.53 0.60
Indecisive —0.5 0.33 F—2 0.54 0.57
Patient -0.37 0.28 F—2 0.25 0.54
Untrustworthy -0.56 —0.3 F-2 0.68 0.46
Strong 0.53 0.51 F-4 0.62 0.46
Powerless -0.28 -0.25 F—2 0.19 0.40
Factor 2
Sympathetic 0.69 —0.24 F—4 0.57 0.84
Untrained 0.69 0.28 F—4 0.58 0.61
Inexperienced 0.64 0.28 F—5 0.51 0.81
Active -0.49 0.19 F-4 0.30 0.80
Competent -0.63 0.30 F—5 0.50 0.79
Experienced -0.62 —0.30 F-5 0.52 0.74
UnCOOperative —0.32 -0.14 F—5 0.15 0.68
Weak 0.56 -0.25 F-l 0.46 0.67
Incompetent 0.61 -0.30 F—5 0.56 0.67
Passive 0.50 0.26 F—3 0.39 0.65
Trained -0.47 0.28 F-l 0.35 0.64
Unsystematic —0.47 0.35 F—3 0.41 0.55
Decisive ~0.48 0.40 F-l 0.46 0.51
Insincere -0.43 -0.34 F-l 0.37 0.49
Humble 0.43 0.35 F—4 0.37 0.49
Trustworthy 0.48 -0.46 F-4 0.52 0.45
Unsympathetic —0.49 —0.42 F—5 0.58 0.42
Sincere 0.34 —0.34 F-5 0.33 0.36

179

Table 43 (continued)

4.. -—. —.—-——~. ..— .

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor

Factor Factor (h?) Purity

Factor 3
Cruel —0.72 0.18 F—1 0.57 0.95
ArrOQant -0.64 -0.30 F-2 0.51 0 81
Systematic -0.61 —0.27 F-4 0.45 0.81
Honest 0.39 0.27 P-2 0.23 0.64
Uneducated 0.54 -0.41 F—S 0.49 0.59
Unintelligible 0.52 -0.36 F—l 0.47 0.58
Kind 0.54 0.42 F-4 0.52 0.56
Dangerous -0.51 0.34 F-l 0.51 0.51
Cooperative 0.48 0.39 F-5 0.48 0.47
Lazy -0.51 0.46 F—2 0.57 0.46
Unapproachable -0.48 -0.43 F-S 0.58 0.40

Factor 4
Disorganized 0.70 —0.11 F—2 0 51 0.97
Intelligible -0.70 -0.17 F-3 0.55 0.88

0.17 F—5

Efficient -0.76 —0.22 F-2 0.66 0.87
mpatient 0.47 —0.14 F-2 0.27 0.84
Organized -0.38 0.18 F-l 0.21 0.71
Safe -0.56 -0.37 F-2 0.51 0.62
Inefficient 0.62 -0.48 F—l 0.65 0.60
Cowardly 0.41 -0.31 F—3 0.29 0.58
Incomprehensible 0.54 0.35 F—l 0.51 0.57
Dishonest 0.60 -0.60 F—3 0.74 0.40
Impartial -0.36 0.27 F-l 0.28 0.46

Factor 5
Educated 0.69 —0.22 F—2 0.57 0.83
Reliable 0.66 0.26 F-l 0.56 0.79
Unfriendly -0.49 -0.22 F-2 0.33 0.73
Friendly 0.74 0.37 F-3 0.77 0.71
Unreliable —0.53 0.25 F—l 0.40 0.71
Unclear ~0.47 0.25 F-l 0.34 0.65
Clear 0.59 —0.39 F-4 0.56 0.62
Approachable 0.41 0.22 F—2 0.29 0.58
Up-to-date 0.47 0.42 F-l 0.46 0.48
Out-of-date —0.52 -0.41 F—3 0.56 0.48

180

Table 1H4 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Ibo-English, English Response

USA Training, Horst Source 6-Factor Rotation

n.- .a.-.—

 

 

.ow _,.....

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 1
Organized —0.69 0.18 F—4 0.52 0.9l
Incomprehensiblc 0.76 —0.21 F—2 0.66 0.86
Unclear 0.56 -0.19 F-2 0.37 0.84
Systematic -0.66 ~0.26 F—3 0.53 0.CO
Disorganized 0.77 0.3 F—3 0.71 0.83
Unsystematic 0.72 0.51 F—3 0.64 0.32
Competent -0.77 0.33 F—4 0.73 0.82
Efficient —0.75 0.36 F~4 0.69 0.3
Comprehensible -0.76 -0.23 F—3 0.72 .80
Inefficient 0.77 —0.29 F—4 0.75 0.78
Clear -0.71 0.27 F-2 U. C 0.77
Incompetent 0.69 -0.3 F—4 3.69 0.70
Up—to-date —0.53 -0.22 F—3 0.48 0.P0
Uncertain 0.67 —0.35 F-2 0.74 0.63
Indecisive 0.54 -0.34 F—6 0.50 0.59
Decisive -0.46 0.38 F—6 0.48 0.44
Unintelligible 0.47 -0.40 F-4 0.58 0.39
Active -0.47 -0.46 F—6 0.62 0.35
Intelligible —0.43 0.37 F—4 0.57 0.33
Factor 2
Untrustworthy -0.88 —0.25 F—6 0.87 0.c9
Sincere 0.81 -0.29 F—3 0.75 0.87
Reliable 0.78 —0.31 F-l 0.72 0.04
Trustworthy 0.77 —0.24 F-l 0.71 0.84
Insincere —0.79 —0.32 F—6 0.77 0.81
Dishonest -0.79 —0.29 F—6 0.78 0.80
Unreliable -0.75 0.23 P-S 0.70 0.60
honest 0.73 —t.29 F—3 0.69 0.78
Safe 0.69 -0.36 F—3 0.66 0.72
Danjerous —0.64 -0.32 F-4 0.60 0.69
Factor 3
Approachable —0.81 —0.20 F-l 0.73 0.90
Friendly -0.82 0.23 F-2 0.77 0.08
COOperative -0.76 —0.16 F—l 0.66 0.87
Unfriendly 0.80 0.25 F—6 0.75 0.86
Cruel 0.66 —0.28 F—2 0.55 0.79
Kind -0.72 0.27 P—2 0.67 0.78
Arrogant 0.55 0.21 F-6 0.40 0.76
Patient —0.62 0.24 F—6 0.51 0.76
Uncooperative 0.70 0.28 F—6 0.66 0.74
Sympathetic -0.57 —0.26 F—l 0.47 0.69
Impatient 0.56 0.29 F—l 0.48 0.64
Humble -0.54 —0.3 F—4 0.46 0.64
Unsympathetic 0.64 0.33 F-l 0.65 0.62
Unapproachable 0.66 -0.37 F—4 0.73 0.59

181

Table 44 (continued)

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 4
Experienced 0.79 -0.23 F-l 0.70 0.89
Inexperienced —0.82 0.25 F—6 0.77 0.83
Immature —0.64 0.23 F—3 0.54 0.76
Trained 0.50 -0.28 F-l 0.75 0.63
Persuasive 0.50 -0.28 F—l 0.40 0.61
Mature 0.63 -0.35 F-3 0.67 0.58
Unpersuasive —0.53 0.32 F-3 0.51 0.56
Untrained -0.62 0.48 F—S 0.74 0.53
Educated 0.56 -O.53 F—S 0.78 0.40
Uneducated ~O.48 0.48 F-5 0.60 0.39
Certain 0.48 —0.47 P-l 0.69 0.34
Factor 5
Powerful —0.73 0.17 F—4 0.60 0.90
Strong ~0.79 -0.20 F-l 0.70 0.90
Powerless 0.58 ~0.16 F—l 0.39 0.86
Courageous —0.43 0.37 F-2 0.36 0.52
Weak 0.56 0.45 F-l 0 66 0.47
Out-of-date 0.44 0.39 F-l 0.46 0.42
Factor 6
Cowardly 0.64 0.26 F—5 0.50 0.81
Lazy 0.68 0.45 F—l 0.76 0.61
Passive 0.58 0.41 F—l 0.56 0.61
Energetic -0.63 ~0.46 F-l 0.68 0.58
Partial —0.41 0.32 F-l 0.48 0.34
Impartial 0.43 0.36 P-2 0.54 0.33

182

 

 

 

 

Table 45 Factor datrix, bilingual Yoruba-English, English Response,
USA Training, Worst Source 6—Factor Rotation
Loadixgs Loadincs on
Variable on Primary Next highes Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Organized —0.83 —0.10 F-3 0.72 0.86
0.10 F-5
Certain -0.77 0.14 F-6 0.63 0.93
Disorganized 0.80 0.23 F—S 0.71 0..0
Unclear 0.79 0.19 F-S 0.70 0.89
Comprehensible -0.72 -0.17 F—5 0.58 0.88
Unsystematic 0.31 0.24 F-b 0.76 0.87
Clear —0.77 —0.24 F-4 0.74 0.81
Incomprehensible 0.71 0.34 F—5 0.64 0.78
Systematic -0.60 0.27 F-2 0.62 0.77
Uncertain 0.53 0.24 F-3 0.41 0.68
Inefficient 0.69 -0.36 F-4 0.74 0.64
Unintelligible 0.68 0.43 F—5 0.72 0.64
Indecisive 0.61 0.47 F-3 0.70 0.54
Persuasive -O.28 0.15 F—6 0.15 0.51
Decisive -0.61 -0.47 F—3 0.79 0.48
Competent -0.54 -0.45 F-S 0.71 0.41
Factor 2
Uncooperative ~0.75 -0.16 F—6 0.65 0.86
COOperative 0.80 -0.31 F-l 0.78 0.81
Unsympathetic —0.67 —0.31 F-3 0.64 0.70
Energetic 0.69 -0.34 F-l 0.69 0.69
Friendly 0.60 0.36 F-6 0.53 0.67
Unapproachable —0.62 0.34 F-4 0.65 0.59
Unfriendly -0.51 —0.31 F-6 0.47 0.56
Approachable 0.54 -O.37 F—3 0.55 0.52
Kind 0.62 0.55 F—6 0.80 0.48
Active 0.48 —0.38 F-3 0.64 0.36
Sympathetic 0.45 0.38 F-4,6 0.62 0.33
Factor 3
Cowardly 0.82 0.18 F-l 0.75 0.91
Weak 0.62 0.28 F—l 0.46 0.82
Courageous —0.74 -O.34 F-S 0.72 0.77
Powerful -0.58 —0.23 F-2 0.47 0.73
Powerless 0.53 0.23 P—S 0.38 0.72
Passive 0.63 0.31 F—E 0.56 0.70
Strong -0.61 37 F-6 0.62 0.61

