1'11 ' 113.18 .11CI'CI-C‘f'1;: Easy-r- ' —‘;!". "J..." .- .‘1 Cl C‘n‘tfl I ’00, 2 IC‘CCIC‘CC'CV A1 I I ' ‘.1_"1;11""1I'4 H, .i 11" 1.1,); .’ :1? | ‘ ‘1' IC I . M I ‘ ,'.11‘1{I' 11' 1'111'11C. I' ,',1 ' ' CC‘C' C"'CC'C'C'CCC ' C:1'CC':I' C'CC'CC ‘ C‘1 , [\C' . 1 ‘ ‘I'IICC1‘III'I'I3 _ . I.1 ' 11.11‘ C 11,.1'1'J1‘3fi” CV‘CCHCC 11 C'C'I'C‘1'C'1' ”(11441.1 I11 4 M; 1 :.;'1'11'I ‘1'1'C1' _ ‘1‘ 1’ '1‘ '1' M‘o31'lC 1 (C141; '. ‘, '1 $1,211,121. 11'n'L1;IC I” C" “.1 I354. jiIIC'C'CI '11 CC“ :Cl' 1 1 .1.IC;JC1C:I§1>CC"1'11 11H? " " ...,;II I1. .‘i‘g1I111'f‘I' ‘ ,I, 4‘ 15 CC' “(11" “51%;; CC“ 1:.. 2:”:1WCV ,u., CC'II'1C'1\:’1Cr ‘1," 1 11:1:1' -' II. :31; (15'1'1 “'3 ',H . b.— .52. "E- 3. '31‘ ‘35-: - " fl 1:1,;‘1 1,1:1‘; :1 W 1. 1 "H '11:? ‘ \ 122,138" 3?. "4} 3 413%: 1 88% . "IT? 3111'.” . 51‘ 1 11 $11431: ICC; 3"?" ,‘J’ .. J ’ «3’ I g?- ‘3 ‘.‘ ~L NJI: " W14}? 1‘. 4,11%! 1211: all. 13:1,? 113;}: 1. 31,151 ,1: 1’.‘ #2.: “I: “11', 2' 353m i: 713 55;}? #2 1 1 "1': ..;.l "— 3.3151 _ . ' U . t I?" . “'13:" I3... ' .I J‘ l.‘ f. s .1" u- I» :1ng 1 "" .w . 1-: 1 .11-1 ‘ C'l , I 11 . II I._1l-13‘13\I:L “‘3 ”1‘112\’ :CCK‘Q“ g'C'C 1 .11 11 12,? Q1 3118' CCCCC'CCC C1331 :1. C15” '1‘3 1r: 44".;C1'C' 4‘1CICC 11 (21131213 ' ' :1] 1 ”.1 1C‘Cr '1“ 18:32" fifi-w 1 "'C' 'CI‘I'CE‘C CCYCC" 1 11' C'C‘Cf'h - .' C3135"? ”1.51115 'C-k‘ 1 I “”11, 1,1‘, 8’1 C111: ~1r1C1CI'CCCCCCC'CCCflI1C: 1V E13,?“ 11.1113 "I 33,111,142 '1'2'1C1NCCCC' 1""? 1' CCjC‘dl-CCCC CCCC1 11 C}; 531‘! 11111. 1‘; ..‘II C'C'iC I33 .141? if: r: J W'E‘fi: ' 1335' Y ,. FL: 1. :31- 111;: ,,-. :7. ) C-‘ 1 1 1"? «11'1: 3 2.: .11 1:6": ....1 .7" LJ‘ £14 '7‘- ”3* 'L‘""‘“ g. 11 1‘1 '1' 0'1 '1‘; ; .4: - w\\IM‘1‘;M rflmfla 1" «$2?ng 1 N t 1 ”IF; "jvxPCL‘ 1'1 ‘,1'11 1 ‘, 5' (11 ”(1‘1 1 1'1 “113C133 1 .1" .1 I :‘CC'IC‘. C '2” :Cf‘w‘C' ‘C' 'CPC I": 1‘11'1‘ 3'1"" 2:13;) 1 1,1‘ 1-1 "(ICICU'CI' ’ 1J11111|L‘C”;C- 31H! It‘] 111.”? “'1 (itCC‘ .CC'1I1'1..'C'C‘1 '1C1‘"I 7I’I;"‘A 111C 41"” C '1'.'~.'1‘1' 1' 1 1 4 1 141,912 ' 1.;113CCfll'v 1111.1?) 113111” 11 LIL-«L; .22: h 1'11‘1I'C1 'CC' '11 4,1,1" 'CCC "~1‘1 ‘C 1'1C 1 CC C "'C .1‘LCI111‘,1‘1:1‘CI' $1,111?" 1 .HII ‘1, M11%ICCCCCCC"'C i1' u‘ 1.211331'4‘4'1451'4'“ I134“ P53} «In; 11-:431'2'1CC'1CJ VH1 CHCCC'C'CCC ‘ ' 'ICC'C |‘ L‘K'fiin 1‘1'11 ‘1‘, 1 “'11 ;~.'_.;' '3‘ fps» “i 31" I11 1%" 1'1'11C Izmi—I 42:"??? \- "551C185 C3121, “138211 3332??? 3‘1 ' 114,111.; C 1 C21,: 13151125 iii: 1 111' 11,1 .VC; 111223173951 C§CCCI1 1,}! '51}; .‘CCC'r’m 1%,: .2 ‘3}? it!” 31‘ 114.4%"... ”‘51:? :44: $735.31 , .3“- , l 1 J 9353.1: .I: {Th—EC ' . .4 C 1! 5. 45 ~’ 1.“. 4 93“}; "I 3.82 97:51:; ' ‘a 4 1' ‘13:. ICC-Cl" ‘1' 111311 31‘1‘1‘ 1CI'C-1 1 ‘1 4": ( I 11,..1‘131 7“,“; CQCCC'C'I K _ 5,11. C313; ”2&1!th 111-5} 1.13%}: :1 3 1_\:C'CC1:~:C>;~"1 . .. . «J $3131,“ a? .VCELgQCCCC :XC‘H ‘II' ‘C' , 1111,3232 ”'7‘ 73:"? l‘l‘ ‘ 'CNC'Cé 1 11:51 «.p ‘r' V I V {1145.14 .: CC" ' rfi. C C. $3- \ I//I/////I////II///I/////lWilli/Willi}7777/77! 00065 5138 Infirmary-mus. 3.,“ _ MRRARY Michigan State University‘J This is to certify that the thesis entitled INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN TASK PERFORMANCE BASED ON PERSONAL SPACE AND ATTRIBUTION THEORY presented by SCOTT ALAN COHEN has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in PSYCHOLOGY ) /‘ l’ / ‘ /(’L ‘l/C/J,‘ 74014,! ‘T, Major professor Date FEBR ARY 23 1 87 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU LIBRARIES ._‘—_ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. Elfl§§_will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. tong . -.~—.—.—.. . . _ \ I.- E_-' ..-‘. I ”7/. “”5255 ma 2 2 19% INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN TASK PERFORMANCE BASED ON PERSONAL SPACE AND ATTRIBUTION THEORY By Scott Alan Cohen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial Fulfillment oF the requirements For the degree oF MASTER OF ARTS Department oF Psychology 1987 ABSTRACT INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN TASK PERFORMACE BASED ON PERSONAL SPACE AND ATTRIBUTION THEORY By Scott Alan Cohen This study attempted to replicate Worchel and Yohai’s (1979) Findings utilizing an individual level oF analysis. Specifically. it was predicted that subjects who were aroused by having their personal space violated would experience less crowding and exhibit Fewer performance decrements if they were led to believe that some other Factor was responsible For the arousal. After individual measures oF personal space were collected, groups of subjects were placed in a room in which they sat either close together or Far apart. Some subjects were told that the reading task they would be conducting should create much eyestrain. Other subjects were told nothing. While subjects seated close together reported Feeling crowded, neither the seating positions nor the eyestrain manipulation had the predicted eFFects on task performance. Suggested explanations included the noninteractive nature oF the utilized task, the level oF perceived task difficulty, and the limitations of influencing subjects’ attributions in the laboratory. (Worchel, S. & Yohai. S. (1979). The role of attribution in the experience of crowding. Journal_oF_Experimental_Social_Psychologv. L§. 91-104.) FOR ADAM, JASON AND JESSICA May you strive For your wildest dreams and reach them! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many students acknowledge Few aFter the completion oF a thesis and render most oF their acknowledgements aFter completing the dissertation. I just love breaking traditions! . I would like to thank my Committee Members, Drs. Neal Schmitt, Steve Kozlowski, and Dan Ilgen For helping me learn how to analyze and critique my own work and the work oF others. I am most grateFul to them For allowing me the Freedom to Follow my research interests so I could begin exploring and developing my career goals. I Feel indebted and especially grateFul to the Chairperson oF my Committee, the all-too-modest Dr. Neal Schmitt. Throughout the past year and a halF, Neal has oFten put his own work aside as I barged into his oFFice asking questions related to this or any other project on which I was working. This is only a small example oF his genuine love For his students’ quest For knowledge. Thank you For all you have taught and given to me, Neal! 1 hope that learning process can continue long into the Future. Thank you to all my Michigan State colleagues who were most helpFul in oFFering advice and suggestions to strengthen my study. I’d like to single out Sue, Mike (IIIIke), Mary, and MaryBeth For occasionally serving as conFederates in pilot studies and oFFering insightFul comments. Four undergraduate students, Amy, Laurie, Mark, and Pat, diligently served as conFederates in the Final study and did a good job oF pretending to be interested. Loving Family and Friends in Boston and New York were always oFFering moral support when my spirits were low, and sharing in my excitement when my spirits were high. While I can’t possibly acknowledge all oF them here ... on second thought, sure I can! The closest members oF my Brandeis University Family, Denise, Lewis, Michele, Mike, Joe, Martin, and Dave, will be an important part oF my liFe "For the longest time." A small Syracuse contingency, Marc and Jill, also are always in my thoughts. Mark, Len, Joy and Sherman have showered their "baby brother" with love For many years. All I can say is thanks, and I love and care For you very much! I Feel a special love For my parents. I don't think I’ve ever met two people who are more successFul in all aspects oF liFe (and without any Fancy college degree letters Following their names). Mom and dad, although my pen has written the words in this thesis, you supplied me with the ink. Thank you For years oF love and support. Finally, last but not least I want to oFFer a special thanks to Sue. Far beyond any suggestions you have given me, Sue, you were always there For me. You have made liFe in East Lansing much more enjoyable and bearable than it would have been without you. Aside From a simple thanks, I want to take this opportunity to publicly express my love For you! vi OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO on a study (I just know you’re going to kill me For writing this). IF I’ve leFt you, the reader, thinking I’ll have no one leFt to acknowledge in a dissertation, you obviously do not know me well. I’m sure I’ll Find something to say. ThereFore, these acknowledgements are ... TO BE CONTINUED (in a couple oF years) vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES .............................................. x LIST OF FIGURES ................................... . ........ xi INTRODUCTION...... ............ . ............................. 1 Distinguishing Between Crowding, Density, and Proximity.. ..... ..... .................................... 2 Conceptualizing Crowding in Terms oF Personal Space Theory ..... ...... .................................. 5 Situational Variables Which AFFect One’ 5 Personal Space ............................................ 8 Actual Interpersonal Distance... ........................ 8 Social InterFerence/Necessity For Interpersonal Interaction .............................. 10 Expectation oF Encountering Limited Resources .......... 12 Degree oF Interpersonal Liking/Familiarity ............. 13 A Cognitive Explanation oF Why Feelings oF Arousal From a Personal Space Violation Lead to PerFormance Decrements ........... . ..... . ................. l4 Attribution Theory ............ . ........................ 14 Individual DiFFerences in Perceived Crowding and Task PerFormance: Hypotheses ........................ 15 METHOD ..................................................... 22 Subjects ............................................... 22 Setting ................................................ 23 Independent Variables .................................. 23 Interpersonal Distance Manipulation .................. 23 Attribution Manipulation ............................. 24 Measures .................. . .............................. 25 Dependent Variables .......... . ......................... 25 Task PerFormance Measure ............................. 25 Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding ............ 26 Manipulation Check For Attribution ................... 27 Moderator .............................................. 27 ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure ............. 27 Procedure .............................................. 29 Analysis ............................................... 35 viii RESULTS .................................................... 37 Manipulation Check ....................................... 37 Hypothesis 1 ............................................. 43 Hypothesis 2 ........... . ........... . ..................... 46 Hypothesis 3 ............................................. 46 Hypothesis 4. ............................................ 46 DISCUSSION......... ....... . ........... . .................... 49 APPENDICES A. Dimensions oF ConFerence Room... ...................... 65 B. Ergonomic Data Pertaining to Chair Structure .......... 66 C. Oral Explanation For Seating Position ................. 67 D. Oral Attributional Explanation.. ...................... 68 E. Previous Exposure to Eyestrain Question ............... 70 F. Task Stimuli (reduced copies). Accompanying Questions, and.Answer Keys ............................ 71 G. Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding Measure .............. ....... ......................... 106 H. Manipulation Check For Attribution ................... 108 I. ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure LIST and Oral Instructions For Completing This Measure ...................... . ....................... 111 OF REFERENCES ........................................ 113 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Item Intercorrelations and Reliability oF Personal Space Measure ...... . .......................... 38 2. Item Intercorrelations and Reliability oF Task PerFormance Measure..... ....... . .................. 39 3. Item Intercorrelations and Reliability oF Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding Measure. ................... ...... ...................... 40 4. Intercorrelations oF All Variables ..................... 41 5. Manipulation Check For Attribution ..................... 42 6. Analysis oF Variance on Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding Measure ....................... 44 7. Analysis oF Variance on Task PerFormance Measure ............ . ................................... 45 8. Moderator Analysis For Perceived Stress and Task PerFormance ....................................... 48 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. The Conceptual Model ................................... 6 2. Hypothesized Relationship Between 10. Interpersonal Distance and Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding ..... . ......... . .............. l9 Hypothesized Relationship Between Interpersonal Distance and Task PerFormance ........... 20 Seating Position in the Close Interpersonal Distance Condition... ........ . ..... . .................. 32 Seating Position in the Far Interpersonal Distance Condition... ................................. 33 Proposed New Conceptual Model (without Attributional Interpretation).... ..................... 57 Proposed New Conceptual Model (with Attributional Interpretation) ......................... 58 Dimensions oF ConFerence Room ......................... 65 Ergonomic Data Pertaining to Chair Structure .......... 66 ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure ............. Ill xi INTRODUCTION Several researchers have demonstrated that subjects exhibit poorer perFormance on various tasks when they are working in very close proximity than when they are more distant From each other (Paulus 8 Matthews, 1980); Worchel 8 Teddlie, 1976; Worchel 8 Yohai, 1979). One explanation For this eFFect is that people experience increased levels oF stress when they are crowded together. The increased stress is accompanied by a reduction oF energy devoted to conducting their tasks. This results in a reduced level oF successFul perFormance. Although Feelings oF crowding generally result in poor task perFormance, the degree to which perFormance levels decrease under increasingly crowded conditions can be curtailed. Studies have demonstrated that this is accomplished by providing subjects with a plausible explanation For the cause oF the stress which they experience under crowded conditions (Langer 8 Saegert, 1977; Pauius 8 Matthews, 1980; Worchel 8 Teddlie, 1976; Worchel 8 Yohai, 1979). This paper describes an attempt to replicate and extend this previous research in order to answer two questions: I) Can we identiFy those individuals who are most easily stressed under crowded conditions, and 2) Are there diFFerences in individuals’ level oF task perFormance when an attributional explanation For the cause oF their stress is oFFered as opposed to instances when no attributional explanation is oFFered. Distinguishing Between Crowding, Density, ang_Proximity Throughout the literature, there have been ambiguities in the concept oF crowding. These ambiguities have prevented researchers From developing a uniFied theory From which they could predict the eFFects oF crowding. Much oF the equivocacy centers around a Failure to distinguish between the concepts oF density and crowding. For instance, Lawrence (1974) deFines crowding as a spatial limitation and Freedman (1975) deFines crowding as high population density. Both oF these researchers have deFined social density (the number oF people in a particular area) and spatial density (the amount oF space per person) as synonymous with crowding. However, other researchers have determined that high social and spatial density do not always produce the Feelings oF stress associated with Feelings oF crowding (Altman, I975; Freedman, 1975; Stokols, 1975; Sundstrom, I975). It is more ' appropriate to view density as an antecedent condition that may, in certain situations, precipitate Feelings oF crowding. While density is a spatial limitation, crowding is the subjective and experiential state oF perceived limitation oF space (Stokols, 1972). The subjective state oF crowding appears to arise only when one experiences excess or undesirable contact with others and a perceived loss oF control over these interactions (Desor, I972; Rapoport. I975; Valins and Baum, 1973). One would be more likely to experience these Feelings under conditions oF high density. However, this may only be true iF one is engaging in a task where s/he cannot avoid the presence oF others (e.g., the presence oF others disrupts his/her concentration) or is not pleased by their presence (e.g., they are not his/her Friends). Density only precipitates Feelings oF crowding when it is associated with perceived excess or undesirable contact with others and a perceived loss oF control over this contact. Proximity more appropriately describes the spatial limitations associated with Feelings oF crowding (Knowles. I978). Proximity is the interpersonal closeness oF people. Density has been loosely deFined as the number oF people in a given amount oF space. Density alone may not be an appropriate measure because unequal spacing usually does occur when people congregate. For instance, at a social gathering (e.g., a cocktail party), various groups oF people gather in a room. People do not congregate in one large group, but break oFF into many smaller groups diFFering in size. Greater physical distance is oFten maintained between these groups than is maintained between individuals standing in any one group. Close Friends speaking to one another may stand closer together than acquaintances or strangers (e.g., Little, 1965). Furthermore, some people in the room may stand apart From everyone else, preFerring to be alone. It is obvious that