fill ~ rgt' .’ -a";“ -"‘"' H... b A ”N." -..“~4&.‘B.‘."&(—\§.‘ : 4...... 13k»- Jim-3‘? ’ 7,” fr"? “If? 5 «.3;- "’4! ~-.. ~. .- .; " .5. :e ~..'. h i '5. ran ~s- - i; ' " '. .;"~',“a(r’v. w 4-“ H %u a‘ 5‘7- J <. ‘3 1;: 0'- ‘I \. ' This is to certify that the thesis entitled TEES SOCIAL LEARI‘JIT‘JG OF AGGRESSION IN YOUTH FOOTBALL presented by DENI SE A. MUGIKIO has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for MA STE RS degree in W EDUCAT ION mafia; Major professor Date 9/91?) 71‘ i733 0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution MSU RETURNING MATERIAL§z Place in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES —-3—‘ your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. F ”E “’ ., .551..~' Vi: .g, ‘ 4 raga Edda usr oat Y THE SOCIAL LEARNING OF AGGRESSION IN YOUTH FOOTBALL By Denise A. Mugno A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Health and Physical Education 1983 COPYRIGHT Denise A. Mugno 1983 ABSTRACT THE SOCIAL LEARNING OF AGGRESSION IN YOUTH FOOTBALL By Denise A. Mugno This investigation was designed to determine if young male foot- ball players and nonplayers became aware of illegal aggressive actions through the observation of college and professional football. Another purpose of this investigation was to determine if there was a relation- ship between youth football players' observation of illegal aggressive acts and the transmission of those acts to players' own games. A third purpose was to determine if there were differences between high school players' and youth league players' awareness of illegal aggressive acts and the use of those acts in their games. The volunteer subjects were 347 high school football players and l22 high school nonplayers between the ages of 15 to 18 years, and l25 youth league football players and l33 junior high or middle school nonplayers between the ages of 12 and 14 years. Based on previous research, the author hypothesized that: (a) there was a difference in the amount of college and professional foot- ball consumed by players and nonplayers; (b) there was a difference in responses to the number of illegal aggressive acts of which the players and nonplayers became aware through observation; and (c) there was a correlation between the number of illegal aggressive acts of which players were aware through observing college and professional football Denise A. Mugno and the number of those acts that players used in their own games. Descriptive statistics revealed support for the first prediction, with players consuming more college and professional football than nonplayers. The second prediction, although statistically significant, revealed players becoming aware of only one more illegal aggressive act than nonplayers. High school players became aware of on the average of only l.4 more aggressive acts than youth league players. Finally, for the last prediction, results revealed significant correlations between the number of illegal aggressive acts of which palyers were aware through observing college and professional football and the number of those acts that players used in their own games, for both high school (r_= .62) and youth league (r_= .50) players. The author concluded that many illegal aggressive acts are observed through college and professional football by players and nonplayers and that a relationship exists between the observation of illegal acts and their subsequent use in players' games. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Deborah Feltz, for all of her time, effort, and support for this thesis. I appreciate the hours she spent on the constant reviewing of each chapter and her endless advice concerning statistics and writing skills. It was Deb's continuous assistance which helped make this thesis possible. I also wish to thank my other committee members, Dr. Vern Seefeldt and Dr. Paul Vogel. It was their valuable feedback and encour- agement which made me determined to "get this thesis rolling". I am grateful for their assistance in getting me started with this project. I am also grateful to all of the principals, athletic directors, teachers, and coaches who gave their time and went out of their way to assist me in the data collection. I especially want to thank all of the students and athletes for their cooperation and honest responses in filling out the questionnaires. A special thanks is in order for my friends and family. I want to thank Janie Spreemann, for not only her support, but also for always being one step ahead and helping me avoid time-consuming mistakes. Also, I need to thank Agustin Dorado, for helping me through some of the rougher periods of graduate school. Finally, I am forever grateful to my family for their moral and financial support; without them I could never have come this far. In closing, I need to say "thanks mom, for all your quick typing skills". ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page LIST OF TABLES .......................................... v I. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............... l Theories of Aggression ............................... 5 Instinct Theory ................................... 5 Drive Theory ...................................... 6 Social Learning Theory ............................ ll Aggression in Sports ................................. 22 Statement of the Problem ............................. 27 Hypotheses ........................................... 27 Delimitations ........................................ 28 Definitions .......................................... 28 Limitations .......................................... 30 Assumptions .......................................... 30 II. MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION .................... 3l Introduction ......................................... 32 Method ............................................... 38 Subjects .......................................... 38 Questionnaire ..................................... 39 Procedures ........................................ 40 Results .............................................. 4l Background Information ............................ 41 Significant Others' Influence on Athletes' Foot- ball Behavior .................................. 41 College and Professional Football Consumed by Players and Nonplayers ......................... 44 Awareness of Legal Skills Through Observing College and Professional Football .............. 47 Awareness of Illegal Skills Through Observing College and Professional Football .............. 48 Use of Illegal Skills in Players' Own Games ....... 52 Players' and Nonplayers" Attitudes Toward the Use of Illegal Aggressive Acts in Football ......... 54 CHAPTER Page Players' Perceptions of Their Reference Groups Attitudes Toward the Use of Illegal Aggressive Acts in Football ............................... 56 Attitudes Toward Illegal Aggressive Actions in College and Professional Football .............. 57 Discussion ........................................... 60 References for Manuscript ............................ 70 Footnotes for Manuscript ............................. 72 BIBLIOGRAPHY................... ................................ 73 APPENDICES A. TABLES OF RESULTS ....................................... 77 B. CONSENT FORM FOR DIRECTORS' APPROVAL .................... 98 C. CONSENT FORM FOR PRINCIPALS' APPROVAL ................... 99 D. PLAYER QUESTIONNAIRE .................................... 100 E. NONPLAYER QUESTIONNAIRE ................................. 106 F. DATA CODING ............................................. llO G. DATA .................................................... ll7 iv TABLE l0. ll. LIST OF TABLES . Rankings and Means for Significant Others' Influence on the Way Subjects Play Football ............................ . Rankings and Means for Significant Others' Influence on Whether or Not Subjects Use Illegal Aggressive Acts in Their Own Games ........................................... . Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you watch college or professional football on T.V.?" .......... . Players' and Nonplayers" Responses to—-"How often do you read about college or professional football in the news- papers?" .................................................. . Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you read about collegecn‘professional football in magazines?". . Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in books?".... . Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season?" .......................................... . High School and Youth League Players' Responses to--"How often do you watch college or professional football on . High School and Youth League Players' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers?" ....................................... High School and Youth League Players' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in magazines?" ............................................ High School and Youth League Players' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in books?" ................................................ Page 77 78 79 80 BI 82 83 84 85 86 87 TABLE Page 12. High School and Youth League Players' Responses to--"How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season?" .................................... 88 l3. Percent Frequencies for Illegal Aggressive Acts of Which Players and Nonplayers Have Become Aware Through Watching or Reading About College and Professional Football ........ 89 14. Illegal Aggressive Acts of Which Players Have Become Aware and Used in Their Own Games ............................... 9l l5. Players' Responses to--"Has using illegal aggressive acts in your games helped your team to win?" ................... 93 16. Players' Responses to--"Do you feel using illegal aggres- sive acts in your games has made you a better football player?" .................................................. 94 l7. Players' Responses to--”Do you feel any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials?" ............................................... 95 l8. Players' Responses to--"Do you feel that any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are acceptable if they help the team to win?" ............. 96 19. Players' Responses to--"Do you feel any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are worth the risk of penalties because they help the team win in the long run?" ............................................ 97 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE During the First Canada-Russia Hockey Series, Canada's Bobby Clarke eliminated the Russian player, Kharmalov, from the rest of the series by stick swiping him across the ankle (Smith, 1975). Jack Tatum, former defensive back for the Oakland Raiders, recklessly crashed into Darryl Stingley during a football game after Stingley failed to catch a pass. Stingley suffered a broken neck and his spinal cord was damaged, leaving him almost totally paralyzed for life (Coakley, 1982). In ex- plaining the motivation behind this type of behavior, some researchers would discuss the discharge of an intense inner aggressive drive, while other researchers may explain this aggressive behavior as a reaction to the frustration of possibly losing the game. A third group of re- searchers may look at the specific situation, for example, the importance of winning that particular game and may investigate the socialization of these aggressive players. According to Bandura (1973), performed repertoires of aggressive behavior are not innate, but must be socially learned. Activities such as sparring with opponents, military combat, and dueling with switchblade knives, are not skills with which people are born; they must be learned (Bandura, 1973). Aggression, although generally thought by some (i.e., Lorenz, 1966) as a primitive attribute, still exists in these modern times of advanced technology. It is found in every aspect of life, from childhood to adulthood, from work to play. Although some form of aggression is seen in everyday life, pinpointing the cause of that behavior is still an issue receiving a considerable amount of attention. Whether aggression is innate or socially learned is a complex issue which researchers are still investigating. Before a plausible cause of aggression can be sought, definitional distinctions need to be established for terms such as assertion, aggres- sion, and violence. For research purposes, aggressive behavior must be defined to assure the validity of the interpretation of results on aggressive behavior. Assertive behavior is defined by Hollandsworth (1977) as "the direct, verbal, and nonverbal expression of one's feel- ings, needs, preferences, or opinions" (p. 348). According to Hollandsworth's definition, assertion may be vocally expressing an opinion or nonverbally expressing an opinion, for example, through facial or body expressions. More specifically, Silva (1980a) defines proactive assertion as goal directed behavior which may involve the use of legitimate verbal or physical force. This behavior may require the expenditure of unusual energy and effort, but there is no intent to injure (Silva, 1980a). Examples of Silva's definition may be easily obtained from the sports world. In football, a ball carrier's thrusting ahead for extra yardage is considered assertive behavior because the act is legal, goal oriented and there is no intent to injure another player. Defensively, a legal tackle made on an advancing ball carrier may be seen as proactive assertion if the reasoning by the defensive player was to stop the runner from gaining yardage, without any intention to harm. Aggression, according to Silva (1980b), contains three factors which distinguish it from nonagressive behavior. First, the aggressive behavior, either physical or verbal, has the potential to physically or psychologically injure the target. Second, the aggressor intends to injure the target and third, the behavior may be directed toward one's self or another being. Silva combines these distinguishing factors of aggression to define aggressive behavior as overt physical or verbal acts performed with the intent to injure physically or psychologically one's self or another being. Although in the past this definition was acceptable, researchers, including Silva, have found it to be somewhat limiting. That is, this definition portrays aggressiveness as having only one purpose: causing injury. Bandura (1973) suggests that a more specific definition must be available to distinguish between behaviors such as a boxer beating another fighter in the ring and a man who stabs another over a heated argument. Currently, two types of aggression are identified: instru- mental and hostile or reactive aggression. Instrumental aggression includes the intent to injure; however, the primary intent of this behavior is to receive a more tangible reward. Silva (1980b) cites as an example of instrumental aggression, a football player who legally tackles the ball carrier with the intent to injure but with the higher desire of winning the game. With hostile or reactive aggression, however, the primary reason for aggression is to inflict pain or see pain as an end in itself (Silva, 1980a). An example of reactive aggression would be a player who wants revenge and, therefore, blocks an opponent much harder than is necessary in order to hurt that opponent. In social learning theory, a full explanation of aggression must take into account both instrumental and hostile aggression. Social judgments are another important concern when studying the area of aggressive behavior. Social judgments may be influenced by characteristics of the aggressive behavior itself or characteristics of the observer or aggressor. Judgments by others concerning the labeling of aggressive actions may be influenced by the intensity of the aggres- sive response, expression of pain or injury by the victim, and the intentions attributed to the performer (Bandura, 1973). An example of an influential behavior characteristic is taken from baseball. If a pitcher strikes a batter with a pitch and the batter suffers a minor bruise, that act may or may not be perceived as aggressive as if the batter had suffered a serious concussion. Violence, another term used in the area of aggression, is dis- tinguished from aggression by some researchers (Feshbach, 1971; Smith, 1978). According to Feshbach (1971), violence is a more severe form of physical aggression. Smith (1978) defines violence as the physical assault of one individual by another. Berkowitz (in Kruput, 1975) states that people may believe there is a quantitative difference between violence and aggression but he uses the terms interchangeably. For the purposes of this investigation, no distinction between the terms aggres- sion and violence will be made. Theories attempting to explain the cause of aggressive behavior have stemmed from either a biological or psychological basis. There have been three major aggression theories developed over the years; instinct theory, drive theory, and social learning theory. Theories of Aggression Instinct Theory According to instinct theory, aggression is a biological instinct which is inevitably expressed. Freud (1933) was one of the first psychologists to theorize that aggression had an innate quality. From his psychoanalytic instinctual theory, he believed that every individual had a death instinct, where aggression was turned inward. Freud theorized, however, that aggression must be turned against others, to avoid self-destruction. Many theoriests did not totally agree with Freud's notion of the death instinct, but many (i.e., Ardrey, 1966; Lorenz, 1966) still remained as advocates of the instinct theory of aggression. Ethologist, Lorenz (1966), agreed with Freud's notion that aggression was innate; however, Lorenz theorized that aggression was the function of species preservation. Human beings have the same fighting instincts as other animals but lack inborn inhibitions against injuring their own species. Lorenz (1966) blames this lack of inhibition to aggress on the rapid technological changes which have taken place in modern society. Since humans have not developed these innate inhibitions, aggression builds up internally. Instinct theory also includes the notion of catharsis. When aggression is internally built up, frequent outlets are necessary for a reduction or catharsis of aggression. This "safety valve" or "purging" as it is sometimes called, is necessary to avoid violent outbursts which could take place as the result of too much built—up internal aggression (Lorenz, 1966). Lorenz postulates that aggression must be channeled through acceptable behavior such as vigorous physical activity or sport activities since this innate expres- sion cannot be abolished. Although instinct theory was at one time a popular theory of aggression, it has been attacked over the years for its lack of suppor- tive, scientifically based data. Much of the support given to instinct theory has stemmed from Lorenz's work with animals. Also, many of the studies which support the catharsis hypothesis of instinct theory, have been based on projective tests. The use of projective tests and case studies has been widely criticized in the research of instinct theory (Husman, 1980). Berkowitz (1969), in his essay review on aggression, stated that "instinct theorists' reliance on causal anecdotes instead of carefully controlled, systematic data, their ill-defined terms and gross analogies, and their disregard for hundreds of relevant studies in the interest of an oversimplified theory warrant the disapproval generally accorded them by technical journals" (p. 383). Drive Theory Another well-known theory of aggression uses Freud's psychoana- lytic theory as a base but includes many of the ideas from drive theory. This theory includes the frustration-aggression hypothesis, postulated by Dollard, Doob, Miller, Maurer, & Sears (1939). The frustration-aggres- sion hypothesis contends that interference in goal directed activity induces motivation to aggress which can only be reduced by inflicting injury to the person who is obstructing goal attainment (Bandura, 1973). This theory also asserts that aggression is always the consequence of frustration. Martens (1975) clearly summarized the major propositions of the frustration-aggression hypothesis: 1. The strength of instigation to aggression varies directly with the amount of frustration. 2. The strongest instigation aroused by frustration is the act of aggression directed against the agent perceived to be the source of the frustration; progressively weaker instigations are aroused to progressively less direct acts of aggression. 3. The inhibition of any act of aggression varies directly with the strength of the punishment anticipated for its expression. 4. The inhibition of direct acts of aggression is an additional frustration that instigates aggression against the agent perceived to be responsible for this inhibition and increases the instigation to other forms of aggression. Consequently a strong tendency exists for inhibited aggression to be dis- placed to different objects and expressed in modified forms. 5. The expression of any act of aggression is a catharsis that reduces the instigation to all other acts of aggression. (p. 113) Anthropologists such as Bateson (1941), have noted that aggression has not always followed frustration. According to Martens (1975), this criticism lead theorists to posit that aggression need not be observable but could instead be verbal, implied, or fantasized. However, scien- tists have difficulty supporting a concept which does not always produce observable results. The catharsis aspect of the frustration-aggression hypothesis has not helped support this theory either. There have been numerous studies completed that have attempted to test the cathartic effect. Numerous studies did not support catharsis, however, and, in fact, demonstrated that under a variety of conditions, aggressive behavior tended to increase rather than decrease, following the observation of aggression (Goranson, 1970; Hartmann, 1969; Walter, Thomas, & Ackers, 1962). Walters et a1. (1962) tested the effects of observed aggression on subsequent behavior. Subjects were told that they were participating in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. The subjects were to administer shocks for every incorrect response made by the learner. After the first trial, subjects were shown either a film of aggressive behavior or a neutral film. After the film, subjects again administered shocks to learners who responded incorrectly to questions. Aggression was measured by the intensity of shocks given during pre-film trials and post-film trials. Results revealed that subjects shown the aggressive film increased the punishment level more during the post-film trials than did the control group who observed the neutral film. Following studies such as Walters et a1. (1962), a frustration- aggression reformulation was proposed by Berkowitz (1965). Combining individuals' innate predisposition to respond aggressively to frustration and the influence of social learning, a more plausible explanation of aggression was presented. Berkowitz maintained that although frustration does not always lead to aggression, it increases the probability that an individual will aggress. Frustration, according to Berkowitz, gives rise to a readiness state for aggression. After the readiness to aggress is invoked, environmental cues determine whether a person does aggress. Environmental factors which influence an individual not to aggress include learning a nonaggressive response to that situation and/or having a target that has inappropriate stimulus qualities. For example, one may choose not to aggress if one has learned it is inappropriate to aggress against certain individuals such as teachers, policemen or nuns. The point Berkowitz (1965) was making was that although frustration may lead to a readiness to aggress, the situational cues may inhibit the individual from the act of aggression. Berkowitz and Rawlings (1963) employed the frustration-aggression reformulation to interpret the results which supported catharsis in Feshbach's (1961) study. In Feshbach's study (1961) one-half of the male subjects were frustrated by experimenters before seeing a film while the other half were not frustrated. Subjects then saw either a brutal fight scene film or a neutral control film. After the film, subjects filled out a questionnaire evaluating the insulting experimenter. Results revealed that the subjects who were insulted by the experimenter and who then saw the fight scene were less aggressive in their remarks about the experimenter than those who viewed the neutral film. Feshbach interpreted his results as a cathartic effect for the subjects who saw the fighting film. This provided them the opportunity to "drain off" their aggression and, therefore, decrease aggressive tendencies toward the experimenter. Berkowitz and Rawlings (1963), however, interpreted Feshbach's results differently. They felt that instead of catharsis, the reason subjects who saw the fighting film showed less aggression toward the experimenter than did subjects who saw the neutral film, was that aggressive acts in the film served as inhibiting cues. The film brought about an awareness of their own socially disapproved hostile reactions and, therefore, they were careful not to reveal their hostility through the questionnaire. Berkowitz and Rawlings (1963) tested the catharsis effect in the same manner as Feshbach (1961), but added a factor of justified aggression. Subjects were shown a brutal boxing scene after either being deliberately insulted or being treated neutrally by a graduate student. Just before viewing the film, however, one-half of the subjects were told that the 10 man who was badly beaten in the film deserved the beating (justifiable aggression) and the other-half were told that the man who was beaten was not a bad person (unjustified aggression). After the film, questionnaires were filled out to determine the level of aggression toward the insulting graduate students. Results indicated that subjects in the "justified" condition revealed a higher aggression toward the graduate student than did the subjects in the "unjustified" group. According to Berkowitz and Rawlings, the justified beating reinforced subjects' attitudes about the appropriateness of expressing anger, whereas the unjustified beating inhibited subjects from expressing their own hostility. With much of the evidence pointing toward an increase of aggressive tendencies due to observation of violence, researchers became concerned as to whethercn~not all violent observations increased aggressive tend- encies. Hartmann (1969) conducted an experiment which included not only a neutral situation and an aggressive situation but also a situation which focused on pain cues. Subjects observed one of three versions of an experimental film focusing on a basketball game. One version of the film showed a group of boys involved in a nonviolent basketball game. In the other two versions of the film, a one-sided fist fight broke out between two boys. One version of the fight focused on the attacker's responses, such as punching, kicking, aggressive words, and angry facial expressions. The other version of the fight focused on the victim's responses, such as falling down, painful facial expressions, and groans. Before observing one of the three film versions, subjects were either insulted or neutrally talked about by a confederate. After the film, 11 subjects were allowed to shock the confederate. Aggression level was determined by the duration and intensity of shocks given to the confed- erate. Results showed that angered subjects were the most aggressive after the pain-cue film but nonangered subjects reduced their aggression levels after observing the pain-cue film. For the angered subjects, there was no catharsis effect; their aggression level increased. For the nonangered subjects, rather than catharsis, there may have been an alternative explanation for the reduction of aggression. Goranson (1970) carried out a similar experiment using a boxing film. His results revealed a reduction in pleasure after being exposed to a negative outcome (seeing the painful reaction of the victim). Both Hartmann and Goranson suggest that their results can be explained in terms of sensi- tization rather than catharsis. Rather than subjects' aggression being "drained off", perhaps the subjects were sensitized to the potential harm that they could inflict upon the confederate (Goranson, 1970). These studies (Goranson, 1970; Hartmann, 1969) support Berkowitz's (1965) reformulation of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Subjects became ready to aggress after frustration, but stimulus cues (i.e., pain—cues) determined whether or not they followed through with their aggressive tendencies. Although there were experiments which logically supported the frustration-aggression reformulation, some researchers remained . unconvinced that humans possessed an aggressive drive, regardless of behavior. Social Learning Theory Probably one of the most plausible theories of aggression is the more general theory of social learning proposed by Bandura (1973). 