183

Table 45 (continued)

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 4
Impartial 0.73 -0.12 F—3 0.56 0.94
Partial —0.64 0.23 F-3 0.50 0.82
Trustworthy 0.72 0.44 F—2 0.78 0.67
Untrustworthy -0.73 -0.47 F—6 0.80 0.66
Unpersuasive 0.63 0.40 F-l 0.70 0.56
Unreliable -0.52 —0.43 F-6 0.60 0.46
Reliable 0.45 -0.38 F-l 0.49 0.40
Sincere 0.55 0.54 F—6 0.75 0.40
Efficient 0.51 -0.49 F—l 0.68 0.38
Lazy -O.46 —0.43 F—2 0.56 0.3
Factor 5
Educated —0.69 0.11 F—4 0.50 0.95
Uneducated 0.68 0.15 F-3 0.49 0.94
Trained —0.83 —0.20 F-l 0.76 0.90
Experienced -0.69 -O.22 F-l 0.59 0.82
Untrained 0.67 -0.29 F-2 0.68 0.67
Up—to—date —0.51 —0.31 F—6 0.46 0.57
Out-of-date 0.51 0.3 F-l 0.45 0.57
Intelligible -0.63 —0.43 F—l 0.73 0.55
Inexperienced 0.43 -0.37 F—2 0.45 0.41
Incompetent 0.45 0.39 F-l 0.53 0.39
Factor 6
Patient 0.82 -0.15 F—3 0.70 0.95
Impatient -0.72 0.13 F—S 0.57 0.92
Hunble 0.79 0.22 P-2 0.72 0.88
Dangerous -0.65 -0.31 F—2 0.55 0.78
Safe 0.52 0.34 F-2 0.43 0.63
Mature 0.61 -0.3 F-S 0 62 0.60
Cruel —0.66 -0.55 F—2 0.86 0.50
Insincere -0.65 -0.63 F—4 0.86 0.50
Dishonest —0.55 -0.43 F—2 0.64 0.47
Immature —0.37 -0.30 F-1,4 0.37 0.37
Arrogant -0.41 -0.40 F—2 0.47 0.35
Honest 0.45 0.45 F-2 0.59 0.34

184

 

 

Table 1¥6 Factor matrix, bilingual Portuguese-English, English Response,
USA Traininz, Horst Source 7-Factor Rotation
Loadings Loadinjs on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 1
Sincere —0.73 0.2 F-2 0.63 0.85
Insincere 0.64 -0.35 F-2 0.61 0.68
Dishonest 0.61 —0.28 F-4 0.57 0.66
Trustworthy —0.70 0.51 F-7 0.79 0.63
Safe —0.55 0.33 F-2 0.50 0.61
Unpersuasive -0.53 0.29 F—S 0.47 0.60
Honest -0.58 0.30 F-4 0.57 0.59
Dangerous 0.55 -0.37 F—2 0.61 0.49
Untrustworthy 0.46 -0.44 F-7 0.54 0.39
Persuasive 0.43 -0.37 F—5 0.54 0.35
Factor 2
Unapproachable -0.76 -0.13 F—4 0.61 0.94
Approachable 0.65 —0.12 F-l 0.46 0.94
Unfriendly —0.86 0.21 F-l 0.79 0.93
(ind 0.76 -0.15 F-l 0.63 0.91
Unsympathetic -0.76 0.18 F-3 0.65 0.90
Friendly 0.82 -0.22 F—4 0.79 0.86
Sympathetic 0.72 -0.23 F-5 0.66 0.79
Comprehensible 0.61 0.28 F-4 0.64 0.59
Cruel -O.51 0.44 F-l 0.47 0.55
Incomprehensible -0.6l -0.3 F—4 0.70 0.54
Uncooperative -0.47 0.36 F—6 0.55 0.41
Cooperative 0.47 0.39 F-3 0.60 0.37
Factor 3
Active 0.75 0.15 F-6 0.62 0.91
Energetic 0.81 0.23 F-4 0.75 0.87
Passive -0.77 0.26 F-5 0.76 0.78
Weak -0.71 —0.28 F-7 0.69 0.74
Lazy -0.72 0.30 F-l 0.72 0.72
Courageous 0.64 —0.29 F-6 0.57 0.71
Decisive 0.61 0.51 F-4 0.71 0.52
Strong 0.60 0.41 F-7 0.68 0.52
Powerless -0.51 —0.37 F-2 0.53 0.49
Indecisive —0.53 -0.49 F-4 0.70 0.40
Cowardly —0.44 0.43 F—l 0.54 0.36
Powerful 0.41 0.37 F-2,7 0.58 0.29
Factor 4
Unintelligible —0.62 -0.22 F—2 0.51 0.76
Clear 0.75 -0.33 F-6 0.74 0.76
Unclear —0.59 —0.31 F-2 0.55 0.62
Organized 0.59 0.3 F—7 0.59 0.60
Intelligible 0.50 0.45 F—2 0.77 0.40
Systematic 0.47 0.42 F-7 0.65 0.34

185

Table 1+6 (continued)

 

 

Loacinqs Loadinfis on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (b2) Purity
Factor 5
Up—to—date —0.72 0.16 F—H 0.50 0.02
Out—of-date 0.62 -O.2l F-2 0.H7 0.82
Trained -O.66 0.29 F-S 0.58 0.75
Untrained 0.67 —0.26 F-3 0.60 0.75
Inexperienced 0.7M —\.33 F—l 0.73 0.75
Incompetent 0.73 —0.32 F-7 0.70 0.68
Competent -0.7u o.uo F—7 0.85 0.6u
Experienced -0.62 0.36 F-l 0.68 0.57
Efficient -0.SS -0.H0 F-l 0.30 0.5”
Uneducated 0.51 -O.H3 F-2 0.56 0.47
Inefficient 0.58 0.41 F—l 0.7l 0.H5
Patient . -0.48 0.36 F—2 0.57 0.40
Educated —0.u8 0.39 F-2 0.59 0.38
Factor 6
Partial 0.77 -0.l9 F—7 0.66 0.91
Impartial —0.73 0.22 F-u 0.60 0.88
Humble -0.70 -0.3V F-3 0.71 0.70
Arrogant 0.5M -o.uu F-? 0.68 0.H2
Factor 7
Immature —0.76 0.25 F-B 0.69 0.83
Mature 0.72 —O.30 F—S 0.64 0.90
Unreliable —0.63 0.21 F-S 0.52 0.76
Uncertain —0.67 —0.33 F-u 0.65 0.71
Certain 0.69 -0.28 F-l 0.09 0.69
Disorganized —0.50 —0.40 F—u 0.53 0.H6
Reliable 0.54 -0.45 F-l 0.63 0.43
Unsystematic -0.43 -0.42 F—H 0.50 0.3”
Impatient —0.H2 -0.ul F-2 0.59 0.30

186

Table 47 Factor matrix, Bilingual Ibo—English, Ibo ReSponse,

USA Training, Worst Source S-Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Strong -0.77 0.23 F—u 0.68 0.3
Untrained 0.76 -O.22 F—H 0.7l 0.8l
Energetic —0.66 0.29 F-H 0.59 0.74
Organized -0.50 0.29 F—S 0.37 0.67
Friendly -O.65 0.3 F—% 0.65 0.65
Kind —O.69 0.37 F-3 0.76 0.63
Cruel 0.70 -o.uu F—S 0.86 0.58
Trained ~0.57 0.39 F~5 0.60 0.53
Sympathetic —0.5? 0.43 F-S 0.5M 0.51
Insincere 0.62 -0.u9 F—S 0.78 0.H9
Partial 0.56 -O.Sl F-S 0.64 O.H8
Unsympathetic 0.51 —0.H3 F-5 0.57 0.H5
Unfriendly 0.53 0.H6 F—S 0.67 0.Hl
Factor 2
Comprehensible 0.76 0.39 F—3 0.73 0.78
Up-to—date 0.66 -O.33 F-l 0.60 0.7”
Systematic 0.58 —0.27 F-l 0.U7 0.7l
nature 0.70 0.33 F—5 0.70 0.70
Decisive 0.73 0.4l F—u 0.80 0.66
Safe 0.55 -O.29 F-l O.U6 0.58
Certain 0.62 O.H6 F—S 0.69 0.53
Inefficient -O.48 —O.39 F-H 0.65 0.35
Dangerous 0.H0 —0.39 F-S 0.51 0.31
Factor 3
Unapproachable -0.7l -0.lu F—2 0.54 0.9%
Approachable 0.77 —0.32 F—6 0.73 0.80
Clear 0.57 0.26 F-S 0.51 0.6H
Intelligible 0.67 —O.37 F-G 0.72 0.62
Disorganized -0.58 0.39 F-l 0.63 0.5”
Unclear —0.55 -0.H8 F—2 0.58 0.52
Unintelligible -o.55 0.39 F-l 0.63 0.u7
Efficient 0.55 0.00 F—S 0.67 0.44
Patient O.Hl 0.31 F-S 0.39 O.H3

187

Table 47 (continued)

 

 

 

 

Loadinns Loadinjs on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor u
Courageous 0.58 0.14 F-2 0.36 0.93
Competent 0.77 -0.35 F—l 0.87 0.68
Incompetent -0.68 0.36 F-6 0.69 0.67
Indecisive —0.57 —0.34 F—5 0.H9 0.67
COOperative 0.56 0.36 F—S 0.u8 0.65
Experienced 0.60 0.32 F—2 0.56 0.6M
Inexperienced —0.67 0.39 F-6 0.71 0.6M
Immature —0.56 —0.35 F—S 0.5u 0.59
Out—of-date —0.62 -0.31 F~6 0.7l 0.5M
Uncertain —0.58 -0.u5 F-3 0.63 0.52
Educated 0.6a -0.53 F-l 0.82 0.51
Cowardly —0.H6 —0.31 F-S 0.u6 0.u6
Incomprehensible -0.43 -0.43 F-S 0.H8 0.38
Powerful 0.50 —0.48 F-l 0.67 0.37
U systematic -0.45 0.35 F—l 0.56 0.37
—0.35 F-2
Active 0.50 -0.45 F—l 0.71 0.3
Factor 5
Reliable 0.81 0.26 F—H 0.82 0.80
Impartial 0.7l -0.34 F—l 0.66 0.77
Trustworthy 0.76 0.M3 F-H 0.84 0.69
Sincere 0.71 0.29 F-H 0.75 0.67
Dishonest -0.73 0.45 F-l 0.83 0.64
Impatient -0.62 -0.37 F-2 0.63 0.60
Uncooperative -0.64 -0.42 F—u 0.72 0.57
Honest 0.66 -0.39 F-l 0.78 0.56
Unpersuasive -0.HH -0.2H F-2 0.36 0.55
Unreliable -0.68 0.44 F-l 0.88 0.52
Untrustworthy -0.66 —O.40 F—3 0.86 0.51
Arrogant -0.u9 -0.u8 F-2 0.u9 0.u9
Humble 0.62 -0.46 F-6 0.78 0.48
Factor 6
Passive 0.80 0.23 0.71 0.90
Weak 0.63 0.41 0.70 0.57
Lazy 0.53 -0.31 0.59 o.u9
Powerless 0.51 0.u1 0.57 0.u6
Persuasive -0.U4 0.28 0.45 0.44
Uneducated 0.54 —0.50 - 0.68 0.uu