everyone does not maintain the same degree oF contact with each other. Proximity provides a vehicle in which density can be described in terms oF each individual’s interactions with all the others present. Increasing the number oF people in a given room does not necessarily lead one to Feel stressed since the people can spread out provided that the room is not small (Worchel 8 Teddlie, 1976). Increasing the number oF people may even redgce Feelings oF stress iF these other people are Friends (Evans 8 Howard, 1973; Edney 8 Grundman, 1979). More people may make an event more exciting and enjoyable (e.g., a Football game, a concert). Not everyone would necessarily Feel crowded in a particular environment —- only those whose excess or undesirable proximity lead to Feelings oF uncontrollable contact with others. Crowding can be described within an attributional Framework. Worchel 8 Teddlie (1976) proposed that crowding is a Function oF arousal egg the attribution that the arousal is caused by other people in an individual’s environment. The arousal state results From a limitation oF space caused by the excess or undesirable proximity oF others. In order For crowding to be experienced. an attribution must be made that this perceived arousal is caused by the close presence oF others. This relationship is demonstrated in Figure I. Also illustrated in this Figure is the notion that excess or undesirable proximity (i.e., a violation oF personal space) can increase one’s level oF arousal. This proposition is discussed in the next section. Conceptualizing_Crowding_in_Terms_oF_Personal_5pace Violations Individual diFFerences in preFerence For personal space may aFFect whether or not a particular degree oF interpersonal contact (proximity) will be desirable or undesirable For a given individual. Several researchers have deFined personal space as an invisible bubble which surrounds people wherever they go and provides a boundary oF their most comFortable interaction distances with others. Once a person approaches someone close enough to penetrate this boundary, the person being approached begins to Feel uncomFortable (Hall, 1963; Little, 1965; Sommer, 1959). The speciFic size oF this invisible boundary is determined by individual and situational variables. The individual variables (e.g., cultural background, personal background, personality traits) are stable across diFFerent situations. The situational variables (e.g., actual interpersonal distance, expectations oF encountering limited resources, social appropriateness, one’s relationships with the others mozmd ammHmUmmm .HmtoE Hopumouqoo mza .H oppmfim moMA VBHZHNOmm A¢ZOmmmmmmHzH present) will vary across diFFerent situations. ThereFore, small variations in the size oF one's personal space "bubble" are due solely to variances across the situational variables. It is probable that in a given situation everyone’s personal space will be diFFerent due to variations across both the individual (e.g., diFFerent background experiences and personality traits) and situational variables (e.g., diFFerent relationships with the others present). In some environments (e.g., school, workplace) people are placed in a physical location where they may have a Fairly stable interaction distance with others. These people have highly limited mobility and are not Free to change their physical location, the amount oF interaction with others, nor with whom they interact. IF their comFortable interaction distance (personal space) is smaller than the actual interpersonal distance to which they are subjected in that situation, they would suFFer a personal sage; violation. This violation would create a Feeling oF stress (Hall, 1966) -- the stress that is associated with Feelings oF crowding. Including the consideration oF personal space preFerence as a moderator oF the relationship between interpersonal proximity and level oF arousal in Figure 1 allows one to conceive oF crowding as a subjective and experiential state since one's personal space is determined by individual subjectivity and previous experiences. Personal space violations represent a loss oF control over one’s interactions and undesirable or excess contact with others. Once again, preFerence For personal space is dependent upon various individual variables. Cultural background (6.9.. Hall, 1966), personal background (e.g., Cozby, 1972), and several personality traits (e.g., Eberts. 1972) have been Found to be signiFicantly related to one’s preFerence For personal space. In this study, preFerence For personal space is measured directly rather than through its personality or demographic proxies. Situational Variables Which AFFect One’s Personal Space The research literature suggests that there are Four situational variables which create some variation in an individual’s Feelings about personal space. These variables are actual interpersonal distance, necessity For interpersonal interaction, expectation oF encountering limited resources, and degree oF interpersonal liking. The levels oF each oF these variables were manipulated by the experimenter in this study to maximize the probability that those subjects experiencing high interpersonal proximity would also experience the stress associated with crowding. Actual Interpersonal Distance. Personal space violations occur when preFerred interpersonal distance exceeds actual interpersonal distance in a given situation. Many researchers have also demonstrated that excessive interpersonal proximity leads to Feelings oF stress associated with Feelings oF crowding (e.g., Hall, 1966). However, much oF the previous research which has examined crowding has manipulated room size but has not manipulated interpersonal distance. A movement From a large to a small room does not necessarily imply a decrease in interpersonal distance (Knowles. I978; 1980). Subjects can actually move Further away From each other in a small room iF they were previously close to each other in a large room. When subjects have high interpersonal distance in very small rooms, they will not Feel stress From high interpersonal proximity. However, they may Feel stress as they move closer to physical constraints in the environment such as walls (Worchel 8 Teddlie, 1976) or partitions (Desor, 1972). This stress results because these constraints limit Freedom oF movement (Stokols, Smith, 8 Proster, 1975; Stokols, 1976). It is diFFicult to determine just why subjects Felt stressed in many previous studies examining crowding because oF three major limitations OF these studies (which also explain many equivocal Findings in this area). First, most researchers have not published descriptions oF the experimental rooms which were used (e.g., the presence or absence oF walls. partitions, doors, and windows, etc. and how Far each subject was positioned From these environmental variables). Second, most researchers have not even examined actual interpersonal distance when only room size was manipulated. ThereFore, subjects were not necessarily seated at the same interpersonal distances within rooms oF diFFerent sizes. Third, no one has examined actual interpersonal distances when only social density -— number oF people present in the room -- was manipulated. In this research 10 there has been no way oF knowing whether or not an increase in social density decreased actual interpersonal distances between subjects. ThereFore, any attempt to accurately explain the source oF variance (or lack there oF) oF perceived stress in these studies is impossible. The source could have been room size, proximity to environmental constraints, interpersonal proximity. or some combination oF these variables. Furthermore. in studies reporting to be "replications oF previous studies", there is no way oF assessing the degree to which the environmental conditions have been accurately replicated since the experimental designs oF many oF these studies have been insuFFiciently reported. IF one wishes to study the eFFects oF interpersonal proximity on perceived crowding, it is important to realize that the room be large enough so that subjects who are interpersonally distant will not experience stress From close physical proximity to environmental constraints. Social InterFerence/Necessity For Personal Interaction. Some researchers (Freedman. Klevansky, 8 Ehrlich, I971; Rawls, Trego, McGaFFrey, 8 Rawls, 1972) have Found no ill eFFects oF crowding even when subjects are all placed close together. This was probably because oF the noninteractive nature oF the tasks which the subjects were conducting. For instance. in Freedman, et al.’s research, subjects placed within groups worked on many individualistic tasks in conditions that appeared to the researcher to be ll crowded and uncrowded. However, subjects never had to .interact with others in their respective groups, so the crowding did not directly interFere with their perFormance. In contrast, other studies have required participants to conduct interactive tasks that are more diFFicult to solve under crowded conditions (e.g., Heller, GroFF, 8 Solomon, I977; Paulus, Annis. Seta, Schkade, 8 Matthews, 1976). Heller, et al. conducted a study where a collating task was conducted under low or high interactive conditions. In the low interactive condition, subjects did not interact with each other at all. In the high interactive condition, subjects had to move around a room and Frequently bumped into each other. Pronounced decrements in task perFormance were exhibited in this condition. Interaction would not likely have these eFFects iF it were necessary in order to complete the task. For example, one cannot carry on a group conversation without input From the group members. It appears that a Feeling oF stress From a personal space violation would most likely be Felt by an individual in this situation when: I) there were $99 mggy group members trying to talk at once so that the task could not be accomplished. or 2) a particular member oF this group did not like the other members. Subjects should have a smaller personal space (or a smaller likelihood oF experiencing a personal space violation) in situations where greater interaction with others is appropriate and/or necessary. It appears that 12 social interaction only leads to a personal space violation and creates stress when this interaction interFeres with an activity, or leads to "goal—blocking." This is readily apparent when there is competition over limited resources (McCallum, Rusbult, Hong. Welder, 8 Schopler, 1979; Sundstrom, I975). Expectation oF Encountering Limited Resources. Some studies have examined the stress a subject experiences when a stranger approaches an adjacent seat in the library (Felipe 8 Sommer, 1966; Patterson, Mullens, 8 Romano, 1971) or an adjacent urinal in a men’s room (Middlemist, Knowles, 8 Matter, 1976). The experienced stress should be moderated by the number oF people with whom the subject expects to interact in the situation. For example, a student would probably not Feel stressed iF a stranger approached an adjacent seat in a university library during Final Examination Week since there are Few vacant seats available. However, iF the library is virtually empty, this same student might Feel uncomFortable iF this stranger selected an adjacent seat. In this latter case, the student is likely to expect or preFer more personal space because oF what s/he believes is "socially appropriate" given the nature oF the task and the environment in which s/he is conducting this activity. Most researchers Fail to provide accurate descriptions oF the environments in which they conduct their 13 studies. These descriptions may explain diFFerences across studies in reFerence to personal space preFerences in various situations. Degree oF Interpersonal Liking/Familiarity. The more people like each other, the closer their preFerred interpersonal distance. This has been demonstrated For children (King, 1966), college students (Kleck, 1967; Little, 1965), and For males (King, 1966) as well as Females (Little, 1965). It also is true For people who are attracted to members oF the opposite sex, even iF they are not acquaintances (Allgeier 8 Byrne, 1973; Byrne. Ervin, 8 Lamberth, 1970). In general, Friends exhibit smaller personal space zones than those who are strangers or not considered Friends (Gottheil, Corey, 8 Parades. 1968; Guado 8 Meisels, 1971; Kuethe, 1962; Little, 1965; Seguin, 1967; Willis, 1966). There are then both individual and situational determinants oF crowding. However, some research has suggested that Feelings oF overcrowding may be minimized iF the subject is provided an alternate explanation For his/her discomFort. In the next section, the manner in which acceptance oF such an explanation can aFFect one’s level oF task perFormance is discussed. 14 A Cognitive Explanation oF Why Feelings oF Increased Arousal From a Personal Space Violation Lead to PerFormance Decrements Attribution Theory. Schacter and Singer (1962) theorized that emotions are comprised oF two components —- a physiological or arousal component and a cognitive component in which an attribution is made about the cause oF that arousal. Once the individual becomes aroused, s/he searches . For an explanation For the arousal. The explanation or interpretation oF the arousal determines the particular emotion s/he will experience. Schacter and Singer were able to demonstrate that mild levels oF arousal could be experienced either as a positive state (euphoria) or a negative state (anger). Worchel (1978) describes how this process can be related to crowding. An individual would First be aroused by violations oF his/her personal space. S/he then seeks to explain this arousal. IF this arousal is properly attributed to the close presence oF other people, s/he will experience "crowding." Once an individual determines that s/he is Feeling crowded, s/he becomes motivated to reduce this uncomFortable state. His/her attention and eFForts become mobilized in this endeavor. The quality oF perFormance on tasks on which the individual is working should suFFer since s/he will not be able to give as much attention to these tasks. Worchel has obtained support For this proposal in several studies in which the presence oF pictures and chimes 15 or "subliminal" noise reduced the negative impact that high proximity oF others has on a subject’s task perFormance (Worchel 8 Teddlie, 1976; Worchel 8 Yohai, 1979). Apparently, when a subject expects to Feel aroused From a distractor (e.g., chimes) or From a perceived source oF stress (e.g., "subliminal" noise), the negative eFFects that crowding has on one’s task perFormance are reduced. In such a situation, an individual is motivated to reduce his/her uncomFortable state by avoiding its plausible source. Even iF an individual experiences a personal space violation. the plausible source to which s/he more readily attributes his/her source oF stress is the distractor or the perceived source oF stress. The individual then attempts to avoid and/or ignore these stimuli. However. iF either oF these stimuli are not available in the individual’s environment. s/he is Forced to attribute any stress s/he might experience to a personal space violation, which is much more diFFicult to avoid. Individual DiFFerences in Perceived Crowding and Task PerFormance: Hypotheses Worchel 8 Yohai (1979) examined the eFFects oF interpersonal distance and attributional determinants oF arousal on task perFormance. Interpersonal distance was manipulated by varying the distance between the Front legs oF adjacent chairs. In the Far Interpersonal Distance condition the Front legs oF adjacent chairs were spaced 20 inches apart. In the Close Interpersonal Distance condition the 16 Front legs oF each chair touched those oF the two adjacent chairs. One oF three attributional explanations were given to the group oF subjects once they were seated. In the Arousing Explanation condition the experimenter told subjects that subliminal noise would be played into the room while they worked on the assigned task. This noise would be undetectable to the naked ear but previous studies had shown that this noise may cause individuals to Feel somewhat , stressed and uncomFortable. In the Relaxing Explanation condition subjects were also told that undetectable noise would be played into the room but that previous research had shown that this noise tended to relax and calm individuals. A No Explanation condition was run in which subjects were told nothing about subliminal noise or its eFFects on individuals. They were simply told that the experimenter was studying group perFormance and intragroup interactions. Actually, there was no subliminal noise in any oF the conditions. BeFore the experiment began, subjects spent a minimum oF Five minutes in a waiting room Filled with chairs and a large table covered with electronic ampliFiers and recording equipment in order to add Face validity to the explanations. The adjacent laboratory where they were eventually seated was bare except For a small "transmitter" in a corner. 17 Group perFormance was measured on a task that required subjects to derive as many words as possible From the master word "observationally."- The group members worked on a single group list in the allocated time (10 minutes). This thesis replicated Worchel 8 Yohai’s study with a Few modiFications. First, each subject’s comFortable personal space was measured. Second, in order to measure individual diFFerences in task perFormance, an individual task was utilized. Although the amount oF interaction required For an individual task is less than the amount required For a group task, interaction with others and competition over a limited resource (i.e., a lottery prize For the best two perFormers in each group) was built into this task to create "social interFerence and goal blocking". This should have increased the probability oF obtaining personal space violations in the experimental manipulations. Third, the number oF attributional manipulations was reduced. There were no signiFicant diFFerences between the Relaxing and No Explanation conditions in Worchel 8 Yohai's study so the Relaxing condition was not replicated. Since the major manipulations oF the Worchel 8 Yohai study were reproduced in the present study, support For the Following hypotheses were expected: Hypothesis 1: Subjects should perceive more stress associated with crowding and exhibit poorer perFormance in the close interpersonal distance condition than in the Far interpersonal distance condition. 