ABSTRACT A STUDY OF COMMUNICATION OF PERCEPTION OF CHARACTER AMONG ACTORS, DIRECTOR, AND AUDIENCE USING Q METHODOLOGY by Allen Neal Kepke The purpose of the study was to gain further under- standing of the communication process in theatrical pro- duction as it related to the formation of perception of char- acters. The study attempted to provide an empirical de- scription of character among actors, director, and audience. An attempt was made to trace descriptively the pattern of development of the perceptions of characters from before rehearsals to after performance. By examining various kinds of perceptions several questions may be answered: 1. What effect may communication between the actors and director have upon character perception? How do the perceptions change? 2. What differences, if any, exist between the characters as perceived in the imaginations of the actors and director and their perceptions of the characters-as- played? 3. Do the actors tend to perceive characters in terms of their perception of themselves? 4. How closely do the characters perceived by the actors and director relate to those perceived by the audi- Allen Neal Kepke ence? To what extent do the actors and director communicate to an audience what they try to communicate? 5. Do audience members tend to perceive characters in terms of their perceptions of themselves? A An instrument by which subjects could describe their perceptions of the characters was constructed using Q meth- odology. Each description required a different Q-sort. The subjects of the study included the director of a production of A Streetcar Named Desire, the actors who played the characters of Blanche, Stella, and Stanley in that pro- duction, and a sixteen-member audience sample who viewed the opening night performance of that study. The actors and the director were asked to describe their perceptions of the characters, themselves, their ideal selves, and their characters-as-played at various times throughout the rehearsal and performance period. The mem- bers of the audience sample were asked to describe their perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of the char- acters as they were performed on opening night. The actors and director kept diaries of their thoughts and experiences concerning the characters. The researcher cnnducted focused interviews with the actors and director. The Q-sorts (perceptions) were organized into two matrices. One included the Q-sorts done by the actors and the director. The other included the Q-sorts done by the members of the audience sample. Within each matrix each Allen Neal Kepke Q-sort was correlated with every other Q-sort. Each matrix of correlations was factor analyzed, first by principle axis solution and then rotated to a varimax solution, which is an orthogonal rotation to ap- proximate Thurstone's simple structure. On the basis of the data collected it was possible to answer the questions posed by the study in more detail than can be presented here. It was impossible to generalize from data collected on only one show; however, it was possible to interpret them and to speculate upon them. The Q-sort seemed to be a valuable instrument to measure empirically the perceptions of character in this play. The factors which were derived from the Q-sort data provided a general picture of the perceptions of each of the characters. The comparison of Q-sorts pointed out specific similarities and differences in perception and specific changes in perception. The correlation of Q-sorts provided a measurement of the degree and direction of similarity among perceptions. COPYright by Alddfifi NEUUL EEZPKIE l964 A STUDY OF COKMUNICATION OF PERCEPTION OF CHARACTER AMOHG ACTORS, DIRECTOR, AND AUDIENCE USING Q NETHODOLOGY By Allen Neal Kepke A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPH Department of Speech 1963 GQQIOS 7/8/39‘1‘ ACKNOWLEDGMEWTS The writer wishes to acknowledge a profound debt of gratitude to the co-chairmen of his thesis committee, Dr. John E. Dietrich and Dr. Malcolm S. NacLean, Jr. Without their Enterest, guidance, patience, encouragement, and in- spiration this study may never have been completed. The writer also wishes to express gratitude to Mr. Thomas Danbury and Mr. Jack G. Prather of the Communications Research Center for their valuable advice concerning the mechanics of the study. A special note of thanks is due to the subjects of the study who gave generous amounts of their time, thought, and effort to the communication problems they faced. 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi LISTOFAPPENDICES..................vii Chapter I THE PROBI‘m O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 II PBEPARAT ION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 7 III PRO CEDURE o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 18 IV PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTORS AND DIRECTOR . . . . . 39 V PERCEPTIONS OF THE AUDIENCE . . . . . . . . . . 9“ VI CON CLUSION S o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o c o o 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY0.9000000000000000...137 111 Table I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. LIST OF TABLES A schedule of the types of descriptions and thelrtiming.o............ Calendar showing rehearsal and Q-sorting schedule Items strongly accepted by factor I (girls' selves) Items strongly rejected by factor I (girls' selves) II (K- II (K- III III . C O O O O 0 accepted by factor Items strongly and Stanley) actor's self rejected by factor Items strongly and Stanley) actor's self Items strongly accepted by factor (BlanChe)eeeeeeoeeee Items strongly rejected by factor (Blanche) IV Items strongly accepted by factor (Stella) IV Items strongly rejected by factor (Stella) Items strongly accepted by factor V (D's Stanley) Items strongly rejected by factor V (D's Stanley) Correlations of actor-director factors I-V A profile of the members of the audience sample . . Items strongly accepted by factor A (audience's selves) iv Page 35 36 43 a3 1.6 as 47 “7 49 A9 50 95 98 Table XVII . XVIII. XIX. XXI. XXII. XXIII. XXIV. Items strongly rejected by factor 891ve8)eoeeeeeeeeee Items strongly accepted by factor Stanley) Items strongly rejected by factor Stanley)eeeeeeeeeee Items strongly accepted by factor BlanChe)eeeeeeeoeee Items strongly rejected by factor Blanche)........... Items strongly accepted by factor St eJ-l-a) O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Items strongly rejected by factor Stella) O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Correlations of audience factors A-D . . Correlations between audience factors and actor-director factors . . . . A (audience's B (audience's B (audience's C (audience's C (audience's D (audience's D (audience's Correlations between self perceptions of the audience and the perceptions of characters 0 O O O O O O O O O the Page 98 100 100 101 101 102 102 103 104 114 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Example of choices available in a semantic differential.................13 19 2. Distribution of Q-sort items (n=60) . . . . . . 3. Distribution of preliminary test Q-sort items . . . 21 (H3153)eeeeeeeeeooeeee'e vi LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. Working List of 153 Nerds Used in the PreliminaryStudyeeeeeeeeeeeeoo B. Instructions to Preliminary Study Subjects and Chart for Recording Responses . . . . . . 127 125 C. Final Sixty Items Used in Qrsort Deck . . . . . 130 D. Directions Given to Participants . . . . . . . 131 E0 Complete FaCtor Arrays e e c e e o e e o e e o e 133 Vii CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The direction of a play is a complex undertaking. The director is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of every facet of the production process. He be— comes involved with problems of scene design, costume de- sign, and other elements involving the visual appearance of the production. The central problem of the director, however, is to transfer the cold, black print of a play script into ”living” theatre. The group of actors who portray the char- acters in the play is one of the primary elements of pro- duction with which he works. The characters are the basic material of the playwright. Therefore, the manner in which they are portrayed is essential to the success of the pro- duction. The director studies the play carefully to deter- mine the personal characteristics of each character. He may do research on the period or location in which the charac- ters are placed. He may study other works by the same play- wright to determine the similarities and differences among characters. At the completion of this research he should have a clear perception of the personality of each important 1 character. The director then chooses the actors to portray these characters. At the tryout session the director has in mind his perceptions of the characters while he views the efforts of the aspiring actors. He casts the actors whom he feels will be able to portray most nearly his perceptions of the characters. The director brings his perceptions of the charac- ters, and the actors bring their perceptions of the charac-' ters to the rehearsal period. These perceptions may be very similar, very different, or somewhere between the two ex- tremes. One of the goals of the rehearsal period is to reach an agreement on the perception of each character. This may mean that the actor adopts the perception of the director, that the director adopts the perception of the actor, or that a compromise perception is reached. ‘Another goal of the rehearsal period is to direct the actors to portray the characters as they are perceived. Simple agreement on a perception of a character is no guar- antee that it will be portrayed in accordance with that agreement. The final goal of any dramatic production is per- formance before an audience. It is necessary that the cast be able to communicate effectively their perceptions of characters to the members of the audience. 