12 Social learning theory was offered as an alternative explanation for aggression because many researchers were dissatisfied with the evidence presented for instinctual and drive theories of aggression. These theories were criticized on both conceptual and empirical grounds. Bandura (1973) concluded that because the inner determinants of aggres- sion were typically inferred from the aggressive behavior they supposedly caused, they were pseudoexplanations. The instinctual and drive theories disregarded the complexity and variation of human responses in different situations and they lacked predictability of future behavior, which is a factor that should be included in sound theories. For these reasons, according to Bandura (1973), learning theorists shifted the focus of aggression determinants from inner causes to external influences. Social learning theory discusses behavior as a continuous reciprocal interaction between an individual's inner drives and controlling condi- tions. Individuals are neither controlled totally by their inner drives nor controlled totally by their environment; instead, each influences the other. Aversive treatment such as insults or pain creates a state of emotional arousal in the individual. In this state of arousal, indi- viduals may exhibit a variety of behaviors including aggression, but past learning experiences will serve as a basis for the selection of an appropriate behavior in a particular situation (Bandura, 1973). There are two modes by which new behaviors are learned and existing behaviors are maintained: modeling (or imitation) and vicarious processes. Flanders (1968) has stated that there is a causal relation- ship between the behavior of a model and the subsequent behavior of the observer. Behavior is imitated or modeled when it is similar to that of 13 a model as a function of the subject having observed that model (Thelen & Rennie, 1972). The second mode by which behavior may be influenced is through vicarious reinforcement. Bandura (1971) defines vicarious reinforcement as a change in the behavior of observers as a function of witnessing the consequences accompanying the performance of a model. Pe0p1e can make decisions about whether or not to perform a particular behavior based upon previous observation of the consequences of a model who performed a similar behavior. According to social learning theory, aggressive behavior is learned in the same manner as any other form of behavior; therefore, modeling and vicarious processes are significant factors in learned aggressive behavior. According to Bandura (1973) modeling can serve three functions. The first function of modeling, observational learning, deals with the acquisition of novel behaviors as a result of observing a model. An individual can learn a new aggressive act by observation just as a student can learn a new sport skill from a demonstrator in a physical education class. The second function of modeling is to strengthen or weaken inhibitions of behaviors that observers have previously learned. Inhibitions of behaviors are generally strengthened or weakened by observing consequences (punishment or reward) accompanying the model's response. Finally, a model's behavior can serve as a cue to facilitate a similar behavior that is already a part of the observer's response pattern. Any of these three functions of modeling can contribute to the learning of aggressive behavior. To test the hypothesis that the learning of aggression takes place through observation, Bandura and his colleagues (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 14 1961) conducted several studies using nursery school children. In his early experiment (Bandura et a1., 1961), nursery school children observed adult models either performing novel verbal and physical aggressive acts toward large plastic bobo dolls or playing nonaggressively with tinker- toys. A third group did not observe an adult model. The children were mildly frustrated after observing the model and then tested for the amount of imitative and nonimitative aggressive behavior observed and subsequently displayed in a different experimental setting. Results revealed that children who had been exposed to the aggressive model dis- played more verbal and physical aggression than did the children in the other two groups. In a follow-up study, Bandura, Ross & Ross (1963a) attempted to determine the extent to which aggressive models may serve as a source of imitative behavior. This experiment was similar to the 1961 study by Bandura and his colleagues; however, the experimental groups were changed and scaled on a reality-fictional basis. Four treatment groups were established: a live human adult model group (closest to reality), a filmed human adult model group, a filmed cartoon model group (farthest from reality), and a no model group. Each model performed similar aggressive acts. After observing the model, the subjects were mildly frustrated and tested for the amount of imitative and nonimitative aggression in a different experimental setting. Results revealed that subjects exposed to the aggressive models expressed significantly more aggressive behavior than the control subjects. 0f the three experimental conditions, exposure to filmed aggressive adult models was the most influential in eliciting aggression in the subjects. Subjects also 15 exhibited nonimitative aggression in all three treatment groups which provides evidence for not only modeling influence on learning, but also facilitation of aggressive acts that are already a part of subjects' behavioral repertoires. Past research has revealed that there may be factors which influ- ence the observer's retention of a model's behavior. Hicks (1965) per- formed an experiment to determine the influence of adult and peer models as transmitters of novel aggressive behaviors. Through film clips, subjects (ages 41 to 76 months) were exposed to either a male- adult model, female-adult model, male-peer model or female-peer model. A fifth group was used as a control group and was not shown a film. Subjects were tested on pre-experimental aggression then shown the film of the models performing similar physical and verbal aggressive behavior toward inanimate objects. After observing the films, the subjects were mildly frustrated and then tested for post-experimental imitative and nonimitative aggression. Six months later the subjects were frustrated again and tested for retention of the aggressive acts but were not shown the films a second time. Results confirmed the finding of Bandura et al. (1963a) that exposure to filmed aggression influences the types of aggressive responses by children. In addition, they found that the male-peer model had the most immediate influence in shaping children's aggressive behaviors while the adult male had the most lasting effect. Also, a greater number of the model's behaviors were remembered after six months than were performed. This last finding suggests that it may be difficult to estimate the amount of modeled behavior learned if overt behavior by the observer is the only test used in modeling experiments. 16 To test immediate and delayed effects of model influence, Wolf and Cheyne (1972) conducted an experiment using conforming and deviant- peer models. Boys were exposed to either a live behavioral, televised behavioral, or a live verbal-peer model who conformed or deviated from a prohibition rule. After exposure to the model, the same rule was imposed upon the subjects. According to Wolf and Cheyne (1972), exposure to a conforming model inhibited the subjects from breaking the rule, whereas exposure to a deviant model disinhibited subjects from breaking the rule, relative to a no-model control condition. Live and televised models were more effective than the verbal models. An area where this type of research may be important is the sports world. Rules are broken often in athletic games (i.e., spearing in football, charging in basket- ball, fighting in ice hockey), and these games are not only attended by children and adults but are also televised in many cases. Exactly what spectators retain from observing these games has yet to be determined. A more significant finding was revealed in a one month follow-up test of resistance to deviant behavior. Wolf and Cheyne (1972) found that the effects of the deviant models were more stable over time than the effects of the conforming models. In summary, many researchers have investigated the effects of aggressive models on observers' behavior and have found effects opposite that of catharsis. Rather than subjects' observation of aggression lessening their potential for aggressive behavior, it seems to have in- creased the likelihood that they will aggress (Bandura et al., 1961; Bandura et al., 1963a; Baron & Kepner, 1970; Hartmann, 1969; Dubonoski & Parton, 1971). Investigations have shown that film models can be just 17 as influential as live models on the subsequent aggressive behavior of an observer (Bandura et al., 1963a; Wolf & Cheyne, 1972). Finally, although a definite time period has not been determined, some research reveals that retention of learned aggressive behavior through modeling may last anywhere from one week to six months (Hicks, 1965; Osborn & Endsley, 1971). Some evidence has indicated that aggressive or deviant behavior learned through modeling may be retained longer than non- aggressive or conforming behavior (Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Wolf & Cheyne, 1972). Although the research evidence seems to support the theory that the observation of aggression leads to the possibility of increased aggressive behavior in observers, other research has discovered that this effect may be counteracted. Just as aggression can increase through observation of aggressive models, evidence has been presented to show that aggression can be inhibited through the observation of nonaggres- sive models (Baron, 1971; Zillman & Johnson, 1973). In an experiment by Baron (1971), subjects in four treatment groups were given the opportunitytx>aggress against an anger instigator follow- ing exposure to the behavior of either an aggressive model, a nonaggres- sive model, first an aggressive and then a nonaggressive model, or first a nonaggressive then an aggressive model. Results revealed that the strong aggression-eliciting influence of an aggressive model can be sig- nificantly counteracted by the presence of a restrained, nonaggressive model. In social learning theory, the second mode by which new behaviors are acquired and existing behaviors maintained is through vicarious 18 reinforcement. Although this process includes the observation of a model, subsequent behavior by the observer is based on the observed consequences received by the model. According to Bandura (1977), there are five main reasons why witnessing rewards and punishments of a model alter the actions, feelings, and thoughts of others. The first func- tion of vicarious reinforcement is to inform the observer of the likely consequences for certain behaviors. Consequences for behavior, experi- enced by others, convey information to observers about society's approval or disapproval of particular actions. For example, seeing someone punished for shoplifting informs one that stealing is not an approved behavior. Given the knowledge of probable consequences, people will generally behave to enhance reward possibilities and/or avoid punishment. Another function of vicarious reinforcement is motivation. Seeing others positively reinforced for behavior motivates observers by arousing expectations of similar rewards for comparable performances. Thus, when individuals see others being rewarded for not displaying aggression in a frustrating situation they may be more inclined to behave in a similar fashion. Observers are also easily influenced by the emotional reac- tions of others who receive reward or punishment; therefore, vicarious reinforcement can also serve an emotional learning function. Moreover, vicarious reinforcement can serve a valuation function. Existing values of observers can be altered or new values developed by witnessing the reinforcement of models' behaviors (Bandura, 1977). Finally, according to social learning theory, vicarious reinforcement can have an influenc- ing function. This means that a model's reaction to reinforcement can affect the influence that the model's behavior has upon observers. 19 For example, if a model expresses joy for being praised for his/her fine performance, that emotion expressed may influence the observer to perform that same behavior. Numerous studies have been conducted to test the effects of vicarious reinforcement on imitative aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1965; Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1963b; Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967; Walters & Parke, 1964). In one investigation conducted by Bandura et al. (1963b), nursery school children were randomly assigned to one of the following groups: an aggressive model-rewarded, aggressive model-punished, a control group shown highly expressive but nonaggressive models, and another control group which was not exposed to a model. After being exposed to one of the models, the subjects were tested on the amount of performed imitative and nonimitative aggressive behavior. Results revealed that the children exposed to the model who was rewarded for aggressive behavior showed more imitative aggression than the children in the aggressive model-punishment group. Walters and Parke (1964) conducted a study to determine the effects of rewarded or punished models, and the effects of a no-consequence model on observers' resistance to deviation. Deviation, for the purposes of this study, meant the breaking of a rule. In this study, subjects observed a model either rewarded for deviant behavior, punished for deviant behavior or observed no-consequence for deviant behavior. A fourth group, the control group, did not observe a model. After expo- sure to the models, the subjects were given the opportunity to break the rule (express deviant behavior). Results supported Bandura et al. (1963b) finding that children in the model-rewarded condition deviated 20 readily and in addition, children in the no-consequence condition deviated readily as compared to the model—punished or no-model groups. Interestingly enough, after the prohibition on the deviant behavior was removed, all children readily imitated the model's behavior. Bandura (1965) found similar results when, after determining the effects of rewarded-models, punished-models, and no-consequence-models on observers' subsequent behavior, he offered the subjects incentives for imitating the aggressive responses of the models. The introduction of these positive incentives completely eliminated any previously observed performance differences between treatment groups. These results further support the great impact that modeling and vicarious reinforcement can have upon learning. Even those who have observed models punished for aggressive behavior can precisely reproduce the behavior once the pro- hibition is removed. Another factor which may be significant in determining the influ- ence of models' rewarded or punished behavior on observers' subsequent behavior, is the consistency of reinforcement offered the models for their behavior. Rosekrans and Hartup (1967) exposed children to filmed models who were either inconsistently reinforced for aggressive behavior, consistently rewarded for aggressive behavior, or consistently punished for aggressive behavior. Results revealed that subjects exposed to inconsistently reinforced subjects performed less imitative behavior than subjects exposed to a consistently rewarded model, but more imitative behavior than subjects exposed to a punished model. Bandura (1973) explains that inconsistent reinforcement is the type of reinforcement observed most often in everyday life and in response, people will behave 21 with a moderate level of aggression. In summarizing the research evidence on vicarious reinforcement in the area of aggression, support has been found for the following statements: a) Observers exposed to models who are rewarded for aggres- sive behavior subsequently imitate that behavior more readily than observers exposed to models who are punished for aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1965; Bandura et al., 1963b; Walters & Parke, 1964); b) Observers of models who are neither rewarded nor punished for aggres— sive behavior show more imitative aggression than observers who watch models punished for their aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1965; Walters & Parke, 1964); and c) Observers exposed to models inconsistently rein- forced for aggressive behavior subsequently perform less imitative aggression than observers exposed to consistently rewarded models, but imitate more aggressive behavior than observers exposed to consistently punished models (Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967). With much of the research evidence supporting social learning theory, it is not difficult to understand why this theory is becoming more widely accepted than traditional instinct or drive theories. At this point it may be helpful to state the differential implications of drive and social learning theories. The first distinction which should be made between drive and social learning theory is the stimulus which causes aggression and the method of aggression reduction. Drive theory suggests that frustration arouses an aggressive drive that can be reduced only through aggressive behavior. Social learning theory proposes that aversive treatment produces a state of emotional arousal that can cause a variety of behaviors, depending on the type of behavior the individual 22 has learned to use as an effective coping response. A second differential implication of drive and social learning theories is the social learning theory prediction that arousal can be decreased more through noninjurious means, whereas in drive theories, aggression reduction can only occur through aggressive behavior. Finally, the third implication of social learning theory that differs from drive theories is that in social learn- ing theory, frustration or anger arousal is a facilitative but not a necessary condition for aggression (Bandura, 1973). In any of the three theories of aggression, it is agreed that aggressive behavior may occur in many different settings. When research in the area of aggression is conducted, generalizability of results in two areas becomes a concern. One area of concern is the representative- ness of the sample of subjects studied and the other is the representa- tiveness of the research setting. Goranson (1970) states that similar results obtained from experiments employing children, teenagers, and male or female adults, allow for the assumption of a high degree of generality. Similarly, when the same kind of findings are obtained in a number of dif- ferent studies using widely differing research techniques and measures, confidence in the general validity of the conclusions is greatly in- creased (Goranson, 1970). If the past research findings are representa- tive of the social learning theory of aggression, then the area of aggres- sion and its relation to athletics and physical activity should be investigated. Aggression in Sports Aggression in sports is a topic which has not been thoroughly researched, at least not in proportion to the amount of aggression 23 observed in today's sports settings. Perhaps one of the reasons that aggression in sports is such a neglected topic is because of the widely accepted belief that physical exercise and competitive sports relieve daily anxieties and tensions, and provide an acceptable outlet for the expression of aggression due to daily frustration (Martens, 1975). Catharsis is a topic that already has been discussed and most of the research has shown little support for this "safety valve" effect. In the sports setting, Goldstein and Arms (1971) attempted to assess the amount of hostility present in spectators before and after aggressive or nonaggressive athletic events. The aggressive sports were considered to be wrestling, football, and ice hockey, whereas the nonaggressive sports were swimming and gymnastics. Results revealed that spectators increased hostile feelings after viewing an aggressive sport, whereas there was no increase in hostile feelings after viewing a nonaggressive sport. These findings contradict the idea that observing athletic events can reduce aggressive feelings. These results should be reviewed with some caution, however, due to a number of methodological flaws. Another reason that research may be scarce on the topic of aggression in sports, is that many people think of aggression in sports as "part of the game". Aggression in sports, whether legal or illegal, has been judged as legitimate behavior to an extent, and is often justified by those involved in athletics. The few studies that have been done in this area have reflected this "justified aggression" attitude. Vaz (1976) investigated young ice hockey players' attitudes about penalties. Results revealed that players discriminated good penalties from bad penalties not by the aggressive act itself but rather by the advantage 24 gained or disadvantage avoided by the offending team. The same aggres- sive act could, therefore, be considered a good or bad penalty depending on the outcome of the penalty. Whether the aggressive act was inten- tional or accidental had little to do with the labeling of a good or bad penalty. In a study conducted by Silva (1979), subjects who expressed aggression in a sport setting experienced significantly lower levels of guilt than did subjects who expressed similar behavior in a nonsport setting. These studies by Vaz (1976) and Silva (1979) suggest that young people may be viewing aggressive behavior in sports as legitimate behavior. Only recently have sport psychologists and sport sociologists begun to address the problem of aggression in athletics. The need for research in this area is becoming apparent. If aggression is allowed to exist in the adult leagues, it may become more of a problem in the younger leagues. According to Pooley (1980), young athletes use high performance athletes as their behavior models, and, consequently, if senior athletes are seen using condoned aggressive behavior, the young athletes are likely to imitate similar behavior. The causes of aggressive behavior in sports are not clear. Pooley (1980) suggests many factors which may contribute to the learning of aggression in sports, such as a lower violence threshold (generally a separate threshold for each sport), winning at all costs values, accept- ance and demand of aggression by fans, inadequate rules, incompetent officiating, low skill levels, irresponsible coaching, and finally media highlighting of aggression. These factors may contribute to aggression 25 in sports but which factors and the amount of influence each factor contributes, can only be surmised without research evidence. In an attempt to understand the factors that may contribute to the learning of aggression in sports, Smith (1975, 1978, 1980) conducted a number of exploratory investigations including research on young ice hockey players. In one of his first studies, Smith (1975) interviewed high school ice hockey players to determine their perceptions of their normative reference groups' sanction for assaultive behavior in hockey. Results revealed that players perceived their father, mother, teammates and coach as favorable in their attitudes toward bodychecking and fighting back in ice hockey games, but these same reference groups would generally disapprove of illegal acts such as starting fights or cross- checking in a game. Smith (1975, p. 79) concluded that "high school hockey players tended to view their normative reference groups as approv- ing of a variety of assaultive acts in hockey". This approval was dampened to the extent that each group was concerned about the potential negative effects of penalties on game outcomes. Smith (1980) conducted a follow-up study including allstar and house league players. From the results of this study and the previous study he drew some conclusions about parental approval of fighting in hockey. ,Two general patterns which existed in Smith's data were that (a) approval of fighting in- creased with the athlete's age and level of competition for both parents, and (b) fathers were more approving of fighting than mothers. Another area in which Smith (1978) conducted extensive research was the observational learning of aggression in hockey. Smith inter- viewed males (ages 12 to 21 years) who were either allstar hockey players, 26 house league hockey players or nonhockey players. Subjects were asked questions regarding the amount of professional hockey they watched or read about, if they learned anything (legal or illegal) from watching professional hockey, if they used any acts they learned from professional hockey in their own games and what their opinions were on fighting in hockey. In summary, the results revealed the following: (a) the major- ity of subjects consumed professional hockey once a week or more through newspapers and television, (b) most respondents reported learning various skills (legal and illegal) from viewing professional hockey, (c) over 60% of the subjects who stated that they learned illegal acts, used one or more of these acts at least once or twice during the season, and (d) a larger minority of both groups (but more players than nonplayers) wanted about the same or more fighting in professional hockey. These findings indicated that specific acts of assault are learned via observa- tion of professional hockey and more importantly, these acts are subse- quently performed (Smith, 1978). More exploratory research similar in nature to Smith's (1978), involving different sports, is necessary in order to learn more about the amount of aggression that is socially learned through modeling. Scientists should examine not only the amount of observational learning that occurs, but also the absence or presence of transference of specific aggressive behavior to players' own games. The consequences of increased aggression are not only physical in nature, but may also cause the specific sport's image to suffer (Pooley, 1980). 