188

Table u8 Factor Katrix, bilingual Yoruba~Englisb, Yoruba Response,

USA Training, Worst Source 7~Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadings Loadinqs on
Variable on Primary Aext Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 1
Incomprehensible 0.69 0.16 F—u 0.53 0.83
Patient -0.75 —0.36 F—S 0 77 0.73
Safe ~O.63 - .BH F—M 0.56 0./1
Disorganized 0.74 —0.3 F-2 0.80 0.69
Unsystematic 0.70 0.30 F-u 0.73 0.67
Unapproachable 0.65 -0.36 F-7 0.66 0.6M
Systematic -0.59 0.36 F-S 0.55 0.64
Impatient 0.63 0.29 F-H 0.66 0.61
Humble ~0.68 -O.35 F—S 0.81 0.58
Unpersuasive 0.55 -0.38 F—2 0.60 0.50
Kind -0.59 0.51 F-7 0.79 0.u5
Mature —0.HO —0.38 F-7 0.37 0.u5
Cruel 0.u6 -0.u1 F-7 0.65 0.32
Factor 2
Strong 0.85 —0.20 F-l 0.81 0.9l
Weak -0.82 —0.20 F-u 0.78 0.07
Passive —0.78 0.29 F-u 0.72 0.8M
Cowardly -0.73 -0.27 F-S 0.65 0.81
Powerless —0.6u 0.21 F—6 0.5% 0.75
Courageous 0.66 -0.24 F-l 0.58 0.75
Indecisive —0.67 0.32 F—l 0.60 0.74
Powerful 0.66 —0.32 F-l 0.60 0.72
Decisive 0.56 —0.40 F-H 0.55 0.58
Lazy -0.60 0.56 F—6 0.71 0.50
Competent 0.61 -0.47 F-H 0.74 o.u9
Energetic -0.28 -0.28 F—l 0.56 0.u7
Efficient 0.5” 0.43 F-S 0.75 0.H0
Factor 3
UnCOOperative -0.81 0.15 F-l 0.71 0.93
Up-to-date 0.50 -O.2H F-6 0.37 0.68
Dangerous —0.70 -o.3o F—6 0.7u 0.67
Immature 0.54 0.21 F-l 0.46 0.6M
Arrogant 0.58 0.51 F-l 0.75 0.45
Incompetent -0.6l -0.u9 F-2 0.85 0.44
Inefficient 0.50 0.48 F-6 0.78 0.32

189

Table u8 (continued)

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 4
Insincere 0.69 0.21 F—3 0.62 0.76
Sincere —0.73 0.27 F-7 0.7M 0.72
Impartial -0.77 —0.32 F—5 0.85 0.70
Unclear 0.60 -0.32 F—6 0.52 0 70
Uncertain 0.67 -0.36 F-S 0.75 O 59
0.35 F-7
Out-of-date 0.40 0.24 F—l 0.28 0.58
Active —0.62 0.41 F-7 0.70 0.55
Reliable —O.56 -O.33 F-l 0.58 0.5”
Clear -0.52 -0.37 F—l 0.54 0.50
Partial 0.60 -O.45 F-2 0.73 0.50
Honest -O.53 0.33 F-7 0.6H 0.44
Trustworthy —0.53 0.39 F-2 0.7M 0.38
Untrustworthy 0.H9 —0.u9 F—7 0.65 0.37
COOperative -0.u6 0.u3 F—3 0.81 0.27
Factor 5
Intelligible 0.68 —o.23 —u 0.77
Unintelligible -0.68 0.39 0.73
Certain 0.6M -0.32 0.65
Organized 0.55 —0.3 0.50
Persuasive 0.58 0.28 0.H6
Dishonest —0.M6 -o.4u 0.u2
Unreliable -0.H8 —0.35 0.37
Factor 6
Educated —O.86 0.16 0.92
Trained -0.7l -0.20 0.85
Untrained 0.75 -0.29 0.76
Uneducated 0.7l —0.3l 0.68
Experienced —0.6u 0.34 0.67
Inexperienced 0.46 0.u3 0.28
Factor 7
Friendly 0.76 -0.l6 0.90
Unfriendly —0.70 0.3 0.73
Unsympathetic —0.51 0.27 0.65
Sympathetic 0.57 0.27 0.50
Approachable 0.57 —0.u8 0.H3
Comprehensible 0.42 0.38 0.26

190

Table 89 Factor Matrix, bilingual Portuguese-English, Portuguese
Response, USA Training, Worst Source 6-Factor Rotation

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Weak 0.69 0.12 F-H 0.51 0.93
Passive 0.72 —O.1H F—2 0.56 0.91
Decisive -0.72 0.14 F—2 0.58 0.89
Active -0.67 0.18 F-H 0.53 0.85
Energetic -O.77 0.23 F-H 0.69 0.85
Strong -o.75 -o.29 F-3 0.67 0.8M
Safe -0.7l 0.25 F—u 0.61 0.83
Powerless 0.57 0.16 F—3 0.41 0.78
Uncertain 0.67 0.25 F-2 0.58 0.7M
Indecisive 0.73 —0.H3 F-6 0.72 0.73
Certain -O.77 0.45 F-6 0.82 0.72
Lazy 0.62 -O.37 F-2 0.57 0.68
Efficient -0.62 o.uo F-u 0.68 0.57
Courageous -0.u5 0.39 F—2 0.H0 0.u9
Powerful -0.u6 0.43 F—6 0.u6 0.u6
Inefficient 0.55 -0.50 F-H 0.7l 0.u3
Factor 2
Honest 0.83 -O.l7 F-H 0.75 0.92
Dangerous -0.63 0.16 F-6 0.45 0.89
Dishonest -O.72 0.19 F—6 0.62 0.82
Sincere 0.80 -0.2H F—u 0.79 0.82
Impartial 0.67 0.32 F-l 0.58 0.77
Partial —O.52 0.26 F-S 0.40 0.67
Insincere -0.72 0.34 F-l 0.80 0.65
Sympathetic 0.63 —O.Hl F-3 0.67 0.60
Trustworthy 0.62 —0.45 F-H 0.66 0.59
Kind 0.65 -0.47 F—3 0.73 0.58
Unsympathetic —0.61 0.51 F—3 0.69 0.54
Cowardly -0.59 o.u9 F-l 0.66 0.52
Untrustworthy -0.53 0.36 F—3 0.57 0.50
Cruel -0.5u —0.38 F—S 0.63 0.47
Factor 3
Unfriendly 0.77 0.14 0.65 0.9l
-0.lu
Unapproachable 0.66 —0.18 0.50 0.88
Uncooperative 0.60 —0.20 0.M2 0.86
Friendly -0.7H 0.23 0.6” 0.86
Cooperative -0.68 0.27 0.58 0.80
Approachable —0.72 0.H0 0.70 0.7M
humble -O.64 0.32 0.62 0.66
Arrogant 0.54 —0.36 r 0.31 0.57
Comprehensible -0.57 0.08 0.68 0.08

191

Table u9— (continued)

 

 

 

 

Loadings Loadinqs on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor H
Competent 0.80 0.12 F~2 0.7M 0.95
Up—to-date 0.70 0.25 F—S 0.6x 0.60
Educated 0.57 0.28 F-6 0.43 0.76
Out-of—date -0.73 0.3M F-2 0.72 0.75
Trained 0.69 -O.25 F—l 0.63 0.75
Experienced 0.65 0 33 F-6 0.58 0.73
Untrained —0.69 0.32 F-2 0.66 0.73
Uneducated -0.65 -0.25 F-6 0.59 0.71
Inexperienced -O.61 0.28 F-l 0.52 0.71
Incompetent -0.68 —0.30 F—6 0.67 0.69
Factor 5
Reliable 0.6 —0.27 F-u 0.47 0.78
Orzanized 0.69 0.32 F-6 0.63 0.76
Disorfianized -0.59 -0.30 F-6 0.52 0.66
Impatient -0.49 -0.27 F-l 0.37 0.63
Unreliable —0.59 0.33 F-3 0.58 0.61
Systematic 0.57 -o.u2 F-l 0.57 0.57
Unsystematic —0.55 —O.3' F-H 0.56 0.55
Patient 0.59 —0.38 F-3 0.68 0.51
Intellifiible 0.45 -o.uo F-3 0.55 0.36
Unintelligible -0.u2 0.32 F-B 0.56 0.32
Factor 6
Immature -0.62 -0.30 0.52 0.7M
Unclear —0.67 —0.25 0.61 0.73
Mature 0.71 0.28 0.70 0.72
Persuasive 0.55 —O.36 0.62 0.M9
Unpersuasive -0.H8 -0.u2 - 0.5M 0.H3
Incomprehensible -0.52 0.51 0.64 0.u2
Clear 0.u8 -0.36 0.59 0.39