3 The foregoing is admittedly an over simplified picture of the production process. However, it serves to illustrate problems in communication of perception of char- acters. Statement of the Problem The approach to the_problem This study was concerned with communication of per- ception of character within the production process. It con- cerned communication of two types: director-actor communi- cation and cast-audience communication. The director and actors communicate their perceptions of the characters in an effort to reach agreement. The actors communicate their performance of the characters to the members of the audi— ence. There is one other area of communication--perhaps the most crucial--communication between the playwright and the director. This area has been eliminated from this study, not because it was deemed unimportant, but because the playwright was inaccessible. The study made the assumption that the director, as he prepared for the production, perceived the characters acting and interacting on the stage. Similarly it assumed that the actor, as he worked on his role, perceived the character as a “living" person in relation to other charac- ters and to the play as a whole. Finally it assumed that audience members who saw the play perceived the characters as they were performed. Thegproblem The purpose of the study was to gain further under- standing of the communication process in theatrical produc- tion as it related to the formation of perception of charac- ters. The study attempted to provide an empirical descrip- tion of character among actors, director, and audience. An attempt was made to trace descriptively the pattern of deve10pment of the perceptions of characters from before re- hearsals to after performance. The perceptions of the characters held by the actors and director were compared. The perceptions of the charac- ters by the actors and director were compared to their per- ceptions of the characters as they were performed (charac- ters-as—played). The perceptions of the characters held by the actors and the director were compared to the perceptions by the members of the audience of the characters-as-played. The perceptions of self by the actors and the audience were compared to their perceptions of the characters. By examining these various kinds of perceptions several questions may be answered: 1. What effect may communication between the actors and director have upon character perception? How do the Perceptions change? 2. What differences, if any, exist between the characters as perceived in the imaginations of the actors 5 and director and their perceptions of the charactereas- played? 3. Do the actors tend to perceive characters in terms of their perceptions of themselves? 4. How closely do the characters perceived by the actors and director relate to those perceived by the audi- ence? To what extent do the actors and director communicate to an audience what they try to communicate? 5. Do audience members tend to perceive characters in terms of their perceptions of themselves? Significance of the study Much of the writing and discussion concerning the art of the theatre is highly subjective. This is true of any endeavor which is an art form. Experts differ on theories of theatrical art as well as on practical methods of attaining satisfying productions. As a result there seems to be a definite need to accumulate empirical data concerning the creation of a theatrical production. The specific need which prompted this study is the desirability of more effective communication between actors and director and between cast and audience. These two areas are crucial in the production of a play. If the director is unable to communicate with the actors, the production may be unfocused and chaotic. If the cast is unable to communicate with an audience, the production has failed. Many impressions may be communicated to an audience 6 during a production. Impressions of light, shadow, sound, color, space, spectacle, rhythm, music, mood, intellectual meaning and emotional impact may be among them. Certainly the characters of the play are prominent among these impres- sions. This study was concerned only with the communication of the personalities of the characters. Organization of the thesis The thesis was organized into six chapters. The second chapter discusses the preparations made for the study. The third chapter deals with the procedures of the study itself. The fourth chapter presents the results of data from the actors and director. Chapter Five presents the results of the audience data. In the sixth chapter the conclusions of the study are offered. CEAPTER II PREPARATION This chapter includes a discussion of the litera- ture related to this study and a discussion of the search for a technique by which this study could be carried out. Related Literature The literature related to this study may be divided into three general classifications: studies in theatre, studies in the perception of other persons usually conducted by sociOIOgists, and studies concerning perception of per- sonality conducted by psychologists. Theatre studies The amount of empirical research on the theatrical art form is small. Only three studies appear to be related to this investigation. Smith constructed a semantic differ- ential instrument to describe theatre concepts.l He was in- terested in the general reaction of members of the audience to the production as a whole. He asked audience members to make judgments about the production using such bi-polar adjective sets as: true-false, weak-strong, slow-fast, lRaymond G. Smith, "A Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts," Speech Monggraphs, XXVIII, No. 1 (March, 1961), pp. 1'80 8 lenient-severe, beautiful-ugly. The study was not Specifi- cally concerned with characterization. Mable reported a portion of the results of several students who were conducting research on audience response.1 These studies mechanically measured the level of audience interest during a performance. Audience members were asked simply to indicate their level of interest while watching a play. They were in no way asked to describe what they saw. Whitehill and Kodman conducted a study which was very similar in intent to this one.2 Their purpose was to evaluate the communication of the conception of a character. They asked the "producers" of a play to describe the char- acter. These descriptions revealed a strong ooncensus con- cerning the character of the Reverend Mr. Combermere, a clergyman. The authors referred to the character as a “stereotype" of a clergyman. From the adjectives used to describe the clergyman five words were selected as particu- larly apt. They were: benevolent, childish, naive, modest, and amusing. After each performance audience members were asked five multiple choice questions concerning the character of the clergyman. In each set of possible answers for these 1E. C. Mabie, "The Responses of Theatre Audiences, Experimental Studies," SQEBCh Monographs, XIX. No. 4 (November, 1952), pp. 235-2h3. 2Buell Whitehill, Jr. and Francis Kodman, Jr., "A Study of Audience Reaction to a Stereotype Character," Egucational Theatre Journal, IV, No. 2 (1952), pp. 139-1h2, 9 questions one of the five adjectives was included. In addition they were asked what they remembered about the clergyman and how they would describe the clergyman in their own words. There was no attempt to elicit the opinion of the actor playing the clergyman. In reporting the results the authors counted and ranked the frequency of responses. The five adjectives chosen by the "producers" were the five adjectives most fre- quently used by the members of the audience sample. From this evidence they concluded that the "producers" were very successful in communicating the character of the clergyman. Although the Whitehill-Kodman study and this study were similar in intent, the methodology differed markedly and, therefore, the results are not comparable. Perception studies The phenomenon of perception of other persons has interested social psychologists as a subject for research. Their interest, however, has been limited to perception as it related to social interaction. What clues to potential behavior were perceived? How were perceptions influenced by social situations? How were perceptions changed by bias?1 Tagiuri used the term person perception "whenever the perceiver regards the object as having the pgtential of 1Jerome S. Bruner and Renato Tagiuri, "The Perception of People," Handbook of Social Psychology, ed. Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1954), II, pp. 634-650. - lO representation and intentionality."1 The interest here was in the person as part of an environmental framework. One person perceiving another formed a field for interaction. It was the nature of this interaction and the reasons for it which most interested the researchers in social psychology. A simple description of qualities which distinguished one person from another was not of interest to these researchers. Persnnality_studies Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum discussed the applica- bility of semantic differentials to research in personality? They urged it as a means of measuring differences of meaning among individuals or groups and changes in personality as a result of psychotherapy. They also suggested that it could be used as a means of quantifying subjective testing instru- ments.3 The emphasis in their studies was on its use to aid in solving theoretical and practical problems confronted by the clinical psychologist. Many studies dealing with personality have used Q methodology. William Stephenson has been the strongest‘ champion of Q methodology.l He has set forth the basic prin- ciples of the method and has suggested possible applica- 1Renato Tagiuri, "Introduction," Person Perception and Interpersonal Behavior, eds. Renato Tagiuri and Luigi Petrullo (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958). D. x. 2Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Keasurement of Neaning_(Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957), Chapter 3. ll tions.1 The most extensive use of Q technique has been by "self psychologists" who have been interested in personality changes. Many of these studies have attempted to evaluate the maladjustment of a person by viewing "discrepancies between one's self-perception and the perception of an ideal self."3 They have also tried to judge the value of therapy by examining self perceptions and ideal self perceptions. There have been several other studies which are per- tinent to this study. Nunnally had therapists describe the behavior of clients in an effort to study systematically 'the therapist's impressions about the process of psycho— A, I therapy." Horsh had students describe their teachers. This was less a description of personality than a descrip- 93 1: tion of a person functioning in the role of a teacher.’ The study by Revie was similar to this study in that two persons judged a third person several times. Revie measured the \ 1William Stephenson, The Stu The University of Chicago Press, 19‘ 2 dy of Behavior (Chicago: 3). J. R. Wittenborn, "Contributions and Current Status pf Q Methodology," Psychological Bulletin, LVIII, No. 2 1961), pt. 132—133. R . “Ioid. 4 Jun C. Nunnally, "A Systematic Approach to the Construction of Hypotheses About the Process of Psychother- apy," Journal of Consult ng Psychology, XIX (February, 1955), p. 20. 5Joseph E. Horsh, "The Q Sort Technique as a Group Measure," E.ucational and Psychological Measurement, X Winter. 1953?. pp. 390-395. 12 concept of a pupil held by a teacher and a school psychol- ogist to determine whether or not their opinions converged as a result of a "school psychological case study."1 Block constructed a set of items in a Q-sort pack to be used by trained psychologists to describe patients. The items, however, are oriented to the professionally trained person and are too technical for the layman. Selection of a Method In a study which purported to concern itself with communication of perception of character, the need was immediately apparent for a means of measuring or describing such perception empirically. Criteria What was needed for this study was a method which: (1) provided a means of describing perception of characters; (2) provided a measure of differences among individuals rather than deviations from the mean; (3) provided a means by which subjects may be compared; (4) did not take highly specialized training to administer and to interpret; (5) took a minimum amount of the subjects' time. Egrsonality_tests lVirgil A. Revie, "The Effect of Psychological Case Work on the Teacher's Concept of the Pupil,“ Journal of Counselin Psychology, III, No. 2 (1956), Do 125- 2Jack Block, The Q;Sort Method in Personality Assessment and Psyphiatric Research ISpringfield: Charles c. Thomas, Publisher, 19617, pp. 7-10. 13 There were many measures of personality available. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Rorschach Ink Blot Test, California Test of Personality, and Bernreuter Inventory were only a few. These tests, however, were largely interested in the deviation from the mean of the personality under study. The interpretation of these tests required special training, and their administration would take a prohibitive amount of the subjects' time. Semantic differential A semantic differential seemed to fit the above criteria. A pilot study was done in the spring of 1961 using a semantic differential. The semantic differential used was fairly standard in that subjects were asked to make judgments about the personality of characters within the structure of bi-polar adjective pairs. They were presented a seven-step continuum representing the words: extremely, quite, slightly neutral, slightly, quite, extremely, with bi-polar adjectives at each end. See Figure l. The subject Strong Insecure : Weak O I Secure O. O. O. O. I. O. I. 0. O. I. —Example of choices available Fig. l- in a semantic differential was asked to check the appropriate line. If the character being described was neither weak nor strong, he checked the center line. If the character was extremely secure, he checked the line nearest the word "secure." 14 One objection to the use of a semantic differential, a rating technioue, was that each scale is considered with- out reference to the other scales. The subject is asked to make a judgment about the "strong- weak" continuum, for ex- ample, without reference to the "insecure-secure" continuum. This study needed a technique which provided an opportunity for the subject to make judgments according to a hierarchy of "appropriateness." Another objection to the use of a semantic differen- tial was the possibility of skewed results as an outgrowth of individual marking tendencies. One subject may tend to rate toward the e: :tremes of the scale;v whereas, another sub- ject may tend to cluster his ratings toward the center of the scale halitually. Therefore, "dis agreement" may be revealed which is a result of ms king tendencies rather than a result of differences in perception. A further objection to the use of a semantic differ- ential was voiced strongly by some of the pilot study sib- jects. They felt that some of the bi- polar adjective p (‘0 (0 seemed false or questionable. They doubted the absolute polarity of some of the adjective pairs. 1Since these objectior s more made, data ave been collected which appear to support them. Thomas Danbury of the Communications Research Center of Michigan State Univer- sity has recently conducted an unpublished investigation of bi-polarity of scale elements, using scales concerned with the credibility of information sources. In sixty- ei :ht ob- servations he found that the negative relationship among forty scales ranged from -.748 to .073 with the median nega- tive relationship being -.529. This suggests that the 15 Another objection concerned the possibility of human error. Responses of the subjects to a semantic dif- ferential had to be transferred by hand to be encoded for machine scoring and analysis. There was a strong possi- bility of human error influencing the results when large numbers of responses had to be handled. -sort Q-sort methodology seemed to fit the established criteria. It could be used to describe perceptions of per- sonality. It was well suited to measure differences among individuals. It did not take the same degree of highly specialized training to administer or to interpret that the personality inventories did. It could be done efficiently by the subjects. Q-sort, as a ranking rather than rating technique, allows the subject to make judgments according to a hier- arcy of "appropriateness" within the context of a pool of concepts rather than taking them one-at-a-time. He has to make decisions about one personality characteristic in reference to many other personality characteristics. Q-sort did not have the problems of bi-polarity n- herent in a semantic differential, and a recently developed scoring technique which can be used in Q-sorting lowered the ——__ assumptions of bi-polarity among some adjective pairs may be unwarranted. 16 possibility for human error.1 Therefore, Q—sort was chosen as the method by which perceptions of characters would be measured. Criticism of Q methodology Cronbach and other respected scholars have leveled criticisms at Q-sort as a research method. Remmers has sum- marized these criticisms.2 The use of analysis of variance in Q studies has been judged to be inappropriate. Ho use was made of that technique in this study. The process of selection of items has been criti- cized because of the undefined nature of the population from which they must be chosen. Rather elaborate measures were taken in this study to minimize any bias in selection on the part of the researcher and to choose items from a ’2 large population.“ The value of the use of a forced distribution of items has been questioned. Elock has summarized the argu- ments favoring forced distribution as o,posed to those favoring unforced distribution. _ lJa k G. Prather, "Punched-Card Q-Sorting: A Machine hethod for Q Deck Preparation and Scoring" (Communi- cations Research Center, hichigan State University, January, 1963). (Himeographed.) 2R. H. Hammers, "Rating hethods in Research on m , l leaching," Handbook of Research on Teaching, ed. M. L. Gage (Chicago: Rand hcjally and Company, 1953), pp. 363-364. See Chapter III. 17 l) The unforced Q-sorting procedure obscures recog- nition of the correspondences existing among evaluations of personality where the forced Q-sorting procedure per- mits a clear assessment of degree of equivalence. 2) The unforced Q—sorting procedure tends to provide fewer discriminations than the forced Q-sorting proce- dure and consequently, is more susceptible to the Barnum effect. . . . 3) The unforced Q-sorting procedure is not more reliable than is the forced Q-sortins procedure, even though with the latter procedure judges are required to make discriminations they otherwise are inclined not to offer. 4) The unforced Q-sorting procelure does not appear to provide information not also, and more easily, acces- sible through the forced Q-sorting procedure. 5) The unforced Q—sorting procedure provides data which is unwieldly and at times impossible to work with where the forced Q-sorting procedure pfovides data in a convenient and readily processed form. The appropriateness of correlational factor analysis for Q studies has been brought into question. The use of correlational factor analysis was not a severe restriction in this study since the same item sample was used throughout it, and since the majorinterest of the study was in relative differences among perceptions rather than in measurement in any absolute sense. Researchers using Q methodology have been wisely cautioned to capitalize on its advantages and to minimize its shortcomings. lBlock, Ibid., p. 78. 2Hemmers, Ibid., p. 364. CEAPTjR III PROCEDURE In this chapter the procedural detail of the study is presented. The description and use of the measuring instrument are discussed. The play and the characters used in the study are described. The participants and their se- lection are discussed. The procedural detail and matters of timing are presented. The Instrument ‘ufi nescription of Qetechnioue The technique used in this study is an adaptation of the technique proposed by Stephenson. The basic principle behind the technique is to induce the subject perceiving a personality to rank a series of items (in this case descrip- tive adjectives) in a rank order from those which are most descriptive to those which are least descriptive of the per- sonality being perceived. 