27 Statement of the Problem The purpose of this investigation was to determine if youth foot- ball players and nonplayers become aware of illegal aggressive acts through the observation of college and professional football. Another purpose of this investigation was to determine if there is a relation- ship between youth football players' observation of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football and the transmission of these illegal aggressive acts to players' own games. A third purpose was to determine if there are differences between high school-age football players' and youth league-age players' awareness of illegal aggressive acts and the use of these acts in their games. Hypotheses The following questions guided this exploratory study: (a) What significant others influence the way young athletes play football? (b) How much college and professional football do young football players and nonplayers consume through television, newspapers, magazines, books, and live games? (c) Have young football players and nonplayers become aware of illegal aggressive actions through observing college and pro- fessional football? If so, of what specific actions have young football players and nonplayers become aware? (d) Have young football players ever used these illegal aggressive acts in their own games? (e) What are young football players' and nonplayers' attitudes toward aggression in football? and (f) What are young players' perceptions of their reference groups' attitudes toward aggression in football? 28 Based on the above questions, the following hypotheses were investi- gated: 1. There is a difference in the amount of consumption of college and professional football between young football players and nonplayers. 2. There is a difference between young football players' and non- players' self-reported number of illegal aggressive acts of which they became aware through observation. 3. There is a correlation between the number of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football of which players are aware and the number of illegal aggressive acts that they use in their own games. Due to lack of literature concerning age level differences, no hypothesis will be stated for differences in responses to the number of illegal aggressive acts of which youth league football players and high school football players become aware through observation. Delimitations This study was limited to male youth league football players and nonplayers (ages 12-14) and male high school football players and non- players (ages 15-18) from the Lansing area. Definitions The following operational definitions apply to the present investi- gation. 29 Aggression - defined in the sport context as behavior with the intent to harm, which is beyond the legitimate rules of the game, whether it be instrumental or reactive aggression. The following list of illegal aggressive acts appeared on the questionnaire: spearing poking in the eye blocking below the waist kneeing in the groin crack back blocking throwing a forearm using the helmet as a weapon chop block facemasking blocking using your fist tripping hitting out of bounds late hits stepping on someone when standing up piling on clotheslining head slapping elbowing clipping gouging kicking punching biting Imitation - behavior which is similar to that of a model as a function (TF the subject having observed that model (Thelen & Rennie, 1972). Vicarious reinforcement - a change in the behavior of observers as a function of witnessing the consequences accompanying the performance of others (Bandura, 1971). High school football plgyer - any player (15 to 18 years of age) currently involved in the high school football program. Youth league football player - any player (12 to 14 years of age) who is currently involved in a youth football program. High school nonplayer - any high school student (15 to 18 years of age) who has never participated in organized tackle football. Youth league age nonplayer - any junior high student (12 to 14 years of age) who has never participated in organized tackle football. 30 Limitations This study includes all the limitations which are characteristic of survey studies (e.g., nonrandom assignment to groups and inability to control extraneous variables). Assumptions 1. Self reports represent true indications of aggressive behavior patterns. 2. Subjects understood the terms listed under illegal aggressive acts. CHAPTER II MANUSCRIPT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION The Social Learning of Aggression in Youth Footfall By Denise A. Mugno Michigan State University This investigation was conducted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the M.A. under the direction of Deborah Feltz at Michigan State University. Requests for reprints should be sent to Denise A. Mugno, Institute for the Study of Youth Sports, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 48824 Running Head: Aggression 31 32 Aggression The Social Learning of Aggression in Youth Football Introduction During the first Canada-Russia Hockey Series, Canada's Bobby Clarke eliminated the Russian player, Kharmalov, from the rest of the series by stick swiping him across the ankle (Smith, 1975). Jack Tatum, former defensive back for the Oakland Raiders, recklessly crashed into Darryl Stingley during a football game, after Stingley failed to catch a pass. Stingley suffered a broken neck and his spinal cord was damaged, leaving him almost totally paralyzed for life (Coakley, 1982). These are just two examples of the types of injuries which occur every year, due to unneces- sary aggression used in sports. If there are rules in sports, then why does this unnecessary aggression exist? Some researchers (Smith, 1975, 1976; Vaz, 1976) feel it is learned behavior which is socially sanctioned. In sports, physical aggression appears to be normative, institutionalized behavior, and may be viewed as part of the socialization of the athlete. Aggression, defined as an overt physical or verbal act performed with the intent to injure one's self or another physically or psycho- logically (Silva, 1980), is a part of the social learning process found in every aspect of life, from childhood to adulthood, from work to play. According to social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), there are two modes by which aggressive behaviors are acquired and maintained: modeling (or imitation) and vicarious processes. Many researchers have investigated the effects of aggressive models on observers' behavior. Results have revealed that subjects' potential to aggress increases following exposure to aggressive models (Bandura, Ross & Ross, 1961; Bandura, Ross & Ross, 33 Aggression 1963a; Baron & Kepner, 1970; Hartmann, 1969; Dubanoski & Parton, 1971). Investigations have also shown that film models can be just as influen- tial as live models on the subsequent aggressive behavior of an observer (Bandura et al., 1963a; Wolf & Cheyne, 1972). Finally, research has also indicated that retention of learned aggressive behavior through modeling may last anywhere from one week to six months (Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Hicks, 1965), and some evidence indicates that aggressive or deviant behavior learned through modeling may be retained longer than nonaggressive or conforming behavior (Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Wolf & Cheyne, 1972). Numerous studies have been conducted that test the effects of vicarious reinforcement on imitative aggressive behavior. Support has been found for the following statements: a) observers exposed to models who are rewarded for aggressive behavior subsequently imitate that ‘ behavior more readily than observers exposed to models who are punished for aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1965; Bandura et al., 1963b; Walters & Parke, 1964); b) observers of models who are neither rewarded nor punished for aggressive behavior show more imitative aggression than observers who watch models punished for their aggressive behavior (Bandura, 1965; Walters & Parke, 1964); and c) observers exposed to models inconsistently reinforced for aggressive behavior subsequently perform less imitative aggression than observers exposed to consistently rewarded models, but imitate more aggressive behavior than observers exposed to consistently punished models (Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967). Although there have been many studies conducted on modeling and vicarious reinforcement of aggression, few studies have been completed in 34 Aggression the area of athletics. Perhaps one of the reasons that aggression in sports is such a neglected topic is the widely accepted belief that physical exercise and competitive sports relieve daily anxieties and tensions, and provide an acceptable outlet for the expression of aggres- sion due to daily frustration; however, this idea has not yet been supported empirically (Martens, 1975). Another reason that research may be scarce on this topic of aggression in sports, is that many people think of aggression as "part of the game". Aggression in sports, whether legal or illegal, has been judged as legitimate behavior to an extent, and is often justified by those involved in athletics. The few studies that have been done in this area have reflected this "justified aggres- sion" attitude (Silva, 1979; Vaz, 1976). In an attempt to understand the factors that may Contribute to the learning of aggression in sports, Smith (1975, 1978, 1980) conducted a number of exploratory investigations including research on young ice hockey players. In one of his first studies, Smith (1975) interviewed high school ice hockey players to determine their perceptions of their normative reference groups' sanction for assaultive behaviors in hockey. Results revealed that players perceived their father, mother, teammates and coach as favorable in their attitudes toward bodychecking and fight- ing back in ice hockey games, but these same reference groups would generally disapprove of illegal acts such as starting fights or cross- checking in a game. Smith (1975) concluded that "high school hockey players tended to view their normative reference groups as approving of a variety of assaultive acts in hockey" (p. 79). This approval was dampened to the extent that each group was concerned about the potential negative effects of penalties on game outcomes. Smith (1980) conducted 35 Aggression a follow-up study including allstar and house league players. With the results of this study and the previous study, he drew some conclusions about parental approval of fighting in hockey. Players' perceptions of their parents approval of fighting revealed two general patterns: a) approval of fighting increased with age and level of competition for both parents, and b) fathers were more approving of fighting than mothers. Another area in which Smith (1978) conducted extensive research was the observational learning of aggression in hockey. Smith interviewed males (ages 12 to 21 years) who were either allstar hockey players, house league hockey players or nonhockey players. Subjects were asked ques- tions regarding the amount of professional hockey they watched or read about, if they learned anything (legal or illegal) from watching profes— sional hockey, if they used any acts they learned from professionals in their own games, and what their opinions were on fighting in hockey. The results revealed the following: (a) the majority of subjects con- sumed professional hockey once a week or more through newspapers and television, (b) most respondents reported learning various skills (legal or illegal) from viewing professional hockey, (c) over 60% of the sub- jects who stated that they learned illegal acts, used one or more of these acts at least once or twice during the season, and (d) a larger minority of both groups (but more players than nonplayers) wanted about the same or more fighting in professional hockey. These findings indi- cated that specific acts of assault are learned via observation of pro- fessional hockey and more importantly, these acts are subsequently performed (Smith, 1978). When research in the area of aggression is conducted, generaliza- bility of results in two areas becomes a concern. One area of concern 36 Aggression is the representativeness of the sample of subjects studied and the other is the representativeness of the research setting. Goranson (1970) states that similar results obtained from experiments employing children, teenagers, and male or female adults, allow for the assumption of a high degree of generality. Similarly, when the same kind of findings are obtained in a number of different studies using widely differing research techniques and measures, confidence in the general validity of the con- clusions is greatly increased (Goranson, 1970). More exploratory research, similar in nature to Smith's, involving different sports, is necessary in order to learn more about the amount of aggression used in sports that is socially learned through modeling. Scientists should examine not only the amount of observational learning that occurs, but also the absence or presence of transference of specific aggressive behavior to players' own games. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if youth foot- ball players and nonplayers become aware of illegal aggressive acts through the observation of college and professional football. Another purpose of this investigation was to determine if there is a relationship between youth football players' observation of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football and the transmission of these illegal aggressive acts to players' own games. A third purpose was to determine if there are differences between high school-age football players' and youth league-age players' awareness of illegal aggressive acts and the use of those acts in their games. The following questions guided this exploratory study: (a) what significant others influence the way young athletes play football? 37 Aggression (b) How much college and professional football do young football players and nonplayers consume through television, newspapers, magazines, books, and live games? (c) Have young football players and nonplayers become aware of illegal aggressive actions through observing college and profes- sional football? If so, of what specific actions have young players and nonplayers become aware? (d) Have young football players ever used these illegal aggressive acts in their own games? (e) What are young football players' and nonplayers' attitudes toward aggression in foot- ball? and (f) What are young players' perceptions of their reference groups' attitudes toward aggression in football? Based on the above questions, the following hypotheses were investigated: 1. There is a difference in the amount of consumption of college and professional football between young football players and nonplayers. 2. There is a difference between young football players' and non- players' self-reported number of illegal aggressive acts of which they become aware through observation. 3. There is a correlation between the number of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football of which players are aware and the number of those acts that they use in their own games. Due to the lack of literature concerning age level differences, no hypothesis will be stated for differences in responses to the number of illegal aggressive acts of which youth aged football players and high school football players become aware through observation. 38 Aggression Method Subjects The sample consisted of 727 males from middle class communities in the mid-Michigan area. Participants were volunteers from four popula- tions: (a) high school football players from nine schools (gé347), (b) youth league players from seven teams (g;125), (c) high school non- players from five schools (£6122), and youth league age nonplayers from three middle and two junior high schools (gél33). Youth league age participants ranged in age from 12 to 14 years, while high school participants ranged in age from 15 to 18 years. Originally 803 subjects were surveyed; however, 76 subjects were not included in the analysis because they had incomplete surveys, were not between the ages of 12 to 14 for youth league or 15 to 18 for the high school players, did not have access to a television, or were nonplayers who had previously participated in football. All players had at least one year's experience in tackle football; all nonplayers had never participated in organized tackle football. Five of the schools sampled for nonplayers were the same schools attended by the players. It was not possible to match the sample of 347 high school football players with the same number of nonplayers. Therefore, approximately 25% of the number of high school players sampled were used for the nonplayer sample. 0f the nine schools where football players were surveyed, one was Class A, four were Class 8, three were Class C, and one was Class 0. These classes were arranged according to school population; A schools had the largest population (1274 or more) and 0 schools had the smallest population (less than 338). Of the high 39 Aggression schools where nonplayers were surveyed, one was Class A, two were Class B, one was Class C, and one was Class D. The youth leagues consisted of two age levels. Four of the teams surveyed were from the 10 to 13 year old level and three were from the 12 to 15 year old level. The non- players were sampled from middle and junior high schools located in the same neighborhoods where youth league players resided. Questionnaire The questions in the survey instrument were modeled after an inter- view questionnaire used by Smith (1978) in his study of aggression in ice hockey. Questions were modified, deleted, or added, however, in order to obtain responses specific to football. Two separate questionnaires were made: one for players and one for nonplayers. These are contained in Appendices D and E. The nonplayer questionnaire contained questions that were identical to the player questionnaire; however, it excluded ques- tions which dealt specifically with playing on a football team and ques- tions pertaining to reference groups' attitudes about football. Multiple choice, yes/no, chart responses, and open-ended questions were asked to obtain information pertaining to subjects' attitudes and reference groups' attitudes toward illegal aggression in football, the amount of college and professional football consumed by subjects through television, magazines, newspapers, books, and live games, and the amount of illegal aggressiveness observed by subjects. In addition, for players, the sur- vey also contained questions dealing with the amount of influence refer- ence groups have on the way the subjects play football and whether or not they use illegal aggressive acts in their games. 40 Aggression The questionnaire was piloted with 10 males ages 12 to 13 years and 10 males ages 17 to 18 years. The purpose of the pilot study was to determine the amount of time it took for subjects to complete the player questionnaire and nonplayer questionnaire, and to determine if the ques- tions were understandable for those age groups. Procedures Permission for surveying the athletes was initially secured by contacting the athletic director or league commissioner and then contact- ing the coaches. After speaking with the coaches, explaining the purpose and procedure of the study, permission was obtained and a date and time were set to survey the athletes. Permission for surveying the non- athletes was obtained by meeting with the principal and explaining the purpose and procedure of the study. The principal then organized the group of nonathletes and set a date and time for the students to be sur- veyed. From the schools that were asked to participate, only one school refused to have their team surveyed. One high school coach and one youth league coach refused to have their teams surveyed due to the difficulty of organizing the teams after the season was over. Also, one youth league player and one high school player refused to take the survey. The data were collected near the end of the football players' seasons. The experimenter surveyed the athletes at a field practice or a classroom "chalk talk". Nonplayers were surveyed during regular classes or in physical education classes.1 Upon arrival, the experi- menter explained to all subjects the purpose of the study and asked the 41 Aggression subjects if they would cooperate. Instructions for completing the ques- tionnaire were formally explained to all participants to keep the procedure consistent for each group surveyed. After listening to direc- tions, subjects worked independently, responding to the questionnaire items. Results Background Information The average ages for the high school (H.S.) subjects in this study were 16.02 years for H.S. players and 15.89 years for nonplayers. The average ages for the youth league (Y.L.) subjects were 12.77 years for players and 12.96 years for the nonplayers. The players represented the following positions: quarterback (H.S.=8.4%, Y.L.=ll.2%), runningback (H.S.=25.1%, Y.L.=24.0%), wide receiver (H.S.=l7.3%, Y.L.=12.0%), tightend (H.S.=12.1%, Y.L.=15.2%), center (H.S.=8.9%, Y.L.=ll.2%), guard (H.S.=22.8%, Y.L.=28.0%), offensive tackle (H.S.=22.8%, Y.L.=22.4%), safety (H.S.=l4.7%, Y.L.=32.0%), defensive tackle (H.S.=29.7%, Y.L.= 29.6%), and defensive end (H.S.=18.4%, Y.L.=18.4%). High school players had an average of 5.86 years of playing experience, compared to 4.38 years for the Y.L. players. Sixty-seven percent of the H.S. players and 70% of the Y.L. players surveyed were starters in their games. Significant Others' Influence on Athletes' Football Behavior Both H.S. and Y.L. players were asked to rate, on a 5-point scale (O=no influence, 4=a great deal of influence), the amount of influence significant others had on the way they played football. Nonplayers did 42 Aggression not respond to this question. Results, revealed in Table 1 (Appendix A), indicated that for both the H.S. players (Mé3.68) and Y.L. players (EF3.70), the coach was rated as having the greatest influence on the way they played football. Frequencies indicated that 76.4% of the H.S. players and 82.4% of the Y.L. players thought their coach had "a great deal of influence" on the way they played football. Players thought that teammates and fathers had the next highest influence on the way they played football. Seventy-six percent of the H.S. players and 70.4% of the Y.L. players reported that teammates had "quite a bit" or more influ- ence on the way they played football. In response to fathers' influence, 55.6% of the H.S. players and 72% of the Y.L. players reported that fathers had "quite a bit" or more influence on the way they played foot- ball. In response to friends' influence, other than teammates, 72% of the H.S. players and 73.6% of the Y.L. players responded that friends had at least "some" influence on the way they played football. Players thought that college and professional football players also influenced the way they played football. Twenty-one percent of the H.S. players reported "quite a bit" or more influence from college players while 43.5% of the H.S. players reported “some" influence on the way they played football. For the Y.L. players' responses toward college players, 33.6% reported "some" influence, while 42.4% reported "quite a bit" or mone influence on the way they played football. Subjects' responses for the influence professional players had on the way they played football were similar to the responses concerning college players. The means in Table 1 (Appendix A) revealed that generally mothers and spectators had little or no influence on the way subjects played football. 