18 Hypothesis 2: Subjects should perceive less stress associated with crowding and exhibit better perFormance when an attributional explanation is oFFered than when one is not oFFered. The higher personal space violations in the close condition should create greater stress which will have negative eFFects on task perFormance. An attributional explanation should alleviate most oF the stress associated with Feelings oF crowding. Hypothesis 3: An attribution by interpersonal distance interaction is expected such that those subjects in the close interpersonal distance condition who are not given an attributional explanation should perceive more stress associated with crowding and exhibit poorer perFormance than those subjects who are given an attributional explanation (see Figures 2 8 3). No similar diFFerence between attributional conditions is expected in the Far interpersonal distance condition. Since all subjects’ personal space will be violated in the close distance condition, all should perceive more stress associated with crowding and exhibit poorer perFormance. However, those who receive a reasonable explanation For their arousal should perceive less stress associated with crowding and should perForm better. HIGH '- PERCEIVED STRESS ASSOCIATED WITH CROWDING Presenc W LOW ‘- CLOSE FAR INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Figure 2. Hypothesized relationship between interpersonal distance and perceived stress associated with crowding. 20 HIGH ‘- TASK PERFORMANCE LOW ‘- CLOSE FAR INTERPERSONAL DISTANCE Figure 3. Hypothesized relationship between interpersonal distance and task performance. 21 An additional hypothesis based on research indicating individual diFFerences in tolerance For personal space violations that is investigated in this study reads as Follows: Hypothesis 4: Personal space preFerences will serve as a signiFicant moderator oF the relationship between interpersonal proximity and the two major dependent variables: perceptions oF stress associated with crowding and task perFormance. METHOD tSIJ—bjaata Seventy-eight (40 male, 38 Female) undergraduate psychology students participated in this study. The study was conducted with a group oF ten same sex. unacquainted subjects at a time. The groups were composed oF same sex subjects in an attempt to minimize any conFounding due to perceived attractiveness between subjects. Unacquainted subjects were used to maximize the probability that many oF the subjects experiencing high interpersonal proximity would also experience the stress associated with crowding. To satisFy this criterion, subjects were asked not to sign up with Friends. Furthermore, subjects were seated randomly so they did not choose whom they sat beside during the experiment. In order to ensure a group size oF ten, two experimental conFederates attended each session. These conFederates were instructed to sit through the study and complete all the measures iF any oF the expected subjects did not arrive. IF all the subjects did arrive, the experimenter asked iF anyone Forgot to sign up For the study. The conFederates were told to sign up For another time, and dismissed. ThereFore, Four conFederates (two males and two 22 23 Females) were available For participation. Two Female conFederates were used on one occasion. ThereFore, the number oF males and Females in this study are not equivalent. Setting Two conFerence rooms in a Psychological Research Building on a university campus were used in this study. Subjects were brought into the First conFerence room to complete a consent Form and the ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure described below. When they had completed this measure, the experimenter brought them to a second conFerence room that had been arranged For this study. Ten chairs were lined up in the middle oF the room with all the remaining tables and chairs stacked against the wall. The layout and dimensions oF this room, to ease any Future replications. are diagrammed in Appendix A. Ergonomic data pertaining to the type oF chair the subjects used can be Found in Appendix B. The chairs did not possess a desktop or armrest which could oFFer structural (and psychological) barriors between oneselF and others. Independent Varigpleg Interpersonal Distance Manipulation. The Interpersonal Distance (ID) manipulation was satisFied through a replication oF Worchel 8 Yohai’s (1979) study. In the Far ID condition the chairs were arranged in a circle Facing the middle oF the room so that the Front legs oF adjacent chairs were spaced 20 inches (50.8 cm.) apart. In the close ID condition, the Front legs oF adjacent chairs were touching. 24 Subjects in the close ID condition were given an oral explanation For their seating arrangement to reduce any demand eFFects created by the physical environment. This explanation is printed in Appendix C. Two groups oF males and two groups oF Females were placed in the close ID condition. while the remaining subjects were placed in the Far ID condition. The experimenter checked the subjects' chair placement periodically (i.e., every seven minutes) throughout the procedure to ensure that the subjects remained seated in their original positions. Subjects had to be reminded not to move their chairs on only Four occasions. Attribution Mgpipulation. The attribution manipulation consisted oF an oral scenario delivered by the experimenter explaining why the subjects might experience Feelings oF stress during the experiment. The complete scenario is printed in Appendix D. It suggested that an optical scanning device was used to select pages oF newspaper that have a high potential oF creating much eyestrain. The subjects were led to believe that these were the same pages they would be reading during the experimental task. Two groups oF males (one high ID and one low ID) and two groups oF Females (one high ID and one low ID) received this attributional explanation. The remaining subjects received no explanation. AFter several pilot studies utilizing diFFerent attributional explanations Failed, the oral scenario described in this section was piloted on twenty students (ten Females in the close ID — attribution condition and 10 25 Females in the Far ID — no attribution condition). Although the manipulation was not signiFicant on the whole sample, it was signiFicant when the subjects who claimed that their eyes had been exhausted beFore they began the experiment were eliminated From the analysis (3 = 2.50, p g .05). ThereFore, at the and CF the study, subjects were asked iF they were suFFering From a great deal oF eyestrain beFore they began the study (see Appendix E) with the intent oF eliminating these subjects From the Final data analysis. Measures Dependent Variables Task PerFormppce Measure. Three pages From a national newspaper (Business, Career Opportunities, and Weather) and two pages From a university newspaper (ClassiFied and Sports) were used as task stimuli. Since there were ten subjects in each group, two copies oF each oF the pages were available. A list oF Forty questions which required a search For inFormation printed somewhere on the page was developed For each page. ThereFore, each subject was conFronted with two hundred questions spanning inFormation printed across the Five pages oF newspaper. A subject’s measure oF perFormance on this task was equal to the total number oF questions answered correctly. Since this measure was developed For this study, no previous data concerning its internal consistency reliability was available. A copy oF the task stimuli and the accompanying questions is in Appendix F. 26 In a pilot study consisting oF twenty Females, this measure’s internal consistency reliability was suFFicient (coeFFicient alpha = .84). Perceived Streps Associated with Crowding. A six item questionnaire was developed asking the subjects how conFined, comFortable, crowded, ill at ease, stressed, and aware they were oF the presence oF other people during the course oF the experiment. The First Four questions were adapted From a Four-item questionnaire developed by Worchel 8 Teddlie (1979). They did not provide any data regarding its internal consistency reliability, so two questions possessing Face validity were added to increase the measure’s length and, hopeFully, its reliability. Responses to each oF these items were made on a 7—point Likert scale. HalF oF the items were reverse scored to eliminate errors associated with a subject’s response style (Anastasi. 1980). A summed total score could range From six (low perceived stress) to Forty~ two (high perceived stress). A copy oF this measure is in Appendix G. To minimize any potential demand eFFects the measure was simply titled. Attitudes Toward the Experiment. The pilot study conFirmed that this measure was internally consistent (coeFFicient alpha = .83). The measures oF task perFormance and perceived stress were not negatively correlated as Figure 1 suggests, but they were suFFiciently uncorrelated to be treated as independent measures in the analyses (5 = .27; corrected For attenuation, 3 = .32). 27 Manipulation Check For Attribution. Twelve 7—point Likert scale items were developed to rate twelve plausible explanations For perceived stress during the experiment. Once again. halF oF the items were reverse scored. However. only item Four. the manipulation check For attribution. was scored in the Final analysis. A high score on this item meant that the individual perceived the attributional explanation oFFered earlier by the experimenter to be a plausible reason For perceiving stress during the experiment. A low score meant that the attribution was not perceived to be stressFul. A copy oF this measure is in Appendix H. Moderator ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure. ComFortable Interaction Distance (CID) is a measure oF personal space developed by Duke 8 Nowicki (1972). A copy oF this measure and the oral instructions given to complete it are in Appendix I. The measure is comprised oF Four, 160 millimeter lines intersecting at a common. central point. The lines are equidistant From each other and resemble the spokes oF a wheel. The measure is scored by summing the distance (in millimeters) between the central point and markings a subject makes on each oF the eight radii. Since the length oF each radius is 80 millimeters, the potential total score can range From 8 to 640 millimeters. A high score typiFies an 28 individual with high personal space (i.e.. a need For a lot oF space) while a low score typiFies an individual with low personal space (i.e.. a need For little space). Duke and Nowicki (1972) assessed the test-retest reliability oF this measure and determined it was .86 For males and .84 For Females using same sex stimuli. Despite these high reliability coeFFicients. the measure is in need oF Further development. More speciFically, Hayduk (1978) commented that it is cognitively demanding For subjects to "...determine a scaling transFormation that relates the size oF Figures to a real-liFe stop distance." ThereFore, the measure was redeveloped For this study with three adaptations. First, measurement reFerences oF one to six Feet were added on each oF the eight radii to help the subject make this scaling transFormation on paper. Second, the experimenter described some reFerence distances in the room (e.g., while the subjects were completing the measure, the experimenter told them how Far they were standing apart From each other so they could develop a better understanding oF the actual distances they were required to use For the transFormations required by the measure). Third, subjects were given a photograph oF a same sex stranger. It was believed such a photograph may not only make the completion oF this measure (see instructions in Appendix I) less cognitively demanding. but would also ensure that all subjects completed the measure with the same "same sex person" in mind. The head and shoulders color photographs oF 29 the male and Female were equally attractive and approximately the same age. They were models cut out OF 8 larger picture in an advertising supplement in a university newspaper. Procedure Subjects were told to wait For the experimenter to meet them at the outside doorway oF an academic building. At a scheduled time, the experimenter met the subjects at this location and brought them into a conFerence room. The experimenter counted the number oF subjects present and, iF more than ten were present, he unobtrusively dismissed his conFederate(s). All the subjects completed a consent Form and included their phone numbers. This latter inFormation was needed so winners oF two $25 lotteries could be contacted. This Form was then passed Forward to the experimenter. Each subject was administered the CID measure and given a photograph depicting an individual oF the same sex. All the subjects were asked to stand in place, and given the oral instructions (see Appendix I). Subjects were then shown how to map their preFerence For personal space on the top spoke oF the measure. using the provided Foot-increment lines as a guide. The oral instructions were then repeated seven more times For each oF the other spokes, with the direction oF the pictured person’s approach corresponding to the radius’ orientation toward the center. For example, the bottom spoke (i.e., Facing south) corresponds with the pictured person’s approach From behind, 30 while the subject is imagining him/herselF Facing Forward. never turning around or glancing over his/her shoulders. Rather. the subject is supposed to imagine Feeling the presence oF someone approaching From behind. The order oF directions From which the subject was told to imagine the pictured person’s approach (while the subject was always imagining him/herselF Facing Forward) was north (Front), south (behind), east (right side), west (leFt side), northeast, northwest. southeast, southwest. AFter this measure was completed, subjects were asked to pass their pictures Forward to the experimenter. Then they took the completed CID measure and Followed the experimenter to a second conFerence room. When they entered this room. ten chairs had been lined in a row in the middle oF the room. They each sat down, and the experimenter proceeded to deliver the attributional explanation to those subjects in the attribution condition (see Appendix D For a copy oF this manipulation) and the explanation For the circular seating arrangement in both the high and low ID conditions (see Appendix C). He then told all the subjects about the task. They were told that they would have seven minutes to look at a particular page oF newspaper and answer as many questions regarding inFormation printed on that page as they could. At the conclusion oF seven minutes, the experimenter would stop them, ask them to trade newspapers. and begin working on a new page For seven minutes. This procedure would continue three more times 31 until all the subjects had an opportunity to examine each oF the Five pages. Furthermore, in order to create a competitive atmosphere (see McCallum. et al. 1979; Sundstrom, 1975) subjects were told that the highest two scorers (i.e., total number oF questions answered correctly) in the group would have their names entered into two $25 lotteries. All the subjects were then moved into position For the rest oF the study. The experimenter called their code numbers in a random order and asked them to bring their chairs Forward and position the Front legs oF their chairs on tape markings which were previously placed on the carpet. When a subject’s code number was called. s/he gave the experimenter his/her CID measure which s/he had previously completed. These measures were not collected earlier because the subject’s code number was printed at the top oF the measure. The subject had to reFerence this number so the experimenter could seat him/her in the proper positon. Diagrams oF the seating positions in the close and Far ID conditions are presented in Figures 4 and 5. respectively. When all the subjects were seated in a circular arrangement Facing each other in the middle oF the room, the experimenter oFFered lapboards to anyone who wanted one. These lapboards measured approximately 17" X 25". The experimenter distributed packets to each subject which contained the Five sets oF questions (40 questions/page). Each set oF questions was numbered in a diFFerent order For each subject. corresponding to the order oF pages on which 32 Diameter = 52 inches \ TT_—77 Circumference = 162.5 inches Distance between chair front legs = 16.25 inches No distance between adjacent chairs Figure 4. Seating position in the close interpersonal distance condition. 33 Diameter = 115 inches Circumference = 362.5 inches Distance between chair (LITTTS front legs - 16.25 inches ér”’///D:stance between adjacent chairs = 20 inches Figure 5. Seating position in the far interpersonal distance condition. 