4.. Each perceiver is asked to sort the items into a forced distribution pattern. There are eleven ranks, num- bered from zero to ten. The perceiver is told that the higher the number of the rank card, the more descriptive are the adjectives to be assigned to the card. That is, the n o m d" U) l 19 descriptive adjectives should be assigned to rank ten. Con- versely the least descriptive should be assigned to rank zero. Similarly rank nine should contain the most descrip— tive of the remaining adjectives, and rank one should have the least descriptive of the remaining adjectives. The distribution pattern is structured so that the terminal ranks, ten and zero, have three cards assigned to each. Working toward the middle, ranks nine and one have four cards each; ranks eight and two and ranks seven and three contain six cards each; ranks four and six have seven cards each; and rank five has eight cards. See Figure 2. Less Descriptive Kore Descriptive Rank 0 l 2 3 LL .5 6 7 8 9 10 number of items 3 4 6 6 7 8 7 6 6 a 3 Fig. 2.--Distribution of Q-sort items (n=60) This method of description requires careful dis- crimination. Keaningful decisions have to be made by the perceiver at all levels. He has to decide which are 322 three most descriptive words, then the next four most de- scriptive words, and so forth. By the time he reaches the eight cards in rank five, they are usually words which do not apply in a given description or words which convey no Significant meaning to him. 20 Selecting the items.-—The goal in selecting items is to develop a comprehensive and discriminating set of adjec- tives appropriate to the description of personality. The interest is in those kinds of words commonly used to describe one's self, other persons, and characters in plays--words descriptive of personality. Although sixty words are used in the final Q-deck, many more were considered. The first step in construction of the present Q-deck was to gather as many descriptive adjectives as possible. Dale's list of three thousand familiar words was consulted, and adjectives descriptive of personality were taken from it.2 hany adjectives were borrowed from personality tests and inventories. Students and faculty members were asked to write “vivid and excit'ng" descriptions of five of their fa- vorite characters in dramatic literature. Descriptive ad- jectives were taken from these descriptions as well as from descriptions of characters by playwrights in the published texts of plays. In this way a working list of 153 words was constructed.3 The working list was used in a preliminary study the purpose of which was to narrow the list to a more work- 1See Stephenson, pp. 78-79, for a discussion of methods of item selection. 2See Edgar Dale and Jeanne S. Chall, "A Formula for Readability," and "Instruction," Educational h Bulletin, XXVII (January and February, 19E8), pp, 539 0' l * ’1 -1114. , ~99 “(lg 1313' J7 .J 0 See Appendix A for a complete list. 2l able and representative number. Students and faculty mem— bers were asked to describe themselves and a favorite char— acter in dramatic literature using the 153 words which had been dittocd onto cards. They were asked to sort the words according to the pattern of distribution illustrated in Figure 3. They then traisferred a record of their scoring Less Descriptive Kore Descriptive Rank 0 l 2 3 H 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 1h S¥m§§€§s 4 a 6 10 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 10 6 e 4 F g. 3.--Distribution of preliminary test Q-sort items (n=153) 1 to a chart. The use of these words was then analyzed to deter- mine the item variance and subject correlation. Words with a high variance, i.e. words which were given highly varied ranking by the participants, were placed on a preferred list because they discriminated well among subjects. They were words which were not consistently either strongly accepted or strongly rejected as descriptive of personality. They were words which likely would discriminate among types of persons. Words which seemed to be used synonymously were 1See Appendix B for instructions given to subjects and a copy of the pretest chart. 22 correlated. Among those words with high correlations (.50 or above), one was selected and others were omitted. For example the correlation between "ashamed" and "guilt-ridden" was .‘4. "‘she med" :2s omitted for "guilt-ridden," since "guilt-ridden" provided a higher v2 ria.nce. he remaining words on the list were then reviewed for clarity of meaning, balance between positive 2nd negative implications, and balance in terms of personality characteristics. The final list numbered six y.l Selecting the clay The play, A Streetcar Ear d Des} e, was chosen for this study. The choice of a play was limited to t11e four 12 S on the bill of he iichigan State Univers ty Theatre I (j (:4 for the 1961-62 season. This 11: 2.tion was imposed be- cause of t1e tire period during which the stud conducted. The four plays from which one could be chosen . T‘» 1 7 '1 1“. _. rm - Y 7 . n were: sorn issterdav, Jr. :austus, inc Good ”one; 01 m _— A ~~flh¢ -W‘un 'zuen, and A Streetcar Iared Desire. It 1:2s decided that, ,L~ared to be best suited to (‘3 H O :3 "'1 d {5‘ (D 0.1 D O F" O (I) U) ‘0 (O ('1‘ H F) ( ) (1’ C) (1 “S 91 3 U ('1 this study attempted to n=as- ct SJ 0 ‘CT‘ Ho {.1 r. ('1 O H) ’O’ (D H O 0 d (-1- H O F .4 *+ Ho 0 :7 m ure. It had severa strong, complex characters, and t w2 written in essentially a realistic style. The 01% racters in s-rn Yesterday seemed superficial--almost stereotypes. leee ipiendix c for the final list of rds used. 23- Dr. Faustus concentrated on one character, and spectacle played a large part in its appeal. t was feared that Erecht's style in Goodworazi might dominate the importance of the che racters The characters chosen for study were limited to three-Blanche, Stella, and Stanley--for several reasons. They were the three characters around whom the central prob- lem of the play revolved. They were three characters who could lend themselves to varying interpretations. Using more than three characters was judged to be uneconomical. Egggriptign of the che racters The following description of the characters, in- cluded to refresh the reader's memory, confines itself to the script of the author and to some published comments by Elia Kazan, the director of the New York production. Elanghg.—-Elanche was described by the author as being about thirty years old. She has a delicate beauty which must avoid a strong light. "There is something about her uncertain manner, as well as her white clothes, that suggests a moth."1 At various times throughout the text she was described as nervous, frightened, anxious, morbid, hys- terical, flighty. Elia Ia 2 an called Blanche "desperate." Her goal is to "find Protection: the tradition of the old South sa/s ‘ 1Tennessee Williams "A Streetcar flamed DGSiTCs" in Brena on Stage, landolph Coodman (New York: Holt, Binehart and Winston, 1961), p. 318. 24 that it must be through another person."1 She thinks of herself as being "special and different, out of the tradition of the romantic ladies of the past."2 Kazan saw her in the beginning of the play as being "bossy yet helpless, domi- "9 Later in the play, especially in con— neering yet shah‘. nection with her relationship with hitch the audience can see "how warm, tender and loving she can be."‘ She was fur- ther described as "colorful, varied, passionate, lost, witty, imaginative."5 Her basic problem is that she is out of time with her surroundings. She tries to cling to a tra- dition which claims she is better, more cultured and supe- rior. This attitude simply alienates her from her environ- ment. Stella.--Stella, Elanche's sister, was characterized by Williams as a “gentle young woman, about twenty-five, and of a background obviously quite different from her hus- Nu . S n6 Kazan maintained that "Stella would have been Blanche except for Stanley."7 She is dependent upon Stanley to keep her from being bound to the same traditions Blanche is. lElia Kazan, "The Director's Hotebook," Ibid., p. 297. 21bid. JIbid. 41bid. 5__13_3;__. 61-iilliams, £13m” p. 317. 72192211, I_b_i_d., p. 3.00. 25 Stella is a refined girl who has found a ki nd of salvation or real zation, but a a terrific price. She keeps her eyes closed, even stays in bed as much as possible so that she won't realize, Ion't feel the_psin of this terrific price. She we lks around as if narco— tized, as if sleepy, as if in a daze. She is waiting for the night. . . . She's in a sensual stupor. . . . She has a paradise-~a sereliely limited paradise when Blanche enters--but Elan he makes her consider Stanley, judge Stanley and find him wanting, for the first time. But it is too late. In the end she returns to Stanley. hazan included a note from Williams written durin rehearsals of the New Lora production. Gadge--I am a bit concerned over Stella in Scene One. It seems to me that she ha s too much viv acity, at times she is bouncing around in a ray that u~~ests a co—ed on a benzedrine kick. I .now it is impos s.ible to be literal about the description 'narcotized tranquil- ity' but I do think there is an imp portant value in sug- gesting it, in contrast to Elanche' 8 rather feverish Keitability. Elanche is the quick, light one. Stella is relatively slow and almost indolent. Elanche men- tions her 'Chinese philosophy'--the way she sits with her little hands folded like a cherub in a choir, etc. I think 1er natural passivity is one of the things that makes her acceptance of Stanley acceptable. She natu- rally 'gives in,’ accepts, lets things slide, she does not make much of an effort.‘ .~~Stanley1was described as about twenty- eight or thirty years old. Williams gave a more complete description of him than of either of the other two charac- ters. He is of medium height, about five feet eight or nine, and strongly, compactly built. a“; 1 joy in his being is implicit in all his movements a11d attitudes. Since earliest manhood the center of his life has been pleasure with women, the giving and taking of it, not Irith teak indulgence, dependently, but with the power and pride of a richly feathered male bird among hens. Branching out from this complete and satisfying center are all the auxiliary channels of his life, such as his lIbid., p. 301. 