43 Aggression Using the same 0 to 4 scale as used in the previous question, players were also asked to respond to the amount of influence significant others had on whether or not they used illegal aggressive acts in their own games. Results, revealed in Table 2 (Appendix A) indicated that for both H.S. and Y.L. players, teammates were rated as having the greatest influence on whether or not players used illegal aggressive acts. Frequencies revealed that 57% of the H.S. players and 64% of the Y.L. players thought that teammates had "quite a bit" or "a great deal" of influence on whether or not they used illegal aggressive acts. The coach was perceived to have the next highest influence on whether or not players used illegal aggressive acts. Fifty-two percent of the H.S. players and 61.6% of the Y.L. players reported that coaches had "quite a bit" or "a great deal" of influence on whether or not players used illegal aggressive acts. 0n the average, Y.L. players thought father, friends, and spectators had "some" influence on whether or not they used illegal aggressive acts. High achool players thought these significant others had less influence upon their use of illegal aggressive acts than Y.L. players. Youth leaguers' responses to college and professional players revealed that 58% of them felt that both college and professional players had at least "some" influence on whether or not they used illegal aggressive acts. High school players' responses to college and professional players revealed that 53% and 54% of the H.S. players felt that college and professional players respectively, had at least "some" influence on whether or not they used illegal aggressive acts in their own games. In addition, 41% of the Y.L. players and 56% of the H.S. players responded that their mother had little or no influence on whether 44 Aggression or not they used illegal aggressive acts in their own games. College and Professional Football Consumed by Players and Nonplayers This study hypothesized that there was a difference in the amount of consumption of college and professional football between young foot- ball players and nonplayers. To test this hypothesis, players and non- players were asked how much college and professional football they (a) watched on television; (b) read about through newspapers; (c) read about through magazines; (d) read about in books; and (e) consumed through attending games. For the first item, "watching football on television", a 2 x 5 Chi square analysis was performed on players' and nonplayers' responses as a function of five frequency of consumption categories: (1) two or three times a week, (2) once a week, (3) two or three times a month, (4) once a month, and (5) never. The overall Chi square was significant, _x2(4)=84.55, p_<.00012 (see Table 3 in Appendix A). Ninety-four percent of the players watched football on television at least once a week, com- pared to 74% of the nonplayers. Furthermore, 64% of the players compared to 51% of the nonplayers watched football on television for at least two or more hours at each sitting. It is also interesting to note that all of the players had reported watching football on television at least once a month, however 7.1% of the nonplayers responded that they never watched football on television. Subjects were also asked to indicate how often, in one of six categories, they read about college or professional football in the news- papers. These categories were (1) every day, (2) two or three times a 45 Aggression week, (3) once a week, (4) two or three times a month, (5) once a month, or (6) never. The 2 x 6 Chi square analysis was found to be significant. x2(5)=84.49, pf:.0001 (see Table 4 in Appendix A). At least once a week, 83% of the players read about college or professional football in the newspapers, compared to only 55% of the nonplayers. From the player sample, 73% spent at least 10 minutes reading about football in the news- papers in one sitting compared to 48% of the nonplayer sample. For the third item, "reading about college or professional football in magazines", a 2 x 6 Chi square analysis was performed using the same six categories used for the question regarding newspapers. The overall Chi square was significant, x2(5)=87.13, 25:.0001 (see Table 5 in Appendix A). Fifty-six percent of the player sample compared to 31% of the nonplayer sample read about college or professional football in magazines at least once a week. In addition, 59% of the players compared to 34% of the nonplayers read about football in magazines for 20 minutes or more in one sitting. Next, subjects were asked to indicate how often they read about college or professional football in books. The six categories of responses were the same categories used for the questions regarding newspapers and magazines. This 2 x 6 Chi square analysis was also sig- nificant, x2(5)=35.82, 25:.0001 (see Table 6 in Appendix A). Players responses revealed that 19% read about football in books at least once a week and 68% of all players read for at least 30 minutes or more each time. Thirteen percent of the nonplayers responded that they read about football in books at least once a week and 48% of all nonplayers re- sponded that they read for at least 30 minutes each time. However, books 46 Aggression about college or professional football are not read very often; 32% of the players and 52% of the nonplayers responded that they never read about football in books. Books were read less often than newspapers and magazines by both players and nonplayers. Finally, players and nonplayers were asked how often they attended college or professional football games in one of six categories. These categories were (1) once a week, (2) two or three times a month, (3) once a month, (4) two or three times a year, (5) once a year, or (6) never. The overall Chi square was significant, x2(5)=59.73, p;<.0001 (see Table 7 in Appendix A). Although 31% of the players compared to 20% of the nonplayers responded that they attended college or professional foot- ball games at least once a month, only 15.5% of the players stated that they never attended games. However, 40.4% of the nonplayers responded that they never attended college or professional games. When the H.S. and Y.L. players' responses to the same five ques- tions concerning consumption of college and professional football were compared, mixed results were obtained. For the first item, "watching football on television", a 2 x 5 Chi square analysis revealed no signifi- cance, x2(4)=4.25, p> .24 (see Table 8 in Appendix A). A Chi square analysis also revealed no significant difference, x2(5)=4.97, p;>.42, between H.S. players and Y.L. players responses to how often they read about football in newspapers or how often they read about football in magazines, x2(5)=10.72, 99>.06 (see Tables 9 and 10 in Appendix A). For the last two items, "reading about football in books", and "attending games", there were significant differences between Y.L. and H.S. players responses (see Tables 11 and 12 in Appendix A). The 2 x 6 47 Aggression Chi square analysis on "reading about football in books" was found to be significant, x2(5)=100.52, pf:.0001, with 47% of the Y.L. players com- pared to only 8% of the H.S. players responding that they read about football in books at least once a week. For the item, "attending college or professional games", x2(5)=12.75, pf:.026, 39% of the Y.L. players compared to 28% of the H.S. players, responded that they attended foot- ball games at least once a month. In summary, the hypothesis that there is a difference in the amount of consumption of college and professional football between young foot- ball players and nonplayers, was supported. In all areas, watching tele- vision, reading newspapers, magazines, and books, and attending games, players consumed more college and professional football than nonplayers. High school and Y.L. players' responses revealed that they consumed nearly the same amount of college and professional football through tele- vision and newspapers; however, Y.L. players read more about football in magazines and books, and attended games more often than H.S. players. The frequencies for each of the Chi square analyses performed on the amount of consumption (rf college and professional football are contained in Tables 4 through 12 in Appendix A. Awareness of Legal Skills Through Observing College and Professional Football Players and nonplayers were asked if they became aware of any skills or tactics through watching college or professional football, to determine whether they could discriminate any of the skill aspects of the game. The results revealed that 75.4% of the players and 54.9% of the nonplayers responded that they became aware of skills and tactics 48 Aggression through watching college and professional football. The most common skills named by players were blocking, tackling, and running. Nonplayers listed play patterns, running, and passing as the skills they most often became aware of through watching football. Furthermore, 46.9% of the players responded that they became aware of skills five or more times a season, as compared to 29% of the nonplayers. High School players and Y.L. players responded similarly to the number of times a season they became aware of legal skills. Players were also asked if they ever used in their own games any of the skills of which they became aware through watching college and professional foot- ball. Seventy-four percent of the H.S. players and 63% of the Y.L. players responded that they did use these skills in their own football games. Awareness of Illegal Skills Through Observing College and Professional Football Players and nonplayers were also asked specifically if they ever became aware of illegal aggressive acts from watching or reading about college or professional football. Subjects were asked to check their awareness of illegal aggressive actions from a list of 23 acts. These acts were spearing, blocking below the waist, crack back blocking, using the helmet as a weapon, facemasking, tripping, late hits, piling on, head slapping, clipping, kicking, biting, poking in the eye, kneeing in the groin, throwing a forearm, chop block, blocking using your fist, hitting out of bounds, stepping on someone when standing up, clothes- lining, elbowing, gouging, and punching. Space was also provided for them to mention any others not listed. It was hypothesized that there 49 Aggression would be a difference between young football players' and nonplayers' self-reported number of illegal aggressive acts of which they became aware through observing or reading about college and professional foot- ball. The Behren's-Fisher t} test (Kohr, 1970) was used to determine if differences existed in the mean number of illegal aggressive acts observed by players and nonplayers. Results revealed a significant dif- ference, tf (537)=2.55, p}:.05, between players' and nonplayers' responses to the number of illegal aggressive acts observed. From a list of 23 aggressive acts, players were aware of an average of 9.63 actions and nonplayers were aware of 8.53 actions. Although this difference was statistically significant (because of the large sample size), there was only a mean difference of one action, and therefore, was not a very meaningful difference. The most common actions noted by players were spearing (64.8%), blocking below the waist (60.2%), facemasking (69.1%), late hits (69.7%), piling on (50.4%). head slapping (56.8%). clipping (65%), throwing a forearm (55.1%), hitting out of bounds (56.6%), and punching (53.2%). The most common responses by nonplayers were facemask- ing (78.4%), tripping (54.1%), late hits (64.7%), clipping (75.7%), and hitting out of bounds (55.3%). Some of the greatest percentage differ- ences found between players and nonplayers were responses to the acts of spearing (players 64.8%, nonplayers 31%), blocking below the waist (players 60.2%, nonplayers 45.1%), crack back blocking (players 32.8%, nonplayers 17.6%), head slapping (players 56.8%, nonplayers 29.8%), and throwing a forearm (players 55.1%, nonplayers 31.8%). Table 13 in Appendix A contains the percentages of all illegal aggressive acts. 50 Aggression One of the purposes of this investigation was to determine if there would be a difference between H.S. players' and Y.L. players' self- reported number of illegal aggressive actions of which they became aware through observing or reading about college and professional football. Results indicated a significant difference, tf (201)=2.26, 23:.05. Youth league players were aware of more illegal acts (Mé10.63) than H.S. players (M;9.26), although this difference was only 1.42 acts, and again was not considered a meaningful difference. Youth league players' and H.S. players' responses to specific aggressive acts of which they became aware through watching college or professional football were similar in comparison (see Table 13 in Appendix A). Illegal aggressive acts in which there was more than a 10% difference in responses were tripping (Y.L. 56.8%, H.S. 38.3%), head slapping (Y.L. 48%, H.S. 59.9%), clipping (Y.L. 74.4%, H.S. 61.7%), kicking (Y.L. 35.2%, H.S. 20.2%), biting (Y.L. 18.4%, H.S. 6.6%), poking in the eye (Y.L. 25.6%, H.S. 11.5%), kneeing in the groin (Y.L. 28.8%, H.S. 11.5%), clotheslining (Y.L. 46.4%, H.S. 35.2%), and elbowing (Y.L. 44%, H.S. 32.3%). In all cases but one (head slapping), the Y.L. players' responses to these particular acts were higher than the H.S. players' responses. Although the percentages for each of the specific illegal acts were generally higher for Y.L. players than H.S. players, 10.5% of the Y.L. players responded that they never became aware of illegal aggressive acts from watching or reading about college or professional football, as compared to only 5.2% of the H.S. players' responses. In order to determine if the coach influenced whether or not players became aware of skills through watching football, players were 51 Aggression asked if the coach requested that they watch college or professional foot- ball to become aware of specific skills. The coaches' influence accounted for less than one-half of the players' responses. Frequencies indicated that 29.8% of the H.S. players and 27.2% of the Y.L. players responded that their coach had asked them to watch football to learn specific skills. The most common skills which coaches had asked them to watch for were blocking, playing a particular position, tackling, and running. From the players who responded that their coach had asked them to watch football to become aware of particular skills, only 3% of the H.S. players and 3% of the Y.L. players stated that their coach told them to look for illegal aggressive actions. It appears that most coaches are not specifically asking their players to watch for illegal aggressive acts. In summary, there was little difference in the responses of players and nonplayers, to the amount of illegal aggressive acts of which both groups became aware through the consumption of college or profes- sional football. However, there were some slight differences in the per- centages of responses to particular illegal acts which both groups observed, with the most notable differences being in response to the acts of spearing, blocking below the waist, crack back blocking, head slapping, and throwing a forearm. There was little difference between H.S. and Y.L. players' responses to the amount of illegal aggressive acts of which they became aware through the influence of college or professional football. However, in most cases, awareness was slightly higher for Y.L. players than for H.S. players. 52 Aggression Use of Illegal Skills in Players' Own Games After the players were asked to check the illegal acts of which they became aware through the influence of college or professional foot- ball, they were asked to note whether or not they used those specific acts in their own games. It was hypothesized that there was a signifi- cant correlation between the number of illegal aggressive acts observed in college and professional football of which players were aware and the number of those acts that they use in their own games. Using the Pearson-Product Moment correlation to analyze the data, results revealed that the overall correlation for players was signifi- cant, 3;.57. The correlations for the H.S. players (ré.62) and Y.L. players (ré.50) were also significant. These significant correlations revealed a relationship between the observation of illegal aggressive acts and the use of those acts in players' own games. High school players and Y.L. players did not differ on the number of illegal aggres- sive acts that they reportedly used. High school players used an average of 3.97 acts from the 9.26 acts of which they were aware, and Y.L. players used an average of 3.96 acts from the 10.63 acts of which they were aware. Frequencies were used to determine the percentage of players who used specific illegal acts after they became aware of those acts through the influence of college and professional football. The H.S. players' responses indicated that throwing a forearm (65.9%), elbowing (55.4%), stepping on someone when standing up (54.7%), blocking using a fist (53.0%), piling on (52.0%), and using the helmet as a weapon (50.7%) were the most common illegal aggressive acts used in H.S. players' games. 53 Aggression Among the Y.L. players, blocking below the waist (56.8%), facemasking (53.5%), throwing a forearm (53.1%), clipping (48.4%) chop blocking (45.2%), and late hits (42.7%) received the highest number of responses. (See Table 14 in Appendix A, for the percentages of use by players for each illegal aggressive act.) Examination of the frequencies further indicated that 82.4% of all players used at least one of the illegal aggressive acts of which they became aware through the influence of college and professional football. In order to assess players' attitudes toward using illegal aggres- sive acts in games, those subjects who indicated that they had used at least one of those illegal acts, were asked if using those illegal acts helped their team to win and if it made them better football players. Seventeen percent of the H.S. players thought using illegal aggressive acts helped their team to win, while 53% felt that using these acts did not help their team to win. 0f the Y.L. players, 15% indicated that illegal aggressive acts had helped their team to win, while 66% stated that these acts had not helped the team to win. Thirty percent of the H.S. players and 19% of the Y.L. players were "not sure" whether using the illegal acts helped their team to win. When players were asked if using illegal aggressive actions made them better football players, 21% of the H.S. players and 22% of the Y.L. players stated that they thought the use of these acts had made them better players. However, 52% of the H.S. players and 68% of the Y.L. players indicated that using illegal aggressive acts did not make them better players. Twenty-seven percent of the H.S. players and 10% of the Y.L. players were "not sure" if using these illegal acts made them better players. See Tables 16 and 54 Aggression 17 in Appendix A for percentages concerning these last two questions. Players' and Nonplayers' Attitudes Toward the Use of Illegal Aggressive Acts in Football Players and nonplayers were asked the following three questions to assess their attitudes toward the use of illegal aggression in football: (1) "Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials?" (2) "Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable if they help your team to win?" (3) "Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions are worth the risk of penalties because the advantages gained by illegal play often help the team win in the long run?" Responses were made in the form of "Yes", "No", or "Not Sure". For the first question, "Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials?" a 2 x 3 Chi square analysis was performed on players' and nonplayers' responses. The overall Chi square was significant, x2(2)=l4.19, pf:.0008. Twenty-six percent of the players compared to 16.9% of the nonplayers felt that illegal acts were acceptable if they were not called by the officials, while 56% of the players and 70.2% of the nonplayers felt it was not acceptable behavior regardless of the officials' call. Subjects were also asked to indicate whether or not they felt illegal aggressive acts were acceptable if they helped the team to win. The 2 x 3 Chi square analysis was again found to be significant. x2(2)=35.82, p}:.0001. Results revealed that 30.3% of the players felt illegal aggressive acts were acceptable if they helped the team to win, as opposed to only 16.1% of the nonplayers. Fifty-one percent of the 55 Aggression players and 74% of the nonplayers felt that illegal aggressive acts were not acceptable, even if they helped the team to win. Finally, subjects were asked if they felt that illegal aggressive actions were worth the risk of penalties because the advantages gained by illegal play often helped the team to win in the long run. Results revealed that players' and nonplayers' responses were similar, with the overall Chi square not revealing significance, x2(2)=3.79, 29>.15. From the players' responses, 22.4% stated "yes", they thought illegal acts were worth the risk of penalties, along with 23.6% of the nonplayers. However, 56% of the players and 60.6% of the nonplayers felt that illegal actions were not worth the risk of penalties. High school players' and Y.L. players responses to the same three attitude questions were compared. For the first question, "Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials?" the overall Chi square was not significant, x2(2)=2.20, 99>.33. Twenty-seven percent of the H.S. players and 22.4% of the Y.L. players felt that illegal acts were acceptable if they were not called by officials. However, 53.9% of the H.S. players and 61.6% of the Y.L. players felt that illegal acts were unacceptable regardless of the officials' calls. The overall Chi square for the question concerning whether illegal acts are acceptable if they help the team to win, was also not signifi- cant x2(2)=5.63,.p>’.06. Youth league players' and H.S. players' responses were similar, with 29.3% of the Y.L. players and 30.6% of the H.S. players agreeing and 58.5% of the Y.L. players and 48.4% of the H.S. players disagreeing that illegal acts were acceptable if they 56 Aggression helped the team to win. Finally, Chi square was again not significant, x2(2)=l.20, p}>.55 for the question concerning whether or not illegal acts were worth the risk of penalties. Twenty-two percent of the Y.L. players and 22.5% of the H.S. players responded that illegal aggressive acts were worth the risk of penalties as compared with 59.2% of the Y.L. players and 54.7% of the H.S. players, who disagreed. One of the more interesting results revealed through these last three questions was the difference in responses between H.S. nonplayers and Y.L. age nonplayers. The three questions attempted to identify situ- ations in which illegal aggressive acts could be justified (for example, 'the official did not see it, it helped the team win, it helped the team gain an advantage). The H.S. nonplayers' responses (21.3%, 22.1%, 27.9% respectively) were higher than the Y.L. age nonplayers responses (12.8%, 10.5%, 19.5% respectively) in justifying the illegal behavior. Players' Perceptions of Their Reference Groups Attitudes Toward the Use of Illegal Aggressive Acts in Football Players were asked how they felt their reference groups would respond to the same three attitude questions to which they had previously responded. As can be seen in Tables 17 through 19 (in Appendix A), rank- ing the frequencies of "yes" responses to the three questions revealed that "teammates" was the reference group that players thought would be most accepting of illegal actions if (a) they were not called by officials or (b) it helped the team to win. Friends, followed closely by spectators were thought to be the next most accepting of illegal actions. 57 Aggression In response to the third question concerning the advantage of illegal acts even with the risk of penalties, teammates ranked second to specta- tors. The mother was thought to be the least accepting of illegal aggressive acts under all three circumstances. Also, the percentage of "yes" responses for all three questions, was always higher for the H.S. players than the Y.L. players, with the exception of coach and mother. Attitudes Toward Illegal Aggressive Actions ifi’CoTlege and Professional Footballi Finally, players and nonplayers were asked several questions regard- ing their attitudes toward aggression in college and professional foot- ball, in order to assess their reactions to what they read about or watched on television. The first question asked subjects if they would like to see more, the same, or less illegal aggressive actions in college or professional football this year. A 2 x 3 Chi square analysis per- formed on players' and nonplayers' responses, was significant, x2(2)= 29.36, p_<.0001. Frequency percentages indicated that more players (15.7%) than nonplayers (9.6%) would like to see "more" illegal aggressive acts and 51.5% of the players compared to 37.1% of the nonplayers would like to see the "same" amount of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football. The most frequent responses to "why" players and nonplayers would like to see more or the same illegal aggression were that they found it exciting, they liked it the way it is now, they felt it was part of the game, and they thought it was fun to watch. From the total sample of players, 32.8% responded that they would like to see "less" illegal aggression in college and professional football, compared to 53.4% of the total nonplayer sample. The most frequent reasons given 58 Aggression for wanting to see less aggression in football were that they wanted to keep the number of injuries down, because they thought it was not part of the game, and because they thought it took away from the game. Players and nonplayers were also asked if they thought illegal aggressive acts helped winning college and professional teams to be successful. A 2 x 3 Chi square analysis comparing players and nonplayers was not significant, x2(2)=.57, p}>.75. Frequency percentages were very close between players and nonplayers. Thirty-eight percent of the players and 39.4% of nonplayers felt illegal aggression helped winning teams to be successful. Thirty percent of both the players and non- players felt that illegal aggression did not contribute to teams' success. The final question concerning players' and nonplayers' attitudes toward aggression in college and professional football, was whether or not illegal aggressive acts made football a "better" or "poorer" game to watch. In comparing players' and nonplayers' responses, the 2 x 3 Chi square was once again not significant, x2(2)=4.51,.p>t.10. Frequencies indicated that 58.4% of the players and 52% of the nonplayers responded that illegal aggression makes football a better game to watch. The reasons most often given by players and nonplayers for illegal aggressive acts making football a "better" game to watch were that they thought it made the game more exciting, they felt it added action to the game, and because they thought it was fun to watch. Thirty-nine percent of the players and 46.4% of the nonplayers felt that illegal aggression made football a "poorer" game to watch. When asked "why" aggression made football afpoorer” game to watch, the most common responses were that they felt it was not part of the game, they did not want to see players 59 Aggression getting hurt, and they wanted to see a good clean game. Differences were revealed between H.S. players' and Y.L. players' responses to the first question asking if subjects would like to see more, the same, or less aggression in college and professional football. The 2 x 3 Chi square analysis was found to be significant, x2(2)=l9.82, pf:.0001. Twenty-four percent of the Y.L. players compared to 13% of H.S. players responded that they would like to see "more" illegal aggres- sion in football. Thirty-five percent of the Y.L. players and 57.5% of the H.S. players stated that they would like to see the "same" amount of illegal aggression in college and professional football this year. Also, more Y.L. players (41.9%) than H.S. players (29.5%) stated that they would like to see "less" aggression in football this year. For the question concerning whether or not subjects felt that illegal aggression helped winning teams to be successful, there was little difference in Y.L. players' and H.S. players' responses. The 2 x 3 Chi square was not significant, x2(2)=l.37,‘p>’.50. Forty-two percent of the Y.L. players and 36.6% of the H.S. players indicated that winning teams were successful with the help of illegal aggression. However, 29.8% of the Y.L. players and 30.2% of the H.S. players stated that they did not feel illegal aggression contributes to the success of winning teams. Caution must be taken when interpreting these results, however, due to the large percent of "Not Sure" responses (Y.L.=28.2%, H.S.