34 they should work during the Five, seven minute sessions. This order was diFFerent For each subject so that they would not be Fighting over the same page. By speciFying the order in which each subject should work through the pages, the experimenter was ensuring that all ten pages oF newspaper (two copies oF each oF the Five previously described pages) would be used during each seven minute session. The experimenter summarized the instructions and explained that given a particular set oF Forty questions, the subjects could work on the questions in any order they wished. He also explained that the answers could only be Found on one side oF each page oF newspaper. This side oF each page was clearly marked. When the subjects did not have any Further questions pertaining to the task they were about to begin. the experimenter placed the ten pages oF newspaper Face down in the middle oF the circle. Subjects were asked to retrieve the First page they needed From the pile and to place it Face down on their lapboards with its corresponding answer sheet. When they had all done this. the experimenter told them to begin. At the and CF seven minutes, he asked them to retrieve their second answer sheet and to trade newspapers until they got the corresponding page that was needed. When they had accomplished this. he once again asked them to begin and timed them For seven minutes. This procedure continued three more times. 35 When the subjects had completed the Five sections oF this task. they were told to put the newspaper back on the Floor and to put their answer sheets back into their original test packets. The experimenter distributed the Manipulation Check measure. BeFore subjects completed this measure, the experimenter gave oral instructions pertaining to the proper manner in which Likert Scale items are completed. He also Forewarned them to read each item careFully since halF oF the items were reverse scored. When the subjects had Finished completing this measure. the experimenter asked them to place it back in their test packets. Next, the experimenter distributed the Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding Measure. Subjects were once again Forewarned to careFully read all the items. AFter they had completed this measure and placed it in their test packets, they were Fully debrieFed by the experimenter. Analysis The means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliabilities For all the measures were computed. An analysis oF variance was conducted on the attributional manipulation check to determine iF the subjects believed that the attributional explanation was plausible. Analysis oF variance was used to examine the First three hypotheses. These analyses incorporated the use oF two independent variables, Interpersonal Proximity (close or Far) and Attribution (presence or absence), as well as two dependent measures. Perception oF Stress Associated with Crowding and 36 Task PerFormance. The eFFect oF the moderator, ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure, was examined using a multiple regression analysis. A signiFicance test For the product oF Interpersonal Proximity and ComFortable Interaction Distance in this regression analysis represented the test oF the moderator hypothesis. Preliminary analysis was conducted to examine the assumption that the two dependent measures were negatively correlated (i.e., when perceived stress was high, perFormance would be low; when perceived stress was low. perFormance would be high). A test oF gender eFFect was conducted to determine iF the data obtained From males and Females should be analyzed independently. Furthermore, a test oF a previous exposure to eyestrain eFFect (see Appendix E) was conducted to see iF the data obtained From those subjects previously experiencing a great deal oF eyestrain should be withheld From the analyses. RESULTS Tables 1, 2, and 3 display the means. standard deviations, and item intercorrelations For the C10, Task PerFormance, and Perceived Stress Measures, respectively. Each measure was highly internally consistent (coeFFicient alpha oF CID = .93; coeFFicient alpha oF Task PerFormance = .82; coeFFicient alpha oF Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding = .88). Table 4 displays the correlations between all the independent and dependent variables. The two dependent measures (Task PerFormance and Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding) were not negatively correlated (5 = .03) as Figure 1 suggests. There were no signiFicant eFFects For gender or previous exposure to eyestrain on the manipulation check, or either oF the dependent meaSures. ThereFore, all the data was combined in order to test each oF the hypotheses. Manipulation Check The results oF an analysis oF variance conducted on the manipulation check oF the acceptance oF the attributional explanation are in Table 5. Those subjects given the attributional explanation did indeed Find the attribution a more likely cause oF perceived stress than those subjects 37 Table I Item Intercorrelations and 38 Reliability oF Personal Space Measure Stnd. Intercorrelations Item Mean Dev. P51 P52 P53 P54 P55 P56 P57 P58 P51 33.53 18.91 1.00 P52 32.91 14.82 .76 1.00 P53 36.87 16.31 .68 .73 1.00 PS4 45.27 16.70 .39 .56 .68 1.00 P55 52.15 20.23 .32 .44 .50 .72 1.00 P56 44.26 16.20 .40 .55 .66 .99 .73 1.00 PS7 36.74 16.10 .69 .71 .99 .67 .48 .67 1.00 PS8 32.97 14.61 .81 .97 .76 .58 .45 .58 .76 1.00 Npte. Scale mean = 314.71. Scale standard deviation = 110.75. CoeFFicient alpha .93. L". 78. Table 2 39 Item_Intercorrelations_and_Reliability_oF_Task_PerFormance Measure Standard Intercorrelations Item Mean Deviation Bus. Career Classt. Sports Weath. Bus. 5.00 2.28 1.00 Career 6.78 2.58 .58 1.00 Classt. 7.24 2.83 .51 .49 1.00 Sports 11.60 3.55 .52 .47 .50 1.00 Weath. 7.24 2.68 .59 .42 .37 .50 1.00 Npte. Scale mean = 37.87. Scale standard deviation = 10.72. CoeFFicient alpha = .82. N = 78. 40 Table 3 Item_Intercorrelations_and_Reliability oF Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding_Measure Standard Intercorrelations Item Mean Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 a 1 3.90 2.08 1.00 b 2 4.21 1.71 .49 1.00 c 3 3.82 2.29 .76 .50 1.00 d 4 3.54 1.70 .54 .61 .60 1.00 e 5 3.64 1.68 .49 .55 .54 .72 1.00 F 6 4.50 2.11 .62 .31 .65 .48 .37 1.00 Note. Scale mean = 23.60. Scale standard deviation = 9.18. CoeFFicient alpha = .88. N = 78. 8How conFined did you Feel? bHow comFortable did you Feel? cHow crowded did you Feel? dHow ill at ease did you Feel? eHow stressed were you? 1:How aware were you oF the presence oF others? Table 4 41 Intercorrelations_oF_All_Variables Variables 3 Intercorrelations 5 a Interpersonal Distance ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure (as moderator) c Attribution Perceived Stress Assoc. with Crowding Task PerFormance 1.00 .25 .76 .79 .03 -.09 *I‘ -.55 -.05 -.I7 -.08 (.93) 1 .00 .002 .39 .12 “It 1.00 .04 .05 (.88) .03 d (.82) e Note. a Close = 1, _l\_l=78. Far = 2. b Interaction Distance Measure. d Internal Crowding Measure. Measure. % E S .05. p < e Internal Internal Present 1. Absent consistency oF ComFortable consistency oF Perceived Stress Associated with consistency oF Task PerFormance Table 5 42 Manipulation Check For Attribution 2 SOURCE SS dF MS F m Attribution 15.51 1 15.51 .52 .04 Error 260.45 76 3.43 Total 275.96 77 43 not given this explanation (E(I,76) = 4.52, p g .05, omega squared = .04). The mean and standard deviation oF the attribution condition were 4.55 and 1.60. The mean and standard deviation oF the no attribution condition were 3.66 and 2.08. Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that subjects in the close ID condition should perceive more stress associated with crowding and exhibit poorer perFormance than subjects in the Far ID condition. The results presented in Tables 6 and 7 show support For this hypothesis only For the crowding measure. Table 6 displays a signiFicant main eFFect For interpersonal distance (10) on the Perceived Stress Measure (51,74) = 31.41, p g .05, 1.12 = .29). Furthermore. the eFFect is in the hypothesized direction (mean and standard deviation oF close interpersonal distance —— attribution condition = 29.20 and 8.05; mean and standard deviaton oF Far interpersonal distance —- attribution condition = 18.65 and 7.08; mean and standard deviation oF close interpersonal distance -— no attribution condition = 28.17 and 11.02; mean oF Far interpersonal distance -— no attribution condition = 18.85 and 7.26). Table 7 does not depict a signiFicant eFFect For interpersonal distance on the Task PerFormance Measure. ThereFore, although subjects did perceive more stress, they did not exhibit poorer perFormance in the close ID condition Table 6 44 Analysis oF Variance on Petgeived Stress Associated with Crowding Measure SOURCE SS dF MS F m *- Interpersonal 1927.94 1 1927.94 31.41 .29 Distance Attribution 3.12 1 3.12 05 - 01 ID x Attrib. 7.40 1 7.40 12 —.01 Interaction Error 4542.80 74 61.39 Total 6486.68 77 Table 7 Analysis_oF_Variance_on_Iask_PerFormance_Measure 2 SOURCE SS dF MS F u Interpersonal 256.54 1 256.54 2.15 .02 Distance Attribution 21.14 1 21.14 .19 .01 ID x Attrib. 107.97 1 107.97 .94 .00 Interaction 'Error 8475.08 74 114.53 Total 8854.72 77 Note. N = 78. 46 than in the Far ID condition (mean and standard deviation oF close interpersonal distance -- attribution condition = 41.35 and 10.72; mean and standard deviation oF Far interpersonal distance -— attribution condition = 35.50 and 11.30; mean and standard deviation oF close interpersonal distance -- no attribution condition = 37.89 and 11.02; mean and standard deviation oF Far interpersonal distance -~ no attribution condition = 36.75 and 9.74). Hypothesis 2 The Failure to Find a signiFicant main eFFect For attribution in either Table 6 or 7 represents a Failure to Find support For Hypothesis 2. ThereFore, subjects perceived the same amount oF stress and perFormed equally well whether or not an attributional explanation was oFFered For their situation. Hypothesis 3 Since a signiFicant attribution by interpersonal distance interaction is not present in either Table 6 or 7. there is no support For Hypothesis 3. ThereFore, those subjects in the close ID condition who heard the attributional explanation did not perceive more stress or exhibit poorer perFormance than those subjects who did not hear the explanation in the Far 10 condition. Hypothesis 4 No support was Found For hypothesis 4. The data displayed in Table 8 demonstrate that the moderator (CID Measure) was not signiFicantly related to perceived stress 47 associated with crowding (fi(3,74) = 2.06, multiple 3 squared = .32. multiple 3 squared change = .02, N.5.) nor to task perFormance (fi(3,74) = 1.93. multiple 3 squared = .05, multiple 3 squared change = .02. N.5.). 48 Table 8 Moderator Analysis For Perceived Stress and Task PerFormance 2 Dependent Independent 2 3 Variable Variable 3 Change 5 gf I! Perceived Interpersonal .30 .30 32.27 1.76 Stress Distance ' Associated With ComFortable Crowding Interaction .31 .01 .83 2.75 Distance Measure Interpersonal Distance .32 .02 2.06 3.74 X CID Measure Task_ Interpersonal .03 .03 2.21 1.76 PerFormance Distance ComFortable Interaction .03 .001 .09 2.75 Distance Measure Interpersonal Distance .05 .02 1.93 3.74 X CID Measure DISCUSSION This study tested several hypotheses. First, it was hypothesized that subjects should perceive more stress and exhibit poorer perFormance on a task in a close interpersonal distance condition than in a Far interpersonal distance condition. Second. it was hypothesized that subjects would perceive more stress and exhibit higher task perFormance when an attributional explanation was oFFered than when one was not oFFered. Third, an attribution by interpersonal distance interaction was expected where those subjects who were not given an attributional explanation should have perceived more stress and exhibited poorer task perFormance than those subjects who were given an attributional explanation in the close interpersonal distance condition. Fourth, personal space was expected to serve as a signiFicant moderator in the analyses oF both the perceived stress and task perFormance dependent variables. The results presented earlier only suggested that subjects perceived more stress in the close interpersonal distance condition than in the Far interpersonal distance condition. This Finding, in and oF itselF. is oF little interest. Without any support For a relationship between interpersonal distance and task perFormance. this Finding 49 50 only appears to be a valid manipulation check For the interpersonal distance independent variable. It suggests that subjects placed physically close to one another perceive more stress associated with crowding than subjects placed Further away From each other. ThereFore, there is little utility in discussing this Finding. Rather, explanations are oFFered For a Failure to obtain support For the other hypotheses. The discussion which Follows provides two conceptual models which could guide Further research. Several pilot studies were conducted in an attempt to closely replicate Worchel 8 Yohai’s (1979) attributional explanation (i.e., subliminal noise). Subjects were shown an electronic modulator that had needles vibrating back and Forth. The modulator was connected to loudspeakers and produced tones oF diFFerent Frequencies. The experimenter would lower the Frequency oF the tone by turning two knobs (actually increasing the wavelength oF the sound and turning the volume down). When the volume was turned down in such a manner, the modulator gave no output. However, the needles continued to vibrate. The subjects were told that the modulator was generating extremely low Frequency radio waves, similar to the type used by naval submarines For communication. The subjects were given some Factual data demonstrating that brieF exposure to the radiation associated with these waves oFten creates Feelings oF perceived stress. while prolonged exposure (i.e., several months) may lead to physiological changes. Although some subjects accepted this 51 attributional explanation (e.g., one pregnant student decided to withdraw From the study For Fear oF exposing her Fetus to these conditions), the manipulation check demonstrated that most did not. During the debrieFing period Following the experiment many subjects expressed the view that they did not think "...they [Human Subject Committee] would have allowed this to take place." In an attempt to eliminate this disbelieF, the attributional explanation was changed and radio payee were mentioned in place oF radiation. However, the manipulation check still demonstrated that this new explanation was not accepted. Some students claimed that they did not think the small modulator was capable oF producing strong waves. ThereFore, the modulator was no longer used. An open—ended question was used in the pilot studies to determine what the subjects believed to be the prime cause oF stress during the experiment. Many mentioned the time constraint on the task as quite stressFul. However. since subjects in both the attribution and no attribution conditions Found this stressFul. it was not a successFul explanation. Despite the Fact that Worchel 8 Yohai’s attributional explanation could not be replicated. the use oF a manipulatibn check is considered one oF this study’s strengths. None oF the reviewed studies which examined the use oF attribution theory reported the use oF a manipulation check. ThereFore, only this study can conFidently state that 52 the attributional explanation used here was accepted by the subjects. Furthermore, this study provides a realistic view oF the diFFiculty one encounters when s/he attempts to study attribution theory in the laboratory. All oF the measures used were suFFiciently reliable. and great care was taken to minimize response set biases and demand characteristics which may have existed. Response set biases were eliminated by reverse scoring halF oF the items on the Manipulation Check For Attribution and the Perceived Stress Associated with Crowding Measures. Furthermore, the ComFortable Interaction Distance Measure was completed in a separate room prior to the Interpersonal Distance Manipulation to minimize the extent to which subjects’ responses on this measure would be aFFected by this manipulation (i.e., observing the close placement oF chairs beFore this measure was completed could have aFFected one’s responses to items in the close interpersonal distance condition). As an added experimental control. the eight sessions were always conducted at the same physical location during the same time oF day. This procedure was Followed to eliminate any diFFerences the physical layout oF diFFerent rooms and/or diFFerent levels oF arousal related to diFFerent times oF day may have upon the subjects’ perceived stress and level oF task perFormance. Failure to support most oF the hypotheses in this study might be due to the diFFerence between the task used by Worchel 8 Yohai (1979) and the task utilized in this study. 