21b1d. 26 heartiness with men, his appr reciation of roush humor, his love of good drink and food and gases, his car, his radio, everything that is his, that bears his emblem of the gaudy seed -bearer. He s izes women up at a glance, with sexual classifications, crude images flashing nto his mind and determining the way he smiles at them. Kazan mainta'ned that Ste.nley felt that Blanche has She may ruin his hon se life. He vas immensely Stanley is supremely indifferent to everything er cept his own pleasure and con fort. R is marvelously selfish, a miracle of sensuous self- centeredness. Vs builds a hedonist life, and fis hts to defend finally it is ngt_enough to hold Stella losophy is not succes slful even for him once in a while the silenced, breaks loose in unerpeeted suddenly see, as in a burst of li ntiin,, frustrated self. Usurlly this frustration is Forked off by eating a lot, si11.1es a let, semblirs a lot. . . . he's going to get very fat later.1{e's de perStrlv try- ing to drum his arses . . . overwhelming then Lit : a conStant round of sensation so that he will feel nothing else. it--but AJD this phi- --because every frustrated pa rt of Staz;ley and uzipred icta ele ways and we his real ynoeeis of the r he following synopsis of the action of the play is in s1 file;on form without any conscious effort at interpre- tation. It is included qere to refresh the reader's memory of the play and to provide a point of reference for that is to follow. See‘s on e .--In Kay, blaeche Dubois arrives at the her siste scene one, vhich Rs place early in Her Orleans apa rtr ent of t er, Stella, and her sister's husband, Stanley .ovalszi. She is smocked at the conditions i1 which Stella and Stanle5 live. She tells Stella that 1, 1.1.51? ~ .. . he. 8118 as ta en a ‘ OI 0 did. , pp. 3L}‘+'-3l~50 27 leave of absence from her teaching position in Laurel, because her “nerves broke." She is very nervous and n. drinks in an effort to calm down. She reveals that s "lost" the family plantation, Belle Reve. Stanley ret from bowling. He asks about Blanche's husband. She tell him he died, and she becomes ill. Scene two.--Stanley suspects that Blanch has svindled Stella out of money in the "loss" of Belle Seve. He and Blanche have an unpleasant scene about the business factors in the loss. Blanche turns over to him all the pa- pers dealing with the transaction. Stanley tells Blanche that Stella is going to have a baby. Stella and Blanche go off for an evening out while Stanley's frien‘s gather for a poker party. Scene three.--Scene trree opens to reveal Stanley and three fiiends playing poker and drinking beer. Mitch, one of the players, is worried about his sick mother. Blanche and Stella return. Blanche meets Mitch, and she is curious about him. Stanley is drinking h-avily and losing. Mitch and Blanche have a chance to get acquainted. Stanley is enraged by the playing of a radio. He throws the radio out the window and strikes Stella. Elanche becomes hyster- ical and takes Stella to a neighbor. The men throw Stanley into the shower to cool off and to sober up. He emerges contrite and sobbing. He calls into the night for Stella to come back. She does; they embrace, and he carries her into the bedroom. Blanche and Mitch have a cigarette together outside. Scene four.-—The next morning Blanche is shocked to find that Stella spent the night with Stanley. She tries to convince Stella to leave Stanley. Stella 1aintains that she is happy and that she loves Stanley. In a long speech Blanche enumerates Stanley's shortcomings and compares him to an ape, unaware that Stanley has entered and is listening in the next room. As Stanley makes his presence known, Stella rushes into his arms. Scene five.-—In scene five Stanley mentions a man named Shaw whe claims he knew Blanche in Laurel. Stanley says he must be mistaken, since Shaw says he met her in the Hotel Flamingo, a house with an unsavory reputation. Blanche denies ever being in such a place. Stanley says Shaw must be mistaken, but he says Shaw will check on it the next time he is in Laurel. Blanche becomes frightened. She asks Stella if she has heard gossip about her. Stella calms her down with a coke laced with a shot. The conversation turns to Hitch, who has a date with Blanche. Blancho re- veals that she desperately wants to marry hitch so that she can "rest." Stella leaves to meet Stanley. Nhile waiting 28 anche admits a young man who has come to collect aper. She detai11s him, flirts with him, and sees him before sendine him away. hitch appears of roses for their da e. l p :i for hitch, E for the net .8 eventuallyl with a bunch 50616 six.--Hitch and Blanche are returr ing from their date. Th ey are both tired and a bit disappointed with the events of the even'hg. Elanche invites hitch i1, sir ce Stella ah 1d Stanley are not yet home. After some small ta Blanche asks Iitch if Stanley has talked to him about her. She admits she is unhappy living there and will have to leave soon, because Stanley hates her. hitch tells Elanche that he has told his mother about her. his mother is gravely ill and wants to see Hitch settled before she dies. hitch is obviously upset wnile discussing this. Blanche says that she too has lost someone she loved very much. She tells the story of her marriage at sixteen to a very sensitive and tender boy. She felt as if she failed the boy in some way. Later she discovered him in a room with an older man "who 1ad been his friend for years." That hi,¢ht the three of then went to a road house. Firing a dance she said, "I s aw I know! You dngust me. . . ." The boy ran out a11d sh ot himself by sticking a revolve r in his I 1outh. Upon hearing this story, Hitch says "iou need son body. And I need somebody, too. Could it be--you and me, Sl:—1nche?‘i They kiss and embrace and she says, "Sometimes-~there's God-~so quickly!" The scene ends. Scene seven.-—Scene seven akes place in mid- September. Stella is preparing a birthday party for Blanche. Stanley enters and beg ins revealing to Stella the "pack of lies" Elanche has be ~. .1. \d c” O itative pl fie LI . A [711 10 buL marric ‘Rru from eighteen to forty of rc.rese 4". C?“ LT b1. AU «.1 .1 u.- ..1 1 *nctncr V . inc 'Y“”- .3— . A- detc 109 to C diffcro ”1°“c ‘L -“L.L L/v 0 {A v. 'hm (fl ’.-1 r, &-.'—4- -.A. V r‘. hLJ is of v J “tat‘ L] l 1‘”: n M" + 1‘, Lin/~— J. vv» e::, or C‘ L. of char 0111 4.- ~tephcnso COW“. ~J LI ded this m 311 too 1“ LL 0 Ofl TGCOEH 19? ‘K Kr o CV“\J’/)o S "A "9 Cl e. .Qu o.- 14. 'h 1 .-f‘) 7'1 F“ CC‘ “‘3" U‘v~-_'_‘ “An ‘A ~ i_iioq1 ‘."\ C, ‘.L§/- 1 it k.) F0 "3 H) *‘u (D 0 cf (1‘ (D data, hoVever. a) [1) addition to these persons, three clinicdl psy- ffl ,_) rs s. chologists from the Lichirw‘ state Uniwv sity Counselis; Center Vere asked to see the opening night performance and d- C) {.14 H: *1 O 2 3 n A Afian ‘H w- v- v She ELMbCiS oi the sagple were selcc - approx- coupon tick- '. U) (D I l 0 If: f". z ‘ - M instely fortV-five huhdred purchasers 0 etc for the bill of plays presented by Kichigan State atively, they Vere asked cues tions relating to their age, o" cmd Verital status in order to deterrine Vhether they skl‘., 9-. for 2en1bershio in the eueience U) would fulfill the requirement sample. If they did, errangements :ere ne de for the: te at- It Vas discovered that the random selection of coupon holders Vould not fill all the categories desired in the a diehce s w‘:ple by the time the shOV opened. Therefore, La“ the ioves tigato r tried to locate persons Vho Vould meet the LAV .— 1 reeuirexezits for the rereihin; merger: of the sample from 1' -.- . ., . p - ~ * n18 acouaiiixmices add.i,XN:ij:COew Shgb" C I'D ” .,° ,- ., . a, ,‘ .L. 1.: v m1. M “iter sh audiehce member agrees to pertiCLoate ih '-‘- J.— ‘- . . - W i , _~. A -1, 1 1.1 ‘he SQUQJ, as speciht-eht Ves Laue curis: * 16“ the re- . A. "A 1- ‘ o __o g1_ 11 v ‘0‘.: w‘ 0‘ S Crcher "iSlted Lin. rurih: tfllS ;l€ib he <13 eihoe is ././ eefieral terms the scope of the study. He arrsr~cd for tick- (:13 ets for he opening night performance for the 3icrtieipas searcher cove the p"rtic— ‘.x 1‘ ‘ x .r‘ " 51A ,A and, ii necessar3, a guest. The c r" w" r‘ ~ ‘7 x . - . A r- . O ‘ ‘ \ r ‘v‘ ort pacLet and eijleihed the directiads feuhd oh 1 ‘1‘ w .0 4.1L .- - .- '. .1- - ,. n . m .— ,. tee seer or the esxelOpe in thich the es ds Vere eucloses. =‘s asked to descrit e himself U.: 123 the Q— 4- vwrw ° “‘ Vrile the resesrCPer remained to ansVer questiohs of ‘ J C‘ u 5t “o tiLe d'd the researcher assVer questio: (“1" g) (—t‘ H. O H) '1' 0 F5 {.4 (3 O .14 ‘ i H. {1‘ relating to the Lesnihg or interpre stock LLSVer to questions of this sort Vas, "Ilaee the Vord accordi”“ to Vhat it means to you. he sudiegee LeLbers ir the sample sttend ed 4.. r‘. .1‘\ . ‘5 Ia! -- -~"~ L \ '0 ' 'A L ‘1‘! ‘ q 4" V 1c 0? sii- i.ht periorLaLce. Lftcr Lc perforLan e ther ,... .1- 1- . .0 _v_~ A ,. ,_ L, L r 4.. .1-__ L, 4. 1 . Les Lricflj tit: the researcher. Au p39 LcetiL: the ear- ts suitably identi— Cf‘ d (C O .._J '1 0 . o ‘1r~-~ .~~ .. -—- .- ‘ n \ thl3'~ a mere given three r-ser .— fied in three s perate envelOpes. The pl oces ure of doiLg a r. WA -. :‘5 v- - cwv v~ ‘3‘): L1H ‘0‘ . ‘ ~' 4— -V . w-Sort oh e agsld L53 “ .iened, ahd one participsgcs Vere - L , 4— ,3 - . 1.1- 1 . . C1- C‘J— A dstrueced so icscrilc the etereet ers O; stella, ccsth;., ‘ 3 ~~ J—‘a . v 1" .3 , f“ A FT" - - sh; L auene es tuc3 had appeared 04 the stage. -ne3 ROTC 4.1, L. . ”,4. A - \ - ' ° .F '. 4.1- ' .. _ tneh seat home to so the descriptiohs in the privacy LL their 0V1 homes. The completed sorts Vere theh picked up ty the researcher. (n, o o . ,‘ ’ ' —', v‘ M r es of PCC“thlOuL end Lelr tin—LL .L Eecatse of the various questions teir 3 considered in this study it :as necessary to devise a schedule _ o AWVWM ‘fl‘lm‘rj schedule of thirty rehe srsals prior to openlL n-3L . Therefore, it Vas necessary to V rk Vithin tnis p rx vv 3' I. Team's ”05:1- 0 Further, the director requested that he and the actors Let be asked to do Q-sorts more often than about every three ~. Every attempt I:ss made to comply Vith this request. In Table I a complete schedule of the types of de- scri.tions and tr eir tinire is presented. Since one of the issues in this study Va hOV percentions of character [‘3 O 55' or as, it Vas necessary to have the actors and director do hing their perceptions of the charts- Ho several Q-sorts des or ters. Since the comparison of the perception of the charac-' :34 ters and the perception of the cha acters-as-pla ye Vas a La Letter of interest, the actors, director, and audience Ler- ‘-- l1 ters Ver asked to des crit e the characte ers- as -pla yed. Since he relationships betVeen perceptions of self-id~sl self -r Vere of iLterest, the actors d- O and perceptions of cLarac Vere asked to describe their perceptions of theLselves and of their ideal selves. The audience LeLbers Vere asked to give their self perceptions. In order to facilitate the reader's understanding of the time sequences involved, Table II is presented in calen- dar Iorm Vith the rehears and Q—sorting sc chedule indicated. 