=33.l%) by subjects. Finally, when comparing H.S. players' and Y.L. players' responses to the question regarding whether or not illegal aggression makes foot- ball a better or poorer game to watch, the 2 x 3 Chi square analysis was 60 Aggression not significant, x2(2)=4.64, p_>.10. Sixty-one percent of the H.S. players and 52% of the Y.L. players stated that illegal aggression makes college and professional football a "better" game to watch. The reasons given most often for illegal aggression making football a "better" game to watch were that they felt it made the game more exciting and they thought it added action to the game. Thirty-six percent of the H.S. players and 46.4% of the Y.L. players felt that illegal aggression makes football a "poorer" game to watch. The reasons most often stated for illegal aggression making football a "poorer" game to watch were that they felt it was not part of the game and they did not want to see players getting hurt. Discussion One purpose of this investigation was to determine which illegal skills, if any, young football players and nonplayers became aware of through watching or reading about college and professional football. Prior to inquiring about specific skills, subjects were first asked how much college and professional football they consumed through television, newspapers, magazines, books, and live games. One of the hypotheses investigated was that there would be a difference in the amount of con- sumption of college and professional football between young football players and nonplayers. Results revealed that players consumed signifi- cantly more football than nonplayers, thus supporting the hypothesis. Watching football on television and reading about football in newspapers were the most popular medias reported, with more than 50% of both 61 Aggression players and nonplayers consuming football in this way at least once a week. These results supported the findings of Smith (1978), who revealed that ice hockey players consumed more professional ice hockey via tele- vision and newspapers than nonplayers. By establishing that there was a large amount of football consumed, the possibility that players and non- players had the opportunity to become aware of illegal acts in college and professional football was enhanced. The second question which guided this exploratory study was whether or not young football players and nonplayers became aware of illegal aggressive actions through observing and reading about college and pro- fessional football. The author hypothesized that there would be a dif- ference between players' and nonplayers' self-reported number of illegal aggressive acts of which they became aware through observation. Results revealed statistical support for this hypothesis in that players reported significantly more illegal aggressive acts of which they were aware through watching or reading about football than nonplayers; however, the meaningfulness of this difference was minute. The mean differences between these groups amounted to one illegal aggressive act. This minute difference is supportive of Smith's (1978) study which also found almost no difference when he asked the question "Have you ever learned how to hit another player illegally in any way from watching professional hockey?" (p. 100). Thus, although players consumed more college and professional football than nonplayers, players and nonplayers became aware of nearly the same number of illegal aggressive acts. However, more players than nonplayers were aware of more general football skills. These findings 62 Aggression also support the previous findings of Smith (1978), who reported that more players than nonplayers learned general ice hockey skills. One pos- sible explanation for these findings may be that players are looking for specific legal skills to help them improve their game. Both grOups, however, may notice illegal aggressive acts because in most cases the game is temporarily stopped in order to call attention to the act and to assign the appropriate penalty. Furthermore, some of the past modeling research (Osborn & Endsley, 1971; Wolf & Cheyne, 1972) has indicated that aggressive or deviant behavior, learned observationally, may be retained longer than nonaggressive or conforming behavior. Even though both the present study and Smith's (1978) study found no meaningful difference between players' and nonplayers' awareness of illegal aggressive acts in football or ice hockey, the percentage of subjects' awareness of these acts was much different between the two studies. From Smith's samples, 56.9% of the players and 55.3% of the nonplayers responded that they had learned how to hit illegally. In the present study, it was found that 93.4% of the players and 92.1% of the nonplayers were aware of at least one illegal act through observing college and professional football. These percentages are much higher than Smith's. One possible explanation for the discrepancy in these percentages between Smith's study and the present study, may be that it is easier to see illegal aggressive acts in football. However, a more plausible explanation may be the differences in the way in which the questions in each study were worded. The term "learned" was used by Smith, whereas, the term "become aware of" was used in the present study. Some subjects may have interpreted each of these terms differently. 63 Aggression Moreover, in the present study, the illegal acts were listed and the subjects checked off the acts of which they became aware, whereas, Smith's question was a "yes" or "no" response to learning how to "hit" another player. Furthermore, the term "hit" may have been interpreted as being more violent than specific aggressive acts such as "cross- checking" in ice hockey. It has been established in this study that many players and nonplayers became aware of illegal aggressive acts through observing football, but it was also necessary to determine how that information may have influenced young football players. The second purpose of this investigation was to determine if there was a relationship between young players' observation of illegal aggres- sive acts in college and professional football and the transmission of those illegal acts to players' own games. It was hypothesized that there would be a correlation between the number of illegal aggressive acts in college and professional football of which players were aware and the number of those acts used in their own games. Results revealed that correlations for both H.S. (£7.62) and Y.L. (3;.50) players were signifi- cant. These correlations were moderately high and accounted for 37% and 25% of the variance respectively. Thus, it can be concluded from these results that there is a relationship between being aware of illegal aggressive acts in football and using those acts in games. In addition, the present study revealed that 82.4% of the players had become aware of and used at least one of the illegal aggressive acts listed in the questionnaire. Smith (1978), in his study on the social learning of violence in ice hockey, asked young players how many times they hit another player illegally, after learning that act from 64 Aggression professional hockey. From his player sample, only 36.9% responsed that they used the illegal act at least once; however, Smith reported that almost 43% of the subjects responded "inappropriately" to this question If the inappropriate responses were discarded, and the percentages were recalculated using only the legitimate responses for the sample size, this percentage increases to 63.6%. Although both the present study's percentage and Smith's recalculated percentage were high, the discrep- ancy between the two may again be due to the different ways in which the question was asked of players. All of these results taken together lend support to the past modeling research which has indicated that subjects' potential to aggress increases following exposure to live aggressive models (Bandura et al., 1961; Bandura et al., 1963b; Baron & Kepner, 1970; Hartmann, 1969; Dubanoski & Parton, 1971) as well as film models (Bandura et al., 1963a; Wolf &Cheyne, 1972). This relationship between observing aggressive models and subsequent imitation of that aggression may be mediated, however, by the vicarious reinforcement observed by young players. Past research has shown that observers of models who were neither re- warded nor punished for aggressive behavior showed more imitative aggres- sion than observers who watched models punished for their aggressive behavior. Observers exposed to models who were rewarded for aggressive behavior subsequently imitated more aggression than observers of models punished for aggression. Also, observers exposed to models inconsist- ently reinforced for aggression subsequently performed less imitative behavior than those exposed to consistently rewarded models, but more 65 Aggression imitative behavior than those exposed to consistently punished models (Bandura, 1965; Bandura et al., 1963b; Rosekrans & Hartup, 1967; Walters & Parke, 1964). Research has not yet revealed whether young athletes are observing college and professional athletes who are consistently punished models, consistently rewarded models, or inconsistently punished and rewarded models. To what extent are college and professional athletes punished or rewarded for aggressive behavior on the football field? More research is needed to determine what type of reinforcement is being given for illegal aggression in college and professional foot- ball today. The third purpose of this investigation was to determine if there were differences between high school-age football players' and youth league-age football players' awareness of illegal aggressive acts and the use of those acts in their games. Results revealed that H.S. and Y.L. players reportedly consumed similar amounts of football; however, Y.L. players consumed more through reading books and attending games. The H.S. players and Y.L. players became aware of a similar number of illegal aggressive acts as well as a similar percentage of general foot- ball skills, and also used the same number of illegal aggressive acts in their games. These results are in agreement with Smith (1978) who reported no differences by age or level of competition in his ice hockey player sample. When Y.L. and H.S. players were asked questions concerning their attitudes toward observing illegal acts in college and professional foot- ball, mixed results were obtained. More of the H.S. players (57.5%) than Y.L. players (34.7%) were satisfied with the amount of aggression 66 Aggression used in football right now. More of the Y.L. players (41.9%) than the H.S. players (29.5%) would like to see less aggression in football. However, more than half of both groups responsed that they would like to see the same amount or more aggression in football. In addition, more than half of both groups felt illegal aggression made football a better game to watch because it would be more exciting. These results revealed that the use of illegal acts and players' attitudes toward their use, were just as prevalent among the Y.L. players as they were among the H.S. players. One might surmise that younger players may be less tolerant of cheating than older players; however, the present study and Smith's (1975) research have not supported this statement. A professional orien- tation toward football may exist to an extent in both H.S. and Y.L. level football. That is, players may feel that the skill and winning aspects of the game are more important than the concept of fairness and playing within the rules. Smith (1975) has discussed this professionali- zation in the route a young hockey player must take to become profes- sional. As the player moves up through more advanced leagues, the competition becomes tougher, and the number of positions available diminishes. Therefore, in order to have a greater chance to make an advanced team, a professional orientation must be incorporated all along the route to professional athletics. Another question in this investigation concerned the attitudes of players and nonplayers toward the use of illegal aggression. This study has shown that many players and nonplayers have become aware of illegal aggressive acts through the consumption of college and professional football, and that approximately a third of the players have used some of 67 Aggression these acts in their own football games. This investigation further attempted to determine if there were situations in which players and non- players may justify the use of aggression. There were significant dif- ferences between players' and nonplayers' responses as to whether or not illegal aggression was acceptable behavior if it was not called by the officials and if it helped the team to win. However, one may be relieved to note that less than a third of the players and nonplayers felt that illegal aggression was acceptable regardless of these situa- tions. Responses were very similar between players and nonplayers as to whether or not illegal acts were worth the risk of penalties. Twenty-two percent of both samples responded that the use of illegal acts were worth the risk of penalties, because the advantages gained often helped the team to win in the long run. Responses to all three questions were similar for Y.L. and H.S. players. Although most of the players and nonplayers felt aggression could not be justified under the three circum- stances stated, it is difficult to understand why approximately a quarter of the subjects would feel aggressive behavior could be justified, or why 38% of the players and 39.4% of the nonplayers felt that the use of illegal aggression helped winning college and professional teams to be successful. This is an area which needs further research; however, the present study attempted to investigate the role of significant others, for a possible explanation as to the origin of this attitude. Players perceived the coach, father, and teammates respectively, as having the most influence on the way they played football, and rated spectators and mother as having the least influence on how they played football. However, teammates, followed by coaches were ranked as having 68 Aggression the most influence on whether or not players used illegal aggressive acts in their own games. In addition, more than half of the players per- ceived teammates, friends, and spectators to be approving of illegal aggression if it was not called by the officials or if it helped the team to win. Spectators, teammates, and friends respectively, were also rated highest for approving of the attitude that illegal aggressive acts are worth the risk of penalties. Future research may need to investigate the influence of peer pressure on whether or not young players use illegal aggressive acts. This approval of illegal aggression by players' significant others in order to win may be part of the win-at-all-cost value in our society that Pooley (1980) suggests contributes to illegal aggression in sports. Less emphasis on winning in sports by coaches, parents, and spectators may reduce the necessity to use illegal acts. Pooley also suggested that the lowered violence threshold of sports, irresponsible coaching, inadequate rules, incompetent officiating, and low skill level were other factors which contribute to aggression in sports. These variables are in need of further investigation as possible contributors of aggression in sports. Future investigators may find it beneficial to use indepth inter- views in order to clarify responses given in questionnaires. For example, reference groups may play an important role in deciding whether or not players use illegal acts in their games. However, information concerning reference groups may best be sought through interviews, to assure honest responses and to have the opportunity to ask the necessary follow-up questions. Field studies involving the observation of young players for 69 Aggression full games, for full seasons, are necessary to help determine the amount of illegal aggression that is actually used by young players. Although questionnaires are helpful, it is difficult to rely on responses from subjects to the amount of aggression they actually use. It would also be helpful to watch college and professional players for full games, in order to determine the amount of aggression they actually use in football. In addition, more sport specific research is needed in the area of aggression. Results revealed in certain sports, such as football and ice hockey, may not be applicable to other sports such as baseball or basketball. 7O Aggression References Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 589-595. Bandura, A. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1973. Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1961, 66, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. A. Imitation of film mediated aggres- sive gogels. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. a Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. A. Vicarious reinforcement and imita- tive learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, .67, 60l-607.(b) ‘ Baron, R. A. & Kepner, R. C. Model's behavior and attraction toward the model as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 335-344. Coakley, J. J. Sport in Society. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1982. Oubanoski, R. A. & Parton, D. A. Imitative aggression in children as a function of observing a human model. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 3, 489. Hartmann, D. P. Influence of symbolically modeling instrumental aggres- sion and pain cues on aggression behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 280-288. Hicks, 0. J. Imitation and retention of film mediated aggressive peer and adult models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 97-100. Kohr, R. L. A comparison of statistical procedures for testing Ul=U2 with unequal ns and variances. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University (1970). Martens, R. Social psychology and physical activity. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975. Osborn, D. K. & Endsley, R. C. Emotional reactions of young children to T.V. violence. Child Development, 1971, 62, 321-331. 71 Aggression Pooley, J. C. Player violence in sport: Consequences for youth. In P. Klavora & K. A. W. Wipper (Eds.), Psychological and sociological factors in sport. Toronto, Canada: PubTications DivisiOn, School of Physical and Health Education, University of Toronto, 1980. Rosekrans, M. A., & Hartup, W. W. Imitative influences of consistent and inconsistent response consequences to a model on aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 429-434. Silva, J. M. Changes in the affective state of guilt as a function of exhibiting proactive assertion or hostile aggression. In G. C. Roberts & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport--l978. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1979. Silva, J. M. Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport; A definitional clarification. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, K. M. Newell, and G. C. Roberts (Eds.). Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport--l979. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1980. Smith, M. D. The legitimation of violence: Hockey players' perceptions of their reference groups' sanctions for assault. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1975, 12, 72-80. Smith, M. D. Aggression in sport: Toward a role approach. In A. Yiannakis, T. D. McIntyre, M. G. Melnick, and D. P. Hart (Eds.), Sport Sociology: Contemporary Themes. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1976. Smith, M. D. Social learning of violence in minor hockey. In F. L. Small and R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing, 1978. Smith, M. D. Interpersonal violence in sport: The influence of parents. In P. Klavora & K. A. W. Wipper (Eds.), Psychological and Socio- logical Factors in Sport. Toronto, Canada: Publications Division, School of Physical and Health Education, University of Toronto, 980. Vaz, E. W. The culture of young hockey players: Some initial observa- tions. In A. Yiannakis, T. McIntyre, M. Melnick, & 0. Hart (Eds.), Sport Sociolggy: Contemporary Themes. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1976. Walters, R. H. & Parke, R. 0. Influence of response consequences to a social model on resistance to deviation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1964, 1, 269-280. Wolf, T. M., & Cheyne, A. J. Persistance of effects of live behavioral, televised behavioral, and live verbal models on resistance to deviation. Child Development, 1972, 46, 1429-1436. 72 Aggression Footnotes 1. Only eight high school subjects were surveyed from an elective physical education class. 2. All tests were performed at the .05 level of significance. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Ardrey, R. The Territorial Imperative. New York: Atheneium, 1966. Bandura, A. Influence of model's reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 589-595. Bandura, A. Vicarious and self-reinforcement processes. In R. Glaser (Ed.), The Nature of Reinforcement. New York: Academic Press, 1971. Bandura, A. Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N. Y.: Prentice- Hall, 1977. Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1961, 66, 575-582. Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, S. A. Imitation of film mediated aggres- sive modelg.) Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. a Bandura, A., Ross, 0., & Ross, 5. A. Vicarious reinforcement and imita- tive learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 601-607. (b) Baron, R. A. Reducing the influence of an aggressive model: The restrain- ing effects of discrepant modeling cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1971, 26, 240-245. Baron, R. A. & Kepner, R. C. Model's behavior and attraction toward the model as determinants of adult aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 335-344. Bateson, G. The frustration-aggression hypothesis and culture. Psychological Review, 1941, 46, 350-355. Berkowitz, L. The concept of aggressive drive: Some additional con- siderations. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1965. Berkowitz, L. Simple views of aggression: An essay review. American Scientist, 1969, 62, 372-383. 73 74 Berkowitz, L. & Rawlings, E. Effects of film violence on inhibitions against subsequent aggression. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 405-412. Coakley, J. J. Sport in Society. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1982. Dollard, J., Miller, N., Doob, L., Maurer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1939. Oubanoski, R. A. & Parton, D. A. Imitative aggression in children as a function of observing a human model. Developmental Psychology, 1971, 4, 489. Feshbach, S. The stimulating versus cathartic effects of a vicarious aggressive activity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 66, 381-385. Feshbach, S. DynamiCs and morality of violence and aggression: Some psychological considerations. American Psychologist, 1971, 26, 281-292. Flanders, J. P. A review of research on imitative behavior. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 1968, 69, 316-337. Freud, S. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis. New York: Morton, 1933. Goldstein, J., & Arms, R. Effects of observing athletic contests on hostility. Sociometry, 1971, 64, 83-90. Goranson, R. Media violence and aggressive behavior: A review of experi- mental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Hartmann, D. P. Influence of symbolically modeling instrumental aggres- sion and pain cues on aggression behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11, 280-288. Hicks, 0. J. Imitation and retention of film mediated aggressive peer and adult models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2, 97-100. Hollandsworth, J. G. Differentating assertion and aggression: Some behavioral guidelines. Behavior Therapy, 1977, 6, 347-352. Husman, B. Aggression: An historical perspective. In W. F. Straub (Ed.). Sport Psychology: An Analysis of Athlete Behavior. Ithaca, N. Y.: Movement Publications, 1980. 75 Kohr, R. L. A comparison of statistical procedures for testing Ul=U2 with unequal ns and variances. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. The Pennsylvania State University (1970). Krupat, E. Psychology is Social. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1975. Lorenz, K. On Aggression. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1966. Martens, R. Social Psychology and Physical Activity. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1975. Osborn, D. K. & Endsley, R. C. Emotional reactions of young children to T.V. violence. Child Development, 1971, 42, 321-331. Pooley, J. C. Player violence in sport: Consequences for youth. In P. Klavora & K. A. W. Wipper (Eds.), Psychological and Sociological Factors in Sport. Toronto, Canada: Publications DiviSion, School of Physical and Health Education, University of Toronto, 1980. Rosekrans, M. A., & Hartup, W. W. Imitative influences of consistent and inconsistent response consequences to a model on aggressive behavior in children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 1, 429-434. Silva, J. M. Changes in the affective state of guilt as a function of exhibiting proactive assertion or hostile aggression. In G. C. Roberts & K. M. Newell (Eds.), Psychology of Motor Behavior and Sport--1978. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1979. Silva, J. M. Assertive and aggressive behavior in sport: A definitional clarification. In C. H. Nadeau, W. R. Halliwell, K. M. Newell, and G. C. Roberts (Eds.), Psychology and Motor Behavior and Sport-- 1979. Champaign, Illinois: Human Kinetics, 1980. (a) Silva, J. M. Understanding aggressive behavior and its effects upon athletic performance. In W. F. Straub (Ed.), Sport Psychology: An Analysis of Athlete Behavior. Ithaca, N. Y.: Mouvement PubTications, 1980. (b) Smith, M. D. The legitimation of violence: Hockey players' perceptions of their reference groups' sanctions for assault. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1975, 12, 72-80. Smith, M. D. Aggression in sport: Toward a role approach. In A. Yiannakis, T. D. McIntyre, M. J. Melnick and D. P. Hart (Eds.), Sport Sociology: Contemporary Themes. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 1976. Smith, M. D. Social learning of violence in minor hockey. In F. L. Smoll and R. E. Smith (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives in Youth Sports. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere PubliShing, 1978. 76 Smith, M. D. Interpersonal violence in sport: The influence of parents. In P. Klavora 8 K. A. W. Wipper (Eds.), Psychological and Socio- logical Factors in §port. Toronto, Canada: Publications Division, School of Physical and Health Education, University of Toronto, 1980. Thelen, M. H. 8 Rennie, D. L. The effect of vicarious reinforcement on imitation: A review of the literature. In B. A. Maher (Ed.), Progress in Experimental Personality Research. New York: Academic Press, 1972. Vaz, E. W. The culture of young hockey players: Some initial observa- tions. In A. Yiannakis, T. McIntyre, M. Melnick, 8 0. Hart (Eds.), Sport Sociology: Contemporary Themes. Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt PubliShing Company, 1976. Walters, R. H. 8 Parke, R. 0. Influence of response consequences to a social model on resistance to deviation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1964, 1, 269-280. Walters, R., Thomas, E. 8 Acker, C. Enhancement of punitive behavior by audio-visual displays. Science, 1962, 166, 872-873. Wolf, T. M., 8 Cheyne, A. J. Persistance of effects of live behavioral, televised behavioral, and live verbal models on resistance to deviation. Child Development, 1972, 46, 1429-1436. Zillmann, D. 8 Johnson, R. C. Motivated aggressiveness perpetuated by exposure to aggressive films and reduced by exposure to nonaggres- sive films. Journal of Research in Personality, 1973, 2, 261-276. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TABLES OF RESULTS 77 Table 1 Rankings and Means for Significant Others' Influence on the Way Subjects Play Football Youth League Players High School Players Significant Others Rank Mean Rank Mean Coach 1 3.70 l 3.68 Father 2 3.04 3 2.56 Teammates 3 2.82 2 3.05 Friends (other than 4.5 2.32 4 2.09 teammates) College Players 4.5 2.32 6 1.80 Professional Players 6 2.11 5 1.93 Mother 7 1.94 7 1.67 Spectators 8 1.86 8 1.41 Others 9 0.69 9 0.47 78 Table 2 Rankings and Means for Significant Others' Influence on Whether or Not Subjects Use Illegal Aggressive Acts in Their Own Games Youth League Players High School Players Significant Others Rank Mean Rank Mean Teammates l 2.86 1 2.71 Coach 2 2.76 2 2.41 Father 3 2.51 5 1.85 Friends (other than 4 2.34 3 2.00 teammates) Spectators 5 2.10 4 1.97 College Players 6.5 1.98 7 1.67 Professional Players 6.5 1.98 6 1.74 Mother 8 1.94 8 1.33 Others 9 0.30 9 0.14 79 Table 3 Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you watch college or professional football on T.V.?" Frequency (%) 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents a week week a month month Never Players 75.2 18.9 4.2 1.7 O Nonplayers 49.8 24.3 7.8 11.0 7.0 Total % 66.3 20.8 5.5 5.0 2.5 N 482 151 40 36 18 Note: x2(4) = 84.55, p < .0001. 80 Table 4 Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never Players 28.6 34.8 19.4 3.8 6.8 6.4 Nonplayers 17.0 21.3 17.0 6.3 8.3 30.0 Total % 24.5 30.1 18.6 4.7 7.4 14.7 N 177 217 134 34 53 106 Note: x2(5) = 84.49, p.< .0001. 81 Table 5 Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in magazines?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never Players 3.0 20.9 31.8 16.0 17.9 10.3 Nonplayers 2.0 7.1 21.7 12.2 20.5 36.6 Total % 2.6 16.1 28.3 14.7 18.8 19.5 N 19 116 204 106 136 141 Note: x2(5) = 87.13, p_< .0001. 82 Table 6 Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you read about college or professional football in books?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never Players 1.7 6.8 10.0 16.4 32.8 32.3 Nonplayers 1.6 2.0 9.8 7.1 27.8 51.8 Total % 1.7 5.1 9.9 13.1 31.0 39.2 N 12 37 72 95 225 284 Note: x2(5) = 35.82, p < .0001. 