53 This diFFerence is observable in the type and level oF intragroup interactions that occur when subjects engage in a group task as opposed to an individual task. In a group task, subjects are continuously aware oF each other’s presence through the ongoing interactions. While some subjects may become more involved in the task. all group members interact with each other constantly. ThereFore, an individual’s perFormance is not only dependent upon his/her knowledge, skills. and abilities, but also largely a Function oF the existing group processes. For instance, one group member may be more likely to Find a solution to a problem with the help and input From other group members. However. when a group oF people are conducting individual tasks, input From other group members may be nonexistent. Individuals may be aware oF the presence oF others, but only through limited interactions with them. PerFormance is only a Function oF individuals’ eFForts. Perhaps the limited amount oF intragroup interactions required For completing the task in this study best accounts For the Failure to replicate Worchel 8 Yohai’s (1979) Findings. Although subjects in both studies perceived more stress associated with crowding when they were sitting closer together, only Worchel 8 Yohai demonstrated the negative relationship between perceived stress and perFormance. In their group task, this stress hindered the behaviors (i.e., appropriate intragroup interactions) which were required For perForming successFully on the task. 54 It is interesting to note that task perFormance in the Close 10 condition (mean = 39.71, standard deviation = 10.86) was actually better than that oF the Far ID condition (mean = 36.82, standard deviation = 10.43). though this diFFerence was not signiFicant (E(I.74) = 2.15. N.5.). The direction oF this trend is opposite From that hypothesized. The use oF lapboards may partly explain this Finding. When the lapboards were used in the Far interpersonal distance condition, they were large and cumbersome. The subjects had to keep the boards careFully balanced. However. in the close interpersonal proximity condition, adjacent subjects’ lapboards overlapped. This simulated a round table surFace For the whole group. Like sections oF a bridge, the overlapping boards helped support each other with little eFFort. ThereFore, in this condition. it was apparent that subjects did not have to exert as much eFFort balancing their work surFace. It may be useFul to determine iF there is a theoretical explanation For Findings which contradict those hypothesized. Given there is some suppOrt For the model presented in Figure 1 in the literature, an attempt will be made to incorporate an additional theoretical construct in this model which may provide an explanation For these unexpected Findings. The high interpersonal distance condition was meant to create a stressFul distraction For the subjects exposed to that condition. This distraction was expected to impair perFormance by decreasing the amount oF time and/or attention 55 one could comFortably devote to the task. However. Spence, Taylor, and Ketchel (1956) have suggested that distraction can increase one’s drive level. It does so through overcompensation, as described by Allport (1924) in his classic work on social Facilitation: "We work so hard to overcome the distraction incident to group activity that we actually accomplish more than we would without these hindrances" (pg. 284). Previous research has suggested that an increase in drive, resulting From distraction, Facilitates a dominant response on a task. The dominant response For a simple, well-learned task is the correct response, while the dominant response For a complex, poorly—learned task is the incorrect response (Sanders 8 Baron, 1975; Zajonc. Heingartner. 8 Herman. 1969). It is quite possible that the task employed in this study was a simple task For all the subjects. They were all university students, and had undoubtedly been exposed to similar types oF tasks throughout their studies. For example, conducting research For term papers and studying For examinations oFten entails the need to rapidly skim literature in order to access pertinent inFormation. ThereFore, subjects experiencing the most distraction (i.e., stress) during the experiment may have been Facilitated in producing the dominant response on the task (i.e., a more rapid search across the newspaper to locate answers). This is only true iF the subjects believed that the task was simple. Since this inFormation is not available, one can only speculate whether the subjects 56 perceived the task as simple or complex. This may be a useFul variable to add to the conceptual model For Future research. Two new models are suggested. since it is not clear where the level oF task diFFiculty would have an impact on task perFormance. Figure 6 is the simpler oF the two models. It suggests that level oF task diFFiculty may moderate the relationship between perceived level oF arousal and task perFormance. Figure 7 suggests the same type oF relationship, but introduces the importance oF the attributional interpretation that is made For one’s perceived level oF arousal. At this time, it is not clear whether an attributional interpretation has an important eFFect on task perFormance. Figure 6 suggests that it is not important. This would be most consistent with the Findings oF this study. where no main or interaction eFFects For attribution were Found. However, the noninteractive nature oF the type oF task utilized in this study may have impeded these Findings. Theoretically. the attributional interpretation should directly aFFect the level oF perceived stress one associates with the increased level oF arousal (Worchel 8 Yohai, 1979). IF the attributional interpretation can succeed in lowering perceived stress. then it is important to keep this in the model. Both conceptual models are presented here as potential guides For Future research. 57 mozMA Am4 am>nmomum /\ MUmq Mmma AHmUMMm AmA .n oppwwm .mo4“. zumkm307= 6.9. 2. 0.8398 .8. .36 05 2 9:8 8 2 on 08— 258 ion ...5 183 05 5 .o ..5 =5 .85 «8.65 ... 325 soon .28th oueouc 28 :18... as :80 some «555 05 ca .33 .8 2:8 0.5.. .3533 8523 .8. 25. a e 3:883 .688 .8 2.: Eu... to: o. 8.36.. .336 :85 £83 as en 08:53 2:8 ...8 .8. =5 0.: En .385... .8235 .a 35m 5.2 5:358 can ...!5 .3 .3 a .38 us as 82 s. B a: 28.: .cchEScu 23.5 82.: 332 a ..EquacoJ 553.8 a 52.30 05 B 880.9 3.88.6 . 8.3 $88 8Em. Em -} v! ...—1:335”; 5»... ES: ES. ...:c e :6... =F we... 3c: ..8 2.2. «2 Ba 05 .2... 5.? 52:3 c: :31. gm :5; 55:5 a ocaz 32¢ 05 2.2:: 8:: HESS the. .0 Eu Boa - 5 screen: 53 .o us. «:2 c E .3505. 3:2: 3..» .3 co... {8:8 2...... Err; 350 :03 :32 0E :23... 5:52. :8: no... 2: 38. :5 I 8.: 5.38m .95.... F: a I x82. Eu. 3 E88 5.6..» BEE—8.4 32... .6 ES. ..03 65.2 32. 25. .36". 3.. co... 2: 55 to: .832: 2.2 as ..8 ...—man. a 5... 3528.: 5599 SEE .80 822:3 2 :83 6226 -38 a .o :8 8 .50 n. .o .3 0:... .5896 a 5...» SEER... .8328. :32 .393. :3. no 3585 we: 8:... Eu? .5 can 3 965 “.8“. 05 5855. 9.2.. .r .52 h a vague“ 8:3 Cancun... .....S an :o v.2»: .55 M52 :3 05 ES. .2qu3 9.15..“ .EuEuucaocca to“. 05 35” Odmzd 2mm? m7: «SEE 325:8 855 E. HES um S s 2.83 on. .8. EB m: «:55: .25.;— 2 958 2 I :3 SE96 3 .532: 0:2 :60 on ”5.8“ 22. 2 22 8. 8... e 8 £3 ...E 38.”. .ofaE to: 05 3:.” 063 96E whom 05 BF; .5; E .96. E32 5. 6 BE :3ch as use I ..5. Eat Fm a o. I acne. a»... .8. >3 3:2 v.2 05 E :6 2C ..tv. utopx... .uzL E535". 05 5 =6 2.:an ctuflz .Bu .8... on. E9: x85 95 .83 85.5% a an 2:8 .8256 28% SC I came.» Bmz >38 5.... 0.3.— 2.5. 5 Eu E585 a.» ...i ta. 2s.n-n:e.n=fin.ofia«£o.an....v822oln~o.o «822.... In... :3 B.- .a...= ..Qnfl mnw m0<¢u>< ...dikwaaz. mmzoq. 30a mazm ET await-z 326 .85. Damn Eta-282_...§S_Mmmner!. :11 c. 85.85: Estate‘s .3 max. 3.. >3 .38, .97. «955 555.88 6.3.... 8:88 ram 2335.39 5: .a he .933. on 88 «3685 it .58-tow .2353 .333 I 23. .535 .8 .5 82.8.3 .26: .852 .268 ...-u ~33 {22:3 .in .o :5 2: E 23. . c3 ...i.................}.ammmmwlouumca .89....“ 9...... ....noncao .ofl: mom .0 n. 2:8 9?.83 tun; 26:5. ..L E on 5.. 3:25 33.: 2... aom 3:80.. 2: at. :5 36 wanna: 3: co 333:... 23 38 or... ... ....B ufi c. 38259 336:... 3: 5.5.. Be... BR 8.2... "825... pom gaze—w... 55.5 was 8.83 .55 p.952 9n... .5369: :03 5 >52 33 2 Sum 58.: m. .3 no.5. academy; .5 5:2... 03c? >83...“ .53 5.. .58... dose: 30 .32; acct I E :8 .2. 32 E: are: = n. 5:... .9555. ...: a. = 482qu E 8:: 5:... 8.6: 3.2: a E. 2.1. 25...:— .E an: s 62...; ... Ceca 8.8.3.5 such 9:933 2 SF. 3 83 2:65 Bone”...— 655 :50 us no use... 3.6:... 29: 95 3:8 .8525 .o :6: an... as S .xfiGKD I was 005 cc 3591.: 2: ES. arse ...c» .55 ESE 35.8387. So.» 1.268. .o 655E 2. ad. 05 E 958 2 I 959. new... v.2 8:56 .2293. BE.» 35 05 .2 53?. co 626.3 2:: #13 2.35 x87... w Bo... :9... a Sagan us 5 pounce. $607. n_:v.o..._._ cc 5360?... I .825: x8: 05 5 Cor... Una—BE: a v.6... :3 82.0.6. ya .3 nan—v 035 cc 882,5... .313 {EEou ...ooEuuoo 65.. ..unEuaum 6...“... 5.3... .c ..nucm 2:: 05 E. I a: 5 0E: 2.2 2252. ....5 >2. ...Efi us ca 3.9:. 0.22 none. 28m 23 98:3 32:. .68. .9523 soon 3. 35:3 can... ..fiao ".25.? 0.05.. 05 .o 5.355 He no.» 2...: .2ch.. £095» 52> I :28. 85a 2. a. .23 .38.. 3:3 2.3 ..i .53: .22.: .0 5.3528 .5 a. can .25... 82. a... ... as... 8.3 8 2 :2: to 22: ... 25:85. _ 8 .8: . Se: 53 ......i..n_.guz_:9:3m.§5. 83. «5.82 9...: 3883 28: use or. us .0 58 use 0.3% :3 .583 one ..8 EeEaaE .353 8a.: as 09.6% «53.6.5.5: a can cafes a ..2 53:62. <5 803 :8 .... his oaacu 3.5.1.5 e .. GEES.» 5m .532; a: ....n 3.5328 5: E5“ .EuEuoha soap—38 8 3.9:... a t :9. 3 8:33 «.3553 on :8 5.588 5: .855 m on: 55 o. 5:93.... 5. assurance 3:95 05 .0 «Ed... 05 E .35 5E .35E ...5 .3283 Moan 2.868 3:. 3:2 5: So.» 5.56 o. 3.5:.» .0: Ha 36> .62 as: .ouutaEco. ..oxuocoozom 352:. I 62.2.. sates... .5: a a. 2.3 .2 28!. 58 3 .15.. a a.) .E ... .580. 352.- 8 35. .588 38.8.... Esau... he 5...: . i... 22:53 3.65:: 6.7.2.5. 3 35:3: 2: Lo .5qu a BB 355:. Bu be: 35.8“. 6:15: .5535. Lo :. SE 952 .L 3.6.. .a. 2 8:532 S 35.2.: ¢ Btu Eh «53:88 3:93: 2: £5» .5:th HS .23. 3 .Eofi ”£33.... 3.883 3.26:: 3338 5ch a: 5201 §< ngmwa figs. 0» mg E222 xmq 72 08.585.38- Raul-0.33.0503“... 3. 000830.30 .50. 00.35. .0: 800.20 .15 .3... 0.0003 305.8 .80.. :0... I 35 :00 0. as»... 00.9.03 00:23 9250.8 EB. .0000: 0305 000.500 0.3:. 2.0. .— ....8 033 .3530 .30. 0 82. $8 $5.8... . 0.. 0.0.. .n .00.. 00000 3.3.... 05 S BI... 0 9.00 .N .0 .053 9300.9: 0.3.... 05 ..IE a... 0.020: 2.8.30.0 0. 000? .08 .050 90:38 8.0 33 00.200 00080.3: 80. 0.30 0.8.8 . 8.680 0.503 $.83. .3 .13.. .3553...» 0.3.... .0. .0: 0.0. 0 0:: l8. 225805.38 .33.. .0... 000300... 00090.3 .030. 00.3. a. 03:0 0 a. 00. 3:8 85:30 £6 33 .08. 5 33003.3 895 2.... 9 .30.. a... 0.3:. a nun» .0 85:30 60.003 .. in. 3.3.000: 05 .3300 .0 80.38 ES :05 00:0,... 0. :08 00.5: .68 .0590... 0.3:. a .0000: .300... .30 «09.090 3.5:. :00: 00: 2.00500 0:... (.00 :50... .85.. .5 50035.00 05. 05.000 .93 05 5. ...—0300. 0500.3 05 .0 1.300000: 0.53.. 0 0: 2.65. 0.0053,. 050005000 .30 .cuEaavo 3020.393 .300 .0 3.308 3.9: 35. ....fl 3:3 03.32 :05... at»... 0:. ..wmrz .08. .08 00.000033. 00.00.3930 .- mmoSmmm 02¢ mtg. .ngfiz $.01... m0.>o< “0504 KOhmm>y= 0358:8235; I I I ...... .3 0.... 3 .8: 0:. :30 3.68 :50.» 03:50 .686 ...: 3.0:. m 5.5.... :03 35 D0803 ....u 4... .5 0.00050 :0 268:... .0: .5555- a 0.3: 0:33 050E z: a 98 0:83:03 0.... 18.. 0:50.03 3 0930: g .3838: 03.0: 035003 03 9.5... .00 63.39:: 0.00530 .0 0:30 :0>m .95 525.2. E03 05 0000.. >05 03.0: 580 ...05 ..0>8 23...... a 5.... 580 090.0. 3000... 0.050... 0.85.5 .3. 0.00 000553. “.9. 0.33380 0:. 38:00.3 050E 5 0020.. .5 ...QEo: $7.: 05 .0 .00... 2.02.5. 0. ..fi. 0.08 05. 00.05 0E0: 535...: 5.03. 0.3 (m3 3. 00.203 :0.3E .3930. .0 3....E : .3530 0.9. E3 0003.33 9.. .3: a 5:50.00 05 .0033 .um :02m 50> 30. >2. ...... an». .0... 93.5 .353... .0 5 .00.. 5:03 05 055...... >030 0.50:... 0.0302: 350.. <3 03.5 053 ...m 05.0.5 0.3 mmfifido .3530 .02.... 30%.... Egan .0. ..... gall-.... , .t . 0029.03.20! . ...... 3.1.)!!! a. ..... sgg A ......... 22“ ‘4 ....... ‘gaia .0. ........ 03.558 , .5315 3 .......... 0606.055 "I ...-9.0.5550 2g ........ 303g. .«8 .... Illa} . ........ sins. . ........ 2.8.01.5: " ..... 2554‘3 ...... 5} ........ 5&6 38 ..... £58903... 0 F. > 36.5; '5 H.533! I 90!; . ..... 9.30 0.8 . gal! a. . 0.3.55 ..... .0338... a." 3.290.. x ...... Sggm 20% 83 35203395 I . .50.; .00-33.2.05 0.“ 0.333... a" 105505.25: 0.822835 33 ......... In; .2 Inst-II: . 2.38.08.50.30 a! ..... .5; -. 0.359.. V_. 03.26.65 «.B Iflu§m§ .. . far-91533 . 0500.038 23 . .083 C . §.!§ . ...... 3.25823... "I ...... Hug... ‘. . . . IBIS .. ....... 8.09.85 33 IF.II«§! 8.. . . 90355 2. 03.9.3.5 .«R ...... ii 0. . . . 35.1380 .. ..... page... :8 . . 033 O. . 3.513 0 ....... 05.29.2030 300 cal-E319. .0. . 00358335 . £33.35... 83 .......... L 0550!. 2.. . , 9323 a. hauls-Griz 3.. Iggb .... ....... vulva!!! . 8.5339502 EB ...... ...-III; to. 90...; 0 . : : vac-0.02m a... natal-tuna :0. Sig-.... .n 4 . 3059.3 I. ...... 6.. 3: £3: igo‘vi 0002. 0205 9.309050 .0 0030830 .0 300.. 00. 05 3... a... ...... 9. 3... 0 . 3.. In .0... a c. .3. w. 50 9‘... a: o: 80. I... '2 8 ...: 0. ... to 8... .0. '0. 0: n:- . do and. 3 8... . .0. '0. .8 3i. . .0. ‘0. E a... .uo “.0. In 0.0. .u. 0.0. ... .00.. 6.. .0. a 8dr 1 ‘0. I. la. 0. I... 0 I! 0. I! a BI. .. ..d. .0. 30. . o. I? a I: _ 0. Id. 3 B2. .3 03. 8. IN. 0.. 0.... I. I! .0. I... .3 8.. a. I..- 8 fin. .0. 3.. I I... :0. a. I. (nu ... ..., ...Z .+ .. 4 ...... -xgguugfimnfififlmu¢:m. ansauaaaae 3 ~ —v n . . £‘=232335°°§§‘ I : . . : . : : I. ‘rlcOwI... I! 0.1) i a B. a .0... '67 2‘0 2n n. a .3 ............ a§3|'.g_.. 80 a lava-303050.050 .8 In ................ Iain-9.323.050 “ s ................ Egg; ‘ 2' ............................ E! 3 n. . '0‘"!!! .28 0.5. (a... :30 ...: .0 3.8: 00 02.800 .30 8380:: 33.83.: 933.8800 .0 .03 2 9.5.5 ...... 5 >23... 90.08 0E8 0.3:. :5 .... .08. 0. 9000 0. :30 0. 3.0090 n. ...... ...-0.. “a. 0.3:. 0 3:00 on ma. ._ $3 .00. 383:6... ... 0.8 BEES 0:3. .3. 0:. .0 £93: 3...: 05- 95 0.3.5 .08. s 0:00 .... :05 .50.. .09: 5 5:00 N. :30 0. 00.0090 0. .32 g E 03:. ... 9:00 2. no. 5:... ...33 4.00.5. I 0:603 m «.5000: a .0 .9800: 3.. 0. 90.9090 0... .82 >0 >0coE 03E :5 .. .0. 0.5.3.3 ...: .3... 5 03:. a 0:8 ... .8_ ...... .EB ceasI ...-.0: 3.5. nurse—.... .5... 9.02m 0E3 ...... 9.5 .... E00350: ... 550500 05.0.: 3.35.. 9...... ...003: .0. 0: 35.3 9.00.. 0.05 000:3 005m 05 3 ...... .30. .3 0030.330 .58 50:00 0: :5. 50.603 30000050 30: :0 3 .3: >8 D393 0E8 .82 .3 .35.: n» n: :0..E 3 5:0. 0. 350.03 0.3 :3 ..3..=_E 003 0.3 30: 0.5. .0353 0055.930... 6020.....03 m. .00.. a 00:3 >3 0. 500. m. = 35 35.0.00 5.05:... .0 20: 05.000: 0 :08 a. 50.0.: 35 008:8 5935. 0003. a 0030: 033.: .303. :83. a 5.35. a...“ ....500 0.5 .0 80 .6002... 030.3 5.3 0.0.300 00.03.. .059. 0 9:00 0... .0 .05an 00.9: .03 82 BE: 2. I «an. .0 058.0 .32... .x... 0808.. : 9.003 .500. s :3. s .... so... :8: a: 05.3. .003 :03 .0593 -00. 303:8 du .- >083... .325. .0 0:5 3. . .0...— flag £8 .32 S and» .... 2:8 95:! ii s... .3 8.82 ...... éIaausgacuonncoofi .3 s 8: 8.838 05 .82 S... 0.2.08 .0...an ...... .83.: 0:. 8:... ... a. 3.8 .80 0:. .5 2 .8. s as... .. EB. 21.30.. ...... Ghana—.00: guano—NEED >§0E00 0090.30... SM Sson 05 03:. .DU v5.85. .>00t:-..00?. :02... 05 00.3: .30 030.. 0.: E0: 05 3.6 .3 .530 95:30 3:003:03 .2 :96 ...... 5 .325: 05 :0 00 0300 I :5 :03: 3.9 .0053 SEE 0:3 0 5:... I 4...... 05:00... .3303... 05 3 :50... .00 308E962 3. 0:2: E0... >03... BEBE ...:o 00 >9... 52:05.0 d3: 05 5 30.0 00.0.: 8200.... 35 300: 000.5005: 0 .20.: 33.5 .0: 300560.80 0.54. n: :0 9.80.. .00. 0.2.3.3. 0:503. 2 5030000 .05 53.4.0.6 E [50: .2 .003qu 33 00:5 05...... 05 >5. 39.53 .8... ......n .0 008.0 .. $00.... .03.: >00 .85.... ...: 03. = 5885.... .... 0. on 532 :0 035 a I.» E0... 0038 0.... 503050 3.30. .5935 ...0E0m .03.... 3.8 3...? ....E 0 8E8 BE. .03 0:: I no ...... and 0:0 ...... 503.: 5830 E00. £0.00... .5 ....m ..G. a 30... .00: :96 0:: .30... n5 3. 89:33 0: ...:co. 3 .309. 0. 5.33 3 800003 0: 03 03:... 0:. 0.3.0 00303050.. 3 3:... 00:3 9.0:: 9:390 :60... 5. .0 3300 05 ...... 0.0m 9.09.0 .03 .33 0:300 35>... I 9.2 mm... ...05 E0... 03:30:... 0.3 I 30>. 55 0.2.00 5.5 03E 9.00.. 80.0.: 0E8 :00. an: 35 00.5. 0 3.3 :05 05 003500... ..3600302 3 0.5. a... :00m H.303 00.003 .....053 :05 I 5.: on =>0Pr 3:3 102.0903: :9... .0030... 05 .0 3.30 53:33.2 E: 9.8 ...0300 a m... 0.. 0.3.... 0.000. 0.0 .230 3 9.5:: $053.... 03E 0. >03 0... 83 =5 .23.. 9.00.. 80.0.: a 89.00.. m... 0. m... 05 >8 H.252 0.9.0 0.5 .85.. 80:0 05 05:90 0.0.0: .0: =5 .32.... 9.8.0 0.0.0: .5033 Ea... >03: 00000 £8002: >38 <8 0:80: .55. .0 ..an :8... :88... 0:00.. .50.... 3: .000... 8305333358 _w§§ms§§0§036 _ .53 033.5 0 02.: 00.. «dd: 30.. as: 035 a 00:0 0.9. 0.5.9.. . .n 05.. .030 35... ca 05020:. 00208.0 350 3. $356.30: 3.0 .0000 0:5 8:93 05 I .350E .50.. a. 088 05 m. n68 .50..“ .50 05 .0 0E: 05 .0 0:3,. ...... 03.0... 05 :05 30. a...» 0.3. 05 E 903 .350E 39. 20...... n. ma ... 60.83.30 03 n3 3. 0:: an... 0.; dz». 0.098.. 03.» 0 0.5: :0. 23 80.0» 3. 3.2 0.00.... 0 .2 . 0.... =0m .033 m. 3.0: 30.. EQEEEB can a .20 03.3 ..c. .2 .509 0 >00 00.. = 0.8 :0 80. ..0 a 0:23.00 2 .39 m. 0:... 00803.. 5... 3. E0003 .0 00.0.. 05 .3, 09:09.0 3.000.530 nan 0:.50E8 .0 .000 350:0 05 0:03.... £32 .6008: 05 S :93..- 30... n: 0. 00.3.0. 3 5:... :0 «50:000.. 03 3:00:30 030 35E 00> 0).: uag 'IOJ I 38.35 05 ..0 as 030 0! 00 .05. 0:. .0 0.: 0:. :0 000.008 00:... 03 3.3 .850... .E .0 0...: 33 .a. 50 ..000 00.0 = 03......- E05 0...... E 2.... 350:. .... .03E 3 ...—00> 0.... 00:00 05 0520: £0.82: .3. 90...... .4 gcoE «a ....0>0 005...... .205 0:00 0:53 305.: 30.30 06. 9353.30 30.36 5...: .5... 05.. 0.5000E00 03 00:... .0033. 00:3E :000 05 :0 03.8.3. 0. .c0EE0>0u 05 E 28 3:0: 05 .03: «:5 >3. .00.... 0:: 300m n35.“ 353.6033. .0 .335 0.3530 .3 :0“. :0 000.000.: 2.2...» 3 .30.. >0. 0.9060 >330... 5...... .30.. 3:000: 05. .23.. 0358 W: a 20: 30.. = .00.. 05 .0 :3 :0... 0030 30:333.. 3.000. 0.5 .... 6.5.203 082.320 0.200 I .05.... 03 0.0 0.0. 30.0.... ....) ....- ..3: ..5 30.8.. 03 0.0 0:... .30.. .... 00...... a» .030 305E030 .m ... 0.... ...... S... .23.... .025 :35... z 82 .88 0.5. 38.5 639.. 09:00:... .0 0080 0:2 .003: 0...... :0: .5503. 03:. 3... ....fi .32 30...... .03E :5. 08.30. 0. 80.2.". E0: 0: :8 n58 000. 008.2....» 00:33 080 00.3.... 0.800 300.00: 350 .085... a 00. 09:0 -00... 2.50:0 06. 609. 050.: 5 80.88 0.5: 050:. 508.30.... .....m «.5080 ...—00:30 09:05.: a 3. .33 30.33. 0 n. 035 03800 .0330: 3. 3060530.. 0.53 a .... 0000.34. «000.55.... .3 00:30 0.3 9.00 3000 4308000 5 0.5.3500. 95. 30.5: 08... 05 .o , .12 .0333 SQIE 6.9.3.03 .0 >...... I 28.3.33... g.§§o§u§§.flué mm-Indeflde—xuumumam .30.. 0 000.03 a... 00 3x5 .3 030.: 3:53 0503035500I030>0~ 3. 5.000003 .30 I 0E: 32. 0.05.... 8 03: 03 005.... .300. .BE .3330... 0.3.03..- 0E005 5.3.3. 30:: us a .00 ...—.0.» 0.05.5 .002 00.8. 5 00:5: 3 0:. =0: ...30: 030 0.3.. 00.. 8 00:00.5 :5 :0. 05 03. :0. :90 2.3.. 00.5.: .0 .33 .0E8S .3033 0d 005 0.3 $5.35 E003 do .5330 to“. .9530 ....3 l 30.35.... 00.303.23.58asgfigl... 73 . 0 non-.. clot '0‘. u . . : ... ., a. :0. I A. u... . .u>0.ou....o ..‘a .It o... ”ca-zuac ‘ ccr GP .80: :83 85.0 3.88m 50 1.5:... 