35 TABLE I.--A schedule of the types of descriptions and their timing TIME . PERCEIVEB PERCEIVED Before rehearsals director 3 characters ” " 3 actors their characters Rehearsal #1 3 actors themselves ' 2 3 actors their ideal selves ' 3 3 actors their characters ” " director 3 characters ” h 3 actors their characters ” “ director 3 characters ” 7 3 actors themselves " 12 3 actors their characters-as-played " ' director 3 characters-as-played “ 15 3 actors their characters “ ” director 3 characters ” 18 3 actors themselves ' 21 3 actors their characters-as-played ” ” director 3 characters-as-played " 24 3 actors their characters ” ” director 3 characters ” 27 3 actors themselves ” 3O 3 actors their characters ” ” director 3 characters Before opening audience themselves Opening night 3 actors their characters-as-played ” " director 3 characters-as-played ' " audience 3 characters-as-played ' ” psychologists 3 characters-as-played After closing 3 actors their ideal selves 36 TABLE II.--Ca1endar showing rehearsal and Q-sorting schedule w .2— L SUN mow TUES WED THURS FRI SAT MARCH 1 2 3 a 3 6 7 8 9 10 (1,a (a) 11 12b 13 in 15 16 17 (3) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 (9,) (5) <6) <2.) (8) APRIL 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 (2) (10) (11) (13) (13) (1h) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 (£1) (22) (23) (£3) (25) (26) (21) 22 23 28 2 ° 2g_ 2 28 (28) (29) (32) “i ‘1 "' £2 22 3Numbers in parentheses represent rehearsal numbers. On March 5 rehearsal one was held. Those numbers underlined indicate that after this rehearsal a Q-sort was required. bi university vacation period occurred between re- hearsals three and four. cDates underlined are the dates of performance. and i:_tervie1m tti } 4. (J H l—Jo (D U) Each of the participants agreed to keep an informal diary of his thoughts on the play, chars cterisetion, a sorts, meanings of V0 rds , or anything that occurred to him. As it turned out these diaries Vere less faith fully kept than one night Vish, especially as Opening n1rht dreV nearer. What was said in then , hOVever, proved to be inter- esting and useful. This unstructured connunics. tion culsinated 1:1 a focused intervieV Vith the director and each of the actors after the play closed. These intervieVs Vere an attempt to get subjective evaluations of the success of their corruri- fin“ rts There vas also an effeit to {‘0 cation from the particip dis scover Vhat, ’f anything, could have been done to improve f‘T. communication. Thes e intervie." Vere 1,: transcribed. rga*'"" '“to tro matrices. One the actors and the director. rts done by the mentors of the 1e other inclu the Q-so 1n the plsnh’ng stages of th s study the researcher canted to conduct intervieVs at vario ous points in tire during the rehearsal par ed in an effort to clerif1 rea— sons for changes in perception. The director of the play, hOV- ever, discouraged this practice as a hardship on his actors. Ee also opposed this practice on the the 311s tLat if they rere absolutely sure of thee e reaso11s, it might 'nterfere Vlt; actor-director rapport. Therefore, only one long lJtBrViGV vss held after the close of the production. A (3 J, audience sarele. Within each matrix each Q-sort Vas corre- .; . lated Vi h every other Q-sort. N m {:1 O wrtrir of correlatio;s Has factor analy ‘7‘f. ‘r‘ J—Att-Cl; .1ak-A-VJ. —'—.4‘- p. _ 11.. ‘ 0 ~ 0 _' .V" J— -,1‘ . _ ‘\‘. \‘_ 4.,54. .‘ J. 11rst by or1301ple snis SOlUbiOu ana thei 1otatea to a vari“s" solution, Vhich is an orthodoza rot.: -—&Cd.{._ - 1'... J. QTOllMCbe 11 1L. L. Thurstone, Iultiole T-etor Aralysis (Chicago: ~ I Chapter Kit. The University of Chicago Iress, l; 7‘ CHAPTER IV PERCEPTIONS OF THE ACTORS AND DIRECTOR This chapter includes an analysis of the data re- ceived from the actors and the director. These data were of two major types. One consisted of the contents of the diaries kept by the participants. The other type included the material resulting from a factor analysis of the Q-sorts done by the participants. The chapter begins with a definition of some con- cepts used frequently in the discussion of the Q data. The factors resulting from the Q-sorts are then described. The Q-sorts for each character along with his interview and diary information are then examined individually. In the interests of economy and anonymity symbols were used to represent the participants in the study: g: actress is the actress who played Blanche; S-actress is the actress who played Stella; K-actor is the actor who played Stanley (Kowalski); and D is the director. Definitions Correlation The term ”correlation" is used as a measure of similarity among Q-sorts or among Q-sorts and factor 39 the 0.“ Y if d- ade chi-A cow 7 3L egree U. suggests ace) ‘“sta- for in “” ’9 Ve number (./1 positi ’1 ‘l i L I ; r ‘ a. ‘— 7 J. A ity. v . .J. r03"; ’4 ~_..,« ti .l C -vr3 {V‘ "I _~‘\er _‘.¢. J 43,1. for e lable aval I‘C‘ ‘ , O C “'1 '7 ~~ n lullif' (11 1 V‘P‘,“ a" 7‘ L4 L’s-&~--(‘" ‘- 0.0 ‘.v‘ . .1“ h LC~;~J-R - O L. ) g 3. d 1 Q,- S S .i 1"; ‘Ar‘ analys r t a _ 4.- CO3.“- . __ 1‘ 0 duller-’3 Ci ‘.‘1 l i r ”\r- ’1 ldL.L ‘ C r:1."‘c."«“f‘ C, ",4... \— -L~ 193 ‘I .. relations“ 1C 1 1 .F. U 0‘“. V- - O o +L UA‘ q A , I C v "n J_c.., 4 L1; 's.--..L 7“ C1 L. «r i 9 a1 6510 ‘ r3 >’\’~f‘;fi F‘m (.- LLJ J VA;- is O a... H J. .C xv La ally ric O 1 G .A- , "' 6"" -L ‘ 6‘ l .L * a I" _. " ‘ ‘A C A ‘- L is sort '3 . ‘L ether. to; ‘ CI‘GCI lust C l) -C .. 'l .4— C l“ 1‘51? n,‘ J... .L‘vkc Uor H .: A- J. 6-1L n “7“(“-“‘ .N~ \x‘ C»; .._ WI.“ ‘63... the fix . x.. .10 ta- .n—.. ma ca... . D ('1' u ‘ I 7*0' -(AJ factor ar fVll The . “ ull array. __n J. of the -tremes 1P ‘5 he 0 4.. LI only i801“. 3 i e: 1 110 1 v Steo lflilliam {3‘0 (\ £4- y of C1 it livers T1 L Cl 1.111 I- may be found in ; 'I’ *. - '1 v ‘ ipendir s. p. "loadinr" or a factor, indicates that ~- V e. ‘ rx agreement titn the factor array. When an item is said to be “accented,” that iten is ~i to 1“e descriptive of tin t being perceived. When to be "rejected," that item is considered to being perceived. The arount of C) [3 O H F“ [.J. "is O O .6 cf. :7 § C1” be not d is indicated by the sta ziderd devi- acceptance or rejection “tion from the m-en or the standard score. A "matrix" is considered to be a set of rows and columns of f1: ures. The actor-dii ector "retrix" is tlet set director. The audience "retrix is the set of figures re- sulting from the Q-sorts by the members of the audience sample. . 5 i' J— "' J- " ' fl tne actor-Direetor LCtTlX [.10 VI" ‘actors In the actor-director matrix, whicn will be treated separately from the audience matrix, -1“ -e .L- H - . ques emerge n“d U"; - ‘ I TT 4-— C‘ (q ce the l ‘ C 1 u L. \_."~.—v 1e u S l __ (2. L..- C U rm i.-. v :1 , .I’l In D 4. b 1 Q a A pee V'- 45. m" ' L . nd TCJCCbei be fou: be e r h ted .Li-h ‘ld _ .1 .A a) Ml Q , U- 77 .2006“ 1 06. n 1 Id L determined b‘ themselves C ... h to 4. L2 as selv V ‘ V]. E??? . p .trongl ta bo percentio menselves or of c: i no. - 1 1.. 1.ng t l Mivjo' his —actress a ”'3 no U4- items rector I was ..-J would li nd firfiYY Lad ‘A (Q ‘AFJ C‘ 0.4} y positive the‘ S star I ( M J. T-* Lu ere describ O («a ceptio (“ L.) o- M l Stanley he 2 no ed L.) 0‘4 r~~ | ctor rel 1e fa 'l , .L t ngs on Ii LOQC - 4." uh CG 0 “new: 4- . ‘r‘\ hrs a/ L/C»-- l 0e ciou COG ‘4‘ c“ ‘I'K (-u exual cot -ALS lI1€ p “A .. O 1..l‘..L rescul 1 ° “1 :13. 9:1 be -\_. ()7 i‘u‘é'ww ml’fiIE -éav ('3 L4 0v 7” (‘4Vl - -9} ~u C51!“ E i k 1’7 UCC. I Lu L/l.‘ fl‘rfi CLJ'U stre C- A n LL c M O l m-vs k ’- --. on nf S esled ‘ and CO U '00' '2'? ren or II A .4 O U 4.. L C “C o, la ,‘vL— In Vpfi C e, .nete that n t 10 to i f;'] .Li nortdnt ergely .L .L 1 4; hrv-w 6‘10 7 L. \,-‘~;: v-'-—>.~ W- of ,HCG . .1. QCCCpbB the uv L. .ted C‘ s... ”1ng e 01 L) -n to neon“ b e IA:'9- ; V» 1 or J..- V .l. NJCSL/C OHM” La v-‘ ‘ "“ 7.7:.“ C' i . CA: by rie 0,40 L-u\./ r CCIQ ~ 0 O “3 TABLE III.-—Items strongly accepted by factor I (girls' selves) ::==========:r It em Standard Number Score Item lfi 1.629 Pure #8 1.587 EXpressive 1 1.573 Brave #6 l. 3 Kind 2? 1.#23 Driving 23 1. 1 Sensitive 18 1.399 Henest 26 1.320 Humble 2 1.313 Determined 7 1.102 Just #1 1.072 Happy 3 .8#9 Affectionate 57 .897 Idealistic TABLE IV.--Items strongly rejected by factor I (girls' selves) Standard Item Number Score Item 5 -2.108 Cruel 50 -1.827 Callous 39 -1.762 Gluttonous 21 -1. 81 Hestile 34 -1. 85 Weak-willed 37 -1.#00 Merbid 6 -1. 361 lazy 53 -l.293 Passive 10 -1.236 Intemperate #2 ~1.170 Bitter 16 -1.081 Humorless #3 -1.027 Sensual -1.016 vain TABLE V.--Items strongly accepted by factor II (K-actor's self and Stanley) It em Standard Number Score Item 56 1.925 Virile 51 1.839 th-loving 3 1-795 Affectionate 45 1.691 Sensual 31 1. B9 Aggressive 2? l . 5 Driving 2 I.“ 1 Determined 58 1.2 3 Tough 28 1.115 Frugal #1 1.109 Happy 48 1.075 Expressive 13 .967 Stable l .918 Brave TABLE VI.--Items strongly rejected by factor II (K-actor's self and Stanley) Item Standard Item Number Score 55 -l.926 Mbtherly 1h "’10 82 Pure 3# -1. 27 Weak-willed 25 -1.363 Fragile 6 -1.318 Lazy 12 -1.162 Quiet 2 -1.107 Guilt-ridden 7 . -1.071 Fearful 60 " 0989 Shy 9 - .978 Weary 8 - .956 Insecure 7-1,“ J— .- Viemed Seahley self. -,..x ,M r“ _ , .1 .h are '16-'88- , L K4 '7 O", n \ ‘ “-2 (.2 0"." (V L’“-\A— ~+yb..‘ 1, Lu. C 7 n s“ HfikAaL- r:- be; . .vI\--. Oi . r: v ”u “I \1 bell .~ 'Pfl 'CTC ~A . .Ln. '- 1157 . ( T_ A q!- d- 0 II factor 3’1 Afi v ,7.“ l J V ‘r‘ ‘& 1. All. .3 .b I G 9 e factor III arrays may be *‘L mu -|_. , .0" n hrs“ rm u.‘_-' -LL. lf-ee I'm L \a C A o .3. An“ 1A 4.1. A‘ ) O o 1 1.4.- Ik/vk} A ~. 1 ~13 ' V v» 1 0 If; -_ r. {w AD"\U loadi; ls err :ed by ~3- LL x H“ .4.— _— ('4 L) ion vercept I eir .5 L 1 1 (‘1 ., f”. y . s A - describi‘ 1 - L.) 37‘ sorts sir ”I 1 1 nd t m (/2. Stella of led from .661 to (-n L: A .L Mn V .L Lu. a», l . .2 so ‘16 .1. L4 1.- AL. ""P -_.|.,‘ lo .1. L2 ercep D J L1. bll £61738]? C to c TABLE VII.--Items stron 1y accepted by factor III Blanche =============IE==I=========================== It em Standard Number Score Item #7 2.039 Fearful 8 1.992 Insecure #0 1.8## Nervous 15 1.5#5 Self-centered 23 1.329 Sensitive 22 1. 80 Self-conscious 32 1.3#7 Guilt-ridden 8 1.216 Expressive 11 1 . 207 Dependent 9 1.15 Weary # 1.09 Vain 25 l.0#1 Fragile 33 .92# Impulsive TABLE VIII.