83 Table 7 Players' and Nonplayers' Responses to--"How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season?" Frequency (%) Once a 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents week a month month a year year Never Players 9.3 12.7 9.1 29.7 23.7 15.5 Nonplayers 5.9 8.6 5.5 17.6 22.0 40.4 Total % 8.1 11.3 7.8 25.4 23.1 24.2 N 59 82 57 185 168 176 Note: x2(5) = 59.73, p < .0001. 84 Table 8 High School and Youth League Players' Responses to-- "How often do you watch college or professional football on T.V.?" Frequency (%) 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents a week week a month month Never H.S. Players 77.5 16.7 4.0 1.6 O Y.L. Players 68.8 24.8 4.8 1.7 0 Total % 75.2 18.9 4.2 1.7 0 N 355 89 20 8 O Note: x2(3) = 4.25, p > .2356. 85 Table 9 High School and Youth League Players' Responses to-- "How often do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never H.S. Players 30.5 35.8 18.3 3.5 6.1 5.8 Y.L. Players 23.4 32.3 22.6 4.8 8.9 8.1 Total % 28.6 34.8 19.4 3.8 6.8 6.4 N 134 163 91 18 32 30 Note: x2(5) = 4.97, p_> .4199. 86 Table 10 High School and Youth League Players' Responses to-- "How often do you read about college or professional football in magazines?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never H.S. Players 2.0 18.4 32.4 17.2 19.0 11.0 Y.L. Players 5.6 28.0 30.4 12.8 15.2 8.0 Total % 3.0 20.9 31.8 16.0 17.9 10.3 N 14 98 149 75 84 48 Note: x2(5) = 10.72, p_> .0572. 87 Table 11 High School and Youth League Players' Responses to-- "How often do you read about college or professional football in books?" Frequency (%) Every 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents day a week week a month month Never H.S. Players .6 3.8 3.8 16.2 37.1 38.6 Y.L. Players 4.8 15.2 27.2 16.8 20.8 15.2 Total % 1.7 6.8 10.0 16.4 32.8 32.3 N 8 32 47 77 154 152 Note: x2(5) = 100.52, p < .0001. 88 Table 12 High School and Youth League Players' Responses to-- "How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season?" Frequency (%) Once a 2-3 times Once a 2-3 times Once a Respondents week a month month a year year Never H.S. Players 6.6 13.0 8.6 31.7 24.5 15.6 Y.L. Players 16.8 12.0 10.4 24.0 21.6 15.2 Total % 9.3 12.7 9.1 29.7 23.7 15.3 N 44 60 43 140 112 73 Note: x2(5) = 12.75, p_< .0259. 89 Table 13 Percent Frequencies for Illegal Aggressive Acts of Which Players and Nonplayers Have Become Aware Through Watching or Reading About College and Professional Football Percent Responses Youth League Age H.S. Aggressive Acts Y.L. Players H.S. Players Nonplayers Nonplayer Spearing 65.6 64.6 27.8 34.4 Blocking Below the 64.8 58.5 42.1 48.4 Waist Crack Back Blocking 38.4 30.8 18.0 17.2 Using Helmet as a 47.2 39.8 33.8 38.5 Weapon Facemasking 68.8 69.2 76.7 80.3 Tripping 56.8 38.3 56.4 51.6 Late Hits 71.2 69.2 61.7 68.0 Piling On 53.6 49.3 37.6 40.2 Head Slapping 48.0 59.9 25.6 34.4 Clipping 74.4 61.7 74.4 77.0 Kicking 35.2 20.2 32.3 36.1 Biting 18.4 6.6 21.8 14.8 Poking in the Eye 25.6 11.5 21.1 21.3 Kneeing in Groin 28.8 11.5 24.1 19.7 Throwing a Forearm 51.2 56.5 27.1 36.9 Continued 90 Table 13--continued Percent Responses Youth League Age H.S. Aggressive Acts Y.L. Players H.S. Players Nonplayers Nonplayer Chop Block 33.6 28.0 18.8 17.2 Blocking Using a 39.2 38.0 38.3 25.4 Fist Hitting Out of 56.0 56.8 54.1 56.6 Bounds Stepping On Someone 29.6 27.4 23.3 17.2 Clotheslining 46.4 35.2 21.1 37.7 Elbowing 44.0 32.3 43.6 31.1 Gouging 15.2 7.2 18.0 12.3 Punching 52.8 53.3 44.4 46.7 Others 3.2 0.9 -- 0 8 Illegal Aggressive Acts of Which Players Have Become Aware and Used in Their Own Games 91 Table 14 H.S. Players (n=347) Illegal Aggres- Y.L. Players (n=125) sive Acts Awareness(%) n Use(%) n Awareness(%) n Use(%) n Spearing 64.6 224 48.7 109 65.6 82 37.8 31 Blocking Below 58.5 203 44.3 90 64.8 81 56.8 46 the Waist Crack Back 30.8 106 28.3 30 38.4 48 33.3 16 Blocking Using Helmet as a 39.8 138 50.7 70 47.2 59 35.6 21 Weapon Facemasking 69.2 240 42.9 103 68.8 86 53.5 46 Tripping 38.3 133 36.8 49 56.8 71 38.0 27 Late Hits 69.2 240 47.5 114 71.2 89 42.7 38 Piling On 49.3 171 52.0 89 53.6 67 41.8 28 Headslapping 59.9 208 47.1 98 48.0 60 35.0 21 Clipping 61.7 214 33.6 72 74.4 93 48.4 45 Kicking 20.2 70 11.4 8 35.2 44 13.6 6 Biting 6.6 23 0.0 0 18.4 23 4.3 1 Poking in the Eye 11.5 40 17.5 7 25.6 32 9.4 3 Kneeing in the 11.5 40 22.0 9 28.8 36 16.7 6 Groin Throwing a Forearm 56.5 196 68.9 135 51.2 64 53.1 34 Chop Block 28.0 97 30.9 30 33.6 42 45.2 19 Continued Table l4--continued 92 H.S. Players (n=347) Illegal Aggres- sive Acts Awareness(%) n Use(%) n Y.L. Players (n=125) Awareness(%) n Use(%) 1'1 Blocking Using a Fist Hitting Out of Bounds Stepping on Someone Clotheslining Elbowing Gouging Punching Others 38.0 56.8 27.4 35.2 32.3 7.2 53.3 132 197 95 122 112 25 185 53. 31. 54. 55. 20. 38. COO-DO 7O 62 52 11 62 5 72 0 39. 56. 29. 46. 44. 15. 52. 3. 49 7O 37 58 55 19 66 4 36.7 28.6 27.0 17.2 41.8 10.5 27.3 25.0 18 93 Table 15 Players' Responses to-- "Has using illegal aggressive acts in your games helped your team to win?" Percent Responses Respondents Yes No Not Sure High School Players 17 53 30 Youth League Players 15 66 19 94 Table 16 Players' Responses to-- "Do you feel using illegal aggressive acts in your games has made you a better football player?" Percent Responses Respondents Yes No Not Sure High School Players 21 52 27 Youth League Players 22 68 10 95 Table 17 Players' Responses to-- "Do you feel any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials?" Percent Responses Rank for "Yes" Reference Group Responses Yes No Not Sure Teammates 1 59.6 23.5 16.7 Friends 2 56.6 21.7 21.7 Spectators 3 51.5 25.3 23.2 Professional Players 4 40.2 30.0 29.8 College Players 5 36.9 30.0 33.1 Father 6 30.8 50.5 18.7 Coach 7 20.0 65.5 14.4 Mother 8 8.3 75.4 16.2 96 Table 18 Players' Responses to-- "Do you feel that any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are acceptable if they help the team to win?" Percent Responses Rank for "Yes" Reference Group Responses Yes No Not Sure Teammates 1 57.9 24.7 17.4 Friends 2 55.4 23.0 21.5 Spectators 3 53.1 22.6 24.3 Professional Players 4 43.8 33.5 22.6 College Players 5 37.0 32.3 30.6 Father 6 27.3 55.2 17.5 Coach 7 22.6 56.2 21.3 Mother 8 11.0 71.5 17.5 97 Table 19 Players' Responses to-- "Do you feel any of the following people would think that illegal aggressive acts are worth the risk of penalties because they help the team win in the long run?" Percent Responses Rank for ”Yes" Reference Group Responses Yes No Not Sure Spectators 1 43.9 30.8 25.3 Teammates 2 41.5 39.8 18.7 Friends 3 37.9 37.9 24.2 Professional Players 4 32.3 39.1 28.6 College Players 5 29.9 39.5 30.6 Father 6 21.7 60.3 17.9 Coach 7 17.7 66.0 16.4 Mother 8 10.0 73.9 16.1 APPENDIX 8 CONSENT FORM FOR DIRECTORS' APPROVAL 98 YOUTH FOOTBALL STUDY Youth Sports Institute Michigan State University Dear Director: I am a graduate student with the Michigan Youth Sports Institute, established in 1978, which is dedicated to helping parents, coaches and adult leaders provide positive and beneficial sport experiences for children. One of the ways in which we have attempted to accomplish this objective is through a continuing research programs designed to provide us with information about young athletes and the effects of sports participation, on their physical and psychological development. I am currently working on a study entitled "Social Learning of Aggression in Youth Football". This Study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Deborah Feltz, on the staff of the Youth Sports Institute. In this investi- gation high school aged (15-17 yrs.) and youth aged (12 to 14 yrs.) football players' and nonplayers' responses to a social learning survey will be compared. The survey will deal with the amount of learning which takes place while viewing college and professional football games on television. The players and nonplayers will be asked to identify aggressive acts which they have learned while observing these games in the past. The players will also be asked questions related to whether or not they use these aggressive acts in their own games. High school and youth aged responses will be compared to see how differences in age and experience relate to the learning of aggression. In order to obtain useful information I need the cooperation of high school students and football players, and also junior high school students and youth league football players to fill out the Survey questionnaire, Players will BEE be required to put their names on the questionnaire. All information received is strictly confidential. In addition to the players' identities being anonymous, the name of the organization for which they play will also remain anonymous. If you approve of the study's objectives and would like to give your permission for me to ask the players of your organization to participate it would help my research efforts tremendously. Let me stress that the players do not have to participate and their permission will be sought before questionnaires are handed out. If you consent to having me ask your players if they would like to partici- pate, please sign your name where it reads"Director's Signature". If you have any further questions, please feel free to call. I am grateful for your help. Thank you, Denise A. Mugno Youth Sports Institute I.M. Circle, Room 105 (517) 355-3858 "I give permission for my organization to participate in this study under the conditions stated in the above letter." DIRECTOR'S SIGNATURE .APPENDIX C CONSENT FORM FOR PRINCIPALS' APPROVAL 99 SOCIAL LEARNING OF AGGRESSION IN YOUTH FOOTBALL Youth Sports Institute Michigan State University Dear Principal, I am a graduate student with the Michigan Youth Sports Institute, estab- lished in 1978, which is dedicated to helping parents, coaches and adult leaders provide positive and beneficial sport experiences for children. One of the ways in which we have attempted to accomplish this objective is through a continuing research program designed to provide us with information about young athletes and the effects of sports participation on their physical and psychological development. I am currently working on a study entitled "Social Learning of Aggression in Youth Football". This study is being conducted under the supervision of Dr. Deborah Feltz, on the staff of the Youth Sports Institute. In the investi- gation high school aged (15-18 yrs.) and youth aged (12-14 yrs. of age) football players' and nonplayers' responses to a social learning Survey will be compared. The survey will deal with the amount of learning which takes place while viewing college and professional football games on television. The players and non- players will be asked to identify aggressive acts which they have learned while observing these games in the past. Players will also be asked questions related to whether or not they use these aggressive acts in their own games. High school and youth aged responses will be compared to see how differences in age and experience relate to the learning of aggression. In order to obtain useful information I need the cooperation of high school students and football players, and also junior high school students and youth league football players, to fill out the survey questionnaire. Students will 223 be required to put their names on the questionnaire. All information received is strictly confidential. In addition to the students identities being anonymous, the name of the school will also remain anonymous. If you approve of the study's objectives and would like to give your permission for me to ask the students from your school to participate it would help my research efforts tremendously. Let me stress that the students do not have to partici- pate and their permission will be sought before questionnaries are handed out. If you consent to having me ask your students if they would like to participate, please sign your name at the bottom of the page on the line designated for "Principal's Signature". If you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at (517) 355-3858. I am grateful for your help. Thank you, Denise A. Mugno Youth Sports Institute I.M. Circle, Room 105 Michigan State University East Lansing. Michigan 48824 "I give my permission for my school to participate in this study under the conditions stated in the above letter." PFINCIPAL'S SIONATURE APPENDIX D PLAYER QUESTIONNAIRE 'IOO SOCIAL INFLUENCES IN AMATEUR FOOTBALL QUESTIONNAIRE Youth Sports Institute Michigan State University How old are you? years. What grade? At what level do you play football? (Check one) A. Youth League Football 8. High School Football What position(s) do you play? (Check one or more) OFFENSE: Quarterback DEFENSE: Safety Runningback Cornerback Wide Receiver Linebacker Tightend Tackle Center Defensive End Guard Tackle Do you start in at least half of your games or less than half of your games? (Check one) I start in at least half of my team's games. I start in less than half of my team’s games ”— If you are a high school football player, what year are you in? freshman, sophomore, junior, senior How many years have you participated in organized football? (Include years in youth league, junior high, and high school football) years. How much influence do you feel each of the following people have on the way you play football? (Use checks) A .EAT BIT SOME Y LITTLE NONE Coach f 3 College Players Father Friends (other than teammates) Mother Professional Players Spectators (fans) Teammates Other? (fill-in) Do you have access to a T.V. set? Yes No A. How often do you watch college or professional football on T.V.? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) once a month d) two or three times a month e) never 10. ll. 12. 101 For how long,each time, do you spend watching college or professional football? 30 minutes, 1 heur, 1 1/2 hours, 2 or more hours How often do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month e) two or three times a month f) never How long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers? 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes or more How often do you read about college or professional football in magazines? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month . e) two or three times a month f) never For how long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in magazines? 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 40 minutes or more How often do you read about college or professional football in books? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month e) two or three times a month f) never For how long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in books? 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 1/2 hours, 2 or more hours 13. 14. 15. 16. 102 A. How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season? a) once a week b) two or three times a month c) once a month d) two or three times a year e) once a year f) never B. How much of the game do you watch? a) 1/4 of the game c) 3/4 of the game b) 1/2 of the game d) the whole game A. Have you ever become aware of football skills and/or tactics from watching college or professional football? YES, NO, NOT SURE B. If yes, what football skills and/or tactics have you become aware of from watching college or professional games? C. Have you ever used them in your own games? About how many times in an average season have you become aware of football skills and/or tactics from watching college or professional football games? a) 5 or more times during a season b) 3-6 times during a season c) 1-2 times during a season d) never A. Has your coach ever instructed you to watch college or professional football games so you would become aware of specific skills and/or tactics? YES, NO, NOT SURE B. If yes, what specific skills or tactics did he want you to become aware of? 17. 18. 19. 1(13 The following is a list of illegal aggressive actions which sometimes can be seen in football games. Check the illegal aggressive actions which you have become aware of through watching or reading about college or profes- sional football games? ILLEGAL AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS spearing kneeing in the groin blocking below the waist throwing a forearm crack back blocking chop block using the helmet as a weapon blocking using your fist face masking hitting out of bounds tripping stepping on someone when standing up late hits clotheslining piling on elbowing head slapping gauging clipping punching :iigigg List any others you can think of that are not on the list. poking in the eye Check here if you have never learned any illegal aggressive actions from watching or reading about college or professional football games. A. From the list of illegal aggressive actions that you became aware of (if any) from watching or reading about college or professional football put down the number of times you have used those illegal aggressive actions in your own football games this season. (Include actions not called by officials.) ILLEGAL AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS spearing kneeing in the groin blocking below the waist throwing a forearm crack back blocking chop block using the helmet as a weapon blocking using your fist face masking hitting out of bounds tripping stepping on someone when standing up late hits clotheslining piling on elbowing head slapping gouging clipping punching -—-—- kicking List any others you can think of that —-—- biting are not on the list poking in the eye ' B. Do you feel using these illegal aggressive actions in your games has helped your team to win? YES, NO, NOT SURE Do you feel using these illegal aggressive actions in your games has made you a better football player? YES, NO, NOT SURE 104 20. Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (see question 17 for the list) are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials? YES, NO, NOT SURE 21. Do you think that any of the following people would feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable as long as they are not called by the officials? Check your response at the right of the chart. PERSON NO IQ IQ Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (see list in question 17) are acceptable if they help your team to win? YES, NO, NOT SURE 23. Do you think that any of the following people wOuld feel that illegal aggressive actions are acceptable if they help your team to win? Check your reSponse at the right of the chart. JPERSON f 51 Father Teammates F ends Coll Mother Coach Spectators NO Players other than teammates e Pl ers fans 26. Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (see list in question 17) are worth the risk of penalties because the advantages gained by illegal play often help the team win in the long run? YES, NO, NOT SURE 25. Do you think that any of the following people would feel that illegal aggressive actions are worth the risk of penalties because the advantages gained by illegal play often help the team win in the long run? Check your response at the right of the chart. PERSON I YES NO NOT SURE : I .Mother - -_ ”4‘- v 26. 27. 28. 29. I()5 A. Would you like to see more, about the same, or less illegal aggressive actions (see question 17 for the list) in college or professional football this year? MORE, ABOUT THE SAME, LESS B. Why? Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions has helped winning college or professional football teams to be successful? YES, NO, NOT SURE ———-——— .— A. Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (see question 17 for the list) makes football a better or peorer game to watch than if there were no illegal aggressive action? BETTER, POORER How much influence do you feel each’of the following people have concerning whether or not you use illegal aggressive actions (see list in question 17) in your own football games? PERSON T Others? (Fill in) THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE!!! APPENDIX E NONPLAYER QUESTIONNAIRE 106 SOCIAL INFLUENCES IN AMATEUR FOOTBALL QUESTIONNAIRE Youth Sports Institute Michigan State University How old are you? years What grade are you in now? A. Have you ever participated in an organized football league or school team? YES, NO B. If so, for how many years did you participate? years Do you have access to a T.V. set? YES, NO A. How often do you watch college or professional football on T.V.? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) once a month d) two or three times a month e) never B. For how long,each time, do you spend watching college or professional football? 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 1/2 hours, 2 or more hours A. How often do you read about college or professional football in the newSpapers? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month e) two or three times a month f) never 8. For how long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in the newspapers? 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 or more minutes A. How Often do you read about college or professional football in magazines? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month e) two or three times a month f) never ' B. For how long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in magazines? 10 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, AC or more minutes 10. 11. 107 A. How often do you read abOut college or professional football in books? a) once a week b) two or three times a week c) every day d) once a month e) two or three times a month f) never B. For how long,each time, do you read about college or professional football in books? 30 minutes, 1 hour, 1 1/2 hours, 2 or more hours A. How often do you attend college or professional football games in an average season? a) once a week b) two or three times a month c) once a month d) two or three times a year e) once a year f) never B. How much of the game do you watch? 1/4 of the game, ____ 1/2 of the game, _____ 3/4 of the game, the whole game A. Have you ever become aware of football skills and/or tactics from watching college or professional football? YES, NO, ____ NOT SURE B. If yes, what football skills and/or tactics have you become aware of from watching college or professional games? About how many times in an average season have you become aware of football skills and/or tactics from watching college or professional football games? a) S or more times during a season b) 3-4 times during a season c) 1-2 times during a season d) never 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 1(38 The following is a list of illegal aggressive actions which sometimes can be seen in football games. Check off the illegal aggressive actions which you have become aware of through watching or reading about college or professional football games. ILLEGAL AGGRESSIVE ACTIONS spearing ' kneeing in the groin blocking below the waist throwing a forearm crack back blocking chop block using the helmet as a weapon blocking using your fist Illllllll facemasking hitting out of bounds tripping stepping on someone when standing up late hits clotheslining piling on elbowing head slapping gouging clipping punching kicking List any others you can think of that biting are not on the liSt poking in the eye Check here if you have never learned any illegal aggressive actions from watching or reading abOut college or professional football games. YES, NO, NOT SURE Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (listed in question 12) are acceptable if they help the team to win? YES, NO, NOT SURE Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (listed in question 12) are worth the risk of penalties because the advantages gained by illegal play often help the team win in the long run? YES, NO, NOT SURE Would you like to see more, about the same, or less illegal aggressive actions (see question 12 for the list) in college or professional football this year? MORE, ABOUT THE SAME, LESS Why? Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions has helped winning college or professional football teams to be successful? YES, NO, NOT SURE Do you feel that illegal aggressive actions (see question 12 for the list) makes football a better or poorer game to watch than if there were no illegal aggressive actions? BETTER, POORER 109 THANK YOU FOR FILLING OUT THIS QUESTIONNAIRE“: APPENDIX F DATA CODING Column Number 1-3 4—5 8-9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23-24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 110 DATA CODING .jj ' Variable Line Subject Number Age Grade Subject Status School or Club Quarterback Runningback Wide Receiver Tightend Center Guard Tackle (offense) Safety Cornerback Linebacker Tackle (defense) Defensive End Starter or Nonstarter Years of Playing Experience Significant Others In- fluence on the Way Sub— jects Play Football: Coach College Players Father 'Friends Mother Professional Players Spectators Teammates Other (fill-in) Valug_Labe1 001—347 High School Players 348¢472 Youth League Players 473-605 Youth League Age Nonplayers 606-727 High School Nonplayers 12vl8 Years 06-12 =Nonp1ayer 1=Youth League 2=Junior Varsity =Varsity 0-4 Junior High or Middle School (Nonplayers) 5-9 High School (Nonplayers) 1—7 Youth League Clubs 1-9 High School (Players) 1=Play the position O=Do not play the position Blank for all nonplayers 1=Starter O=Nonstarter Blank for all nonplayers 01—99 for players Blank for nonplayers 4=A great deal 3=Quite a bit 2=Some 1=Very Little O=None Blank for nonplayers Column Number 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 111 Variable Line Access to a Television Amount of Football Watched on Television How Long Subjects Watch Football on TV Amount of Football Read About in Newspapers How Long Subjects Read About Football in News— papers Amount of Football Read About in Magazines How Long Subjects Read About Football in Magazines Amount of Football Read About in Books How Long Subjects Read About Football in Books Value Label 1=Yes O=No A=Once a week 3=2 or 3 times a week 2=Once a month l=2 or 3 times a month O=Never 4=2 or more hours 3=1 1/2 hours 2=l hour l=30 minutes O=Not applicable 5=Once a week 4=2 or 3 times a week 3=Everyday 2=Once a month 182 or 3 times a month =Never 20 or more minutes 15 minutes 2 10 minutes 1=5 minutes 0=Not applicable 4 3 5=Once a week 4=2 or 3 times a week 3=Every day 2=Once a month 182 or 3 times a month =Never 4=40 minutes 3=30 minutes 2=20 minutes 1=10 minutes O=Not applicable 5=Once a week 4=2 or 3 times a week 3=Every day 2-Once a month l=2 or 3 times a month O=Never 4=2 or more hours 3=1 1/2 hours 2=1 hour 1=30 minutes . O=Not applicable Column Number 43 44 45 46—47 48-49 50-51 52 53 54 55-56 57-58 59-60 61 62-80 112 Variable Line How Often Subjects Attend Football Games How Long Subjects Stay at Football Games Have Subjects Become Aware of Skills Through the Influence of College or Professional Football Skills Which Subjects Have Become Aware of Through Influence of College or Professional Football Have Players Used These Skills in Their Own Football Games Number of Times a Season Subjects Have Become Aware of Skills Has Coach Instructed Players to Watch for Particular Skills/ Tactics What Skills Has the Coach Asked Players to Watch For Card Number Blank V3198 Lab e1 5=Once a week 4=2 or 3 times a month 3=0nce a month 2=2 or 3 times a year l=Once a year O=Never 4=The whole game 3=3/4 of the game 2=1/2 of the game 1=l/4 of the game 0=Not Applicable 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure 0-41=Specia1 code OO=Not applicable 2=Yes l=No O=Not applicable Blank for nonplayers 3=5 or more times a season 2=3—4 times a season l=l—2 times a season O=Never 3=Yes 2=No l=Not sure Blank for nonplayers 01-25=Special Code OO=Not Applicable Blank for nonplayers 1 113 Column Number Variable Ling Value Label Card.2 1'3 Subject Number 001—727 Illegal Aggressive Acts 1=Became Aware of the Skill Which Subjects Have O=Did Not Become Aware of the Skill Become Aware of Through Watching or Reading About College or Professional Football 4 Spearing 5 Block Below the Waist 6 Crack Back Blocking 7 Using Helmet as a Weapon 8 Facemasking 9 Tripping 10 Late Hits 11 Piling On 12 Head Slapping 13 Clipping. 