5:5. >38::5~ E. u _ viva-(Hm. . e .3: .3. . 22.2.29. . .2: .23. ...... 3.02300 my.» 2. >059. .315 :2 . ,. _ .1...- . 30.323. 000.. macs. w>( CEO—Cm son— CS HUGE.“ .‘ru vibvoacpob :X» 950 92.2.— 0»... .80.. 5.0 .308. a. .360 .02 .0208 §< Sm.) 806 03¢ 90... 20.0.8 8' can: 5:09.01 Ev Oh h h 3m: .0 . ..abdugm 1 .80... 08.6 303.5 20300 . . dww ...-.8 85...... mass... 6...: a... 22M“... I I I I 9.5... 0...... c... 3.6.. . a ......a... :Eénesufl 3.23.... ...as. 2.53.2.5... 36 em m... . m:0..00..00< 302.00.00.25. . :2 53.6.3... c... .8. 3 33".... 3...... ”$.13... ... a a .3 n. ......E 0 . .8083 «5.2.? —°' ‘ ”>3: n 0:61 m: c), .>~o 805° cl . UJ nh.n.fiu‘ . u —‘C— .0. O.3E.(. Q r W.I..F m l c... .20 «2. 09205 .22 05.54 .w Sum .5580 - b mzoEmOQ . stencicm 30.005002 . z. .3932 3m 5.. 330: 2%....3. ...... me“. 8.53.. 219.055 m 2 225:8 32020 .020 2.3 000.: (.2 .3533 . >3.sz zwno a 005.8... 055002.022 . .958... .- ga sum .83 .358 0 85> m 2.3.2:. > 8 . .22an 00.380... .02... . O. .03“. is». 9951 Stem-aw a“? m >420 ZmQO thiwaEFWDWSMM.“Rimmmmmmmmmm c2000 0535:“. o 02¢ 08.3 3.0 5.02 32 . .0300 8.3.0.00 30...: . . £2.3on ma . . . . 0.030.013.0SC0m . . n. ..m. 3.. «m: .30 ...»E «05.3 8:30 50.003 .000 .2 A 8.. .0 slim n< .mcmmMmNom ”an" .>0.0Ew 35.325... 963 00:... .3056... «Esau 00.39.55 o p . .950 362 4.630 W 0. 4.1.0.0.... .0 ~05 05:90.... (Ea—mu. 50> “Ecum>m Drgnmuuohl Etamm summuo 0 term 3005 .chco..>c0 6022.0 5.00... “EC m> O. CO . 658.26.; 0 >0 035E20E00 3:950 “Ecumwm Wham . U o $2: 02... $05.00.. 02.30.39. m...» E. 2...... 29.3,... ...... ._ a. .5 z .a . ....aeow ... . E 52.2% 5.0...sz much. 4 022.2 _ 35.8.0 2.... _ .> 0.... . . . . :05 .00.. 00.530 00.03 035 = 5.3220... 9.2.3.2.... 028.... 628.80 a. 05.32 0 <2: zautuu ndunC—>° 213.... Ob-hIGICq—o 5520.... .30: 50.35.. .303. 02.. 0.9.... I.“ 932.18.. b.3— l... 5.53.15 0 “Son 3... ...auuerplB O 3!... EVA. 0 0. 0:3?! 59. .038 020i BUG .OBOd .920: 33005558050... o>=2§£50< ..m o 5.5.. ”seam «Eu—gm 20250.0: o 0.20.1.0. 3030.0..2Ez c 20050:... .30 30> 2., .n c9520.... Eco. a... .2050 .0 200590500 oz. 20.0500 0...- .9..an .Eou 330003 50> .09—0:50:00 .0 no... 50> .0 0.0.0.003... 63.00:... .0 ...-0 Soto... 9.0 30.0 a 30:0. 020 ._ 30> .03 5.»... g 033% 3.0:. 3 03¢. v.32“. 3 «=35 =< COBGE-OuC- uCQEQGflCfl—Z ..o>o :2... 2.95.: n. «SEE. 50 03.8 000305.550 £0.35 30:00. £90: 0. 20.8882... 3.903 . 22.0 E.) .5: 0003.. 00:83 50330 .0223 to... c. co....E com o .26 2.8.... o. 9.5;. ..2 3. ..3 $.28 20»: . 393......“ 2 2.5.2 .8 . as... as... ...... .32. 9:. 29.22 25:: 8;: 85 200.8: ...-5.5... .0 0050 3. 0.3006 80.3 8.: . 93's.“... 5. . o .000".— 03toa< u..oz.c>m o uHMnHHM“”...aonwunmwwfimm“chum.“. ”Hum .88 I 9.8“ 080280 6202395 8N3“ ‘03: 2 8: .835. 200» o— .004 c.3532 . «SCL . . 0 "7.20:4 tauooueqm 0 0.05.0». 0503090 .303 .366 03c? .00 $9.: on. 00.3 .3» 5:». .0: .6»... «>25». 0..., .255. 3.3303 2.3.3.80 viaurw 0 Obflgtow 00%..) 05.3 05 .0. BMEMO. .30 .0930 ._ .C .m NCO—uflc Our—BO. 0. C_)_a° .0 UNhZ<¢(D° mEopn>m tattoos... 055.308 c .0 «Pour. ”50:20.33 on. .35 0. MSW...” mmmzmkxm maul >35. .9. o.- .6. .. 3.58.6 399.59.. 03.0.50 . o. 29... 1.33. - nzlufibuogogoict:o.l2§o§ 5.:- .... . a t- Doe—i -W.1: a. 6.... 5 3.3 .33... .2. .30....8 o. 8:? 583 < «I!!! DID-Bug: .031 mmUEmm «EEOU OZEOm 333.1... 5.5.... .985...- x..c:coaoo 330w n.5— 33... 9.. 2:30. :6... 033.2 >2... 30> .0. «Sn 3.3 35.03.23.— 3... :8. 3.5.3 28... 25...... 4.. ..Bn. 2“ .2... . 9...... .5 2:63.. 8n EGO“ 0:. 0.2.000. 0C6 3:323... 0.540.003 =5 .0 can .2... a 2:33 o. o... _ 050... so. = 00.50.. 9558.6 m D 5303. .0 3:3 .23 3:09.38. 36...:- c. 85......» .926 .o 2...... ~ 3... 35.3 .2363 c. 0.... .0 m2 ca 3.50! 5:60... ..uo..._c~c come 22. 3.5.3.2.»... 2.. 2.053.260 5:8... ... 200.2 3.32.23 3:56.... 9.68 .a >8.cccu~. mi. :8- 2 5.5.50... ..- .uwi. u..- 959 9!. o. 2.5530 en 3:65 .3 2.6.6.5... .3552 a c. 3:09:25 3.9.6.. .o 5.52....5... o... 9:53... ... 0.2 95.33. a .233 :3 2... .2656... ca .8581 3222...... 00.500. 95:02.0 w 3 00:05.... 3:23 .....anu .o no..nEocfiE.oc..ooc.ocw c. 3902. 03.62.... 332.43 (03 «E22. .2363 Eng co Guam)... 9.... .30. 0036 .0 2.9.5503 23. £3.43 2.... .2: e 0:30.953 30:38.3.5n‘m 2.932.390 3.9.0.; 9:. 20.2.35 2...: ......E2 0:5 .3533. .30. 358....» 05.02.63 0:33 «cocoon 0:90 9:.— gccuo. ......QEOu 32! 05 .0 co..au..non or: c. car—3:390 ca no! as 8.26.. ...... o. :05... o... 5.! 2.0.2 02.23....an 0.3 33.3 pl... I955! 359:3 9.... .3920... ..a .0. 522309... 059.335 < ...-Oliploa. gaunt-Sogzi. 5.0.99.8?— E .o .3. .9 4.0!). lei-... .3 o. a5.:u...:5 .3'ISHOCiio-ioazx 0.8-. .n. .....n....oc.ov2- .In... ...-I: I.- .. to.” 9.53).: ’33... o... ...o E22003 9.200595 .8153 2.5.8 o .05. ‘1— g «339 63...: .91.... . 3:. ...-95. o... I... ._ a... {luau-cl! al.;goiocluoos. “BI-.... ...-0.. ll! { u I 3:. cut-... - 3... 1.9.8. m o. :83)§.u¢.. 2:}: 9:30.! to: $03.» 35395”. new gfinega —¢. 9.! ...-=3 3 coco-...... .03.... o... .33 3 a. 3:. 53 623.....53 >.coEEouc_4 0...... all. . . p 1... ......oahmnoau 2.3... .33. a as... 92 Case... —.-:.3 .2. 3.3:...63293 c ...-3 or ... ... 3.9.38 3. .92.: 3.30600 05 .... co._.§00 83¢. 29.... ig ID —. ...... I02 4E 03.92...) 30... 0c. .0 30:- 003 .8 at: I. I 2.9.3.3... 3 .8. 5.3. o. 93.. '30 3. lac-Hun... 2.0; E! 9.93.9.5 9 >00. n... 3).-IQ ogguga. .5305: 5.339.. "...a .83-139.34.292.5ccfic....-.0333309... can. so» So. a» m0.2.2ma0 252 32 II.“ .3222...“ .3 .. a... .....Ea .328 I.- .93600 @580 dog-.35 . ~ the ..o 2...... 9.... 225.329.. . -. 50.... co... 05.50... 0» 5.2.. ‘ . $3.8 mafiam «mmooam xoofifion. 320:4 «65.390... cook :9: 5:3 III. .38 568.513 _ ...... .............s g ’.E 033' 40.03:. . Ext-3 .‘i'g‘54llll due-:38! il.’.~q«8.l¥’fl!!gl §3I£§§.aB-Q¢ ...-Gill! {I'Itba Englisglass..£!gili 'l-I'Uuls gala—oggaatsslgii lg l”ofl.i.l.!l§1l¢8$§= gJ-‘llil!i§iisaallt§sgl lint-3.11.! if! I349!!! git-...!!! aiding; 2...... u........l!8.:.ooc.l.£osoom ...... . .oz. .3... mafia—2:3.— ..IIuIl-Bi .333:u333¢3=3$36<. gang 93:00.0: g...- <28§02u§2n§§g§ 83:85.:5; isgbicilzt 32535.42 43.25.32 ...—:3.— 53:.— 530:: 88.39.; 35.818. .02. .u§m>m 02300! 26.0.ENEQ E02 ...-a 3.1!... . ...-02:32:07...» .....3500n .19..) 0.... :0 9.3!... .n . ...—I a...“ 5.u-..¢nu.-.o¢mu.q 56.53. 330:3. eczoo. .33.:3tol 930»... 36... u .0. at. 1 av Gucci-a... 9...... 01.1.9. 04.. 0.0: 3.. . .. a. 5:.an g‘3‘. 3.9.0.29... .333; 65.8. lama Evin-tn. 95.3.3.3 5.: .30 ‘3‘... o- Una-Ito...‘ new. Pil‘v a. viii c.3001 ca ...otq ...)... u>=37 2:54.... 5.... 9.8 9.3... 5.3.8.23 ......EEE. ...... 4.2.3. .9. “.... =... o. 38...... u... .5 ...... 2 ...... 2 25.. Page... in... 2.83.52... 5.59: 3.2 42.3343, 2:. ”b.4533... 93:9 .8... 5...“...2 c5. 6...... ....E .22. 9.6... 2.5.3:... ...; ....e. :3 2,... ii... 278.4 2.2. «a... .. a... ...... .— .6888 8.5.... 5.5... fie. 7d .2333 a ...... 853.. 3.... a .c. .63. 8.. e... .333an 3.5m ......E.....§= ......._=... a v WT! w—L’-“-u‘_‘-—-A_—~. - . -..”. rv 5....' -.. .. 2053 oil it UfaOmZ/um ..............:..... .199... 533a 60:9. :1 —o- «N780 . ..- u; .30 .0 .33 ... usfl 30 92.0 0.. ..o‘ cw 50!. 3a 5.0 00.3005? 2»... ...W Vgcnm =33... ... ...n o. S.» c €932.09...“ u g 0.5.5.3942: c93§<0u39 OOEE .0“. o! .. .Btnu r 4 p ’ so. ..nim 1.4 .33! can (u. 3.3.: no coca-.3 .u 1. ......o... n. ......o a. it; .2 3:00 .5 (2.8.3 00 .921 12.520543 4. ion.- 10 ..z .32. 2.3a 39:005-530. 0.... c 923.5m 200 5.23 . 9... 3.3m .o. 5... p933” mud 0060 ml... Kl '1.‘ «IL: ~55.‘ cu .... «.339. o”§¢¢&r..lou€0;§°.w 141.03 wt...” 7 ..Ouc. . «"1 4.. .2 1.... o . .09... ...—.... ...: u ...—8.53.3. 322132. co. .a ......i E£9wd 9h 5.33 5.333 ...... a... 9. SW .‘3 in: 74 923.5280 43.153 303‘s ...-£3 mu v um n... 21.9.. 3 3.3.85 3. 33.5. n2. 225.31.03.04! )0 2.385....63 o 3 3 2253. ‘62:... c. 5.5:. ..u- .63 Pl Iv\| ‘. v. . 1‘)... .919. . o... ... .. 3.31.320 3.6.0238.- , E21. and: 1.0.0.2.. .39. a. 95-99 2!... 3 .. .Iofii a.» ...... Pl . 20... 40.523 544...: ~ 944.. wzwiiwamliuo. 9.9.. 3.9 on n 1: l . o. o: 5.. 25.1.2.3 30.5.02 9..- 8.0 as... f . £91895}. EGO-Egg!!! M. ... ...ioaiB» ¢ .2 a: 9.00.— \J,,- 0.5.03 man 0:— ml... nadir—Lg auburn u... a. 23%5§5_. w 3.3:... c... o3...3...l. .. J o. s aucopv< you}!!! it!!‘ .‘('!‘I9 .2 33-390: V8759": V - . . a \ 4 ..I.. .. . f, ..., n I o t...\r...\ ... ...- .221... ., 3.. .4.” . ... c._ u «339044... 52...:.§....a1. oqufidm .....t 7». c .3. .1 Ely-50‘ 3.8 .2. 4.38. J ...... ll.- .5 Eon-3.41 gig-a ‘3; .3. Ion-In... dud-9.3!. i... 3. 211.21.. . '- 32... 3 3... on. are... :2- »?- ualadoc: . .... 8...! ... 3?... 8... .5. 3.398353...“ .1: ...... a 8... u: .8..- .3: a... (...-3 a n! a 32‘ - an! 35 .c. 5 ...8 .3. a. 3...... 3 3:. :2!- o.~fl ..- aofluu... m t... 3! ...—l 8 ...-8 '8 9a. . a.“ .315 a! I: $.81. 8 Bl... 3.3.3 :2 89.9.3 3.: 33.345 22.... 92:3 92 «51:3 .0 53; < .9. < 42...... £35.36. a. 2.32. 9.: 5 £232... 5.39.3 :32. a 3.2.... ... ....4 «2.3.... :8 ...... o. 3:36.... 9:33 .... 2:2: 333: 3.. 4 m 4.3. 3. .nu .5252... 024:3 :23 3.8. no. :32 ... 352 .. 343E 25 9.6.... o. 3. or. 5.10.5.5... ...... ...: ... 3.3.... 2w 3°. 02 .0 ...: 3:2: 00:298.... 63...»..023 S... 55.2. 12.2.9.5 ...»; .2: 2.3.33 65:29:. .13... 9... .... VEDA. .53.. 5 32...: II .3. .50 ' 403. ’....-t.. cl.-l.-st‘\ a}. It. s3.‘ I... 0%.. I... $52.43... I...) In... 5.3!... lb E; tn... ’ «.... ~32... 5...... .3: 2.”. 20...... So...:o..o=:..c 8863 to". 51100.5 fl 4 p. .4 ”mustn't. 71... .4 vii. ‘3 a 753 I 3 IILL) ¢v~ .. ...-.9- 9:. :\ 703-. 3". ..d in... {:Ioolra . :wnn : .95.. 8...... ...n 553 281 33.3.. .2... hofizou ¢o giOu!63c!iS‘—;I~C§ 8.8 9 3.3 92. .....m .u 22.33 ok «35.35 30". bus—200 GO 298 «u 8.» .... 3. 8...: 25m as 2.3381... 02.062. 3 pa. 262 44.6 .8. 5.... 3.6.75 .. . wduauw .o. 2.53. o...- 3 .30 ...... on 2.8.. £3.32. has 0.. >402...“ auto .ch! >z<2 .>z<2o 85:3 2.5.... 2.3.8.: :3 «33.3.33 9!... 3.3.3533 23.5.5 45533.23 3.2.3... 262 9...... a: 2.88 So .36.! um: 32 3:. 9:30.. 35 GEE :5 >33. .2... >3 .0 :24 85.3 a... 8:... n 2.2 a... . .8. 9...»... 5.... 2...... .....2. o. 3:31.555... ...... . 75 il- I1!) 23 >35 1. V r)‘ 5.5.22.5 an .. :5. I. .1955 .\v\n 2C. w0<fi=> mm wawmmo mZOr—(UO. ...Zw_2m>ZOU .30....22“ .0. a. :32 .25.... 5 —. 3.59:2 .5: .32. Pa a to )_.‘ “:3...— 5.) 26m n ...:ooion n a n ._ a 3:. ...—:25". .53: 22:9...» ....w Illll E2. .8 «.9. .mmmm- -mmm ‘— F .g—m..mn__nu £39...»ch D52... .2 ...n. .09.va :39... .....z ...... 6E and .2285... ~ 35:3 .5... ...... . 3.3.03 ale 5n (:3. =33 — >200." 11:31un .5 an. .. m—nm 2H 5.3.... m5. :3 :2 >20 8... 5...! a. E8. 30 — .- ... a: 2m} E2. 305‘ ...I. ...<>( 53:- nmuw ”NM 95 ...!i . a; .E... .u... ... u ......u 0:... E353 _ .....nE-v $.01. mmOEUd .uZikOr muOfi .50 0...: .....E .0 .51—33:... 25 soc-:3.- .3 .25. ..a o. .62-... 53...» .... 22:53.9 21.3.6 €2.35. 52...... ...-2.2.... o .505 0.. 0‘): :50. .6 5.9;: a. :5 9.632.. C. Dt—au-EE. nBEJ mg!— on .0“. 39.. €952.3- 6. new «an an“. .255.- .a=.§ to; O— lifig: .90.: =l°0lln ...-...;- .:..a. ....w .Mw m E .23 EocSoEEw FKOALDw >._:a(u =6 .33.... an)...» .3 ..Eu. .0 2:3. 39.33.. 3.22:...) - a ... 9.: .5355 6.2.3... 6.5.0.53 £1623 .mw.20hm0uruo.nEu R. .2152. ..J. = :35. E .62 an... a £3 65.. ...au It: can. .339. 5323.5 .w 93:55 Naéwgnzu 35a .5. .394 c:( BNN .00 Cl :2.- ... 2353 .o 93:... co..«u,..ua- .o. .325. 9.3 9.5.35 .23. 3:22 v2.3! .32.. KWEEDW Emw .2 .35.? 355-2 .g 5m 0 a .....s .35 >38 . >52 £8.05 a2: a .355” .2.szan ..120m1wm Wthoahm Nagy .332. 35:3: 02 .3. =53". zo>( ..um :33 I i: mDZDm UZEEM ..m o. 3.5.! Sim :2. .5. .o. .... 2.5.... is... .5... 01130 >h.¢3me ~31 39.1.. lasagna 3a.. ... o. ....S 12....) .5.qu ..EEam ww._(m ERAS 3.9.55 :2 33.. 5:... 92.95.95 .mwa—é4fi00lm ~59. .2 6.5:} .§ 0.5m 39.30 m; ...-.59.: wu_ozu.ozm EoE>o_aEm i=8 VC—OCQtu 5 39.39.81 :33 a Euu C550 EOE-m .lE.—. :3. 5 1.5.5: 02.x... >52 .o. o...>> 29... .54 .. 90.21:. or. 3:5 .2...:....». or :03. cu=auu Izfibflu _u..=. _ Curmu 0:6. ...» 3”... .5 E335 n:n .... E a 8N. E «can :u ,3: .nfll_fl EU~aafl. hu u;:l~.u 65:83.: .5523... E WEI—HE. =5: n:n:.nuu Rn: a ...: in) .35. 33m. 9: 5. .(Oyquo w>CD EUOE qu...m_>_ mm” nun RE 25 .2 .92....) 033 :2... .95 ta» :5 . .239 u... 5.: one... .5...ou 32:55.... :3“. a. :2 2:05 .ui. 2.... 5.23.. (r, 39...: Sun“ :EFBaEu a... 3.2..» 29...! £53.83 £33 mmZZuKh blemUdZ<5 5.5..an c. :5: 35326.. Em 530 9.5002. . ......» <02 anucénum curve 5 >33. ...-u :3 Es. c. .33 noon mam... ZWIUZX K30! IUZDJ .coE>o.oEm ma Nnn ....u 2.51.1.5?!“ 5.2.5:: Icidhm m<0 N31... 35.3.... .... 0.03.. mm: 9.3) 5:55 KDwa Jun. Mad—..Wu. Tummmdwfn .3353; >7 32m 8... ..m 5.; :. N. .u....s 5.3.59 . 555. .0. EC .....4 “Econ n: .55 E: Onm: EE. ...On ......4 9?. 3 a. wise-..., €6.56 ..o .3 352% Ecuam. Eu: ..om .55-“...a n: ism mm a Nu m 53:35:... 22.5.0: aEnu 332.....52 ...~.. .3 a... :2. 5 :1... t as... 1...... Iii... IDIUIII' In. Li} I I," m... ......:..:...o..... n #3.... ... 83. 2 a... 1.3.6»: no. 9.... tan. . 323:5 . mundau n . 20.5”»: . Oilulifitfilttt t. mom 50m... .... Sin ....nu. ..um o n 1:)... 5.33." ... ..n 8w. 5.38 _._J_ Salem an 255:? c :5... n. 50ch on. 3.59. 55.2.3.5 E u ...n 3:...- : £25.... 23 $50. :29. 25.36.3313 0.4.3.... um ..mJS mo... .23).; .... EoE>oEEm EoF .w .25 Cu..: 3:: .....o m. ... 2.5 . E. 3:0 04.10 35:12 an ... N .3 c.5122; E... :3... 5:250 9...... 44.. ..mwfi 02.....wmg100m gnu .... w 5:... u. ..u 7: >3 «I: Our. .01.. no.5 27.1.0!) w. u.u_m 9.; cu. :u m..._ .m 53.52 ......cau 0.0.3»; wrmumxwm :<>> mxwoaihxflc .Iu. Owomwz amt.m>moEEm ”......fifi. 8...u.__.....m..mon... an: futon—30:0 in... .... I0000 a a u c u m . u _ q . .... .0... cu: ..m. a ...3 m. mme 0mm) 0.31 mmu_>..um 0’24. w My”... 32. ...N ...a< Sauces. 595:2 .mEmcm. flow .362 BEm 2.... zit-I. . .. I . .. 169013....23556. .0 $0.95 005.9 05. #0. n .900 man .6 0.0”. .9. ._ Emu ago-u; on. EC: ...un . can w. L ....m 0505.35; .0 ion 0. ....Ei munE an :2... .Su 29.556... cu ...oE 59.09. :hu ... 9.: .0. 00.3090. @0 >20 ..., 25.! a. 07, a. )2... =9”. . 1 Eu n . uh. 2.710 90.09 ..nn :nu . u .. mu2-.—Dou.9._...wu...0m $4.43”... 5n.?..muu00.m,099. .vu um»...n.qom.n 532;...Um0545uu. mug: 5.59:. ZO—h<2m0uz_ @Z—muhmm>o< f ONE—mm59 :5 n . .< P62h¢555. E. :2 8. .~ 8 :2. ...o» 02.6 5053:; 53.3 .2000 03:3 0.. 85:0» 50.00.3000 .00.:20> >09; 2:03 80.83; 9. . 3.33 0.6.0” uuo—COU .250. 9:0 .59-00.300 .8 .08. 5.... .215. 00 =2: .¢OhUw¢ ....m 3 8.8.39.- 9. .88. .5... .o. €358.15». 05.7.2.5. ouszS 623.52. .m 3: a 2.2.3 .32.. 050 a 0: 6.0050: .0000 000:0 o: .0028 .... £30 .02... .20 cue-:85 .06.. :3 a .33 mZOmxushi; .8.- .2 L000 805 ES. .m 50.0 p .3080 .0 0.008503 .3 05. .m 053:5 17:31.: .03... ./ 1:E ......— Ea: .90 2004. . .01....3 052...: v9.3.1..— .0030! 0.... 5 .E c ... .. .nn .....4 50-70:.— 753 3...? E:— 3031 ... .53.... 4.03:: . 9:. 5:35.: _.=1 3.3....— .3 . c.0725.— .91...." 15...... ... 53.3.. . . ‘35:: .39.... ...—2:35.35 2: ... 1. ...: $510253— ... ...... 83. <0 5333.... 930000050 .003..— u« 4.0.3002?— ..0 3.8955 00:00:0u 000009.; no. 3332: 00m ..0 guano-com “U—Zba kc mmdQVmQ AGO”. 982.9 :6. 3.2.... ...... .3959 a: 9.0—.» .haa—nau Sn 7hfiflbu :23...— 1 m~CU.—23.n Anzac—«1. an» .n 033.com 623.... c. 0382?: .....c: :9... .~.—:.~ 03:081.. 03.52.: (lam .. C mmdw i7. .4 ..n .1. u. .— 8: 3.2.1.5.... ... 5...... 3:6 6.... _ I. . . 0.0.... fUIh-ao. ¢ _ . huJ.a£ 0320.302. .122 usher. ...LEuKuw .05. 23...... c. 1...» 30.30., .3... 0'4. .50 din—m ...—.0 0099.0 inf—NF Ja>sm .30.... .0401— tm .3001 0:0: ...—rink. .0000! 5!...“ 00:3... .22.? 2... «IS—49:0 3....um ....Da<..( 0 0.30». .33.: 2.63.. $000 0. 00 24. 02.03.. .mufifinn oi tn» .232. 0.0:... ..E; 50 .o :3 5.000000... 0000.000: 0... .02—C000. 03:00 03.0 .2: 252. .23. uzozm 030.09. .3368 0.0.. D 00.20 2:00.... .00. 30. 609.68 ...-0:: $223M 0 95.5110 002.28 .a 0.50:. .0200! >3. .293 555 mics—.05.. 603.3 0.0020520 0000.! 0.30.3000 on .35. .Ed m. ......82 .92 ...-2.3. wi.»-»¢25 .55... c. 0.3 32.9.. .22. .3320...- Lauz muEuo .352” $2.53 .w 0a 0.30: 0.305 / 01.0.02. mr: .....mszm £32102. . :udYN. 5.50 n 0.... ac.» 0...: 3:5 00:12.0 $050 1.0:: 2 88 8. m: 2?...» domwdnn .E... :00 .50 m 00.500. 1.0,... .0033... 050... 05:00.0 2.2360223... x O h . Z < q. .nnmmfinn 0.000 0:0 E00. .0. 00005.0 0. 1002. .0n 050... m. .3205 0:09:03 90.053 .0. ¢w01242 meOI 23.8... .oflm 3... 5000.500 ...! .00 .2; 9.2 001050.00: .200 0.26 5.33. 330... .Smm.mnn_.or .5. 00.500. 00.00.30: 0 0...: ...-00¢ u2.t¢02(1 ...—.20 .00. ...-:3 .0. 003.: ....w 2603.05 =6 09:1 :62 .... ado. . 90.0: 000.. hzwizxw>oo 3.». .5. : .o 33...... .Euq.En~ .0 £070.00 00>.) 0c» :03 0.0 .9: w .23: >6 cutfi>¢693g0 02.5.20 c. 03:32.: 82!, 0:...~ ut» 2310 :No a .0 00030:. 0.504 3:0 .23 .0 RE? Soc 0: 00:63“ noon :2 E. 2.3 .5... m .2... 080 R.” omw; 9.....2. ....u 24 3.20 no... 003 0.8” 22.3... .m'. ....mmdc >25 w~mm 93...... to. .cE 0205 0:3 0000 00mm“ 3m. 55......— m. a» 2.... n? Etc 30.. ..0 8g; :0» 33: 0004.50 :00. .2. En ... 0000a. n 00:0. 2%... b... «033 .206» E ... o .8... 3mm 7.... ccofi 0?... 0.52. 3...; r” :09... W... .53.. 3%.. 1m. 05.9.0 ......m .... moi $8 .93. 5:3 .35 .0 80m ...; >000 =0! ac). On. c3355... x502»... . 0.2:. 883 09.600” 000... r 0.... 02.... .85. ES. 53 83 22.... ES 2 82.... .Eooom... .000 - 8 (3.5.1 ...—305).... Sam 2H 83 03.53 30.. 6:50: 3:61 . 0:3 7.3.0010 c. ..ocio 0:0 .2! hzm...<> 7:302»... .33 “D. 3.; .OCOU 000? r. .937: do. .....no tic [03:22... Scan .0... .3 (~20... 8mm. .9“ 5 01.: wwm 8;... 00.31 23:00 2. .0009 m 00. .3on «CNS: 0.. 03.... 9mm .Hn ....U 3:0 .30 .0 8m» 2... .60“ 5:2... 3.? 0000 «.3... .9... 0.: cc 0003 n .a. Mnn pm. xUEw>4E mun. ..w Nap—NINE. ..au ......00. 30-. 0c. :0 ~.:oESo>oa m D 0.... c039... 3» .o. 302. :6 :00 30> 03:. t w. .250 0 0r... 30> 0.0.. ...! 00:53.0 .53.. 30:... o. 0000 00. ML. 29.)) Ron mmm ...3m :3 Eco. 2.9. 0.... .3. ..nau .30: 0.. ZEE 30.. man» 70 macaw «020: ...m .n. In. .5. m.o._.. :92... .2... .00“ .0 8mm ...3 .3! 050000000 .....z 9.3 ms 7.1:..qu .Fmombmm .003 mm. . Z <> 0 m0“. 0 ...—.0 who? an ...:2 3.. u. .C 304v .3 259... c: :33 0:3 2.... 2...... .Om.m.o. VI Illlllll 88.. $2 .. ...... J 0.50 3.52.0... >3... 1.? o... . «m 0... 0:0“. Rm ......n 89. msz 080,. 0.3 0000 to) 2h. «5m: 000.. “0500-0 None CH ....u 9:... 