--Items strongly rejected by factor III (Blanche) Item Standard Number Score Item 13 -1.880 Stable 9 -1.783 Nonchalant 1 -1.641 Happy 5 -1. 02 Passive 52 -l. #1 Controlled 12 -1.330 Quiet 50 -1.277 Callous 58 -l.237 Tough 31 ~1.118 Aggressive 5 -1.028 Cruel 26 ' 0995 HHMble 1‘4 "’ o 799 Pure TABLE IX.--Items strongly accepted by factor Iv (Stella) Item Standard Number Score Item 13 1.875 Stable #6 1.81 Kind 3 1.79 Affectionate 12 1.39# Quiet 5 1. 55 Motherly 1.#52 Controlled 1 1-383 Happy 53 1.188 Passive 18 1.180 Honest 26 1.172 Humble #3 1.127 Poised 59 .9#7 Nonchalant 51 .938 Fun-loving TABLE X.--Items strongly rejected by factor IV (Stella) Item Standard It Number Score em 5 -1.883 Cruel 21 -l.821 Hostile #2 -1.631 Bitter 31 -1. 08 Aggressive 37 -1.388 Morbid 19 -l.271 Flighty u -10160 Vain 50 -1.1#2 Callous 39 -1.121 Gluttonous 52 -l.OZ3 Guilt-ridden 15 - .9 1 Self-centered [IO U k; I“ (V (wt; ed wr J i .as parse T>7 Stella tells. fl \ L.) . ,3 ’ch A ‘.-. 1-, lamene a; v- - ‘V‘O 3.5.1, to ‘ 'v LJ‘j from W sL v I- ‘ l ,3 re” - ‘d—‘* C cred to CC \ . i J- '7 BACcOl‘ 4‘ l cu. ersenali “II. The p ‘f JL‘ v- \,T 1. L' t) w :1 COLL descri o the on I i (3 V A. .1 1, ff. I .M UUJ. .. J, - 4—..- .0. CL LIL-JO .LCLC ‘/ A- 4- u ‘x‘fi A ettn:e tion b ‘nnlr': .L\... (is 001‘ 11‘? 7'71 1\. r‘ (cpw‘yflf‘r‘fl _.i\_ w...._ —-.-— '1 7mm ‘k- L. 4- U “or. --.‘\.I.L... ‘ec 5! F V‘---.h--\/‘~L, deterri“ {\W‘ I" J \. ‘v-L, , 1 r. (5".-. -_\-.~ ”'3 .J- O ctorIII) seeped to .0. ‘r (13. V d "N 1 d A, 5“ 'CO 1 _7 .77 led . V U Uta-11 ("1- I" ‘ " r7 9'4;- g}. ;le, T bll“. -LL--; Crete .L \a- \l \r “mo-b-“n L' \_- _.... a 2'“ +- f‘. ‘fin 'V\ 0 q l - EEC I‘C‘ ‘ ry- .. -‘-’~ 9 beir ,1 x. .01; cahtrcll -. *‘HF...-‘.fi-. ._‘,. 0 j ~r~ f1 ‘ ...--, 9.1.1.“ ~vr~i . \_. (5 mi 0 C C. AI of ‘7' "1.". V\-«... r} “w W . A-- ‘ . ~~- . 1. CLICK ire factors 31 J.1, - k wen ’AAV— I . 4 1 132’! C L I'OIT‘ n1 . e h I]: .h TT uni-u... Nf’f‘ ‘3... b _ ‘- k-) p11: 0 .9 4.. .3 .LS DOLL —- \’."L is ‘1!- I‘TC’. S .1 1.1 01.1 f ‘1 VA - \_. d} 6 .C -.\ g... , C A“ WI 1" v b1 fl 1“ 9-. 11 W' A S #9 TABLE.XI.-—Items strongly accepted by factor v (D's Stanley) Item Standard Number Score Item 27 1.860 Driving 15 1.835 Self-centered 58 1.781 Tough 56 1.650 Virile 31 1. 30 Aggressive 2 1. 52 Determined 10 1.391 Intemperate # 1.385 Vain 50 1.327 Callous 8 1.088 Arrogant 5 1.039 Sensual 1 .969 Fun-loving 3 .900 Poised TABLE XII.--Items strongly rejected by factor V (D’s Stanley) -:‘-‘— ‘7— Item Standard Number Score Item 26 -1.839 Humble 25 -l.788 Fragile 6O -l.689 Shy #0 -l.#29 Nervous 12 -l.288 Quiet #7 -1.2#8 Fearful 19 -1.199 Flighty 32 -l.196 Dreamy 8 -1.18# Insecure 3# -1.153 Weak-willed 22 -1.112 Self-conscious 7 - .982 Just 5O TAB E XIII. --Correlations of actor-director factors I-V Factors I II III IV V I (Girls' selves) X .217 -.O72 .553 -.020 II (K— sctor' 8 self and. 'tedICSV X -.lefll . 29 .663 III (s1 lane c) X -.3 7 -.291 OH IV (otellZ) X _.149 V ('4' S uteri/1.1 ey) 3: high correlation existed between factors I aha IV (the girls' perception of themselves and their ideal selves ar_d tella). Since Stella was perceived as a (I? the perception of norms , socially acceptable person, this s milarity vas understandable. "he highest negative correlation occurred 3 between perceptions of the two sisters, Elahehe and Stella (factors III and IV). In the remaining portion of this chapter each of the characters izill be discus ed separatel‘. In these discus- sions the questionsa hed in Clapter One will be considered by drawing Oh the Q-sort da a and on the nformation (”2 S‘) H s n. from the diaries and interviews. (\ r“ j A fl 'ES :1. It}. U The pa c e'otion of character by B-actr (D One of the major questions involved in this study cone rned how perceptions of character charge throughout the rehearsal period. How did the actor and director affect 51 IA, each other in terms of their perceptions of the ch.rscter? In the ca.se of B-aetress and D it SECKEQ the t they very generally agreed ugon a perception of Blanche. all the w“ a .. Q-sorts dese risin: their imagined perceptions of slanche had II. when tie correlttien, 1“esteem the Q-sorts descriowm Elanche done 1y 3-sct:ess and U were J made, the"r were found to be fairly high. They ranged from (70 r11 0 kon Alflls I‘T‘ A; G\ .511 to . J a clear indication of consis tenej.r To judge this relationship it will be exani1ei from D's point of View and the; from B-actress' oint of tier. In each case the diary and interview information will serve . 1.. . o .1 -1,‘ 0 _ 1 i. '1 1 1 _ .‘ ,_ as a tac around against thieh tne 4—SOrb eats nay Le viewed. From D's point of view.--lwo days after the firs rehearssl 9 1% ads this comment concerning E-actress. nt but has strong ideas in general, it 35093 rs, in what I 13 and it may take t -e to cd~v1uer her to play it nv 1s‘. (D's di arm) 10 tually B-actress and D were fairly close on their perceptions of Blanche before rehearsals began. The corre- lation of their Q-sorts done before the first rehearsal was Ell. An analysis of the differences between these two per— ceptions showed th at D rays such items as arromant and hostile fairly high rank seven) while elanehe should be ected this item also. (.0 H H- 1? g k as 9) E? 1 L; ('0 r 3 {Q Ho ‘1, (T ‘0 q S4 Ct- h 1 l p 0 d. H (D 1' ‘J D) g (:3. rtenoerate, and intuitive were quite descriptive (rank eight rejecter them (rank four). L-actress considered honesty to be a quality of slanche, wnile D thought it was not descrip— tive of her. E-actress showed some favor for words sue- as fcer , unrealistic, and kind, while D either rejected then L4 0 considered them to be unimportant. H A. If D had suspected a certain rigidity in the opinions of E-actress, he felt better about the problem after the second rehearsal. he held two long discussions with B- actress bot during and after rehearsal. i‘12‘15-‘1'1che has been too outgoing aggressive, demanding so far; not soft or syn- 4—1 1.- 1.. - ,. --~ . . 1-.. - 1. -1 n- . n ~.-~ patnetic enough. very ulesSed mitn this ulSCHCSlOL. (D's B-actress had returned to her idea that ' l""‘c’ne is risht,’ and Stella and Stanley behav b:dly! I strongly tried to squelch this idea. I though.she was talked out of this 'dea last week, but I see not. (D's diary) After this third rehearsal D and B-actress -gain de- scribed BIanche. Their correlation rose slightly to .583. Comparing these two sorts revealed that D still considered Blanche to be arrOQant, perceptive, and intuitive while B- actress still rejected them. Most of the other items about which they disagreed on the last comparison were fairly well agreed upon this time. But there were some new disagreements. D felt Blanche should be highly self-conscious and sensitive (rank 53 . nine), while B—actress felt these qualities were neither important nor unimportant (rank five). B-actress on the first sort had considered them to be important (rank eight). B-actress thought Blanche ought to be slightly _§a_e, while D strongly rejected this item. B-actress altered her per- ception of Blanche slightly more than did D. The correla- tion of B-actress' two sorts was .‘69 while that of D's was .768. I After the fourth rehearsal, which followed a twelve ay vacation period, there had been no improvement. B-actress played it fake, flighty, simpering, yet aggressive and strong last night. This is totally Irong. Unless the audience sympathizes with Blanche from the beginning, there is no play. The audience must see the real Blanche right off--the Blanche that was worthwhile and still might be, if given a chance. (D's diary) B-actress and D were asked to describe Blanche after this rehearsal. It was only one rehearsal from the last de- scription, but a vacation period had intervened. The cor- relation of their descriptions was a quite high .652, the second highest it would ever reach. Neither B-actress nor D changed their perceptions a large amount. The correlation between this sort and the last for B-actress was .868 and for D was .SZM. Three items were ones which had been problems in earlier sorts. D still felt that Blanche should be self- ggnscious and hostile, while B-actress felt that self-con- scious didn't apply to Blanche and that hostile was not de- 54 scriptive of her. B—actress felt Blanche should be Eggg; willed, but D rejected this item. There were several new items of disagreement. D felt Blanche should be lggy and slightly poised. B—actress rejected both these terms. B- actress saw Blanche as being slightly callous, gluttonous, affectionate and £33, while D rejected each of them. By the time of the eleventh rehearsal D realized that "wnat I took for 'persuading' B-actress to my point of View was only nominal acquiescence." (D’s diary) Her character still remained aggressive and criticizing. D then decided that “I must pay attention only to what she does, and ignore it when she says, 'Yes, I see, I agree.“" (D's diaryJ Apparently B-actress was able verbally and concep- tually to agree to D's perception of the role, but D felt she was unable to translate it to the rehearsal stage. B-actress and D described Blanche three more times, after the fifteenth rehearsal, after the twenty-fourth re- hearsal, and after the final rehearsal. Both B-actress and D remained fairly consistent in their perceptions. Corre- lations of B-actress' sorts were .815, .953, and .929. Similar correlations of D's sorts were .766, .864, and .84b. The correlations of the sorts of B—actress and D were .59H, .688, and .632. A comparison of their final descriptions of Blanche before opening night revealed that they still disagreed upon some items already mentioned. D felt Blanche should be Et’ .2.) highly passive (rank nine), but B-actress felt just as strongly that she was not passive (rank one). D saw her as being hostile and determined, whereas B-actress rejected these items. D felt that Blanche was slightly crupl_while B-actress thought that word was least descriptive of her. he was affectionate (rank eight), bu" D (’1 B-actress thought rejected that item (rank two). B-act H ess looked upon her a (a L.) strongly detpndpnt (rank nine), while D considered that item to be neither descriptive nor not descriptive (rank five). In the interview D said that, in their many long discussions concerning the character, B-actress would seem- ingly agree to the point he was trying to rake. However, the desired quality which had just been.discussed would not appear in her ,erformance. When asked what may have been done to try to improve the communication with his actress, D stated that he had done everything he knew how to do. He had no “tricks" left. I suppose you can flatter an actor. You can do many, many things to try to get them around to your position, and, I guess, I don't do as much of this as might be done. I try to be reasonably straightforward. (D's interview) According to the Q—data the two were in fair agree- ment in their perceptions of the character. There were some differen es of opinion on words such as passive, hostile, determined, cruel, affectionate, and dependent. In spite of this the director was not satisfied with her performance. The problem of comparing the perception of Blanche and of 56 Dlanche-as-played will be discu ed after this question is examined from 3- actress' point of view a ' point of view.