14 Kicking 15 Biting 16 Poking in the Eye 17 Kneeing in the Groin 18 Throwing a Forearm l9 Chop Block 20 Blocking Using a Fist 21 Hitting Out of Bounds 22 Stepping On Someone When Standing Up 23 Clotheslining 24 Elbowing 25 Gouging 26 Punching 27 Other (fill-in) 28 Never Became Aware of Any Illegal Aggressive Acts Number of Times Players 00-99 Used These Acts in Their Blank for nonplayers Own Games 29-30 Spearing 31—32 Blocking Below the Waist 33-34 Crack Back Blocking 35-36 Using the Helmet as a Weapon 37—38 Facemasking 39—40 Tripping 41-42 'Late Hits 43-44 Piling On 45—46 Headslapping 47—48 Clipping 49-50 Kicking 51-52 Biting Column Number 53-54 55-56 57-58 59—60 61-62 63-64 65-66 67-68 69—70 71-72 73-74 75-76 77 78 79 80 Cardqg l-‘OKOCDNO‘U‘b 141a H N 114 Variable Line Poking in the Eye Kneeing in the Groin Throwing a Forearm ChOp Block Blocking Using a Fist Hitting Out of Bounds Stepping on Someone When Standing Up Clotheslining Elbowing Gouging Punching Other (fill-in) Has Illegal Acts Helped the Team to Win? Has the Use of Illegal Acts Made You a Better Player? Are Illegal Acts Acceptable If Not Called by the Officials? Card Number Subject Number Would Any of the Follow- ing People Feel that Illegal Aggressive Acts Are Acceptable if not Called by the Officials? Teammates Coach Mother Spectators Professional Players Father College Players Friends Are Illegal Aggressive Acts Acceptable If They Help the Team to Win? Value Label 3=Yes 2=No l=Not O=Not Blank 3=Yes 2=No l=Not 0=Not Blank 3=Yes 2=No =Not Sure Applicable for nonplayers Sure applicable for nonplayers Sure 001—727 3=Yes 2=No =Not Sure Blank for nonplayers 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure Column Number 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31-32 33-34 35 115 Variable Line Would Any of the Follow» ing People Feel Illegal Aggressive Acts are Ac~ ceptable if They Help the Team to Win? Professional Players Father Teammates Friends College Players Mother Coach Spectators Are Using Illegal Aggres— sive Acts Worth the Risk of Penalties? Would Any of the Follow— ing People Feel Using 11- legal Aggressive Acts Are Worth the Risk of Penalties Mother Friends Spectators Coach College Players Professional Players Father Teammates Would You Like to See More, About the Same, or Less Illegal Aggres— sive Acts in College or Professional Football This Year? Why? Reason 1 Reason 2 (optional) Has Illegal Aggressive Acts Helped Winning College or Professional Teams to be Successful? Value Label 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure Blank for nonplayers 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure 3=Nore 2=Same 1=Less 01-36 Special Code 01—36 Special Code 3=Yes 2=No l=Not Sure Column Number 36 37—38 39—40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 116 Variable Liaa, Value Label Do You Feel That Illegal 2=Better Aggressive Actions Makes 1=Poorer Football a Better or O=Not Sure Poorer Game to Watch Than if There Were no Illegal Aggressive Acts? Why? Reason 1 01-37 Special Code Reason 2 (optional) 01'37 Special Code How Much Influence Do the 4=A great deal Following People Have 3=Quite a bit Concerning Whether or 2=Some Not You Use Illegal Ag— 1=Very Little gressive Actions in Your O=None Own Football Games? Blank for nonplayers Teammates College Players Coach Spectators Friends Professional Players Mother Father Others (fill-in) Card Number 3 APPENDIX G DATA 1'17 0011812 1000000000010002 1 2212201 3 3 111 0 0011111111111101010010008180000000 0080 88006 08000088088060000000000060000001122 0013121 23123231321122113323205 1202 212221000 03 08211121118811 80 0031 11 111111010;1{1}1}11opog8008008100030§000080000000010302000100000000002232 00 212 2 1 1 00 1112318018088808111821i§1112110111°§ 251%1 0111022 3m 1 0011 01 1111111111000111110000000 001 000 0 01000 0 001030000000200000002001222 22212222131551113331323221222 123.23.121.22 . 8881138113113338311é838103§§ 000200110 ooonggpgogooooooo300030000000300000001122 0 1 1 1 0 0 00 010 1 2222 201110011 111 0107 22200 1 88211081118100m M1;0;go8w 00291 000991003380 ggggooooooooooooooooooo000000002232 00 222222 2 23 2 2 00 1?12310808830180010183111§120 1% 12220008100 00 1111 p1111% W°1"15° 8000 06 80000000008080080888100507000200000000001112 00 ..13.1§.331313 .2.a.a1..az spugmz .. .. 88 1zggzggogooooogjgjgggzggzgo 0 100238°°m 0000 22801218008 000052000000000000000002322 00 1&1231010888880001103 01' 81 £31018: 31128811 0 0010522200 0831233‘318193§081géég§§% 0 M33 000 0 2000103 80080 00000050002030000000002001122 0 1 1 0100 10 1 101 101%11 1 21 o :8oégo1p1oggoo18 {9?3°?‘°°°H 00 1000 2001800888 88880088888010000000000000000002222 11131211180088881000108$igM822 é12310000001 100 0 200 :1323; 1&113333é1éé1111m0 0 2001i 0 50103000 231133380000001100000031001020300002322 11 0 000 1212121 01 11211 0112 21200 igjégpigjp;gagogggpégéég;00320000888§00000 08080000000000000000000000000002222 1 1001000 100001 1212 22 01 12 120011 1111131111113§§g§11131131333036 00 00%000000808002000000000608000000000000001222 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 00211311 110051308 200 110000801010000000010080000008000 00000000001000000 000000000000000000000002222 113122 23 2221 22212211222212116 2 123000223 3 15 61111010000 0000110131111013013112530012100 0 200 1 15%;833831138803139391131330 0020008850008089082800000000000000000000000000022 1 1 I L 1 1 100000010010010211 2 2 01 35 2221 0 {€101110110$$§§§§§$$§§§g§83§380 0008§800 180180 8180088888000000000000000000003322 1 11 1000 1 1 1 g2 02 0101§1131221222 0 11 2 1 1?g11110111110;111g10p1 0000 00 08 0180880 0000000 888290012000000000000001232 1 1.1131838881181111313§1£2§§181o1§2° 11.1. 221310 8180 2 200 11 } 9888????é38388119391 3132” 000008 000 00000 20880800 000100300000001000010003 2 1 1 1 110 0 01100 10$ 2 gzm 101 1121 21 1310 2200 1 1311£§1211%1391°$3°533131°1138°°°1182°2 g§w00g080381000020000010000010000002222 2 18102100001108018110212§21$152n122200 2°]1°]10111100001001100011°°2m 8100I 20 °°°§8111108800000000200000101000000000012'2 201 2 12 2 22 22 2 2118183188008818001018110288? W32113 11 0201 21200 1 210000100011000010000000520g00 80 0 2030000001{0180000000010000000000000002002222 212222222 22222222222222 2 221608210800010001001011221121201120 00001100200 002001 3%$333;gjgggggogggégggogégggooooooI 01000000000080000000000000000000000000002222 1 1 211 0000 010 110§1212: 2 101 2200 §§%§pé13}}}0§§§000§;0} gppoéz 80008808880§§ n3 00200000000000000010000000000002222 1 2 0010 100 010$12 g” 12 01 100 811810111111101108é113311820001 00808 o080310828380088001000006030600050010002212 1 1 1 111212111 010 08 11881118118808881?10088880180808002000300810180008808000099010100000000001112 22 12211213311112.1111111111111121...2° . g; 08011111oggggoogggggggjagoooooon 2000000é33303080000000000000000000000000002222 1 0 21000 01100 11101 2 0 1101 1220 0 8; 188818113130000101898800002 020080810001300??100000000030001000000000000003112 02 13103181080 0180881681$§33 a1101211121$ 21200 002001 2 1 011101000000101000 0 5 0000 003030005000000000000050010000000000005003222 1'18 111111000 3 8 1000000200 002001 1000001000000000000000000000000000000001222 681308151812 112 h 1 0000100000101 22222222222222 2% §2 1 1 2201 01001000101022 W0 1 01 000 00 2 11 1082015 #121 80 W8 0000010110 00 0000 010h01 20 0000000 000000000h0500060000002332 22 2222223222222202 22 02 111210 10 000101 0hh2 2201hh 2112113W3 00000000000 20000 000000 3000000 20g8000 000000000000000000000001332 10 3333223 ...2. 2222332 . 10000111100008300H 0 00 00 000000 000000003000000000000000000000000232 00881103000b££§22£Zh 01212“ 11 1 100001010101000 08% 080 03 omooo133833080308000020000000200000000003312 WOONOON—W O 2001 l0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000020000000000000000002122 211111 11000 0?8120 21 I0112810000118200 00200 ? 100 0000 00101000h0000000000100012000000050000002232 . 3323.33.32.3113333330003... 0000 000 000000000000005000000002312 22 0? 20?hW12222 111 0 01 220021 0132 20 0 000 O 00I 00 0000000 00000000000200000020000000000001112 11220 200 18080 08:12 288211” 1 00000 0000031300000 000100007000000020001002212 80121—010 N—n—NOO‘OW—ON—O-‘OONOdNo-‘NO—M—s— 1 02 0 023 0 S 1 808302000 ‘88 0000003000050000060001020002002222 0 112 0 §8§8000 8800380008800030000000000000000001122 8 128m1g 0200 1 0 ggob000108 20180300000080000000200000000002232 315200802 h 00 0 200 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022 2107 202000 00 0 12200001101 200 g 008002820m 00 80000000000000000000000000002222 0 :3 83822123200 00 1 1 00202000200000000100005010201000000002222 1 320% 1102 221202000 382h0000100 0 200 1 0000000100 000000010000 000000010000000000000000000000000000001122 81 8881 3?20 22 22222 07 21 M001 3 0 0 000 281 8?81§8011200000000 0106 2111 000000000000m 0 0 000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000012 000001000106; 02220111b0822280h3803mm3 1 0000200 208000 000000000000000000000001332 3 0 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 0 11 11 1 8 3 2 1. 0 2 1 8 3 0 0 1 I. 0 1 ~0r~omowor~or~or~o-or~8 \II-5 o— O-‘ O“ -3 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 000 28 £0811018h3811001h10 0 200 1 0001001000 010 010000000080000000000002000000000000002222 0810030083h288032l018152112 1 08882 MS MO I00000000131010.00000 00000000000000000000000022 $083 38380000151I000808200008000200000000000000000002232 1 101230 38h2220828831860;2 0001000 0000000 0000000 000000000000000000000000012 232H 01 211211801220830 WW;10 2m020200228000000000000000000000000000I122 000100000000? 52 gig 318888881808018 . 12 01%? 2211b? 0801 1 0 :gggZfi W38 1 00§000 800008 0000000 00200000000000000000001222 28812222222222222222220 022203 0000 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO mmwmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrrrrtrrr rro 0 1 00002 0000 32111 O-v-HO: °°13 00 23 33 1110000001g01?222 3331333331333M3..33..33. . £30 €22? §§2 00000? 0000000 00000000000500000020003332 10 ;h220 0 000 1010000 0000011000001 0511 2201hh 21 1 0000000000000000 0000 000500 0000000800020008000000000000000000000002332 119 ééiggggéggggo180300000008000000002000000000001002222 20h030 ya 3252b ? 1202 282 200 1 0500 0 11020003“.o 0020000 100050512010000100008001122 2h] 001§:b§22 212112“.0 012 22100 1 OOOOOL 00000000000100005010000060002001112 8888808180882318882202 $2232233222¥o8°° 1000010110000100000000 2222222 22222222222228. 888822828 2° 2 100000101010 00200000 000 0000000000000000000000000002122 8080300 0103i 182 §22§0123h211002280100 100000010000000 0000000000$0000000800050000000000000000002212 0 222 222 2222222 2 22222222 22222222222322322‘ 0 1100111 10001001000 01 0 6?213211 1222121222222222 0 §1 220 1000011000110h?g 2 222222222222222222222222222 0 1?182208000010001313$8h81 O 1 001111010000101100 1 0000 000 00 2 22222222222222222222222222222222 2 22 22222222° 8 §1§91101011100020‘08118?0gg§98m mg 820 0000 $28;§0303000150030000000050020001332 2 22222222222222.2222222222238322 °352232 22233 0600 001000010000110000001000 00 200 £|00000000 0 070300000000000002003222 22222222222222222222222222222? 228°2 2222 °°° 0211 1111000100100011000013 000 000038000000 00000008000000003000000000001002222 222222222222222222222222222222222232 22 2 2 gggléél1g10g030g03g00g0g01000000002 01080§00080§880g00300000000000000000030003212 06 1?1322880801030110082§122010101hh1121 808311 21200 06 O 1011111110101011001 10000020300000002065 00h00000000010006010000010000002122 22 22222222222222222222222'222 22 22 22 2 OSHOSOO1000100000000000001300 000 0800300 00 000818000000300000000000000000000002222 22222222222222222222222222222 222222222222222222 2 0 1 1111111110001011110 100000002 002000 00 0000200 000020001020200000000002322 2 22222222222:2222222222222222222 22222222222222 2 0621100111111001000010000000000000 000000101 080é0008000000000000000000000002322 2°2222222222222222222222222222322322 2222222222° 22 2 0g 0101101100000000010130008 00 000 81000002000000000 00000000000000000000002222 22 2222222222222222222222222222222222 222222222222 06 1000111101101000010003180000 000001000100000000000300000000000000000000002222 222222222222222222222222222222222 2222222222222222 22222 06901100100100000111010111000000000000060000020000000000100120000100062000002322 22222222222222222222222222222222222° 2222;22° 8 813100000gggggg$gAg10000000100033088880000 0000000830 3200020000200000000003312 O 115132208001110010010§22§§3 32201h222 882300 010 200 0 11 101100110000001000 013100000002 0000 0000000 000000003000000000000002222 2222 2 O 211001010010000100100001100001003080000: 00 0000000 000000000000000000000002222 2 22222222222222222222222222222222222222°° 2 0 1 00101000000000100000000000h000002000 00000000000000000000000000000000002222 2 2222222222222222222222222222'2 2222 O 50300000000011011111111130020$00i 0000008 008 00000003300200015010200100020002122 2 22222222222222222222222222222222 2. 8 E11011}115111g110151110100053100 b§§020§0h h1§100g0330002000500010103000h002222 0 1§182238080808081018222§1210% 322120000100 200 0 61 001010000001001010001 00300 0000000002000000000000100050h0002000000200002312 22222222222222222222222222222222222222222222222 22222 2 0 13000000100001100011030080?000080800000hu 0 00000000000000000000000000000002122 2 8828'25‘35255825255522228222’82222 222 8 13301§1111g0000001000§13%00001Cg0300000000000000000000000000002232 0 1812g838381883008308§h213822h0133h28321gb 2g 1 0 0 00 001 0000001001 010000 0 2 000000 00000000000000000005001112 0 ? 22 2388 0 12 8 22222222222222 0 1 1 0 22282238222 0 2171233311 0 21010 001 100000000000 00230000000000050000000000000001322 1220 313333332212212200 3201 1300 3 0 030 32 302230 033 1 321 3013M] 00000003003000 0000 00000 000000 000000005000000000000003332 333333333333333332 313333333333 3233°2 13333g33g300300020 000 0030?m 0000§0000000000000000000000000002212 000010010 2211 £30188P 3S 52212w “3030 1200 00000010002100000 0 0000000100000000000000000000000000002222 33333333322 33 233333333333333333333333333333 1 000110111 0 00000 0000001 00000000000000000000000000000003222 383 23 221 2112 222 110 #22012 100 01 002hh1h25 1 0025§032 2200 1 0001001011 00 000000000 0 0000 000000000100000000000010000001222 12122 222 2121212“ 32 322 mg 12020 01 2&222 0 530 1 000000000 00000000000000000000000000000003322 0000 0 00 33300000310” 323 f§§23033332 311231W08 M3031 0000 00000010000000 000 0000000000000000002112 3 3 1 3 333333333333 33333 332 3333 33 33% 3333333333 3 ‘33 3 1 22 10 10 22 00 11 11 00 00 33 00001001000 1 0000 0000 0 000 0 000 00100000000000000000001212 “2 $§2§0§0 $0020200030h0000000000000000000000000000003122 h32h0§01 222 12100§2 302 200 1 #00 00 000 00000 0 0 000 000120000000000000000003332 3333333 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 33 321186 03m 322203 3 33 3 10000000m 00000000 20000000000000000000000000000002222 g 0 020032§§0 00000000020000000 0000000000000000002232 0 0 bh013b33hh222h31225 ”38 0000000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000022 22 221 000000000 01§1h211001h100 0 200 0 00 000000000000080000000000000000000000000001122 0 311111 303818388033033 3 0010000000100000 1112 1122122 121121202 1111 2221111 0100 0010001 “200020201 1222 #308 1200 1 (310000001000002 000014200002 00000 00 000000000000000000000000000002232 3H 0 1 0818380183232331332333333 33 0832°81°° 2220 0 1 1000000011010010 00000000 00 0000 00000000000000000000000000000001222 33333333333333 3333333333333° °°33°°23 100 310000100100I 0000000 00 000 0000b 230080000000000000000000000000002112 0000100000000§h221121h01§£ 8§1 §210010 h 01 003g00000000010003038000m 0 0 0000000000000 00000000000000000000000022 108331012 0130M§181212h 050 N83 10100000000000 0002 00 0 00001 0120000 00000000000000000000003312 22 m3 2882 28822212 2222 am NO 830 000 010hh1h2222 21 1 1&1002 28 1 200 1 0000000000000000001000 60000 H000000o 0888000 000000000000000000000000022 €2028800010003100h2hm 000303 2313030 0000000000000000000010000000033300000000000000300000000000000000000000022 233332381223w 202 101000 3 001 3102102120201 bl 1200223020 2200 3011100010030100100100303300 000000 000000000120000000000000000001222 —-—-4--—¢—-—-—-—-t—0--¢—-—-—o-d~——'—‘-‘----——OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO00000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 32333333333 33333333333333 3333333°33 3 020gg0g000000g000g0000002000030 gggz 8000880000000000000000000000000001122 333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 3333333333333332233332 ° 3 02é0030§0§1003001330ow 0000 000030000;0:0 00 80§0000 00030000000000000000002212 33.33333333333333332.3333333333333333 3333 121 21122 I 00810000188Lw 88002303088830880 3080000302000000090000I00000002232 2h0 22h zhhlh 230I I 2$0000 00 000 0 “0020000 00000000000000000000I002222 2228322282 “33 233% 26 220E ?2h #0 0I0 000 thZILZZhIgh g 2 28 $06 2I2 I 00000000000000000 0I 000000 0 0 000 0 00000000000000000000000000000000032 5555555555555555555535220135°?oo555 5I55° I 00 00 000000000002380000000000000000000000000000022 2 190I0000000I00105M222 20I2 0I58381822I2§803 mg I IIOI000000000000I 0I00 000 000I0 E08000 000000000000000000000002222 1111211212111 21111312121312.3111 33332 1.312 22223 0000 00 000000 000000 000000003000000000000003232 1111111321111 1111333332 333311212” 0I0 3000é03800200008800I000000003000000I0002222 33222222222I23 2222222201112 22 2 1110 010000000 1 22AA18201A331121 3 0601 m3 1 230300000390030100391186003001003; 12I8000 00 000000000000300000000002222 30800035001IOI8?Ah2A8AAAOégA3A2h222A806a 10 23 10020 11313111311311 1100021002 8 03033322330000 02 00100 20000100050005002132 $33080I83033113§23I1321lz1§11 82007 A 010§0 23m 1 21103030030023? 03003102001301 “08$ 002 000 000020000000000030000002222 8330001000130005A020000A0183A35 2002A 22200 ‘0000000030100000300038000m 00000000 2208380000000200007000000000001002112 30I0001500010003A23A32AA0120 2 211001A80 301 m3 502 ‘00930000330330 (21010263000000I 00000002§ o(2180000 0 200000000000000000002222 3080100I000100558132011g01u Ag 8300 0200 010110010010000 0 0000000 0 0000010000000000000000000000000000002222 25555555555555555"5'55501m211°°° é:500900093333320§§3300000 0038001§0 £3 oE1880003000000000000000000000002222 3010008301000102A?82010 01§82 33112 A100 0200 1 21331000030033??? 00086 00210} 3280000000000000100000000000000000001222 330031008001000AA5 2022A01AA8121001:32 go 321 1 233?1300033390033303000000002 0000000 0 00 000000000000000000000000000022 8000501000010103A2o 20102A1 AA 21 A2A 01060 221 1011000030010000 001 osoo 20000082008800000 000320000000000000000003232 31213313213111.131133121 2. 22 2222 2. 22 23092220 0220300 31m 000000 2000000200 00000000000000000000000000001002222 80800005000I015§A11§ 012 018A3A%830123m1 233339003005100 01000 00 00 0 012 “3208030 0000000 000000000005002222 300010000000 50225§2321201m A5A1 212A100 0 200 300303301030330030 3338000 9890 8888888880000000000000000000000000000022 30018000100010AA55 1223015A5212001A8m W8 _333330 000103130001333380000003000000 0030000 0000A0000000000000000002222 3010001 001000038 120200 3005A220 200 200330000100001” 00010 002 002 000002 0000000000100000000000000000002212 35000o 2'32 83101 111 22 CbNo I I I2 hOI h 0I0 22I00 I 0 0? 22000 00 6000002 00000000000000000000000000000002222 2322 222 32252 B 22 0000 I00 III2 OOIgIhZIIZ $2 0 I I I0000IIO 55555555 IOII0000 2I 200 I 0000000 82 00000000000I00000000000000003002222 §§23333311 2 1111152 2 I06 2 200 I 00 0 00081I 0a000800000000000050000000000II22 I20 I02 00I I0 d W'JNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNtJ'JNNNNNNNNNN—fi—O~—iI—lddad—ldddddd‘ddd—‘~dddfldddo I 0 2I22b0I8h8I 822I1h328 2I200 I 30000000000000000000002] 0 0 200000I 00000000000000000000000000000I232 I 38500082 SBQAALZALZOII2232230§580306 22I0 I I00000000000I0000000000000002 0000000000000000000000000000002222 122 2211222122212 2112 2222 M3 30 000001000108§§ 202 01§83m 121100 0200 1 030003200302 001000 00 0000000038880000000000000000000000000002222 000 000100 2m 0120 2201111112002 100 0 2001 10000000100 000000000000000000 000000000000000000020000000000002212 31 1 1 11111111222 122 211 1110 3 010 20022220111 32 21 o 200 0 goon 00000000000 00100000000000000000000000000000000002222 0h 0888810880883033388330333$080300a08080008000000000000000000000000022 222 11111 3083800 0002b1zhh0b201%8001h803 M20 1 0000010000100000020000u 0 00001 0 o00000000003000000000000000000 22 00 30 0130W 08h 812121h01§é2 E‘ 200% 22100 200000000100 0 00000000 0 000“ 0 o00000000000000000000000000000001122 211 22122222232220“ 111?2 000 000 010000 b h01hhh 32212: 00601 212001 00000 00000000000000000000000000000000022 22222283822 832 22 20h0 110 2000 #00001 00 10 b 0h 1hh0 8&323112h 0111200 0000000000000000001000000 0 0 00000 00000000000000000000000000000000022 212881222 28321122111 111h1gh0 1100 M2 100 010 01 blh 0601 hh & 81“: 010 m2 0 100000011010000 010200218 00 00100000000000000020000000000002222 3% £100112115100123 ”3 01110000 0 00 00000030100000000000000002222 32211fi21311122 1 1 12 30 2 5 §§8300012 h o3800030001500000001006000000001222 H§2112183m W3? 0 200 1 000000 0000 000000000000000000010000000000002222 h21zthb 0031H0113 M33 000 0000 0000 200080 000 00000000000000000000000022 111 112 2123 o1 0106 W33 1 08003983 01211230522 50000000000000000000000000001003322 1101 :33100210 22108 1 20 00200 00280000000000000000000000000002222 1 0 02 3 0 §10131M822131N§ 0 0731 00 00000 00000000 00000000000000010000002232 NNON:o——Ow~0m~oo~o~g O OO O O flaw: 00300 303333530330gfiéoo00300060300000000000000002222 220 h02222101§83£28111h$3 110 21200 1 1 00g00002° 00000 0000000000000000000000000000001222 12222222222222222 20g #222 10000100000 h2201hhh01 33 #82 ?h 800 00 1 10000100100 0000000000 80 0 0 000000000000000000000000030000002222 31?1 81% 2112222222222 220 #0“ 210 03 00 0 110 11102111110111142200211111002 0100 1 10000100000 01001?0g000000100000000100000000000000000000000001002132 8381222 211 22232 ?12? 3% ?h ? 20 0000 100 1b 122b1 11 0 b 00 1 000000101100 0001000 000 0 o000100000880000001500100000000000000001322 g§001002 zzggzzzggfighh1303§22212hm 0106 32 1 1 0000010100200m 000000 00000000 002001025000000000000002222 ##2222338013331111100006 2200 1 00000 1000000 0010000 000000009000300000000002112 Eh122322 01 11122121221302° 0010000 0g000 300g 001300000000000000000 00350000000000000000001112 1&282 0 2:013:13213208308mM33 300 00 0000 0 0&0000 200000 000h0009000000020000001322 1 1 20 00 h2220mh 01 1&21 212h38g18 23818 01000 0 03 3020 0100 203 000 0 10000002050005000h001132 ~dddd‘_ddddd‘dddfl~dd~ddddd‘dc‘d-‘dddddddo—l—Cu-J.—d‘ddd‘dd-ddd‘“dd“dflddddddddfld‘ddddddddd ovvvvwwvwvwvwuMwwwuwuwuuuwwuuuuuunuwuummmrtrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnMMMAMMMMM» wwun-~oommmmrrmn---_oommmrrw~unuudoomwm 0L» 0 8V» ~0N—0N-«8ZOONOO OuNOu-flO-fllOONuO—o OOw—OwOOu—-——w -o—ooN—oorooo—OO —-O\»OO\»~ONOO: 11110000 123 11 1111 11111 21 21111206 1202 22 222120 23 0000 0001010 52h8882201 hh2210025301123 0 010000001000000000 0000 00005000320 00000000000200000000000000000001122 a 11?2113312132231111062006 210 50 00000001 01 Lb 3h2h01?§838h1122h00§07 1 111100001111100 0000 02000 0210? §000000 05150000050000000000002112 1 1?18338 121311121212221202 h?h2h@ 0 0 0 0100 10hh2 L2 01 hhthh hh?07 23m 1 0 11110000101110001000 0000 010001010 0100000 000200000000000000000002222 11212212381 22122212112111]0 22 02b WIhOH 025010W0000010688h10W8h222h8018802 001111000001000101 00000100 00“ 0 0 06 2000000 00h500000007000h0000002222 1112121112221111211115 13°11 22°2 0 0 001 h 001 22222 00100mmg1gm 010010100000000100000000000008 0000000 000000000 000 0000000300000000002222 82 2?22233222822222222220h20211222220 2 0 000 001 010bh180 12501 bk 2121hh 010g2 m3 0&1 1: 111000005000501011gm00h00 3000502010 1000 0000 003 0000001500100007001122 82%00000010001810hh2hgg20 a 01hh22h1111h1000 0 313 1 01 100100001000010010 W; “000000080000000 00000 0 500000000002000015001132 81 1?222222222813 211830h 82 12 2? 2 3 2 0 000000100 1 11001‘h2200 0 21 0210 1} 11110000111101 €100000001000020008070000000 00300025010000020010002332 28208 0388018031822102§m 120152h822211b 0§0 22 11 1 0 0000000000100010010000 0000000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000022 22222222 22222 zzzgzzzm 220 28 0000100000 010 h020000b81 h021111100 0 200 1 0 000000000000000000010000 0 I0020008800g8880000000000000000000000000000032 330300010000101101 02380g01583002 00010 00 00010000000000000 000800§?0000000000000000000000000000001132 111133 818111211111111030 601 0 0 01001080 282 822h018h h13§§§h §06 W33 0001100000000000 00 00000 00000 00 0000000 00000000000000000000000022 23031808831080005hhhh8hhh01§ 3200000 33 23m 00000000010001010000 00 0000000 “ooggogo 000000000000000000000000032 8008000100180082322g1212 01235251111h§M 23200 1 000000000000000000000008000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000012 115511151111152222222 W 1511.211” 22 20 11190101l1;]13§E::§300000000880101 20280g00000010000000000010000003332 18038” 10 32333§§§ 012h2221002h208 00200 1 00 02 2 000010 0000020000000000000000000000000000002222 311 0 2 h 1 NO OW-‘O-‘OON-‘O dN—dNO-‘NOON W—ONOW—aou 00000100 00 21223018832 0888§383000000008 0000000000 0000001112 ON ON 0.. 8k» 13%; 8800§880300108810000003000200000010000000000001332 83880180 23% 20h 00001:11000800§02 08805388088002§00000000800000000010000000000003232 £3813518318§32m MOOOOOO 000000 ‘2 0380338288§ 80a08000003000000000000000000000003122 00818000 1 30108h2h2222h01§hh33 822b§05 W83 1 0000000030000000000220 00 0 000 00000 00030000000000000000001122 2 2 22 1000000000110 oh221011§0 82h1 1 20 th 0 “3802 0031 00 2000 00020212 00000000 00990 00000000000000002212 0 0h01ih g #2 1bh 01 o$12 0806 1 1000 0 0 010100 01 000 00999999050000000050003312 h 0123h05h22§2$0080 0 2 1 0 00000 000100000000000100000001122 1 1 8 Moons-4 -~0wo 2 0 1 1 0 02 00000100 8883885331213128101151 008311§0732m 1 00000000000000000000000000000003332 11112111111111§111§11110.3151;12133 231111012 000000000000000 000 000000 00000 00 0000000303000000000000000000001222 £181123312122? 2222 111062112113131?w 0 100 000 #120 00 01 hh1h2 0 h 00000000000000000001000 00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000032 0 OI .- .- O- .000 0.0-00.0.0090... .- 0: on .- on to on O! .0 .0 .0 oom- wmmrrmwuuu—d--oomm.NuMWrrWNNN——flooomwwmm bra» owo—«uo—owo--o-ow~w——u———o-—-no---o—-w«we-a—o-«no-~—-u--«»-———-—o—ow-—-wo—N----a-uo-w MOWCNNOW-vww—un—wow—ww—wN-JNNw—OuN—auuow—oonnomompow-AnN—«nvo«\nN—mu—MN—«n-Aom 124 101300 o3?IIIIII IIII I b02020000 32 30 0 000I00 Mghl 2 IhOI #0 220000 0123m 001II00001I00I000010u00800‘000000085 0012000 000h8200000080000000000I222 :gI 3282I?122?I W82 2 h 1 0 O 00 000 00 LIZ2 IIIh0I8382222IIhI00 0 200 I (DO 0000000000000000000 000 00 000000000000000000000000000000000000000II32 221212221322212222222222 g2; 222 2 I00 I IIOII00000IOI0000000000000 00 000g? 230%;80000000000000000000000000002232 3I383830I0030I0u 00000000II figgggg 0 00200 00g9g0009g33g0g000 mo H0000 0000000000000000000000000000000000000032 220002220m 02222202. 301212352212. 21 2 2o . IIII00000IIIII 3 00 0000000 000 000000000000003322 28II38833I333088§§82§§§4911I3'°"1.2 3?? “" ° MEL; I 0 I I I I I I I 2 I 2 I 2 I I I I I h I h I I I I I I I I I I I 0 I 0 1 8 I I 2 i i I i 2 5; i i i 20? 3 I 0 0 3 2 0 II 3 288 #2206208000000300509000000060“55060003322 20I ZOIO 202 202 I 0 3 82 0 I 2 I CI 0 I I I 0I0I00000330II0I2220 203""!agéuuggogg200000008000000000000000I0000002222 0I0038800I88033h2I282080I§I§38h22l2 §0I0o I II2I I222I220 ZI 0% 000I Ihhh h hIIhOOOOOOIBgO 120 0 gI:00000IIé 00I000000000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000003332 2 nggZZ 0W mg 22 8222 gI8000000I88 2% II 220I §§§211103nl III0000III 00 §§§20002 0:0 2222232222 22222 @323 00I0000000 0000008-005000-00200 o0000000000000000000000000002332 0I 00000I0000000000000W 00000000000800000000038000000000000000000000032 I22222222I22 222222016o II20 IIIII III 0 3 00000I00000 “1883] 8h01h38 g 2I2h IOIOIIIIIIO0I 0 0060 0; $0IOI0000IO0IO0I000 0000 000000 oo003%000300005000000000002000000II32 s 3 @2332? 