192

Table 50 Factor Matrix, Bilingual Ibo—English, Enfilisn KGSDODSL,

without USA Training, Horst Source C—Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadin s Loadin s on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (a?) Purity
Factor 1
Powerful -0.55 —0.20 F—2 0.33 0.77
Active —O.ES —0.28 F—S 0.59 0.7?
Strong -0.70 —0.3H F—2 0.60 0.71
Energetic -0.04 0.37 F-S 0.58 0.71
Kind —0.60 0.H5 F-3 0.67 0.54
Weak 0.99 O. 4 F-S 0.47 0.52
Incompetent 0.40 —0.37 F-H 0.36 0.4%
Passive 0.4M -0.H3 F-H 0.48 0.40
Factor 2
Unpersuasive 0.71 0.28 F—l 0.60 0.8%
Indecisive 0.55 —0.18 F—u 0.38 0.79
Decisive -0.60 —0.25 F-6 0.45 0.79
Persuasive -0.60 -J.23 F—S 0.H7 0.7?
Incomprehensible 0.79 0.24 F—6 0.80 0.78
Comprehensible —0.62 0,25 F—H 0.5“ 0.71
Uncertain 0.u7 -0.2H F-u 0.34 0.65
Certain —0.U9 0.28 F-u 0.38 0 63
Powerless 0.32 0.19 F—S 0.21 0.U8
Courajeous —0.55 —0.us F-l 0.6M 0.u7
Cowardly 0.40 0.3M F—l 0.39 0.H1
Intelligible -0.37 0.37 F—l 0.53 0.26
Factor 3
Approachable 0.7M 0.ll F—H 0.79 0.93
Unapproachable -0.74 0.24 F—l 0.62 0.39
Unsympathetic ~0.67 0.24 F—l 0.56 0.80
Immature —0.56 -0.2u F—S 0.41 0.78
Organized 0.65 —0.27 F—2 0.55 0.77
Tammie 0.67 —0.28 F-S 0.58 0.77
Arrogant -0.61 0.26 F—6 0.51 0.74
Sympathetic 0.54 -0.2# F-6 0.uo 0.7l
Unfriendly -0.60 0.27 F—l 0.51 0.70
Unsystematic -0.64 0.31 F-2 0.60 0.69
Disorganized —0.57 0.31 F—2 0.u8 0.67
Friendly 0.65 -0.34 F-l 0.63 0.67
Impatient -0.56 0.30 F—6 0.51 0.61
Cooperative 0.56 -0.u1 F—l 0.56 0.59
Uncooperative -0.59 0.32 F-l 0.59 0.58
Patient 0.63 0.41 F-l 0.70 0.57
Unreliable -3.51 —0.30 F—2 0.50 0.51
Cruel -0.50 0.35 F-l 0.51 0.H8
Systematic 0.53 —0.Hu F-2 0.6M 0.uu
Lazy —0.ul 0.UO F—l 0.56 0.30

193

Table 50 (continued)

“‘--_-_~--..

 

 

 

Loadinys Loadinfs on
Variable on Primary Next Richest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor A
Untrained —0.8 0.12 F-S 0.78 0.97
Uneducated -0.76 0.15 F—1 0.6" 0.89
-0.15 F-S
Educated 0.71 0.19 F—3 0.60 0.83
Trained 0.71 -0.H1 F—6 0.71 0.72
Clear 0.H8 -0.2S F—l 0.35 0.66
Unclear -0.52 -0.29 F—3 0.48 0.57
Competent 0.55 —o.uo F-6 0.56 0.53
Unintelligible —0.51 0.30 F-2 0.52 0.51
Factor 5
Dishonest 0.73 0.23 F—l 0.65 0.82
Trustworthy —0.70 0.32 F-3 0.6” 0.77
Out-of—date 0.52 ~0.32 F-u 0.u1 0.66
Untrustworthy 0.68 —0.HH F—3 0.71 0.66
Dangerous 0.50 0.32 F-2 0.38 0.65
Efficient -O.55 -3.34 F-6 0.53 0.58
Up—to-date —o.59 o.u3 F-u 0.60 0.57
Reliable -0.51 o.u2 F-3 0.H7 0.56
Insincere 0.57 0.u8 F-6 0.59 0.55
Sincere -O.57 -0.H2 F-B 0.60 0.5o
honest -0.5€ ~0.H3 F-l 0.70 O.U8
Safe -O.3 0.28 F-3 0.26 0.38
Factor 6
Partial 0.6” 0.12 F-2 0.94 0.93
Impartial -0.40 -0.21 F-H 0.21 0.74
Inefficient 0.65 0.29 F—S 0.59 0.71
Experienced —0.56 0.30 F-u 0.54 0.58
Inexperienced 0.46 -0.33 F-l 0.3 0.55
Mature —0.3u 0.29 F-S 0.26 0.4a

19“

Table 51 Factor Matrix, silingual Portuguese—English, English

 

 

 

 

 

Response, Without USA Training, Worst Source 6-Factor Rotation
Loadinqs Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor 1
Efficient —0.79 0.14 F—S 0.63 0.94
Untrained 0.66 -0.14 F-2,6 0 HQ 0.89
0.14 F-S
Decisive -0.82 0.22 F-6 0.77 0.86
Trained -0.8u 0.32 F-S 0.83 0.85
Competent -0.78 0.3 F—3 0.73 0.83
Active -0.76 —0.28 F—2 0.70 0.82
Inefficient 0.76 -0.29 F—3 0.75 0.77
Passive 0.66 0.29 F—S 0.57 0.75
Indecisive 0.73 0.30 F-3 0.79 0.68
Incompetent 0.73 -o.u5 F-3 0.78 0.68
Out-of—date 0.62 0.35 F-2 0.u5 0.59
Disorqanized 0.65 -0.53 F—3 0.73 0.58
Intelligible —0.62 0.29 F-H 0.68 0.57
Lazy 0.58 —0.52 F—G 0.64 0.52
Powerful -0.61 0.43 F—6 0.73 0.52
Reliable -0.56 —0.51 F—S 0.7M 0.u2
Inexperienced 0.47 -0.36 F—6 0.57 0.88
Organized —0.49 0.M7 F-3 0.69 0.35
Factor 2
Sympathetic -0.91 0.18 F—3 0.89 0.9”
Approachable —0.85 -o.2u F-l 0.82 0.88
Unapproachable 0.86 0.23 F—S 0.86 0.87
Unsympathetic 0.78 0.26 F—l 0.70 0.86
Arrogant 0.78 -o.33 F-l 0.3a 0.72
humble -O.54 0.43 F-l 0.51 0.56
Partial 0.55 —0.M2 F-l 0.56 0.5”
Systematic 0.69 0.U7 F-3 0.91 0.52
Up—to-date -0.60 -0.45 F—l 0. 3 0.H9
Patient —0.56 0.H8 F-l 0.71 0.48
Unreliable 0.51 0.50 F-l 0.66 0.40
Impatient 0.56 —0.56 F-3 0.79 0.H0
Friendly -0.57 0.36 F—S 0.88 0.89
Factor 3
Uncertain -0.78 0.13 F-S 0.65 0.55
Certain 0.61 -0.16 F-l (.41 0.91
Immature -0.72 -O.23 F—6 0.08 0.70
Unclear —0.68 0.86 F—l 0.77 0.61
Untrustworthy —0.56 —0.M2 F-M 0.66 0.47
Trustworthy 0.89 0.87 F-M 0.o3 0.M5
Clear 0.57 —0.H6 F—l 0.7M o.uu
Experienced 0.53 —0.46 F—l 0.65 0.83
Unfriendly 0.59 0.52 F-2 0 91 0.39
Unsystematic -0.55 -0.86 F-S 0.88 0.8M

195

Table 51 (continued)

-—. ‘ .” -..- q... — .o - ~-.-—--.H-“-.—. H- g“---—-M-—- .. -u- M

 

 

Leaninfs Loadinrs on

 

Variable on Primary fiext hithest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (hg) Purity

Factor 8
honest 0.93 0.17 P—Q 0.9” 0.92
Dishonest —0.83 0.21 F—l 0.79 0.87
Impartial 0.69 0.17 F—6 0.55 0.87
Sincere 0.6F 0.28 F-B 0.70 0.63
Cruel -O.58 0.41 F-3 0.55 0.61
Kind 0.65 0.3 F-6 0.77 0.55
Dangerous -0.62 -0.43 F—3 0.78 0.50
Safe 0.5V 0.53 F-6 0.81 0.38
Educated 0.38 0.33 F—6 O.H7 0.30

Factor 5
nature 0.69 -0.28 F-l 0.62 0.78
Cowardly -0.7O -O.HO F-C 0.73 0.67
Comprehensive -0.61 0.U6 F—u 0.69 0.54
Incomprehensive 0.56 -0.H5 F-3,u 0.75 0.82
Insincere -0.55 -0.49 F-u 0.73 0.41
Unpersuasive 0.53 0.42 F—2 0.72 0.H0
Persuasive -0.5H —0.86 F—2 0.73 0.39
Unintelligible -0.H8 0.H3 F-l 0.61 0.88

—O.H3 F-H

Factor 6
Uncooperative —0.75 0.29 F-S 0.73 0.77
Weak -0.65 —0.23 F-2 0.59 0.72
Energetic 0.66 0.3” F-3 0.62 0.70
Strong 0.64 -o.3u F—l 0.63 0.66
Powerless —0.58 0.34 F—l 0.5M 0.62
Courageous 0.6M —o.u5 F-l 0.79 0.51
Cooperative 0.66 0.50 F-H 0.85 0.50
Uneducated ~0.51 -0.33 F-H 0.60 0.43

 

 

I ll III! I I'll!

196

Table 52 Factor natrix, bilingual Ibo-English, Ibo Response,

Without USA Training, worst Source G-Faetor Rotation

w—o- :- no.»