0:53. 3... 1.0.5 ‘0‘ 0.05.0. £035.. 80 2— .ms. ...de woooo F. a 1.0:... 2..." .34 ....U 95... .033! a. .32 1.9... 02...." 0000: a»: .030... .09: mm 6...... gym .05 o: 23m WM. «and an... 9."? 2:96 00‘. .E :0 :20 5:32... F. . E 0 3 0 7. 0 ... 0 0 60.626 3 20:12“. OPE):- =0U 8n Nam i=0 :0: 5 g» 0.090 009.350. ...».m 9.3. 29 335.5 39.19. 9.9.5031 059:5) 50:0.30 :5 =3 0.50:3” a 00:00:. 309.: 0.2 2.5 w)» 190 2.32 OSYIEBUQ 3.3.0 315“. a 9300: .0300 .0230 .0030 . ......Im ~S. mus... 51w... uzaam UZEDO O.(mw¢m mm kmDS mac... wa03um 44¢ 03~OEO~3< o>_~oEo~3< .0500 350600 0395‘ :32 052. 8.32 02:03 20¢ 00..- 3638.93..— 0922 9.2 no; sag-58¢ 8.35.. 2.02. 8.0008. 330... 88:09.0: 3.6030 3.02 68:: ..coE..oo< 00820.. .00—— .0..— 0c..6u 0 =0.- elolaoilm .00.! 3.96.202 0.0.3 602 00.28 23‘ 389. 0.60.2 02.95:? 3.0» 00085 0020-0000003. xmnz. our—.850 L \ so: 6838.38.81 77 5525 35.55 31.50 .550 .5... 52.5. ...... m a .55 98.5.0.5 ...... 25:83.5“. 3 9.5.. 5.5.53 b: Vim? 3.5%. RC 2.55.5.5 mafia 5 .— — . 534.3... 1.54.0.5. 551...... .5a. .555... ..J < rail: ...55. 5...... ...... r. ...... 5..... 5. ...... CUE—wmv< >LLUO. .... ... _. u... ...5. 5...... ... 5..... 5. ....5u55: 5...; ........r. .... ...... .=.. _._..= ....s........:... a . 9.... 12:1. 5 A559 [<5 NC=I 24... . ...41......5...55 7: .. .5...5.. .1... 5.. .. .....u ... 55...: .513... 55 55.5.. 7 / 55. 55 5..—h3/5 : .....5.. 5.5..... ...... 5:... ...—.... . ....5: .r . ... 5. .....5/ 5.5.23 .5. .7. ....J... 5...... ......5 L... .. .5 ...... ...1... .5. ...: .. ...5...55. .. .... .. ,. ...... , .....::. 555.. 55.5..5 5 5A. .55 5155;... 5......3m ...... .55 ... ...5...u.5.. 5.5.5... 3.5. .... ...... ...... ..............r .....r _ 1 5...» 3 3...“...5. .... .... 5.2.35... 5......25m .5. :5 ...... - .... ..u... (1252.: u... 71...... NEE... ...... v.5. ... ...... :5. 5.52.2355 .... 5.3... 4 . . . . ...5. ......5 ... 5......... ...u..a..m .5... .55... ....5 : ... .... .. 5.2.... 5. 1...... .. 5.... 5.35....— 5...... 55 .... 5.5. ....c...... .5... 5..-.... q 5...... .. .5 ..(.55.....: 5.25.5.5 ...... .....4. .5... ... 5...... ...... 5:12. 5. 5...... ......25n .1: SE... ...... 5..... .n. ..55. ...... . ....)........5 .....3.... .....5.. :55. 5 5...... .....7 ...u... 4... ...... 5.55. ...-i 5, .5555; :5... 4... 5.. ...:..5....._ ...... ...... ...... 5.....5. ...... ....5 .5.... f .5555 L5 55 ...—L775; .............._..... .... :3 .... ....5.. 2...... ......5. 5... ......52. ... ...... .25.. 5.1 .555 a... ..5 ....55. a... .55... 55... 53.5.5... ....5 2...... 55.5... 55.9.... 15...: 55...». ..v::.a.;5 ...—....n. 5:555 5.539.555 HES». .....nu ...5. 5...» o. ...: 5......1: 551...”.5 .....5. 2...... 55...... ......53 .25... ...—.5. .5 ..u...5_.a= 5.5..... 2.5.. .... .5. ...... ....53 can! .5. .9 5505.5. .5335 .3 5.5.58... «Saw-.. 5 . .... 7 :5. 5...... ... ......5 ...... ...........z ...5. .1....._../ ..C .uu.........::.......5......u._.... 5...... 5..... v.59... ...: ... .... . ...... .........:.5... 5.1.5....... .5. ...... ...... ... 5. 5...... 5. . 55 555:. .. .... .5: 5..... ..a... . ... ...... 5...}... ... 1 .... 5.31.. .... :2... ......x. ...}. ...... 5...... ...5. 355:... ”...... .....u......., ... 4... 1 . .5 .42... ... 5....— .5..... 55 s .... 55.85 3.... 5...... . ...5........r ...-:55 ...—2.515; a... 5...... ......555 2:. ...»... U......G ...: _. 5.29:5...3 ...... ......5 . i=5; ... =2. .5. 5.. 55.... ..c::._ 05:. ...... .35.. by .... 5...... 5...: .n. 2.5.55 .3513... 5.5.53... 525 1.45w>>>w=Of5 5W26. Emco mm . 7:25 «mo—Ué u_u_uo.._m :30. E >> >> AN F” ... 22 A... 5o: 2%: 5..... . _ ..m>ou oz. .....uawm..,,,...wnn .2 1.19:: s....:_ _ "um. 32253: 6qu .u.om._:m . . .. I; --.-nthlL 1|” 8;. .585 \lUS. .22.... _ fl 3:65. 332 204. 9;... 35.1515»? .K £53m 09:... a 033.5. 30:5 cwv—uEU a gut. “53.3330 mozudfinzom mom: a >HSUSNZ 0 $3300 m:~::_>> .9322.- N—vov E... EOE?!“ 3.3:: 0 35:5“. .Q . m .30 wow. 5. >55". 0 WEE/~25: .55 .02; 551.05 «E. .om . . S >‘0EOU mcmvcnzm¢300 @5690; Dec 0:695 .2 .00 0:0 00.3 ncwm wwoflq . .Q .u _ . . m > F. O” N— =.». E Q Q. .n 1 1.390 n n _ _ a 6.2030 mncaouoimzme o. «5 _Z unratum 3...: afimwaho nwwc 30m 9.5155 300% 93, cm>w .3069 :00me .35.: 29.3600 ...wfi omw— .M >U§.1=NN =LQ>w2 2: .E; ESE/g gag 5AA 3:83.552“; 8A5 QZ< xmm m>oa=€ mor.:=._.=n_:_._.c SEE a. t A 2.» 5 444m ammo .:/..H._c Elem. n74 . u u W Qt Q h‘ 9% .MQWN § A .Iv AHA—...:wnfiiEsb 3:5. :52 . ._../.._D_.r...:r_ “....Cr .mhzwmwmn— Wmm>mnw UZwmnwm xi. E...:>:>.A.r¢ wmazu 852E? oz . max cemxucm .EA— OGNN .Wm—Dh. .mucmmaosk 3 53m .200. W: van 2sz St .0 . wmonxm nfiuEEJE < . «33$. ..ws§§% 76.23 am: Edam zflEEm “EOE #Sommmmfi. 903 3 20: L090 7. omevua "“590 0+2 :6. &0m .l mN __.a< _ ram . >0 0: meULO .mycma , Elana/x ucvccmucuEEOU , $53.3“. .w mmk°ol— .5355? F155, ._ 955,51: ... 1:; Eu 2: 2...... : . : 4:..5L ugh r,............w~.u.w._ 5.5.5.6 . :5 5.7572 E 2.4.6.: :5: 2:5. 2: 5.33.2: Eu 0:. ...—L . 302 ..cc: :. ...Eau .2: cc :3 :23: .F £2 :3 = 2.. 5:: 2:} a: ":5: 5...: 2.9:. 4 9.: .6... ...... «AS—1.4 E: :35 ... 3.61 an: :5 :n: ...... _ _ . ...: A. .. : |.:|lsl§.!\l..|,|. .. I. . ... .. ....li I.\|.I.I 79 . .. . .605. .. . .. l UAT. MFUSENAEWH. “MM... “3 055315.13 nun—nan... . £2.22 1.32 “”2233... 335 In; "a 5:5 59.35 :3. 5:. 5.3.5.3. I>I.fl Hm III-Ii— Aauflqvua .3 8.. .5. ...... u... ...—3. to. :8 2. 55:8 .5: ... x .2. 15»... rain" Ea 3.19:5“... s... .5 snmm 3...... 3:22...“ ea. ..qu .28....- a5 a. 2.8.. ...: ...oE .2 $55 9.32.2 - €552 Ema“ =3... ~53 339...: Ev ....8 an... 2.. ... ...... sou) ...5 5.8m a... 55.: .939 ...-"£52 ... as... 22.. .... ”5.83 :5. .45... 3.52. 53.. 5.5 .Eo. -=_..u.-o._.=..=oao.n .flfio .023 on 3:3 35.2.. .. 2583..“ .23... 6.3 .3522 EEO... 3 23!... ..>2 dE E053: do E3853. ”5..qu 3.5.03 9.:qu SEE: 95v»... 32»... fl]. mg... 55 .522 ES 3.. .o: 2.2 wfigognaEEo .3353 95E €53 .239 :23 95.5.. 6:32 Eofifl. 3:35.25 ....< 523.3 620 E23... 2 .5... E220 .38 d5 .89 bw> «58:5 .355 5..: .2 9 62 8:9. .53. Ba 9.... 252% m2. .325... :53 ES; 2.8.2 to duo..- .mo... uE..2m..o.. e. i> 2.3.2035... c..- UEaa .a 22.65 5.3 mil Eu“: :nE 2. 0.35.3 ...fli 255.2. .80 :5. o. Hob SE 4.52 E... 2...! .35..» d5 F558: 2 Ann... .533 Eel Eulufi .o 2.3 ...-2.53 .595 “35.9 33 unis—e ....u... Mug... "......0U 5.92 ......E 2.82 ".1..qu 5:8 .53.. >329 EEK. Union: Eoiofi lo... 9.33 9!»... >§fi:.,.=§x§ an an R ... a. o. < .. A. E. ... 53 I - - - - I I I I I I d‘flflflhfihafln—ai—ED .iO— ”NEED:— 39:05 .330 moutEum 8. 8 ... E 8 3 a. 8 a 2 o ice-Ea“. a E a 62.5 Sindeeiugwafleuaexuzsan 400» 4w; . wwm. E 4.1»... >4DZOS. . «a. 8O 2:335... «...—83; =5 .53 5mg . use» in: 3:33 in: a—w'finmfi—a —§.m~m.vam _ _ a ._ . . ,3 3L . z .3: 2 1.. .3 i2 ...3 is... . ... a»... «2:. I: a. 5:. as; a. a... ...: v8 .... 5.... is...“ ”Ruffian _ .293 “butt-3F .3qu SEES—Sp 5:3 ”is: blue 52.533... _ .3 I... ... i... 3 we. .. a... . a .3. ... a... a 1.. ... in... d... . ...—r...- ucn ...—ER .3525; .35; ..ENI 2.: >23 5:. £53. ...—:5 ...-52 4. Union . 55.2... canon E33 =5 _ 9.6.5.50 :95. 38¢ .....a... . u... 8.... .3 ...: s: 2...: .. _ NESHoév 52%;; 83.1.2.3 8.3845 Easy—nut mmeExm . .Nv '2 _ ~v .2 NH 30. an 9.. .88 v5 .5 so. 1:. 3.: .1. c9: .28.. d... .. .z. 5:. ..Cu 5: .3 5... duo... u... go “I50... duet! plot-Ea _. .aU plot—Eran 38 “Iota—:3. ..Eui .59—BEE. .9 I2 .3 .9: .9 is so i... ._ .v 3e: .3 32 a. be. gnaw—=55 E.- ...—.55 E .03 :5 _ _ .3 5:. dose... _ .E 32 «ESE cu... ... 5.... ...—:3 :5 22.5.3 can c. ES; . H :2: union . .0155 23m .Su :3 ...—wands: 53ml; _ 5.: 5.5:; .53.: . _ >5 u... :30 . . .gfi SEEBF H to. 3 5.: «as... E B259... 200 52.3 Egg 3 5:53 8:5. I (n .SEII E333 I ...-en...— 9: 3.2 .3 3: ...vul. £5 955: 05.5.. .5 DR .3 5... SEE. .38 S ...2 .3 .9. r3 int-II... $.33 “IE-33h .2 in. z is .3 5:. £255 3 an... .35: .55 3200 ...—as. uEEoE >5 9.2.33.5 «32.3; .3 “in .80 ...».E: 35... 05 3.300: aux—33 I 2:. 6... =5 wind .52 9a 3.3 .85 «5 ”Eu- 8=mc :5 x 5 . a I and 3.525 05 ... ER v.5 .1. ...-63:33 .5 9.2.3.: _ .G 5:. £2.55 >30» (A) .830 '2. E a. in. .3 55 45:3. .058 East-v.55 . 5..—Ems. .385 5.5”: :5. 3.5;. .3. to. ..a... 5:. .cu .23 anal“ v2.2: 52.3 unau>unu 8940 5..-...... ...-m 5.9m .cG 2...: 35:56 2.2.85 $52.55 .5. .3 5:203:5— 23.5... a... 3:! can: ...-A ..w. an 2 52:9 05.5.3: 55.6.5 23:0 to: all..- Cilia! IO. 81 BUSINESS/WALL STREET What month did the Dow Jones Industrial Average break 1500? In what city does Burger King have its OFFice oF Franchise Affairs? Where is Genentech. Inc. located? What corporation is expected to get approval For a hepatitis B vaccine? Who is the past president oF the Institute oF CertiFied Financial Planners? Which type oF industry has done the worst over the past year (measured by the Market Value Index)? What company is a major supplier oF power-generation equipment? Where does Roy Ehrhardt live? Which Biotech stock company closed the lowest on the OTC Stock Exchange Friday? On what date did the Dow Jones industrial average lose 35.68 points? 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 82 BUSINESS/WALL STREET Who is the head trader at Dreyfus, Corp.? Was a higher percentage of shares traded last week on the American or New York Stock Exchange? Was a higher percentage oF shares traded last week Over the Counter or on the American and New York Stock Exchanges combined? How many biotech stock companies are mentioned on this page? Where does 8. Robert Kupor work? Who compiles the "Ask Money" column? What does t—PA stand For? How many points could the Fed’s rate cut add to the Dow today? How much (in 2) was the discount rate cut by? What is Allen Sinai’s occupation? What was the national debt on February 28? 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 83 BUSINESS/WALL STREET What company’s First name begins with a small letter (instead oF a capital letter)? Name another company whose First name begins with a small letter (instead oF a capital letter). What is the diFFerence between the percentages oF outstanding shares traded between the companies you listed in #22 and #23 (answer to two places aFter the decimal point)? Who interviewed major analysts of biotech stocks? In what city is the Antique Trader Weekly published? What would be the annual growth rate based on last week’s reported U.S.A. economic trend? Whose wife does not work? What city has a 33156 zip-code? What type of industry had a Market Value Index equal to 86 a month ago? What company markets services to credit—card holders? 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 84 BUSINESS/WALL STREET How much higher was textile products’ closing Market Value Index yesterday compared to garden supplies’ closing MVI? What is Thomas Alto’s occupation? What city/town in Minnesota is mentioned on this page? How many squares are totally colored in the Dow Jones Industrial Average graph on the top of the page? What is Eugene’s last name? How many squares are there in the Dow Jones Industrial Average graph on the top of the page? Which stock lost 72 cents a share in Fiscal 1985? How many times a week will readers’ questions be answered in the "Ask Money" column? Where does t—PA dissolve blood clots? 10. 11. 85 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES What is Patrick McGuire’s phone number? What is the man looking up at the globe holding in his left hand? In what state would you find the city/town of Vienna? What is TWA’s motto? What is the State of California’s Licence Identification Number for one of these businesses? Which business has a special toll—free number for residents of Indiana? How many TWA offices are listed on this page? What does Pansophic manufacture? How much does a subscription to National Job Market cost? In what city/town will you find 21031 Ventura Blvd.? How much money do you have to put down to purchase a truck from one of these advertisors? 12. I3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 86 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES How many countries are mentioned where you can earn money without paying any taxes? What company allows you to "set your own hours?" What is the nine digit zip-code of Sunnyvale. CA? What does Gannett publish? Which company offers "protected territories?" What is located at 10330 Natural Bridge Road? Which business has been around since 1947? What phone number should you dial from Lansing if you are interested in becoming an engineer in Tel Aviv? How many pages does each issue of National Job Market contain? Correspondence should be addressed to the attention of what department number for the Central Region in one of these advertisements? 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 87 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES In how many days will companies in all areas of the country have over 150,000 career openings that must be filled? To whom should you direct your resume if you are interested in Mechanical Engineering/Antenna] Systems? The name of a hotel is incorrectly spelled on this page. In what town/city is this hotel located? What phone number would you dial to get a recorded message? How many airline-related companies have advertised on this page? In what section of this newspaper can you usually find Career Opportunities? In what state would you find Landmark Square? What kind of experience is "a plus" for working at a corporation in Hershey? What hours on Sunday is Overseas Unlimited open during Eastern Standard Time? What phone number should you dial to receive a Resume Writing Kit? 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 88 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES What position requires at least an MS in computer science? What city has a zip-code of 55426? What do you think Mr. Haldane’s first name is? What company has over $300 million in new contract awards? What town/city in New Hampshire is mentioned on this page? What is the "formula for the future?" To which city should you mail an application if you cannot attend a seminar? What company is looking for your IBM Sales Talent? Name something located on US 90 East in Mississippi. 10. 11. 89 CLASSIFIED What is the address of Woody’s Oasis? What is the person’s name who buys late model domestic cars? In what building can you see a film about studying overseas? What is the phone number of Jobs Hotline? How much is the one bedroom apartment at 323-4787? What will Classified help you find "when it’s too good to throw away?" Where is the Murray Hotel? Who lives at 351-6789? Who has repair manuals for over 120 foreign car titles? What time should you call 349-4084? What’s located "Just off Grand River —— Okemos?" 12. 13. 14. 15. I6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 90 CLASSIFIED What is the most you should spend for a 1976 Plymouth Stationwagon? What is the name of an apartment resident who might play tennis? What word is missing a hyphen? What can you get by calling a certain phone number and asking for extension R-9440? Who has asked the reader to call a certain number collect? How many flagpoles are on the castle? Name one thing for which Scott and Lori are looking. What phone number should you call if you are familiar with archery? What is located at 355-8255? For what extension should you ask if you want to be in T.V. commercials? Which apartment complex overlooks a golf course? 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 91 CLASSIFIED A local announcement on this page will reach how many students? What is located at 2900 Northeast St.? To what state should you move in order to "get ahead?" What does Mr. Hall need? How many columns does the front of the Parthenon have? What can you buy for $44 from the U.S. government? With what type of package does the 1978 Toyota Celica GT coupe come equipped? What is at the corner of Abbott and Grand River? What is in Suite 303? In what year was the "Florida car" manufactured? How long will you have to be in the area in order to take the job offered at 339-2464? 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 92 CLASSIFIED For how many years has the Mason Body Shop been in business? How many passengers can fit on the ocean liner? You must have "reliable transportation" for a particular job offered on this page. Where should you apply for this job (where is the Personnel Office located)? Who is looking for an Arts and Crafts Show Coordinator? To whom besides Karen can you speak by dialing 353-5143? How much can you earn by working at midnight in an apartment in Lansing? With what do you need experience to get a job at the store located at Frandor? 10. 11. 93 SPORTS Who improved her record to 6-2? How many people are honored for receiving a 3.5 GPA winter term? Who is the MSU baseball team coach? Who wrote a book available at Logos? Where did the Spartans play the Bishops? What is the State News’ photographer’s full name? Where can you get munchies? How many people have seen a slide presentation about the roots of rock—n-roll? Who made two brilliant saves in the first quarter? Who was leadoff hitter in the sixth inning? What number is on the sleeve of the white jersey? 12. I3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 94 SPORTS How much money should you send for shipping and handling? What should you "order now?" How long will Don Dowland be in the area? When will the Spartans play a non-conference double— header? Who was the MSU senior catcher? On what side of the graduate’s head is the tassle hanging? What do they "think" in Freemont? Who scored the Bishop’s second goal? Who knows quite a bit about sex? What is "outstanding?" What kind of pitch ended the long game? 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 95 SPORTS How many flowers are on the page? Who is Ricardo Cooney? If it wasn’t happenstance, what was it that made the Spartans show renewed vigor? Who made a sacrifice bunt? Who is Brad Warren? Who scored off a walk? What kind of "fever" could you catch? What is "guaranteed?" What is the name of the "fine hitting team?" Who tried to go after the loose ball? How many hits did Tracy get? On what street would you find the Cooley Law School? 