22223222222222323223222 °oo§22 202 o122h2212112 332222222222 2222322 22 01 2221221122221. 0 I IOI002 8000008000070000020000000000002222 0I88088020§h3hhl38b01hthSI30Ih 05 00 IOOIIIIOIOIOIOOOO 0000000000000 00000000000000000000000000000000032 IIgogIgoéI §§§?2220,32 22212?hu231o 20 0000000 0'000 000 00000080000000000000000000000000000000000022 223122230 313332100; 000 00 00000003802 00‘ 0000000000 002232 ZZQZHBIZOI 2hh2h;82 lghgoz égI ozZZIOO 000 2030I 3800‘.3 h we %§ 0 300000020000030I0003000200I312 0 2 22I h23I23 2k 200 000 200 000002 0 00003310 00000000000000000000000 I2 I00h0III00000025I00 20 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022 0 2h2Ihh850000Ih3 M300 0'020 000 0000000 8§l§000 00000000000000000000I002222 I II OOI$BO $2 22 2IIb 80 0 82W I 0Ih0 00 6 00$06 0 20000 000050000020000000000002232 o 1 3 1 o o 3 1 3 1 6 o 1 o 1 2 o 1 3 1 1 o 21 1;] 202 IIO 2222 2222 30001 IIIO 2222 I000 III} 2220 00II I?II 0 00 I I I” 0000000 “02 “I 3 Wm Egéggéggh 2h§§§§h 0I0%£§8800088000g0000000000I00005003322 0232322322 32322222 ”chn—wnu—nnuo thO£Wuo~noO£-N I200 I 020 0000 o00000000100000060000000000002222 2222222222222222 000II000I000Ih2h332 IbOIgI 3I I8II22‘00 0I0§I 200 I 10000001000ggggg22 200200210 0 00002 1000 o000000005000000000000000000 12 010 0010 32212123915 Mg; II 21200 1 0000000000 3000009200--0000000 2000000000000000000000000001002222 22 233 22322222382220h 211k 33 “82 0002b IbOI 00 00 100001001000010 0 0000 00 0000000 %§0000 000000000000000000000002222 00318000 08223hlngOI?0ZOILh3?gIgOIhuO 0|00000I0000I000 000000 00000303I0000300000000002000000000200I222 -nu—m—aanHDknucnukh—hnn-du-uanA»—uvknakh——4uuh-nnu—auuubknncxu -un»cn»uhaunu-«»—430A»cn»-cm»nu30a»cx»a: NNNNNNNNN~NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN 1225 21 3213333123331 22321132 312 1232 3001M 21 1 01 0 10 010 2 01 1 1 1110 21 1255111111000155110112 02310013 20 00181” 0 10003 3 050036000100010000002312 21 3 103333330333013013 333311 01313 2132120 7011 21 1 101111110000111101 100010 00600 000200 00 0003 300020030010000020001002212 21 22 1 1 1 11 1 21 122 1111110 00 22 1 1 0 0 11 2 00 0111 121100 011 1 2201 1111111110001001001 00 0 0202 020001 200 303 300000000010000020002003222 220 12 21 21 2 1 0 1202 1 0 0 221 1 00 01 1 1101 1 12 21 101 2211 010011111010101110 011 0 0 00 00 0202 10000000 0010000006010000000600 32 221 22 2 2 2 221 221112211 0 1 01 22 20 222 1 2 0 o 001 010 2 22 1 2222200 2221 010000000000001100 1 00 0 000003002 2I000030000000038020000000010002232 222 21 111 11 111 10 1&0 22 1 100 10 212 2 01 21200 1 22 1 001110110000101100 01000 0 00 08 00000 23080000000020000000000000000002322 22 22 2 222222 122 22 22207 22 1 0 001000 010 12 12 01211121 031 2211 111111111010111111101 01 00 01010 0 000002000300010000030100030000003322 221 2112 112 12 121221 21 210 111‘ 2 0 22 102 000 01 010010 11 01 1 1 22 1 11111111000010110010100 01 0 13 0 31 300003 03020000000000000000002232 22 2122 1 22222222 2 21122230 3 22 102 0 00100001 0 30101 152512111 0 22309 1 2% 12011111111115111111 1109 2 00 201 1 332° 30 00 00 00 003332 22 ? 133333333330303313 3 31322201 1 121 11333060 2 100 1 2% 12101111111000131100 0 00010 0021306m ““2 061002803 0 000000000010000000000002232 22 ? 103283833?88103o¥3 1.3333” 1201 00000031 o2 1 22 1 001010010000000100 00000 00002 2010002000 0010003 330000000000000000000002222 22 2222 222222222222222222222 22 102 01000000010010 1 1 0112 2121 0030 22200 22 1 111010110000101001 13112m 000 Wgzooo 00 00 “30000000010033000000000000001232 $2 ? 13§2038883?888?o¥3211223° 0101‘ 1.231. 211 1 2 01 10111111000010111010100000200 0000 013 3000030330800000020100020002002222 2 012212221212111221221121121111110101000 2 115102600100000100100 111201130131o 311121100 0 20 2 111001011100001111001 100000000000 0000001000100000003030030000000000000001212 2 11223121121211122 121121121111 210111000 2 21 10260000000001 0107 2 2210012211 01061100 2 21 3110000001100111001 0 0 00003 00000 230000030200000030070000101800003332 2 23213363333033303331032331 3310111 111301 2 200 2 0 000000000000100100001100:1000-00 0 030060000000 000000030000000000000000022 2 22222 22222222222222 22222202 uoz 111111110 2 1 102 01000000100010 2 201110 2210 2 11 11101001000010111011 0180803 0 01203 3010003 300030033020600011601003312 2 1 21 1 1 22 1 122222 20 000 2 1 6 0 00 0 011 11 2101 0121123 3 1 100 2 1 10101001000000000000 0000 002000000 0310000 000000030000000000000003122 2 11 12221 211 11121 2 12 01100 000 06110 2106311 11 2 21111 10100000000001000000 mg 300000000000000000000000000000003112 2 2 2 1 221 1 08 0120 022 2 1 1 1 0010 1 11101 1 1211200 2 1111 11111000111111 0 00200000 0 10000002000 30200000000000000000003332 2 22 2 2 32 122222222202 2030110 2 1 0 00 0110121 122111 11 221110 010 2 1 01 111100001001111000 020 00100 50201“ 1200033 03500030000800120000001232 2 8122 121 212 122 22 1211222 2 131 0 000 010 00 0 3 23§331 $11 210311 0 120 23218 2 0 01 111100001101000 0 00 000000000 000 000 00 00003000000000000000 12 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 1 2 3713$$33033033033003$1333m 0201 2111 222513§071° 2 22100 2101 11 11110000101010 01000 0000 000 00010 000 0 00000000031000100000000002112 210 1 1 21 111 1211 1111122 211 2 00 100 0110 1 121 101 1013312313 2 2111 11 1111100011110010 000 000 0000 20010300 0030000000000000002122 211 22 2 2 2 222 222222222201 212 1 10 0 001 01101111010101 2 122032113320 2121 01 111100001011010010027020012 0 o0000303820200030 33100037030000000001003132 212 2 1 22 122 2 2122 32 21 1 00 100 1 220 20001 112110011 1 21 1 11 111100001100010 100000002 000008800o 0000003 00000000000000000000003232 21 22 2 32 22322 2 21 1 00 00001 1 2 1 2101 10212220 10 00 010 2 1102101 2110 11 111111001111111010000 1010 201002 0 10000 00030120000100020005001122 126 2 2 2 «Is a). 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 a. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5L .1- 7.- 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 1 .1 1 1 3 1| 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 1 3 0 1| 1 O 2 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 o 2 2 o 2 1- 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2 1 2 .15 C 0 o O o o 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 o 0 0 0 O o C o o o o O 0 0 o O o 0 0 o o o o o O Pu O 0 o C O o 0 O o o o O O 5 O O 0 o o o 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 I“ o o O O 0 1 0 0 O O o o 0 o 0 o o 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 O o 0 0 O O 0 o 5 O o 0 0 o o O o o 0 «b O 0 o o 0 o o o 0 o O O O o o O O O 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 O o o O o O 0 0 o O O 0 0 O 0 o O 3 o 0 o o 0 0 o o 2 0 2 o 5 O O 0 o o 0 2 o 0 AU 0 0 0 0 1 o o 0 0 o O o o O 0 0 o o O o o O 0 O 0 O c 0 o o 0 0 O o 0 o o o o 0 3 o o 0 1 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 AU 0 0 o 0 o o o o o o O 0 o O O o o 0 o o O O o 0 o 0 O O o 2 0 0 2 h 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 7 o 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 O fiv 0 o O o 0 0 O 0 0 0 o O O o 0 O o o 0 0 o 0 0 O o C 0 0 5 0 r9 3 0 0 0 2 o o o 0 3 2 o 0 1 o O 14 0 O 0 0 rJ 0 0 0 0 O 0 o o 0 O o o 0 3 0 o 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 C o 0 5 2 0 0 0 9 o s o o 1 O o 14 o o o o 5 0 0 O 0 0 1 1o 1O 10 12 10 1O 10 19 10 12 1o 1O 10 IO .10 1.0 1.0 10 1o 11 1.0 10 1O 1o 10 10 1O o 5 10 0 o 0 o o o o o o o o 0 o o 10 0 o O 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 11 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o O 0 0 0 o 20 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 9 o 00 o 6 o o 9 00 o o o o n4 8 1o o 20 o 5 00 o 0 2 o o 00 o 1 10 2 o 1 o 9 20 0 o o 0 O o 11 o 00 o o 1O o 0 o 0 c 1.1 00 20 20 00 1 80 o1 00 20 no 00 00 00 1H0 140 20 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 1o 20 00 00 00 00 0 00 00 00 00 10 00 00 00 1O 10 00 00 1o 1o 00 00 00 00 1O 00 00 00 20 30 3o 20 3O 8 20 10 .410 3 20 20 20 30 30 330 20 30 30 20 3O 20 20 30 1.0 ~\Jnv 3O 3O 1O 20 10 330 2° 30 30 .46 20 8 1O 1O 1.0 ~30 1O 10 3O 3o 00 10 o 00 10 10 0 30 20 20 22 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 2° 20 7.0 .150 20 20 20 20 00 20 0° 00 20 20 00 20 3 03.303 0:903 03 03 o3 o3 03 03 o3 03 03 03 03 03 01701703 03 03 03 03 o3 03 03b0 O 00 0 00 o o o o o 5 o o O O 0 o 0 00 00 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 00 0600600600600100 OI“ 0080060030 00 OO6OOIMOP47OOIDOO 00600600 00800 02 00 00 00 0020 93.101002002000002 03 1130140014022 00 03030012021022 0 000010 00001 02 o3 00 02 07.10 1500802111100703 22 01700102102801021011O.8073/021021001000001000020030070200210 31020820214001002 02 010020020010 h00200003000h00013000100200000101H200000300100100 382302323013018-“30130143013013 1H81302301.8148016230IH8020130210220130230210130 E020230§02h02h0hh01.“0.“!“011H011003011H0212fl7lhgl420h00h02000100010121400:“011H6140021HO 2°1203302h120250301222502301H102020 30753038141“00500201002000002103201420:“00120 1103002102002102122001102h02h11100h0200210010&131202301112100001002000h0200100111 39302003213002.10220 00220h10h20310h20200220.120.“2022022022022020030020022030080220 20 3.0 “0 30 20 3O 00 3010 £210 140 00 00 20 20820 1&0 no 30 1O 00 00 “0 10 00 20 so 20 140 .30 20 Lao 00 14020 50010 50 00 00 50 20220 50 20 1O 20 00 00 10 8 00 IMO 2205201h52141-920 1060015020232110'30 10 201..“062122021222220 20912 20 20510600230 03023028230020 5000031603008010030 IMO 50014011500207.3013o1lfio 140150 :HO 30.1-“01001140 2140220281.“!0220 I“0214o1h521021452102h0110120fi.1452302h01h0114011“011O1h01h01nflo1h02201.1!0 21H0333.1263318302128321401502302140202103503302302]!01302141423187.30110130 1o 1OIH1O 10 10 10 10 1O 1O 1o 1O 10 10 1O 1O 10210 10 1o 1o 10610 10 1O 1.0 1o 1O 00 00002 00 00 140 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 fiuo 00 00000 00 00 00 20000 00 16 00 00 00 SNLOIH30232107202140720 “OOAOZZOAHOO 7.0730255023023014216306140622 3081M0 3221.060H830232 210020230010010222020 20220010020 10230200~410020000020000000 10100 10010016000310 1207.2h27‘01162202h72h02222021520 2202002202~£03212212221301032202302211201001151120 3002201811802103022020310214 2102203101210310100382008020030120102202003fl.o 37.023023011032021403025031121020021128150230120100301601001002201202202u0220~420 320283208038220302.“O1JHO3201L.“0220230130 I8230110&02102202812013011022021401130 37-12213‘1135403~j12103207.211h03212002202751.15501 2131120302..“12002111201101312112101.}.1 E0fi¢1~0201h~033023O§02h0114011d021402h015140214avaézfloz01A02u1232102202301h02h—02h025023o 3912013 o1911161290%0280390217350230261390391191301313201.813 02h01501301312202.07/141 3002103 1101301200301200300301200200200300.3fi1v0201101812013 o100300100100201101.-0~| ~11211211210210211101201110110200210201fi.0flvfi.0030010120020111O 111111 2102102001005.11 20120130 11111 012013300 11111 030120080210100101301101311201200100311012012012005.01 20030130116131.0310?02113003113101.10201200. 200201801003003111011003111002003101411 201201310100300100310200110100110100200200100 0 11111 01.2001.001002101002002002007.00 211211200201201101 002011001O1ZOOZOOZOOZOPJ7. 111111 01200210101100100300211211100.1011 200300301300301100101201100300100802007.00100 008080200100110100100100200100101 7.0020030010030031O3102103008030011o30020O3J002003003002003003003003101002003101100 3003003101008030031021080311300330031021032003003003002003103003003003017.003011O 2012002002003001003002113103012002002012P40fi~01301301812011001001003001002001001g00 20181301311301.1101301201100301100300201230101301311311201100100110100100201301301 2002012301201101300100201100301101300201ZAU I1002111O1300211200 111111 02002111007501 30 2012013003013113013002013008131020020130031118.130130120020130031130131011200101 21121.1«301101301101100811003013003002001OF...» 00818181201100.210101101101101200101 271271110171.1711702171170171170270271313. .7017117.11307.80180g0180180280181280.¢81 2317.133131/1111313.118313303302311Ia01.30g1313|21130281311111231.1«911 31 5‘2022131313213203022110311531 02102103103013103111111111112103111101103111.60111. 2112112112102117.101102112103101]02102102102101112112102.101102101102102102101.1021 0 27.1271137117158711137.61160811602602602x§nV‘1,DOg1g11~/02712711160260261260261260n.6... 2117.11?131131131131]31131O?1311?O311311n4~./1 011131131 1111111 ?O?0211?0?02 111111 .Hg6622889g6001112223314.“garb/07778:..AOCJAHJOJOOO111zzzgghhpg5br°6wl7788899900011 L bhhhhhhhhbbbh .ub Eggs—22.23: :3:a255b666666666666666666666666666667./~ . 77. 222222222222222222222222222222222222222752. : .«£2222222222222222222222222222222222~¢27L 1237 002222 30 00000070005 122]12222]I280Ifiél$hzgiggggéoooooooogooooooo 02002232 2;]1221Igggggfi}168563g818153$5§§0'3283°°2ggg‘:1182 355 8308000000°°°°°°°° 0 222 1220 1000 2 2 2'6]330100'0030322222‘222 2213 ‘ 33 00000 0° 1 00000003 2 210‘32 2222222§01001002133 8000020 22110 00000000 00008 '1] #2 000000 Zizzz}, £001100000001110019222o ‘ 2210 000000000 2 3'6 o?ot°°‘°°°1113211‘2‘ 1 3 0'3‘3 oooooo °°° 1 0000003222 2 °°° 111188‘ 010321“3 030000 0 212222 100 00000000 111 01000 90000 110 3 o 0 00000 2 %210 81000 000000000 22218 2 00221330 000000000 2 8 301101000 22 22832222121301h3“ 0000000000 0002003332 2 hi ‘0 I 22133210 01 281“ 0500000 0 0&0 00503000000 2 h22§3§38?00000° 00010 100 11 2,2u3011%°30380099° . 0000 2 22 “LL 080000 ‘222 2 10000000 1232233 ? 302103113 13 03000 1 0000000 2 1300] “233? 30'00'033 0000000 000 322 32 1“ 0000000000 2 E22‘8230000 0 101101 0' 2 03 $202008“ 3% 0000 00000 2 2 500003 3 88333038010 0 300300000] 10000000 01001000000 2 638332a03g 000000000‘3C’0C1’22218 225’212100000‘300990 2 2 IIIOOIOOOIZZIZZZZZIhhb 00018 80000300888 1 0000000233 2 100011] 212 0,0102h2 32 05 00 0 0 000000000 3 53$33§§?§3?33083?‘231gaggggéggo13:3‘5600000°°?°°°°38°°00001 0000003332 2 ‘ ‘0 21 3 00 110 “2“ 1 9 00 °°° 0° 21200 0000000000 2 115%21212822392133;12:21é: as 2 1‘0 1 32 2 00 5 0° 0099009 2 1 00 000 0099 5g3§1§3§§833332139119W931;153332133131§08300028°3°°3°°99 1 cocooooowz 2 010 I‘]]]]]]3 00]OIO?82 00 h 0‘0000000 2 0112 2800000“0101010 100 ?°° 2231002 3 00003300100 2 1‘§‘?111011000°2 23 a; 2 no} :00150 00 0 00 3 ‘ 00000003222 2310 O 3 3338333303331 8000 000 8;};3 310 00000100000 2 132232§000 0 '°,01000 0‘ 3§02 2° 2 E13 0 00003 000° 2 2151 H10110000 1 lg 222 0112213hh 0 01000008 00000003332 2 222‘3330031 0 000010] 1‘02221 2222035100w 0383? 00000000000 2 2 3 31010‘°"°°'?22 22222‘l1332“°‘ 85015m ° 1 ooooooool“ ZSE' 1213212?3 01301 “a 0090000 Mon 080 2?W 000000000 7 ?223 00000 00 00000 0 22 22 ‘2] 000 80000000 ~ 12 000000 3 32 L 15' 000009 332 28 7 03301010 3 32223 38200301’60000000 ‘0 32 30020003 2 broo 332333333308?000 “0 0001000 000I }}LOOOOL W3 0250000000 2§h3§33 50000OIO 0000000°°2~208 “‘ 21 8° 000 00803 , 21,123911,090000 12 123«’<~uo1 0035153 0000 10002322 25:010010 -=~33332‘311 8 ‘3“05‘000 0° 03°2u0103 000000°°°° :‘=~113>$3333001 00 1?1 02 0 30k 1320 W3 0000050 4529 2 0000 11111 o 000 0 233*“? é‘ééé?533131113328§33331§3823V°°3380§§88° 7583 O 00 11 11 060 2 6‘;23 0 ‘0 100000 0 02“ 0 82 00000 12 00000 222 2 23 15‘ 01 00 0032 2E5] 01 10°00 22 222 22 0020‘ 80000000 2m 1 0000000 2 001111] 222822018010 80 0000 0002 “hunk 0 200 00000000000 2 §3§2 9030'0 08111100 ‘0 28120000‘0000000000000 2 23 7 130°°“°°° 33 $333333? 1&0' l:0000000000010 1 0000000002 2 1]] 3 3383833?008 833 00 0000000 #1 802 00000000000 28 ?;§? 30‘ o8010‘0‘ 0031312 2 00““ 01§§00°° °°°° 2 zgg 10? 1111000111 2132110382 oih018m880 0000 00 00000000132 2 “ 111113113? 00300 “2 00 000 ° 21200'0123 0000000000 2 8‘3'2 90000o o10010000'022106 2' 1200“*g‘5 0000000000 2 29 3z30301111000023 222?222 2121201 001000 008 3 ] 00000001” 2901 1 222222222210801] 2 0000 00 00 6 2 0000100000 2902;232 01000000000000000 22208 22 2 IOOgEZh 153800010000000 2 2911 1 6810100000223222222211 2201 uh 00 00 000 0000000111 2 '122333‘00 °°° 01010‘00 00 106 20311221 806800000 000000 2§2 {1100100000002 2122222§§b 3013“} 000030 000 00000002232 292' 0112 1823‘ 0300‘03“ 00280000000 3m am 0000000000 292?;g13 330 0000110101 0002220“ 55200802 5030000 000£0 2 2 18100‘000122 212%222 022130‘3§88000000 °°° 0000000002 2§§‘°'°121223‘33 8010 “2 3 0000 2 0000000 2 0100 00 00000 39333}3833833883351333303222m 3“ 2°1300500000326808000030§0 02100000002322 2 1 222 010% 00000 “pub 0010 2 ”133%?1%?1808391o1222§23°30 1‘3 12512 0.0033330381030 2 E3233222383555353g§{$32330m §2°°7,°001“ 0 £3510 3 058800000000000000000 0 111 2225 00000 2 29 '7'???1111‘0'0223228?232; 22‘10‘3L 000000090 000000133 296111 13323233300‘0‘ b 300000000 0 22 o 200 00000000000 29632233 000000 1110000‘°~ 10° 1‘12 28020 000 000000000 q 71 100001 11211.! 1 3&15 00000 5929291 E151231113510933505380 29 1‘72 00000800000000000 33316003 00‘0 128 022 000° 000° 1 00000 3 oo°°° 033‘2 22“°°5?30 0000°°°oo 000200050 22‘ ?2 0 00° 112 2o 00 00° asrzézimsoow“ ":35“; §°°°°°° mo 22 0‘ 000° 12 0 22° 500 000 2 3833;00011022222 h2'8 00 00 88200002 00000 2 2 8?;I;$$110101 1223010?“?ool 0% 12200 3 000° 0223 l 21 28 02° 05° 00° 2 1100 2112230301?,111 I 21201 10200 102 00 o 00000 gagggéggigggé;gaggggggg 3030002“‘2883333300002”00000500000000 09002332 0 ‘01 18 o 100 ?H010000 000° 000° 0" 2 830 ° 00100 2 3 62 “0 000° 20000 2 °'?;1?$§11°°°°3 3335?3§ °°°°3m ' 003§°°o 3 oo°‘° 00"3 02 00 ‘23330 000‘10 o 21:0]uééggooogm 0 00003 00000 02002222210 0000011] 1'; ? uh oO 22 00000 1 00000 022211880 1'00 ?3 88“ 000° ‘ 520000 000° 0° 00°00 02222 1 II 3 8 0I ol Luz o 0 0 oo2 000 00° 0 {00 333.3 10‘ 212 01 oo 000 000 l 00 222 213 00 oo oo 0 2 333 00“ 222‘ 1! 2 0° 000° 000° 2 03???2$§1“"? 22:;0,08h,0803;3 2h “2 2100000 100000 oo°°°2 oh] 2‘2] 8000000101 22222 02120001. 駧ooom ] 00000 2 0522118??0010°22 223002 €30020m12g2110080§0 0200 00000 00222 II 222? 000 01 l 218 000 o00 000 005 0 222 o 0 000° 1 £3120 00 I 3 2 0000 10‘0 2 0 221138° oO‘° 2‘ 3 8 00‘0 1‘ ?2 '00 °°° 20 3 2“ 230° 0223 I 10 333 0 00° 12 03 00° 0 03° 00° 0 11° 1 3 0 10 1000 22 0 M33 00 1&22'2 o 00 0700 061 I] 3? 0000100 222223 00230 0 u 1&10010000 ‘ 20500 2 o6?2??3g° 100° 22222 o “0 800° 2' 22‘ 020° 003° 0133 00 212 000 000 202 ul‘ 0]! h #0 030 010 0 o 2 11° 10 1 u I A 000 000 10° 2 000 01° 11' 60 uz 00 00 ° 2 2 3?0 001° 11 g 21 03 22 a 030 O00 0000 2 oglgl??g 111°° 1213 I? h 31 2 o 03 oo 003° 0222 I I 1 o! 010 3% 000° .H 000 000 0 100 I 1‘ 38000 110' 1 ? 20‘ 23 “1&2‘ 000° 0000 ° 012 "o?°°°110"112“'2?g8 010° 205 We!“ 30800000 oo°°° 22 o {11 13338810 ,oi‘o 222 2013 200° u 3 6 000° 000° 1 111 222 2 000 h“ ‘0 00° 00° §§?a%§$$§§%g333352553§3325§§2:8°3: :80888880§5°3§03:2Iggo3oo$o°°°° I 12 00 00 130 00 o 0 10 00 00 10‘1213 810000 000‘ 3333?§3 0000 2 0 1 000° 1 00000 2 102%,); 00‘00033332109 00000? "‘ #222 o 2°00 3 20° oo°°° 000°3 ,1 00 1 2 3 300 100100912} 2‘82 880001 22133 00000 00000 11“ $33030 0000092132' 2 223oo 0 2'2h oo°°° ‘ oo°°° 1132??3 0 10099‘223-01132803008 zuz" o 0°00 zoo oo°°° 002222 12‘5000000212'11000001 1'2] 01%:“00000020 02 22000000 00003 §.20023121%00000011112,121 01200 00 00 00000 00000 1 ‘6110 ‘1212‘0010000100‘1 20"0"" o00°°°o oo°°° oo°°° ‘ ‘le?8°10‘°° 122‘2333“100000002 200880800 2200 00000 00002 1b'°212220300° 001‘ 211“ 102‘ 2 500250 06W oo°°° oo°°° 1h2§11?3°]100°?11112 osh‘goooo% 022 ° 1‘2000 00 000° 00032 00 1 11 3 00° 002 000° 00° ‘Elloo 11“]?1000110100 212' 0‘8 838 0 000° 000° 1 1 1 '1 0000 000" 2 ?2% 2 02 0° 0 h 20000000 I 00000 2 ' ?%'??3?I°‘°°22221503 “030 °°u '20g2‘°°on °°° 220 0 000°0 00°°°2 l 00 122220010000010‘}2 g20h0138300000 ?] ‘23 000000 00000 I2'021222010000010l 22g2 b 2° 00 2 ??3b 5 000° 000° 2 : 6%;?§g§gssa%§ees?3;;22§: ssggas§§§3°g°%:w 0 I 00 I 00 00 ‘12 l ?g]l§?l]lloo 2182?]O7b 0000 h 52 00 0 00 g 000° [.001 l 0 2228300 0 000° 01 “ 000° 111° 30 0° 000 110 2 000 22 2 000 IO 0 00 } ?gl}220396800000 12$;fizlz :02 0o 2 2 00000000 08 60010000 “22 6020332333? 8 @2022: 駧§80§°§° «:3 as l l 0 11 0 00 I 00 1]? $0 000 2 §“o 2 o h 000 000 2 1% 110 22 IO 0 00 213 go??5fi2é%33583 86388§ 35333?" ~°s§o823°° °" 30°26‘33“” 2 00 12 oo 02 00 00 12 2°?él‘ég 110002 zgalloé ‘00°° 2 ‘° 00 3 20° 00°00 00" 2' 11° 0 ‘3?308° 10° 0'1” 30‘ 33 3°02 3'0 °°oO°°° 00°°° 2‘0 221§33°° 00‘°°11‘ "uh ' 03 13 0° ooo°° I 000°° 21 1 1000 2 0 MI 000 0200 0000 Zgiééoi '3323?330§§830g333g22330‘0?8382°°§8?08 oooo°°°00 g2?i%%8§$0183000g2265555}S;8:00::2 a Izglooooomoo02 2% 11° 32 000 ,0110 2112 N8 000 2 ° 2 222300 11110 222‘2b22' 0 2 2 182900”‘1 22122107“2000°% 31.1%] 22225538002880 2&22232§°‘°10°°°° 221000 1229 220? WIIIO0I83 30 Olhh? @002h28 0200 0007 000000 000000000008020800050000001000]I12 2 2I 2000000 000 OI hh2000000100 2 0 0 I 0 0 I 213 h2hZIZO 000 3 8 h0I3 5I002 I 0 0 I 3 0 I00 0000 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000022 0 0 200 I 000 0I0 00000 00000000000020I000000000I80000003232 0&0 32 M2 0020000 O§L3I12b 060I 22200 00000 020I 0000 00000030000000000000002002222 200000000 OIgl § 5 422b 02 22200 000 0 I0 0I00IL00800000000500000000000#0000002222 3 0 I 2 0 2 11° II 00 oghOI 21 2I002 02 2 I --ON—‘O—-—-ONOO—'OO—- 0 I 000100I000h0§003080000000060000070000000000003I32 11111111111 I3002 200150 I0020000300009000708020009000300II32 2 322112111121 122 22 2112 2 51025000010 000 11 1233 2 1 011 101110 111 01 01 26321111111111 112 22 2112 2 51025000000 000 00 1210 2 1 011 111110 011 11 0100 2 221211111111 111 12 2121 2 151025000000 000 01 8101 1 11111111110 °1111 1111 2 I31023003813 801 01 13881 2 1 111 111110 111 00 0 0 2 22232 232221 221 21 22222 15102 1 0000 001 01 11111 011111 111100 011 11 01000 11211111111111.1111 11 11111° 13111311111111 11°11111°° 2I5102903300I 000 10331238I1 €113§§1é§III§III8§§§21° 22 1.21.11. 1 0100 000 1 $§2 i030 01§11 15 3313011?111100 $1§°5$§°9119328% 00050100320000003000050500000000000006001112 I5102§030001 0003110§11200823% 12200 01 00 0 200 31123112110130 0313191031000‘100 l500000000000000000000001000000000000000002122 131028010000 0100010112121112111831212I12§§06 23m 1 §§110313110100 000103100003000800m 00100020 0 000000 000000002000000000000002232 3 I510280I8338 0010010813213033W£358§ 5331516 32 6071 3232310 101110 0131;0010gog0gu 00 10 020 01 00000 00 10000000000010001001112 15102§001003 0I00010§1023102311H 112220 081 233° 3 E1101} 111100 01111110310 008100100200000213000000 0 01000002010000000000 32 I5132§038038 080I01’331128II30301]2 1335111 13m 23m 3312;11 011000 0111010101100200002 0900000325030000 000030200000000000002002122 39I51023030000I000161071012§032 20131121221513010 2220 {331110105111100311110003100 29000938300980392008000000002020000000000000200 232 31075702300066130000I6031212?02301 3 2221100200 00200 1815111151151015151;};115333000012001000000010200000000000100000000000000002112 111510250310000100001021111111111338§3 31111 00 0020 00 11123;; 11111119190111131333goooon0oozo30501goooooooosooooo1ozooo1oooooo2222 12I51023000000I0003110610122012111200000000o 00 0 200 121 011010110000001010101000000000100000200010000000000000002001000050001001132 £2$833818888331688132232§8§11511u 11.3 §11 1181.1. 22200 1 010110111110101001010010 00020 8 00000 1800°3000000020007000000000005003332 1 11111111111111111111111111111111 111111.111 11131111 t1000gggogooggooooogoooggg100000000 0002200020ggooooooooooooooooo00000000000022 1. 1311128818800881880883121§1311001§11252211o 0 100 1 1 1 011 111100001100010000 00000000100020 000100000000000000000000000000002222 1 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111° 13113018151130023301051000303010% 0000000003 80000020 000000000000000000000001232 1 I5132é000800 000 0I0511213113OHE§2103133011200 1 1 1 001 1111000010010100100000é00 000000202000100000000000000000000000000001222 2 I§5éI136815366556153‘1311113"§ 1111111?“ 11“?‘1I1'. ‘ “"° 3 1 1 01001111010000011100Io1000003000 100 “001300000000300000000000000000000002222 1 1111111111111111111311111;11101111 111111 1 1I111111111111111111111 000330 01000I3030000000000 00011600010100010000001 12 1 12.111111111111111111'11111111113111.1111 8}?2 1111113003111111€§1 0030102 g0loohgg202860000330003261601000000001600 12 11§0§111000003001001 12331111012183235£ 333m 0 200 10 1000000000000100000000000000000 000000 000000000000000100000000000000002322 1222é22221222222222222222222 13m 1110 2130 1101000001000010711111111013% 0011 was 1 20000000000000000000000001000000 00000000 00000000000000000000000000000000032 T‘ 130 11‘2 000° 00000 3 00 0100000 1 3 o 2 0000 2212 ?‘o zzgghz ggigogéooooooooo oooo0000000000 h 000 bho 000 2 1112§§ 2321 ,0 o ,uu u] am 0000 0222 13 Lb 0000 h 0 00 0000 12 13?2833}30??3§30‘? $0 I‘l“ k2 2&183°8§;8032 2 00 000000000000 '2 2?38{'?80180§§?§g3‘?832;3§306?80§g:j O §£2£%2 080030000000 , 00000000022 1'? ?000 000H 22222 LO‘ 0000000 22 0 10000 1222 ?38 ‘ 1 1H"1 222222a1h2“°300° °°° NS 00 0 o 000000 11" 222222 001 10°00 21.22 a 000000 oo°°° 2.111{ 2 0000 1110 in 0 000° §?§5??¥?§999835$23555Efi5353§3§82m 0° Oog§§:¥;0mo 0000000001000 00000200‘232 I1 22 101 1000 000 100 01‘ 222222 00001 110'0 1112 33 00 00 000 000000 2 2222‘101000111101 1] 2] 22 080 000001‘800 080000 000222 2120?]‘1111‘ 22222 0? 3 00000 2021“ 0000 00000 222 00‘ I 00 2 2 122283m010 000° 6|“2 23322010000110110 22220 oluugz 101 0130 21500 32 6322 ?\0 00“]110 222222 2152 000 2018088000 000000 1207111001 222222 10 ““80000 0 20? 38 0000 I 000°00 010° 222222.1000‘01130' 2‘ 28 88303 000°°° é§%8%¥59?888§g933?1231§5fi¥§3538%33§3?°§10000008o00000°° 0030001002222 0 2 00 000 0100022 822 0000‘?woo ‘02 I ““2“ 00000 “0 “050° 2 22‘2108 ‘0 00011 222222 LZZO 300 00 800‘60 000333 ?207101‘011022222210bbuh?0:::ooh Mg 2“ 01280000 I 000000 11110222222500100000000021h “23000 00 0000000 2 2222§11000000000°32 oo‘éémz W? o 200 0‘ :280000°°° 000°222 00 A] 0000 0000 0000 883310000‘0 00‘0' 2115““300 2°° 0°00 2 2 1110 222 030 03 00 3o 000 0112 0?302?? 11000 22222 L20 0000 M; a? 000°0 00000 ‘lil 222222000100 0000 o 1 22000 00 00 000000 22 1222211000000100‘0 2 22 22300 0 0° 11 1‘ 00°2° 00022 00 000 000 212030001002 1 2383805 280 0°00 2"2111‘8?1002°°°o ‘ oo°°° 2001 132?280 0 0100002222222 125110000 0 0° 000000 77 00 GO-' 2§gg%1uo 0,0000‘0222222,2u00138uo:°° 2222 5 oooOO' 00000 1000 22222 ‘00?“ 0000 ‘2 15 h? gogoom 000000 310000222222000000 I0 °°° 1 nuhhz“ o0 0 8 0°°°°° 2 21203000101? 1111‘0‘ob52 0010 0 202 $2 00000302 0000000 ho}’1‘1111]180000100100??:1320201gbb25 0000008]; 0 0200 0000000 32 h?“ 110000 00010012 31 0,2 2 000000 2‘ 0120 0 00000 030033 207 o‘]]00 3]2,3 ‘82b10100000 1] 2] “20 000000 I 0‘0000 ‘000:]]?2]23011000 ‘0010 105 h“ 52 00000 o 00000 00 «10 :22 01A 0000 “hobo o 20 0000 ,332 312;]10 I?000010722112th.oul30°ooo”h an 00 00002 0,000 0120010"]]_2]]2200003h80:0100 ‘Iohz hhloo 0000 000000 03091121‘2130000'000000 212::‘ 302'00 “2 800°7°°° 032 622‘312000 000000 2 222338““6 1 0° o I 231000 000°°° 1u0 00010 2?3818 oohoho 1h“ 0 10100 oo°°° 10000 838?880 0110‘0 02 Zogg 00 08 000000 2 2§?§83 1011“ 222?3?3 0‘ ?m 000000 000222 ?20 11110 1332?8? ?2°h13%23 °°° 000°0 000° 11 22 0 001303 2002 000 0000 II‘ 1 I ‘8?0000 11' ° 1 000° 002° 100 lb 000 O 22 é?fié§i$§$§?}é}é}§ég}5§£§é ?030 280°§§§§3;?g“ 23% 202800033000005: 00000000000000 11‘ o I 00000 I; 1000I 00000 2 8?15555833§§33§333%o8$93§3§o '8o.§82°gz 22% WSW o o o 00000 3333 0 ,0] 0‘ 22 1 g 0000 zuo zoo 0100 2 0 110 222 h0 3 o 21 1000 0003 0?28§?g 1000‘ 2232 #83 00 0 070‘ 000°0 000° 1 11"] 222222?o| 3“831 ° 121‘“3000°°° 000°00 11" 22 0000 oo0 3&5 2‘ 0000 o 00 0000 $§§3§?§§§8588g°?$?3?6;11}}$ggl35000000002“§5830008030000003 0000000000032 0 11 10 100 2 0 000 00° 0 °°° 2‘ 00° 000 I 000 u o 000 g}$5é12988?588§logggggigggggggoo 0000 0% #8010008038000000 “000000001222 0 01 010 11 000 I oo ' 00'22 38880 0'0 00000 02 2 ““2 000° 22 3 00°50 22 220? 000000 l I] 83 210800000 h ‘00 001°00 00‘322 E388060000033:3:2 ‘00§8§8800 22§2 5100110?é0 ggzgogogooo10000000000000 a;$83?3$§§?0030003533§£§?3ngo“8$ooou0°8u 333230000300000000 00000000002‘ 0 II 000 000 00 I 000 l 00' 333” 000 0100‘ 210 ?u00° 000 ° 0000 ‘2'?§333 01°" 222222 “20' 000000 g 000000 00022 ? 08 11000 22 zhhuo 01000 L 1 00000 00000 1‘10 38001001 10000 100“ 00000 ] 00000 60§00222 8 11100 ‘ghS‘z 0000 200 000000 6o$éé:o