 

 

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity

Factor 1

Trustworthy 0.75 0.16 F—3 0.64 0.88
-O.16 F—S
Sincere 0.74 -0.19 F-S 0.63 0.86
Untrustworthy —0.80 0.24 F—u 0.76 0.6M
UnCOOperative -0.67 0.27 F-6 0.59 0.76
Decisive 0.46 0.C5 F-2 0.83 0.65
COOperative 0.67 0.45 F—2 0.68 0.65
Insincere -0.66 0.89 F-M 0.78 0.60
Efficient 0.56 0.H7 F—H 0.56 0.55
Unreliable -0.50 -0.29 F-3 0.47 0.53
honest 0.53 —0.H9 F-S 0.52 0.53
Impartial 0.80 —0.33 F-S 0.80 0.53
Experienced 0.u5 0.25 F-2 0.38 0.52
-0.25 F-S

Incomprehensible —0.44 0.26 F—H 0.38 0.52
Inefficient —0.H9 -0.H2 F—2 0.u8 o.u9
Reliable 0.42 -0.88 F—2 0.U4 0.Hl
Competent 0.42 0.8M F-H 0.83 0.80
Incompetent —O.5H -0.5u F-H 0.73 0.40
Certain O.UO —O.37 F-6 3.45 0.33

Factor 2
Strong 0.71 -0.17 F-l 0.33 0.94
Trained 0.75 0.24 F-l 0.65 0.8”
Energetic 0.67 0.33 F-S 0.59 0.77
Active 0.71 0.28 F-H 0.86 0.77
Powerful 0.66 0.20 F—l,u 0.38 0.76
Friendly 0.56 —0.25 F—S 0.82 0.75
Lazy —0.59 —0.33 F-l 0.54 0.66
Untrained —0.81 ~0.35 F—l 0.31 0.53

aetor 3
Approaehable 0.53 0.23 F-H 0.36 0.73
Patient 0.68 -0.26 F-2 0.58 0.7?
Unsystematic —0.71 —0.27 F—2 0.70 0.78
Impatient 41.60 (‘ .27 P~E~ O .131 O . 7?)
Systematic 0.68 0.35 P-l 0.70 9.65
Orjanized 0.57 C.U6 F-l 0.57 0.58
dunno 0.2m «cum F—S 0.79 3.133
Arrogant -0.80 ).J F—H 0.51 0.31

197

Taole 52 (continued)

 

-. .—-

 

Loadinrs Loadints on

 

 

Variable on Primary Next highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h?) Purity
Factor u
Intellijible 0.54 0.09 F-l 0.81 0.95
Uneducated —3.68 0.17 F—S 0.51 0.90
Inexperienced -0.72 —0.18 F—l 0.62 0.85
Passive -0.70 —0.HO F-2 0.67 0.73
Persuasive 0.59 ~0.°2 F—6 0.5” 0.63
Weak —0.61 —0.U$ F-2 0.62 0.60
Educated 0.86 0.18 F-l 0.22 0.58
Unfriendly —0.52 —0.38 F—2 0.5 0.53
Dishonest 0.47 -0.83 F—l 0.M3 0.52
Powerless —0.55 -0.Hfi F—2 0.bl 0.51
Cowardly -0.H6 -0.S7 F—3 0.85 0.H8
Disorganized 0.u1 -0.86 F—3 0.uo 0.86
Factor 5
Unsympathetic 0.72 —0.19 F-3 0.61 0.86
0.19 F-E
Courageous -0.H0 -0.l7 F-l 0. 4 0.68
Kind —0.59 0.31 F-2 0.51 0.67
Cruel 0.55 —0.28 F—l 0.H6 0.66
Sympathetic -0.62 0.45 F-B 0.75 0.51
nature -0.39 0.?5 F—u 0.81 0.89
Indecisive o.u9 0.u8 F—3 0.54 0.HH
Uncertain —0.H7 -0.u3 F—6 0.53 0.ul
Partial 0.38 —0.29 F-l 0.38 0.33
0.29 F-3
Unclear -0.H2 —0.89 F-l 0.60 0.35
Factor 6
Safe -O.H2 0.12 F—l 0.21 0.6a
Immature -0.53 -0.28 F-2 0.37 0.75
Comprehensible —0.56 0.85 F-l 0.M6 0.68
Unpersuasive 0.61 —0.32 F-3 0.57 0.66
Up-to-date -0.43 0.22 F-S 0.32 0.56
Unapproachable 0.35 -0.28 F—3 0.23 0.54
Dangerous -0.Hl -0.31 F—S 0.82 0.5%
Unintelligible 0.H8 —0.80 F—1,2 0.50 0.U6
Out-of—date —0.H6 ~0.H0 F-l 0.46 0.Ho
Clear -0.HH 0.32 F—S 0.H3 0.85

Factor Matrix, -

A
.fl

198

xesponse, Without USA Trainini, Worst Source

ilinfiual Portuguese—English, Portucuese

5—Factor Rotation

 

 

Loadings Loadings on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h2) Purity
Factor 1
Passive 0.53 -O.lS F-u 0.3l U.SO
Decisive -O.53 0.13 F—2,3 0.32 0.87
Efficient -O.7l —O.22 F-u 0.58 0.87
Disorganized 0.61 0.17 F—B O.Mo 0.85
Organized -O.55 0.20 F-u 0.87 0.80
Indecisive 0.7% 0.22 F-B 0.69 0.79
Unpersuasive 0.58 -O.22 F—3 O.M2 0.79
Persuasive -O.74 —O.27 F-u,5 0.75 0.72
Incompetent 0.6% -O.29 F—S 0.58 0.70
Active —O.69 0.41 F-S 0.68 0.70
Inefficient 0.60 0.37 F-H 0.53 0.68
Uncooperative 0.57 -O.H2 F-2 0.52 0.62
Competent —O.6u -O.H7 F—H 0.68 0.59
Powerless 0.62 —O.H7 F-2 0.66 0.58
Uncertain 0.58 0.52 F-2 0.62 0.55
Safe -O.Sl -O.38 F—H o.u9 0.54
Lazy 0.53 —O.39 F-2 0.52 0.53
Courageous -O.3 —O.33 F—S 0.31 o.uu
Strong ~0.uu -O.38 F—H 0.55 0.35
Factor 2

Sincere 0.88 —O.21 F—S 0.83 0.9u
Insincere -O.78 —O.18 F-3 0.66 0.92
Untrustworthy -O.76 -O.Ql F-3 0.64 0.90
Trustworthy 0.81 0.25 F-3 0.73 0.90
Dangerous —O.59 .28 F—H 0.53 0.66
Clear 0.61 —O.37 F—H 0.57 0.65
Energetic 0.55 — .38 F-l 0.52 0.59
Honest 0.59 —O.5H F—S 0.69 0.50
Systematic -O.H3 —O.28 F-S 0.38 O.H8
Partial -O.52 0.4u F—S 0.55 O.u8
Impartial O.H3 —U.36 F—S O.Ul O..6
Cooperative 0.50 -O.H2 F-l 0.57 0.;4
Reliable 0.3 —O.3O F-H 0.35 O.H2
Unreliable -0.u7 0.46 F—l 0.53 O.H2
humble 0.39 0.32 F-S O.Q2 0.3

Cowardly -O.H2 0.u0 F-S 0.39 0.30

199

Table 53 (continueu)

-—o---<-.s- - u...

 

Loadinjs Loadin s on
Variable on Primary Next Highest Communality Factor
Factor Factor (h~) Purity

Factor 3

Sympathetic
Unapproachasle
Approachable
Unfriendly
Unsystematic
Unsympathetic
Intelligible
Patient

Cruel

Incomprehensible
Friendly
Unintelligible
Arrogant
Impatient

Kind

Unclear
Comprehensible
Weak

Certain

Factor u

Uneducated
Educated
Untrained
Out-of-eate
Experienced
Up-to—date
Trained
Inexperienced
Powerful

Factor 5

Immature
Mature
Disnonest

0.76
~O.79

0.61

I
O
0
\w

I
C)
O
5.) N} Ix) .

O

I\) Ix) (_O

'—

_,-

L
L}
”1’73”'1”1’71WWH1”1*YJH1WFUHIWHJWH1W”1
I

O.HO

r\ :7

-O.oa
0.91
~O.25
O.U9
O.U5

q Af\
_k.‘ . \)'."

I

I
C)
c) t"

O

(f?

""]"“1"|‘1"T1""1

I

O

O
x) c) r;
CD.

Q

-O.HO
~O.39
—O.H5

0.33

0.39

0.08

0.09

—o .117

I I
(II 01

III
F’UIFJKDUI

IIIIIIII
HF—‘IOMMFQI‘QUIMMI‘QI—‘(fl

I—v-a
J

I
I‘\) I“

"1 ’71 ”'1
I I I I I
M I‘H' I—‘ I0 I--J .\) U7

F—u
-3

-2

"CI ”1

0.5u
O.u2
0.61
0.70
0.15
0.55
0.59
.HO
.u7

C”)

O

.52
.74
.57
.“7
.28
0.52
O.HO
0.58
O.H9
0.99

OCC

(:3 C)

(D
4‘:
F1

7 C)
O
(.37 C3

,.
\-
O

3
a

O C) C
O O 0
\JC‘

3
O
(n m
C) 0) (_C) L.) 01 Q.) \1 (,0

I -

I
.q...

00’
_f:

O
o
O
O
0
0

00(3

C) C‘

000

CDOOOOCDOCDO {DCDOCI

(DOC

.93
.9l
.90
.36
.8”
.8H
.73
.73

.70

.83
.73
.75
.69
.66
.CH
.59

H5

,
_1
CD

0
m:3
\E \l

200

v

i 1“ — ‘\" "‘" “I." I V" .55" ‘_‘ T7 '1‘ r- ~—- ‘r 71w r"' f" ‘A ’-
iaole 5L‘ Factor Hailin, nonoliaytul IOPLUthfifl, abqu oeuLCe

 

T -. " .__.‘
uOleH;o
'7-'\ .-.‘ a v 7 ‘ ."' '3 vr ‘ vr ..r~‘ ('s ‘ 'r‘ 9"‘ V 73‘ .‘-v
VuPldch on Pflnurj ”Cat ui-nes4 cozaunalitv
T“

H'- \“ —-‘ 4- \ .\I')
ioClOF LQCLCP (n~

w

 

Factor 1

Lfficient ~O.7” ~0.21 F—S 3. 9
UneCucated 0.53 0.9% F-M 0.33
Incoatetent 3.32 3.25 F—? 3.3l
Inexrer'encii 0.7l O.L3 F—C 0.70
Untrained 9.3J U.T‘ F—S fi.5H
Iru3f1343ie1yt U.{L7 .2.?? 11—7 l."1§
Ug-to—cate —9.b§ ~7.?5 F S Z.U5
Lehcated —O.E7 Q.Hl FnC 3.xl
Cozaitent —“.SC -u.t: F—7 f.,“
COIHY1«TOL5 —C.SW‘ ~G.F{) F—2 IJu

p
KIA
y.
'0
C
B
p.
(’u
:1
O
(I)
Q.
I
O
x
\2 \J
I
O O
O 0
U1 0)
U W
*a'n
I I
('1 C)
D O
I

4- '7 "- '7 "N I '— T“ r-v I“ '\
leL—‘LVC _ ox)! -‘.‘.1I\) / \J‘.\ .1-
..o'_-< ‘._ ’ {\ qr p, 1'" .'~ I '»
C'. L LLJ.“;,) .— ~ 0 -3 I —\J‘ o (_,. I ‘- — I" ‘\' O ‘n‘ra‘
r 1‘A_ . I f r r‘ r7 ,\ r -\ n v- \
.raineo —c.o/ —'.u I—7 u..