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 96 SPORTS How many brands of bottled beer are available? What can you "improve" for $3.50? What was the score of the game that "could have had a different complexion?" What is Phil's last name? What building should you go to if you want to ask what "marantha" means? Who "took a beautiful feed" from junior Kevin Rice? 10. 11. 97 WEATHER What city "could be colder than Boston Tuesday night?" Name yesterday’s hottest city in California? What city has 617 as its area code? What is 80 Farenheit degrees equal to on the Celsius scale? How many states will be totally submerged in 70 degree temperatures? In which direction is the warm air moving this week? How many states will experience temperatures above 79 degrees? What city will be over 100 degrees today? What color is the girl’s shirt? How many states are totally covered with purple in the inset in the middle of the page? What phone number should you dial for more weather details in Tulsa? 12. I3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. I9. 20. 21. 98 WEATHER What city in the continental U.S. will have "beach weather" today? How many cities are named on this page? From your answer to #13 above. how many of these cities are not in North. Central. or South America? Name one city that will have a 31 degree difference between its high and low temperatures tomorrow. Name another city that will have a 31 degree difference between its high and low temperatures tomorrow. Name a third city that will have a 31 degree difference between its high and low temperatures tomorrow. Of the three cities listed (questions 15—17). which city had the lowest temperature today? What city in Florida pictured on the map should have the highest low temperature today? Who "makes the very best?" Given your answer to #20 above. what are they known for making? 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 99 WEATHER According to the map. which state has the highest predicted range of temperatures today? How many cities named on this page begin with the letter ’L’? What is -1 degree Celsius equal to on the Farenheit scale? On what page can you read about picking up the wreakage from a previous tornado? How many cities are expecting snow today? Name the city (or cities) from item #26. How many cities are expecting snow flurries today? Name the city (or cities) from item #28. What state will be humid today? Name a Weather Services Corp. meteorologist. Who is the baseball player pictured on this page? 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 100 WEATHER How many cities have area weather close-ups? What is Julie’s last name? Which American city that legally operates gambling casinos will have the highest temperature today? Which American city that legally operates gambling casinos will have the lowest temperature today? Name an American city not already mentioned (in questions 35 and/or 36) that legally operates gambling casinos? What will the "warmth bring?" How many cities will be sunny for four days in a row? Frosts and freezes will extend tonight to the northern part of which state? 101 BUSINESS/WALL STREET —* ANSWER KEY 1. December 23. countrywide cr Inds. or conchemco 2. Miami Inc. 3. South San Francisco 24. 3.86 or —3.86 4. Chiron 25. Kathy Rebello 5. P. Kemp Fain. Jr. 26. Dubuque 6. petroleum and coal 27. 3.2% products 28. Thomas Schoenecker 7. Combustion Engineering. Inc. _ 29. Miami 8. Kansas City 30. Pipelines. except natural gas 9. Bio—Response 31. SafeCard or 10. March 21 SafeCard Services Inc. 11. George Pirrone 32. 210 12. New York 33. certified public 13. over the counter accountant or accountant or CPA 14. 10 34. Cambridge 15. Cable House 8 Ragen 35. accept any answer 16. William Giese between 375—390 17. tissue plasminogen ' 36. Peroni activator 37. 1326 or (26 X 51) 18. 10—12 38. Amgen 19. .51 or from 7% to 6.5% 39. once 20. economist 40. in the heart 21. $1.979.143.000.000 22. countrywide cr Inds. or conchemco Inc. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. I8. 19. 20. 102 CAREER OPPORTUNITIES -- ANSWER KEY 1-800-523-7366 or 523-7366 briefcase or suitcase VA or Virginia A Career in the Sky is Like None on Earth E-456l northAmerican van lines or long distance trucking 5 or 17 computer software or peak performance software $29 Woodland Hills $2500 3 or 4 or 5 Spectrum International EOE 94088-3510 USA Today North American Roofing Systems. Inc. Park Terrace Airport Hilton or TWA office Haldane Assoc. (213) 739—8080 64 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 36 or 036 30 ESL or Clarence Kastrop or Prof. Employ. Dept. Clarksville 816-234-8202 or TWA 2 Classified or Classified Across the USA CT or Connecticut valve 12—6 1—800-323-7702 Supervisor of Artificial Intelligence Minneapolis Bernard ESL or TRW Manchester ESL Kansas City Pansophic La Font Inn 20. 21. 22. 103 CLASSIFIED —- ANSWER SHEET 970 Trowbridge or 23. Trowbridge Rd. 24. Bill Burcham Natural Resources 25. 887—2178 26. $310 27. a buyer 28. Mackinac Island, MI 29. Linda Checquered Flag 30. after 5 31. Campus Hill Apts. 32. $600 33. Karin 34. cosmetics 35. current federal list or govn. jobs 36. Naval Reserve 37. 4 Programmers or DBA’s 38. or system programmers 39. 616-938—2200 40. Classified Office or 347 Student Services Building 117 Cedar Greens 39,000 Connxtions Comedy Club Texas Handyman or Parttime Handyman 7 or 8 Jeeps sport or 5 speed. air. am/fm Evergreen Arms Health Care Clinic 1961 2 years 45 or 46 or since 1940 500 Community Mental Health Board MSU Union Activities Board Carolyn $3.50 clothing sales 3. 4. \DCD\10\ 10. ll. 12. 13. I4. 15. I6. 17. 18. I9. 20. 21. 22. 23. 1 SPORTS Dianne Kennett 6 Tom Smith Richard M. Czop. M.D. Old College Field or East Lansing Michael Honeywell J.J. Winners thousands O’Neil Kevin Dalson 4 $0.50 Commencement apparel 2 weeks or April May 3 Tuesday Bill Hanis left thin Rich White Greg Ball comedy wild 2 22 - 04 -- ANSWER SHEET 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. State News Writer or Writer team pep-talk Aimesbury lives at Sigma Alpha Mu or he got a 3.5 GPA Steve Preston spring satisfaction Boilermakers Mike Daniels 2 Capitol Ave. or Capitol 60 or over 60 your figure 13—5 Arbit Engineering Dave Stein 10. 11. 12. 13. I4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Atlanta Palm Springs Boston 27 2 east or NE or 8 New Delhi yellow 4 or 5 405-685-5577 or 685-5577 San Francisco 143 25 105 WEATHER -- ANSWER SHEET 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. up 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Denver or Bend or Cheyenne Denver or Bend or Cheyenne 38. 39. 40. Denver or Bend or Cheyenne Cheyenne Key West Nestle chocolate or candy bars or the very best Alaska 30 3A or 3 1 Stockholm 1 Dublin Florida Mark Nichols Pete Rose 31 Stacey Las Vegas Reno Atlantic City rain 14 Arkansas APPENDIX G Perceived Stress Associated With Crowding Measure APPENDIX G Perceived Stress Associated With Crowding Measure ATTITUDES TOWARD THE EXPERIMENT (Please read each question carefully) How confined did you feel during the experiment? I I I I Not at all Very Confined Confined How comfortable did you feel during the experiment? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Very Not at all Comfortable Comfortable How crowded did you feel during the experiment? I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Not at all Very Crowded Crowded How ill at ease did you feel during the experiment? I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I Very Not at all Ill at Ease Ill at Ease 106 107 How stressed were you during this experiment? I I I I Not at all Very Stressed Stressed To what extent were you aware of the presence of other people? I I I Very Not at all Aware Aware APPENDIX H Manipulation Check for Attribution APPENDIX H Manipulation Check for Attribution While many people enjoy participating in psychological experiments. some people feel stressed during the experience. The list below contains many explanations describing why you might have felt stressed this evening. Please rate how stressful you perceived each of them to be: 1. I had a fight with my girl/boyfriend earlier. I I I I I I I I I l I I l I I I Not at all Very Stressful Stressful 2. The room was too hot. I I Very Not at all Stressful Stressful 3. I had too much caffeine today. I I I I I l l l I l l I I l I I Not at al Very Stressful , Stressful 108 109 The newsprint I had to review was creating some strain on my eyes. I I Very Not at all Stressful Stressful I was afraid the experimenter might single me out of the group. I I Not at all Very Stressful Stressful The experiment was boring. Very Not at all Stressful Stressful The room was too cold. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Not at all Very Stressful Stressful I felt very crowded in this room. Very Not at all Stressful Stressful I feel sick today. I I Not at all Very Stressful Stressful 110 10. I was nervous about looking foolish in front of my peers. I I I I I I I I Very Not at all Stressful Stressful 11. I was nervous that the experimenter may evaluate my performance. I I I | I I I I I l I I I I Not at al Very Stressful Stressful 12. I was tired. I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I l Very Not at all Stressful Stressful APPENDIX I Comfortable Interaction Distance Measure and Oral Instructions for Completing This Measure Figure 10. WI 1 Comfortable Interaction Distance Measure. 111 1b 112 Oral Instructions for Completing Comfortable Interaction Distance Measure "Please take a good look at the photograph you are holding...Imagine yourself standing in the middle of a large. round room. Straight in front of you is the only doorway to the room. I would like you to imagine that the person who you see pictured is slowly walking through that doorway towards you. Try to determine how close you would allow that person to approach you before you begin to feel uncomfortable. In other words. at what distance would you want that person to stop and not come any closer. That distance can range anywhere from a few inches (i.e.. touching distance) up to six feet [mention to the subjects the distances they are currently standing apart from each other]...." BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Allgeier. A. R. & Byrne. D. (1973). Attraction toward the opposite sex as a determinant of physical proximity. Journal_of_Social_Psychology. 29. 213-219. Allport. F. (1924). Social_psychology. Boston: Hougton Mifflin. Altman. I. (1975). The environment and social behavior. Monterey. Calif.: Brooks/Cole. Anastasi. A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th Ed). London: MacMillan. Byrne. D.. Ervin, C. R.. & Lamberth. J. (1970). Continuity between the experimental study of attraction and real-life computer dating. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 16. 1. 157—165. Cohen. J. 8 Cohen. P. (1975). Applied regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Effects of density. activity. and personality on environmental preferences. Journal of Research in Personality. 1. 45-60. Desor. J. A. (1972). Toward a psychological theory of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2;. 79-83. Duke. M. P. 8 Nowicki. 8.. Jr. (1972). A new measure and social-learning model for interpersonal distance. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 6. 1—16. Eberts. E. H. (1972). Social and personality correlates of personal space. In Mitchell. W. J. (Ed.). Environmental desig_; Research and practice. Los Angelos: University of California Press. Edney. J. J. & Grundmann. M. J. (1979). Friendship. group size. and boundary size: Small group spaces. Small Group Behavior. 19. 124-135. Evans. G. W. 3 Howard. R. B. (1973). Personal space. Psycholggical Bulletin. 89. 334-344. 114 Felipe. N. J. 8 Sommer, R. (1966). Invasions of personal space. Social_Problems. 13. 206-214. Freedman. J. L. (1975). Crowding and behavior. San Francisco: Freeman. Freedman. J. L.. Klevansky. S.. & Ehrlich. P. R. (1971). The effect of crowding on human task performance. Journal_9f Applied Social Psychology. 1. 7-25. Gottheil. E.. Corey. J.. & Paredes. A. (1968). Psychological and physical dimensions of personal space. Journal of Psychology. 62. 7-9. Guado. C. J. & Meisels, M. (1971). Child—parent spatial patterns under praise and reproof. Developmental Psychology. 5. 365. Hall. E. T. (1963). Proxemics: The study of man’s spatial relations. In Goldston. 1. (Ed.). Man’s image in medicine and anthropology. N. Y.: International Universities Press. Hall. E. T. (1966). The hidden gimension. Garden City. N. Y.: Doubleday. Hayduk. L. A. (1978). Personal space: An evaluative and orienting overview. Psychological Bulletin. 85. 117-134. Heller. J. F.. Groff. B. D.. 8 Solomon. 8. H. (1977). Toward an understanding of crowding: The role of physical interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 35. 183-190. Keppel. G. (1982). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (2nd ed). Englewood Cliffs. N. J.: Prentice- Hall. King. M. (1966). Interpersonal relations in preschool children and average approach distance. Journal of Genetic Psychology. 109. 109-116. Kleck. R. (1967). The effects of interpersonal affect on errors made when reconstructing a stimulus display. Psychonomic Science. 2. 449-450. Knowles. E. S. (1978). The gravity of crowding: Application of social physics to the effects of others. In Baum. A.'& Epstein. Y. (Eds.). Human response to_crowding. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Knowles. E. S. (1980). An affiliative conflict theory of personal and group spatial behavior. In Paulus, P. 8. (Ed.). Psychology of group_influence. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 115 Kuethe, J. (1962). Social schemes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 64. 31-36. Langer. R. 8 Saegert, S. (1977). Crowding and cognitive control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 25. 175—182. Lawrence. J. E. (1974). Science and sentiment: Overview of research on crowding and human behavior. Psychological Bulletin. 8;. 10. 712—721. Little. K. B. (1965). Personal space. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1. 237—247. Marshall. G. D. 8 Zimbardo. P. G. (1979). Affective consequences of inadequately explained physiological arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31. 970—988. McCallum. R.. Rusbult. C. E.. Hong, G. K.. Walden. T.. 8 Schopler. J. (1979). Effects of resourcea availability and importance of behavior on the experience of crowding. Journal of Personality and Social PsychOIOQY. 21. 1304— 1313. Middlemist. R. 0.. Knowles, E. 8.. 8 Matter. C. F. (1976). Personal space invasions in the lavatory: Suggestive evidence for arousal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 33. 541-546. Patterson. M. L.. Mullens, S. 8 Romano. J. (1971). Compensatory reactions to spatial intrusion. Sociometry. 35. 114—121. Paulus, P. 8., Annis. A. 8.. Seta. J. J.. Schkade, J. K.. 8 Matthews, R. W. (1975). Density does affect task performance. Journal of Personalityyapd Social Psychology. 34. 248-253. Paulus, P. B. 8 Matthews. R. W. (1980); Crowding. attribution. and task performance. Basic and Applied Social Psychology. A. 1. 3—13. Rapoport. A. (1975). Toward a redefinition of density. Environment and Bahavior. 1. 133-158. Rawls, J. R.. Trego, R. E.. McGaffrey. C. N.. 8 Rawls, D. J. (1972). Personal space as a predictor of performance under close working conditions. Journal of Social Psychology. 86. 261-267. Sanders. G. S. 8 Baron. R. S. (1975). The motivating effects of distraction on task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 32. 6, 956—963. 116 Schacter. S. 8 Singer. J. E. (1962). Cognitive. social. and physiological determinants of emotional state. Psychological Review. a2. 379-399. Seguin, C. A. (1967). The "individual" space. International Journal of_Neuropsychiatry. 108-117. Sommer, R. (1959). Studies in personal space. Sociometry. 22. 247-260. Spence. K. W.. Taylor. J.. 8 Ketchel. R. (1956). Anxiety (drive) level and degree of competition in paired- associates learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology. .52. 306-310. State News (1986). April. 21. pp. 9. 11. State News (1986). September. 29. Shopping Supplement. p. 12. Stokols, D. (1975). Toward a psychological theory of alienation. Psychological Review. 82. 26—44. Stokols, D. (1976). The experience of crowding in primary and secondary environments. Environment and Bahavior. 8. 49-86. ‘ ‘ Stokols, 0.. Smith. T. E.. 8 Proster. J. J. (1975). Partitioning and perceived crowding in a public place. American Behavioral Scientist. 18. 792-814. Sundstrom, E. (1975). An experimental study of crowding: Effects of room size. intrusion. and goal-blocking on nonverbal behavior. self—disclosure. and self—reported stress. aggrnal of Persogality and Social Psychology. 3 . 645—654. U. S. A. Today (1986). April 21. pp. 14A. 38. 7E. Valins. S. 8 Baum. A. (1973). Residential group size. social interaction. and crowding. Environment and Behavior. 5. 49 421“440. Willis. F. N.. Jr. (1966). Initial speaking distance as a function of the speakers’ relationship. Psychonomic Science. a. 221-222. Worchel. S. (1978). The experience of crowding: An attributional analysis. In Baum. A. 8 Epstein. Y. (Eds.). Human response to crowding. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Worchel. S. 8 Teddlie. C. (1976). The experience of crowding: A two—factor theory. Journal_of_Personality and Social Psychology. 35. 30—40. 117 Worchel. S. 8 Yohai. S. (1979). The role of attribution in the experience of crowding. Journal of_Experimental Social Psychology. l§._91-104. Zajonc. R. B.. Heingartner. A.. 8 Herman. E. M. (1969). Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Li. 83—92. B HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LI IIHIHIHIIIIIIIHIIIIHIWIIJIIHIIIIHIIWIII 312930006551 RfifiIES IIIIHII 3 8