Factor 2

oincc1e ~9.73 —9.70 F—l,$,3 D.Fj
Insincere 9.71 C.-3 F—J 0.55
Un'rnustrcn~c_y 'I.7i Q.lfi, F~11 C.f‘“
"‘- - I‘ '7' f‘ r‘. ‘ “‘ ' " "'f
I PU? LJOI L. __f - J . at -..J . xx.) 1 - 3 I.) . LI
Ian erorv 7.72 —9.?U F-C L.C7
Re"ianle —C.”I 9.1“ T“J1 3.3

:II‘IV" out " .53. -J.:) F-o 7.3“:
humole -a.SU 0.35 F—S C.uo
Lishcnest 3.o1 —O.Uh F—S u.i5
S‘L’Im‘atxletic ~00~_2 fl.733) F-‘I 0.3.0
Aoncrt 0.5“ 0.31 F—3 F.bh
Unsystematic ~D.HU G.o£ F~b 3.?)
Cowardly U.UC 8.33 F-S 0.t3

Factor 3
Unfrienuly --0 . :3 1.522 my «’2 .77
Uncoogerativa ~9.77 O. 3 FuS 9.70
Fl‘lCI'Iclly Q .53" —-C .23} F—l '7 . ()1.
Kind 3.63 —0.39 T~Q C.a7
C2 —”.\fl? i—G 9.74

( J

"5

O
F1

I
I\ J O

3‘- nnfi. . '1. ("3 f‘ {3 I" I n
ena.aroacaaole — .-» —J.U- -~L ..73
x AA -1 L; A .r‘

5\. 017.17 ‘\)o\4\; T_~J IVOLIII

O
3
fl
7
)
)
U
I
O
3
‘J
'3)

r

o
.
\J
.

.

I

0

V I
DinersuaSive —
10

Y: '7' »v‘ ’ ‘- "‘ . _
UnSjmuat. LlC ~

0 HI
0 S
O r
C O
(DIA
a e:
r e-
r-f 2
H 0 H.
< C».
U 91

m
C)()
o o
I: (II
I: 3' I'.)
I I
.3 (’7)
o o
'1‘ (I)
Q Q
“j’fi
I I
C) j
o o
("I \D
C) T

ti on

(D C

1')

\_

hJCJ

201

 

 

 

 

 

('1 ' 1 _ .: ' \‘ .
J. cull-":2 51+ (C(Jutlixt-QC.)
H .- .—‘D 1 ~. ‘ ‘ I ‘ -V’ -*'T”-O;.- -m‘v'
LOG; an :3 lJOdLlL ' ' :3 0:1
\, 7‘1“: 7“. ‘:I__ I“ 73-“: "' 771'! ‘3 \‘ ""' ‘7‘ ‘. "‘1‘ " 'i‘ .f-‘A'W"“‘-‘I A ‘ -7--.
(.1. .1. 1. a 0-- - 11.3-01; -zt....L ;.-:- 10;; I. \IU. ...k;1-(.._Li
1a“ ‘ ;_ _ —1 . ._ « Q
:actor teeter (um)
. —. 4—
FacLor H
7‘ - ° F A r. r~ '\
ija.ileI1-t J00? I 0&7]. F-‘C’ (JOE/(J,
,1. a _ ‘r‘ "“r\. "‘2 L' e\ ' r— r) ,- a
.I‘L'T,;I‘OCiCILLL; 1‘3 o .xJz-I U . L) F‘u O . lg)
.. 4- (-
Fw tor a
4.-,. . , ,. "I.”
LL'OIII "J. /‘i _

Q Q
0 O
[.1
(II—J
. IT]
I
C)
O
L
(J

“cisive 3.79 O l‘ F—7 o. O
oncrful —a.63 —O.lB F—G C.RH
unerfietic -3.fi3 -C.20 F-% 0.55
UeCiSive —Q.7o -O.?7 F-l 0.72
Uncertain C.73 0.35 F—l O. 6
Safe -o.55 ~0.39 F-7 O.C2
Certain -O.63 0.27 F-3 0.9?
Disorianized 0.59 3.”? F—7 C.El
Urfanized -O.a5 0.30 F—H 0.53
Persuasive -O.€9 O.CU F—u O.C7
Passive 0.58 . 9
5

(D O
O
f;

C.)
O
L
()1
rnrn
I l
Idle

0
o

I:
O

“3‘
x, .

Powerless .M3

Factor 6
Partial O.-*
I mmat ure 0 .

CH
C) O
0
I\)
3
v,_:

C
|\)
C) ()1
F11
I

V
0)

Impartial -O.50 —O.Hl F

Factor 7

Incomprenensible 0.73 O.l7 F—B 0.63
Clear —0.7) -O.23 F—S J.68
Unclear 0.65 0.31 F—S 0.52
Comnrehensible —O.US —O.39 F—2 0.68
Unintelligible ’. l —O.29 F-H O.H5
0.29 F—S
Out—Of—date O.H9 O.#5 F-l 0.32
Impatient 9.”U 0.39 F—o 0.85
Unreliable 0.5? —O.39 F—U 0.6U
Systematic 0.33 0.32 F—C 0.19
~O.32 F—S

C) C) . 1
O O

in (:3 (
LC)

0
ya.) (2.)

Q C)

C") \1 \J
.33 \I \1 C)

k.)

r.

\JO

0 O
can
\ (‘0

JKL/

C) C)
O
J? on (n

kDO

U’I (.

CL)

GOOD

0 (D C) (D

APPENDIX F

Differences Between Mean Scores for Best Source and Mean Scores
for Worst Source by Term and Language/Cultural Group

202

‘; ~J (:3
C0

IC‘JC‘JCi-'
(\ILZJOCU

rr-s
J

p N
W
{77 x'

N
J)

L n.
I
m?

or

ma

00

III! II." .'. 'at’ - - ' 'I‘II-

PIPI

(Vt-ICU

C‘JI-‘Ir-Ir-Ir—IOIC‘Jt—I

H a

U

Or-IC\'C\'

r—IC‘I

DOCfir—I

’
\

OJFIPIPIH

0 m

r
\

\IDO

C L
m:
H:
mm

3 I
C

on
a:
mm

m
:H
an
em
0 m
mo
hm
cm
mm
I x
no
:m
:m
w:

_I/ N,
r. v
.. C

cqr4r4

(\INC‘J

O
I
d

c—Ir-IOIC‘JOIr—Iv—Ie—«IO

(\I

OOH

Dr—II-Iv—Ir—I

\

I

r—Ir-Ir—Ir-I

I\ \/

nx rfx
OH
m a

as

rm

CC.

(7"
(‘0:

on

\
,‘r(
w

r\
‘\

I\ C')

I I“
I

k-

_ J
:.c

~I~1r3~3

PICQCU<UCV

O O O O O
91 PI

r—Ir—Ir—I

I
‘

o O 0
ODPIO

(\I (00’?

0 O
{UHCQ

(’3

.07

OH

‘I
r.
I.

nc
be
mm

mm

C>

mm

co
m:
m>
rm
ma
@0
as
:0
03
on
a o .\.
C .3
no
0)

n].

A
o

if) T I;
03 E\ C:

V“
\ .
.,‘
\\./

OJ r—I

rJr-‘Ir-Ir—Ir-I

fl

\

C\'

‘ma'

"1

I

.
[-4 (\I

H

H m

r‘Ir—Ir—Ir—IHC‘:

'C\'C\JC‘C

Xx
.

/I\

mm.

\
{D

5

cm

an

In .-
CC

Gm

.)
r\

:3

r1.

(*3
to

LO LO (‘4 _.
LO 3‘ :.1'

(W
\«J
(D

I:
A
V

,.-\
\
I

x..
r
\I

(V
I."
L .

fin
~4.’

xx
‘V

"‘ C0 :1“

u.) or

LOLT'P‘I

(\1
If)

r—1
'1\.'

r—I

(\I

H
:4

NCJ (\J
C\'(\'

_b

wirIrICfl

L.’)[\C\I

K

H

L‘

C\'
r ’3

[mm
- .‘

V

F3

‘7
L.)

OOr—IN

n

m _
HO

O
{\

(\Ir-Ir—IC“

\

(Y) C") C‘x.’

[__i
,_..I

—*- .- fl)
“,3
._._I
F‘
\—'

_4

CW

FIOIO:
r-IO

,

. -
\

\y.

r—I

1

(fl :3-
L.) C)

FIR
cur-Ir—Ir—Ir-Ir-Imr-Ir—Ir—Ir—Ir-ICr-II—IQ

Ki] \

I—I'—IO
~a3

4"

I
f"'1

r-1
r—I

H

r—Ir—I<\'
~IrIC>
‘DCLO

C‘.’ C\'
:\|
C\' (\I 0

v—1

0
OJ
C‘.’ (“I

O
(\i
(\I

m:

ac
as
on

no

>0

3
r»

Ha

I1.)

r3
AH
Om-
IL(\

...\4

I

MNSH.

~I~I~I

r—1

I‘I C\' (\I C\'

H

r—1

r—Ir-Ir—I

F—Ir"

. O
.-'\ r“
\ _ - \J

OOHHHHHOJCJHHC‘IHHr—INNHH

O; r—I C'.‘ r-I

I (\J

(\‘CVCNC‘I C,"

(\I C\'
O
(\I C‘.‘

J

C"

:—
:0

U)
_,- C)

JDLCQ‘F“
("\j’f‘)~

(C
.4.

:0

—l

._ I...
.~r.

a J I;

r-‘I
J:

I."

(,_ C‘. H
:I‘ C ‘17

(0
-5-

r-n
J ‘I
L.)

O

”VPIFIFIFIPIOIPIH

PIPIH are

r\ I
\

\

H a

‘rio

I—I

COWNCVHr—I

Qeoaozz
.Qcoao
m:OQovcoc
omen

HoSQo

UCH
HUHQQ-
Hpreria
krararoHQL4_S
maoccQQm
o>ap3.m:ooo:3
o>-nuW. Qoeooo
? j%.:.OU
mzoowe zoo
o>QmflomoCQ
o>wm.omp

Q
A
r
l
muss

m moHQ ones.
.iflrQozom
wogHprcs
oochQQ
ooc QH canoes
oodo aQopxo
memosooo:
do cpmosom
pcoperOOCH
pcopoosoo

41
wk

.34
I. Ix.
LC
)l.‘
CO

-~.\
.\\C

 

II.- I‘I‘I.II‘I‘ '31- I- I.

 

 

'4. II | I I‘
I
.l .I\ ~ «Ix

HHIH:

 

 

smIsm

,.m...C...

maQoa

 

 

(“.0 H303

QrQo:

moQoon

T SLJQ:;\LIQJ at.
coo:

Qcp
nQoom

Qomu Qom
socswon

(3
r—1

1

\
:1

01 (\I
"3 (‘3 Cr
I C

~

~—

f‘)

r‘Ir—I

5.,

I

CO
CO I\ C‘.‘

Qvn

IJJ

COP—ICVI—I

H

v

I

If? U) L“; L")
('0
CD

I—I

CIT)

(\IC‘.‘

'0:

fl
(\3
IL\E\

203
O H
(C 1:)

v
I I
V

r.“
~.. .

I\

L

(“D :i‘
(\J

O
C)

H
O

(-\
'4
A
.4

NCOF

(‘3
(Q C.

-0—

.4
" 32'
m

, r

C’?
C‘.
[\

J
_‘J

(V) C") C ‘3

~I~I

r—It-I'C‘.

(\I

4")

C\'r-1

r-‘II—Ii-IC‘I

”‘CV

\‘.

I“
\_.1

r—I C\'

Cr-Ir—I

r47?

r"I (\I

0
C30"

. J

/

CL‘

CI (“I

C!

(\‘(VCV

(\vII—IF'INr—‘ICY

\' (\I

f‘\
K

I") 0%

J02

\

I
\

m
hi
(\

\I,
m...
I.‘

O

aw.H

I
F:
.

A}

fie)

Lmk

‘1

CC
I .0

fix

0.x.
am
no
am
so
me
or

on

LI.

C.‘
C‘.’

A.
k“

C\'

(\I

C
I—I

(3-
WNr—Ir—Ifi‘o

r-I

r—I
N

(‘4

CI C!

J
I F‘
x- I

r—IOr-iCn'

C")

I

‘

r—Ir—INr—Ir—I

I
i\

C2 1'1
(\I C\'
C‘J O 0')
Ci) L3

I

c.
ID
L\
C)

L57
(\I
x I

(\' C‘J CI
(\I

(‘3

C) C4 (‘1 C‘v'
(\I

C0

C4 (1’) (’3 PI r—I

C‘.’
(\I

‘1

CV

r-IC‘.’

C‘.

v-1
’3

x;

'PI

r—1
FIFIFI

'r—Ir—I
c-JCDr-Ir—IOr-IC‘
m

‘

C.
_‘.
a,
_L—

N

,I

w

-I.
--J

C7

J

c:

\

I

03
C

:-
C”)

5
__I

N r—I
:3» (W
") (*3

\

C)

J

-J-
N

£0

(‘4 C“

(‘Ir—I

:I’r—IIDC3
LDLDOILtr—I

(O I“

m:

\l
.

(N
Ir

cc
:H
m 0

_ICF\

«in;

o o 0
(V0!

C4 C\I r—I F’I

OI~IQI

CI

(‘4 (\I (\I (\I C4

C0 C3 C-I

(‘3 C“) (’1

C-‘

_.

;H
.J‘,
C 7
_x 7

CC

0\

(Kr

:3
30

(_,...

:m

s
u.\

r»

r-Ir—I

C?

1‘”I r""I C,“

(W

I""
\. '

rm
\_,

r—Ir—IC‘

r—Ir—Ir—Z

r—I

01-4

CV’ C~I

.—-~I r-I c ~1

r—I

ya

( "

If: C.
CV ~

Pa

v.1
L.)

A“)

Cs'
L

m':
(‘1 H

r

LQ“’
COCO

C\.'

;C

m:
be

a...”

 

h|:m

.3; .x/ I .N/ I
r\ nI\

 

 

mooonon
I-III. ILIIII?

chnswpccov

 

can

a a

(\I

"-3 r—I OJ

C‘I

r-ICx’

\
.1

,—
k

('3

H H o

(VI—1

(I) (“I

,._J

.4 H H H

H

J

I I"
\.

(\J c\ (\x (O 1‘”) {C- .

ra

(N (\I (\I r—I C'.‘
O

I‘-'I 0:
' CT?
'3') C )

H C

r-I C\'
L0 co (0

CI
n

H r‘I
I
L3

.a. ,Q‘.
.5
F'I

(\J rt1
r—I H

at

r-I 0;

NW,

s

,. .
\I

C‘\’

r—Ir-Ir—ICVO

(\'

I
G

O

I~I r-I m C') C.’

oapoqpr,isno3
I I H \;

.JIJN...H\ O

oQQCCIngsrc
QQJUQ3;;Q

O

maamcoQOQecmzs
candxoweQmmo
.Qoao QOIQ:o
onuuoul-
QC®UOQQM
manaz:e
QQCHquEH
chSm 6mm
oQonaowmsaan
oanhx,cu-m:mc

aoxwawonmaw

:Qp
oQoocwmzfi

oQoosHm
Qwococmwo

pm moo:
cQQoEoocH
cocQQe_oo

oa am

A CO
3 .Q

 

luMIFHm .fl

 

141 .1

APPQLIDIX G

Correlations Between Presumed Bipolar Pairs

20H

.mQQVHo Eoocmu mo manflu m mQ> ommoao>mo mzooo x

.

onogpmmsmmcsnoQyocpmo5>m

 

mm om mm- mm- om- :m- @0- 5m- Q5- Qo- mm- mm- mm- mm-
mm- mm- m5- 00- Q:- 55- Q0 5o- :m- om- om- on. :5- mm- ogspmesQ-mastz
mQ- mo mw- mo- mm- :m- mm- 50. 55- m5- m5- w:- :5- 5:- anmgomopaamca-mQnanomopaa:
mo- :0 mm- cm- Qm- 5:- mo- cc ©5- Q5- m5- 5m- m5- :m- QOe-Qo-Qso\wpme-ou-a3
mo- :m :m- c:- :m- cm- mm- mQ- mo- :m- 5o- o:- m:- Qo- ucmmopp<-mQassa
:Q mo mw- :m- mo- m5- 5:- 5:- 5c- mo- :5- m:- @m- mm- pchQmmeQ-QchQmm
mm- Qm 5@- mo- 5@- mm- mm- :m- 00- :5- Qm- mm- 05- m:- oQQmEQOcha-onmeQOQm
5m mo mm- m@- ::- mQ- Qm- Qm- m5- mn- mm- 5m- m5- Q:- ooNQchroD-emecmer
om- mQ- m:- m@- Qm- mm- m5- :m- 5m- co- mo- mm- mo- mm- QchoQQQmsQ-QchoQQQm
mQ- mQ m5- @5- cm- 09- mm- mm- mo- :5- mm- mm- om- 5m- chQQmocz-cprpmo
QQ- 5Q 35- mn- mm- m:- 5m- m5- m5- :9. m:- mm- m:- @m- o>Qmmstmmca-G>Qmwsmgmm
mm- mm- Qo- mm- mm- m:- m5- om- 50- m0- m5- m:- m5- 5:- mQQQmQQQchQca-mQQQeQQQchQ
5m- mQ- mo- cw- mm- mQ- 95- Qw- Q5- 05- m5- mm- mw- om- qumQQchs-anmQQmm
mQ- mm- m5- m:- Qm- mm- m5- mm- Q5- :o- m5- oo- :5- Qo- Qgpponmngca-QQQQOBQm295
Qm mQ 5m- mm- m5- m5- Q5- om- m5- om- :w- mm- m@- om- mgmochcQ-mamoch
mo- cm- mm- om- mm- wo- om- m5- om- m5- m5- mm- :o- mm- QmmcozmQa-Qmwco:
mQ- we o5- mm- mm- mm co mQ- m5- mm- Q5- Q:- @5- m5- mQ:chmnmgmzoocQ-mQancongmEoo
:Q- Qo 50- mo- mm- Qm- mm- Qm- m5- 5m- :o- ::- :m- m:- QmeocD-QmoQo
mm- mm- mo- mo- om- mc- om- 5Q- ow- o:- 5m- mo Q5- mm- mzopmmsma-QOm
mo- me. am. m:- :5. 5m- 05- mm. w:- Q:- mm- mm- 05- mm- Qospo-CQQQ
mm- mo mm- OQ- m5- mm- om- oo- 5m- mm- m:- mm- @m- mw- QmQQQmm-QmQQQmQEQ
50 mm- Qm- mm- m5- cm- 55- 05- mm- m5- Qm- 5:- om- Q:- QQuchcha-QQecoQQQ
5m m: :o- mm- Qm- mm- mo- mm- m5- 55- 5m- mm- Qw- Qm- m>QQmQmaooocs-m>QQQOaooo
mm mm- 05- mm- mm- Qm- :m- :m- co- 5m- mm- Qm- Qm- :m- QQeszoo-msomumgsoo
0Q 90- m-- m5- :w- m:- mm- mm- m5- mo- :5. mm- m5- m:- m>QonwecQ-m>Qonoa
mQ- mm- mm- mm- mm- oQ- m:- :o- mm- om- mm. mm- m5- 5m- QNmQ-onmemcm
5Q- :3 mm- mm- xm- :m- o:- m:- om- mm- mm- 0Q 5m- mm- o>Qmmmm-G>on<
:m mm- 5m- mm- Qm- mm- mm- co- mw- m:- om- mm- 5m- m:- Qmmg-mcogpm
mm- QQ- Qm- mo :Q- mm- Q:- m5- mm- :m- 5m- mo- :m- om- mmwQszom-Qsmgmzom
mQ :m m5- mm- :5. ©5- ow- 5o- 5m- o:- 55- mm- 05- mm- wochQQcm-vchmQ5
mo QQ- 5m- m5- oa- om- m:- :Q- c:- a:- :n- :0- mm- m:- emocoQQmmxocQ-coochgomxm
om QQ m5- :0- m5- mm- :5- ::- mm- c5- 5o- mm- w- Qm- emuwoseoaa-umpmoswm
mo QQ- mm- :m- mm- 5Q- mm- 5m- 09- 5:- om- mm- 05- m:- QcmpmmeoocQ-QaQOQEOU
QmQ «a: 0Q mo mQ mo :Q :o mQ mo mQ mo QQ Qc mQQmm QonaQQ emesmogm

 

mpmnfith xooe

 

54mpaom Eowcmm-ozh mafia auchQmph <m3 gym: mmamammv

moamom coflpmsam>u mopsom wo mpflmm hmaoaflm UoEzmopm coozpom mcofipwampgoo m>memoz mm magma

205

.mQQNQo Eovcmg wo wanmp m mQ> womoao>ow wumo mo mxoo: 2

 

 

 

 

mQ- 5Q m:- m:- m5- mm- 5m- m:- Qo- Q5- mw- oQchQmQEcha-UQQmQQmQEQm
oo mQ- :m- 5m- m5- :m- mQ- Qm- om- :m- mm- mQSQmEEQ-mgspm:
mo mQ- mm- mm- mm- am- am- Qm- :m- m0- :5- anmnomogaamca-mQamgomogma<
mo mo mm- m:- 00- :m- mo 5m- mo- mm- Q5- mpmv-Qo-Q:o\QOw-ou-ma
5Q o: co- mm- @w- m:- mm- mm- mm- cm- om- Qcmmogpm-mQQasz
mo :Q- mm- mm- :m- m:- o:- Qm- mw- @5- 0:- Q:QQcheQ- Q oQQmm
0Q o:- Q5- Q:- Qw- mQ- o:- QQ- @m- 5m- mo- oQQmEonchs-UQQmEonQm
oo- Qm- :5- ::- :5- @5- mm- :m- 5%. mo- me- emNQchroa-cmecmer
mm- 55 m5- me- 09- o:- Q:- QQ- mm- mm. :Q- QchoQQchQ-QchoQQQQ
mm :Q- Q5- :m- 00- mm- 5Q- mo- mw- wm- 5m- :QmQQmoca-chQQmo
oc- :o- m:- mm- :5- cm- 5@- mm- cm- mm- a:- m>QmmstmQS-8Qmmsfimm
NQ mm mm- mm- Qm- Qm- Q:- OQ- 5m- 5o- o5- mwQQ.QmQQQS-QQQQQs-mQQQQQQQQQEEQ
Qo- c:- m:- :m- :m- ::- m:- m- 00- cm- cm- anmQQmpca-mQQmQQmm
:m- :Q- 55- mm- mm- mm- mm- Q:- :5- mm- m5- QQQQonmschs-5npgozpmsg5
me me m5- ::- @5- m:- m:- 5m- m5- mm- :m- mpmochcQ-QOoch
5m- 5m- :- :m- m:- ::- mm- mc- :5- :m- cm- Qmwcoanc-Qmoco:
:m Qo- Qm- :m- m:. :m- CQ- mQ- ca- :o- mm- anchmnganocQ-mQQQmcongaeou
mo o:- wm- m5 Q:- 05- OQ- 5m- o5- m:- mm- Qmeuca-Qmeo
mm mQ OQ- Q5- OQ- Qm- mo o:- Qm- Qm- 5m- msopmmcmm-mmmm
:c :m- QQ- mm- om- ma- Qo- Ne w:- mm- mo- szpo-ecQ:
mQ mo- :0- :m- 5m- mm- m:- mm- mm- 05- mQ- QmQQQmm-QmQQQwaEQ
QQ- mm 56- ®:- 55- mQ- Q@- @m- m5- m5- o5- QchmQQQca-5QestQ5
QQ mQ- om- mm- :m- m:- Qo- mo :m- :Q- Q@- m>QQonaooona-w>Qngmmooo
m:- co mm- mm- wm- :m- mm 5o- :5- ::- m:- QQGszoo-osomumgzoo
5Q- mm 5m- ©:- ::- mo- mo- mo om- om- ::- m>Qonme:Q-0>Qonmo
@5- N:- :Q- 5m- m:- mQ- 5m- :m- :m- OQ- 5m- >NmQ-UQQmemcm
mQ- Qo am- om- :L- mm- Qo- m:- mm- mm- 0:- m>Qmmmm-3>QQ0<
mo mQ- m:- oQ- m:- mm- ::- 5:- ::- 5o- wm- xmoz-mcoppm
QH- 5m- own ma ::u 03- om- mm- mm- mm- Hm- mmoafioaom-asmhmzom
0Q mm mm. mm- :o- cm- mm- Qm- mm- m5- o5- echmQQca-echmQ5
5o 00 m:- m@- 05- mm- 5m- m:- mm- mm- oo- umochQmmxch-vmochQmaxm
QQ mo- me. a:- mo- mm- 5m- o:- m:- 05- mm- mmpmosuwca-empmosmm
mQ- mm- mo- @:- mw- Qm- m5- mm- mm- om- o5- QchmanocQ-Qcmpmmeoo
«5m .55 5m 5m mm mm :m :5 mm mm Qm mQQmm QonQO emssmopm
mthEQ-QZ XOOQ
Avmscwpcoov mm wanmb

T

APPENDIX H

Ml
\

 

\ .‘ '0.

Coefficients of Similarity for Eleven
Language/Cultural Groups

206

TABLE 57

Coefficients of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/Cultural
Groups for Worst Source Sorts on Dimension I (Trust)

 

 

Data Deck Number

 

of Respondent Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 33 34 36
11

12 67

13 70 69

14 73 65 63

15 72 59 53 69

16 57 63 65 61 44

31 7O 60 70 68 64 54

33 73 52 64 61 61 59 63

34 66 72 60 75 67 54 65 62

36 68 60 55 69 60 62 57 66 59

37 79 73 73 74 61 77 7O 62 62 77

 

207

TABLE 58

Coefficients of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/Cultural
Groups for Worst Source Sorts on Dimension II (Qualification)

 

Data Deck Number

 

 

of Respondent Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 33 34 36
11

12 7O

13 70 72

l“ 60 65 64

15 61 68 65 61

16 67 75 71 57 60

31 63 8O 7O 59 65 68

33 58 65 61 65 52 61 65

34 50 43 51 63 45 46 48 51

36 6o 73 62 63 66 61 66 76 us

37 63 72 74 69 66 67 7O 77. 64 69

 

208

TABLE 59

Coefficients of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/Cultural
Groups for Worst Source Sorts on Dimension III (Dynamism).

 

Data Deck Number

 

 

of Respondent Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 33 34 36
ll

12 66

13 58 69

14 49 41 49

15 51 68 7O 61

16 49 63 79 47 63

31 43 44 61 43 59 57

33 55 50 61 50 63 55 65

34 46 45 60 71 39 48 60 52

36 64 38 57 49 58 71 54 55 53

37 51 66 63 38 64 83 38 49 42 74

 

209

TABLE 60

Coefficient of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/Cultural
Groups for Worst Source Sorts on Dimension IV (Sociability)

 

Data Deck Number

 

 

of Respondent Group 11 12 13 14 15 16 31 33 34 36
11

12 77

13 74 60

14 58 56 52

15 77 67 62 66

16 78 67 83 59 65

31 81 73 64 64 84 71

33 66 47 65 49 49 67 54

34 46 38 32 54 40 33 38 31

36 7O 60 85 56 59 81 65 63 31

37 83 74 67 58 64 75 75 48 43 70

210

TABLE 61

Coefficients of Similarity Between Pairs of Language/Cultural
Groups for Worst Source Sorts on Dimension V (Systematic)

 

Data Deck Number

 

of Respondent Group ll l2 13 14 15 16 31 33 34 36
ll

12 86

13 74 76

14 67 66 56

15 54 52 41 66

16 61 57 60 56 65

31 63 71 59 46 84 58

33 71 66 65 48 25 47 50

34 4O 35 35 49 60 58 30 51

36 34 36 22 31 36 58 76 45
37 66 66 64 52 34 48 7O 77 53

 

Dimensions VI and VII were not similar enough across the groups to

satisfactorily select factors for matching.

APPENDIX I

Proportion of Variance Extracted by Rotations

 

211

m.:b m.Hb
H.mb :.Hb

6.0%
C I/ - . \_Wu
5 wa a r-

$.Hb “.mw

>.Hr

K. J
C)

o
.113
b

.0 H.mb

m

CO

(0 ('3

if)

30
L C

:6

IImb

w.:©
.1ah
w.m©

w.uo

:.:5
:.mm
H.mw

:18

-._

I‘lj

F.

[\

m
w
a

a", r—‘l
In L\

I

[\r—{N
W -
r)[\
{\~L’)[\

[\r-1

(0 (\\'

i\
(\ C")

O

’I"
u,

)

N

O f"
L."

a

I

\ :\ C"

E

i

V

0
C)
L!)

C\' 1") LC-

. O O
C? C -{
LI) :0 C

(D

LO

0
LOJ‘CVC
LO

[\(‘ONCON
'|.\

.mm
:.mm
m.mc
m.Hm
m.mw
m.Hm
0.03
f. C(
:.ma

[\

O
(O

r—{OHF
0’3
OQDO

o
(C)
L.

{'7 [\ C\'
0

Cf) r- 'i

LI) L0

L1)

r“)
y I

f‘)

o
[\
UN

I
I
.

7
‘i

0
,1
x
L

COCEN

c1
:1-
:3“

l

I“
COL:
LDL\L.">LOLD

5.

(

NCOr-i

(\10

A
\J

U7

[\

LI)

L\
-a.
Q

J

("-a
\

C 1:")

—-|-

-4
L2") LI“) LO LO L”)

H

To 0.)

C .L:
0.x:
.mm
.mm

C) r—i

F H

. O
(‘0 N
Ln L!)

[\NCN‘
:3
(I)

C '3 I") t\

O O O
C\ H Li)
:1“ L0 :3“

(\l O (‘0 O i." J

O O O 0 0
CC) L\ :4“ Q l 0 ' 4’)
LC LI) LO LO L!) L”)

1

L1,) C3 CO (“‘1

(‘0

(T)
Ln
0

H
LO

—5-

.4
LO

-—-{

(I

I
O
(‘0

c;-

J)

(O
CO
C

CO
O
[\f\

-L.
—'_
-‘
o o

—J

.“v x
O

5 ~.,~'

(£3
LOCWCV

0’) L0
:53
0

C0 ('0 C0 C0 C0 (O

W

(‘1

O

-—L—
_J

CO

—4—
—J

4.
~

(0 0) CO

:3“
(\1

Q: I.

\C

I N;
.C
fi-(I\
(.0
DJ
«0

rm

ma
Ha
ma
ma

J

0

ma
0H
Ha
ma

9

ma

W

ma

3N
mm
Hm

0H
ma
:H
ma
NH

H
H

:1' L0 (3
C C:

r-{NUJ
CC) 0 O

 

0..-05 IMO

 

 

aoQwaom Lobom;

COMLOWHLU
hoamfluznamflx
An UQUOULPNH

.mcwomm

.OK @3090

Hmoocommmnu

 

m: mac-m- P.:-0 J 04.. rHO U-Cw-qu

mum may 90%

MEQ.cH QHQBQOUJ QOH
UOQovaxg oocmwgo> QGDOH mo

ucmopom

.3, 6-36.:-

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
GENERALITY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF SOURCE EVALUATION
ACROSS LANGUAGE/CULTURAL SYSTEMS
presented by

Lawrence E. Sarbauqh

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph. D. degree in Communication

W
ajor pro essor
Date_‘7/1;'%_7.L__H2 /76

0-169

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRnRIEs
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
31293000059786