— B-actress kept ther complete notations it will C‘C‘ UL) From E-actre very sketch y dia y. She made sor e ra for a few daysa nd stopped all entries. Therefore, ry to depend largely upon the discussion in the interview. ‘ D agreed on an interpre- Lnen asked whether she an: tation of the en re ter early in the rehearsal period, 3- e.tivel . No, we didn't. The director wanted from me a def- inite thing right at the outset. I found this to be a little difficult, because I wanted to set my confidence. I wanted to get my lines. I wanted to be able just to emot101alize all over the place, until i knew what I we nd then I wanted him to tell me what he wanted. r“ in actress replied n v ever been done, CLOil-c_; a? but he did it differently than it' terms of myself, before. Most directors have let me so for a coujle of weeks. maybe even three weeks, and then they would clamp do.n. fell, he started clampin. down fiom the first reading and tnlo scared me, because I didn't We dlt U0 jtst mimic him, and I didn t truly un er- (Z-actress' interviewfl t he I: anted. the play in 313311623. IJIM U Apparently her concern with digesting interferred with th cues, etc., terms of lead Ining lines, actor-director corrunieation. and I disagreed on our concept of the part mostly so concerned with learn- tI/lcct I V158 77‘“ O and swallowed and ..ds Tro 11d we had only five I.ee-s a I think I could He because of the fact If I had had 133 it. th e fact that not 3 aware of that he wanted line es letter perfect, have heard him more. But finally, after I got the pla; I have to tell you truly that I never he wanted. (3- undor my belt, disagreed with him t me in what interviet.) ouble in communication found some «t- . v a u 5.47.} L. aet ress' I estress, then, 57 with D. At one point in the interview she was asked to evaluate D as an artist and as a communicator. I think he, as far as I was concerned, [performed] magnificently. I think that the one thing that he has that this university needs and that every university needs, for that matter, is his sense of perfection. The director wanted something specific, and he went Now, other people might say that he could after it. have gone after it in a little different way, but all that mattered to me was that he knew what he wanted and then tried to get it out of us. (B-actress' interview.) When pressed further about problems of communication she mentioned that she felt "the academic atmosphere and the educational element hinders" communication, "because every- body is on their guard." She elaborated. I feel that the prestige factor is very important, I know that many even within the students themselves. times I had the urge that I Just wanted to sit down with We did talk the director, and I wanted to really talk. and I got all my answers, because he was so sharp that he knew I wanted answers, but the personal communication was a bit hindered because both of us felt pressure. Now maybe this is of our own making. I don't know, but I felt a I felt it with the other cast members too. facade of a kind that I couldn't really break through. Somehow for me to feel complete freedom and complete confidence as an actress, I like to know that I'm ac- cepted as a human being, and that I'm not gust doing a Job Just to do it. (B-actress' interview. She went on to affirm that this lack of freedom was She seemed to probably not the fault of any single person. She did imply that it was part of the academic environment. make one further comment concerning D. But the director was not at fault in the fact that I he could not establish a firm, personal rapport. think that probably as individuals we were at fault, be- cause we didn't know how close we could get to him--how deeply involved we could become. (B-actress' interview.) m' actress more from the actor-director relationship. -1 .~ , w 1 4 ues1‘ed someth n3 4‘ .3 w .11—1 1 -lSlCfle Lien a approached the playing 0 ” responsi‘eilit‘r very concerned strong " - .2 r2 W113: acceptable. L1 one 3 1 3 m3 '10 ,3_ , L. 4 fi . f‘j Oi ner iew alwfd e1t_ies sne name v'1 1‘ w-v '3 ‘l‘. considers“ ole thou ht to Last UfOJC «lemons. “‘I. -. Wr. . her v.4. if]. ill-13:, .163? he r past life, the young boy, wy4.~ about collector or I could not make up m islike zor Stanley. morally 300d or not. Isielliiv mind whetler the 3313 y Las few days I read and re-read the play, trying to deter- mine Lhat I really thought about it. I fir lally decide d the theme Las despair ani that good a;;1d 3e1tle1e can not exist L1 the Inidst of cruelty a;d br tality ear- sheer animal passion. However, the pla* seemed to be a 3 for 3antleness and kindness. aI cons'd red many of Blanche's speeches snl decided s t 3' elly good, but beceuse of all the her home and land, the teach- -0 SS 01 that she La 0 misery in her life--the 1 death of her peren‘s, the lack of fulfillment in ing English to youngsters Jho didn't really care, and the loss of the one lers01 she res lly loved and in such a Violent way--all these sickesia3 th ;3s just consumed her w'th imse urity and illness of spirit. If Allan had a t bee- a sick young man, and he d returned her love, I do not think that Blanche would have 3ttone to. lthe stat of ”espair she fi2‘1ally reaches. (E-actress'd ‘ .) st E-aetress men- 4’ L. 1" J ". -. ”foe? Sue nau 008d 030 really, a strong feeling of "Ioday for the firs t tim 5‘ ’ 3 Blame the responsibility involved in 6.0151,3 m " (B-actress' diary.) She Done It was agonizingly strOL of the “cou‘a3e” it would In the intervi ow seti*ess' attitudes in ie3si 59 sibility as an actress. The follo:1i113 em chan3e took place. Li ervi ewer: I know hot you voroac1cd th 1e role, at leas- t from some of your early notes, with a sense of 'calli213' and with a se1se of he more attitudes that the play and 111 Blanche. This was as are e mpres sed in imporm ht facet of the play lated to it And Iron your own religious ea k3rouad, this we imp ortah at to you as a person, I felt, as well as an actress. Now is this a wrong ass‘nption or is and in the way Blanche re- Lrter"iewee: This is absolutely ri3ht. I feel the a good actress ad a good artist can control this and keep it in its proper perspective, because when we are 5 t r :3 doing plays we 've 3ot to Le hem in terms of the people. . . I feel the what you' c sayin3 's true and that it could have hurt me but it didn't. In the oe3innin3 t hurt me, because some of Blanche became self-ri 3ht- but once I really 3ot m“ mite on what the director I '1“ eady to list c1, 3 tryin3 to tell me, and 0:1ch 3 able to not be self- , c 3‘." 3 .L. 3." .- 0 ~13 L . I La righteous and, in a sea e, a A, ”“7 fij It“ 4— -.-. A7— prea ny Lianche. \a-actress' thL‘Vluuo) .. fl... 3-.“ 4.1 1 . 4. In anal no the Character ‘ 1—7- 1‘ - L- 4- ‘ ~~ -- - - «Q ~—' 1 ‘ wv‘, w luuei to the -act that sac .as er}, concerned 111,11 .11y h h 1a ~v '- *1- - 0‘ An r-r‘ - 1"! ".. VOA . aacne as as she .as. sac oiierel o-e possialc aas1-r in 1 "\ v. vv 1’10 ill-L"Tn 10» o .11 A v av“? J- T f“. V v-w '0 r‘ L1e Ohlj m1 or that 1 could CDive myseli -or T1 . 1W ' v v 4? V‘fir“ T" 'V' T p 1" L‘ "‘A 1 / J was A. elaaCne's innoltement ..as tne lace that the sad nothin3 'L‘ ‘9 -. -‘ 4- r1 ‘- L - n V‘.‘ ‘n ‘Il‘ .1 'F‘ 5‘“ 7. f' 1- 1 .0 DO ClJ—i‘lo L/O LLDiI‘iL/Llwlldo «Li-U JO UilILC’ ”011 L1. Blanche ever able t say, '1 has s rte—n, was . take. I was promis uous. Okay, I can still be a pro- ductive human oein3. ' This bothered me tremendously, oeceuse the whole eeuilibrium of a pe rso1 ~of every hu~ has so 1113 livin3, no matter Lhat mis .axes they make~-is their spiritual life. "nether the find it in God or if they just create it in terms of ev-*'doy vs“ lues. I decided in my mind that Ele.ache had no spiritual life ~- had no spiri‘ual balance. (3- ~act ress' intervie L.) »e m ral responsibility she felt, B-actress deciled it was too much for her. play over esain, I would not do If I had to do the 3 it, because it was too 3reat a ‘ Sp""luillb} for me. Concerned as I am about moral bei1avior and ou1 respon- sibility to God, I don't think I'd do it a3sin because ‘fi 1ine o l ress' 1ile de- _," all 1 T 9.1.14.1 1 I "f- V-'~\ ‘ 0‘ M r.“ f .n. -ae ,4 1—1 4..) ( te hi in i hard. qu very, very, .L vb; (1.]. 1e 0 1.11 1 f" raunmi 91.11.11. V ) =ctress ‘1' M Q U. l 3.1%). o intervie- 1 "T u- 1t was '1. ~ ‘7‘ 1- ,1 crioin3 Llanehe. (j s.) I ../. .l 0» lower, 3htly it all ed _‘l- QVLLJL sually r1 1 .-’-q 5 two or r1 DVLL4gLJ . ’— . ~‘ 1" V'Lkwx ICCI‘ I" in r e lo: 0 ally ”.13 UL; WA they never 2215.4 .1 9 h 101:, urn; of 1c - he- {ALL}. IL TTT .54.;- 'w 5’ I .1.‘ H "'(‘Q L, I q '- V-.A. \4 0T? O , ,3 1‘ LL 1‘ _ 8.01/0: 1"- 1 t1 _ f .1 - l 3- ~4I (5.01/01. .1.) ran '1 17' J .1. m.’ ' r“ J. Au 1 fl ch n .- 7 LA»; V one). iags o oti .5‘ On. 1 Lu ‘I‘I_ Cu to b or” bvy4 1 11 ’1' J .111- .33 *V , uALJL They ltho "17 b - Ver (re A he ;o; eavy l ‘! 6". ml *5 ., as not tially on the c I: 1‘ ", (‘1 l lbc much on T57 C 71 ”l A i "3638 ,— P I L.) C“ pro 7A 11 ~ “.1 Vieted -aetress ‘7 1.. C‘ u C ITO. 8' I“ C4 (11. b.1111 che- 1 J. C: o ['71 o I - O J. Or”) .12).). t o h s of 21a b‘ 1 tioz 67 to 3 hi / 0U enih el “,1 cos p ”.7 .AL | per fro Oil 0‘ he oer 'V‘ .L . .. 1.. 31d he .7 ‘5‘ .11 t .1an a low {’1 .L cub ‘n J-p- b 1.3. nche 7 to fl 1919. 3,: LIKA. r7 .7( I 1e n 01 of 31y, a. I -' ‘1 (N ', Li‘flr‘vil S "l 1 hi31 I‘ by D 9' . .1. 3.1/01". 5 Lil ayed inere 1 n L; 1 -f, A - pl 5-} role pereeptio 1re 0 I“, Ct :5 4M“. ,- . 1 - ‘-- J 1 ., 4. 4. w- M“. 1 . scrap the sac perceived. aegmea» Lust be suspcheea, hon- cver, until the percei- the next chapter are :xamiued. It is no; necessar" to ex— a;1ne the differences tetrcen the perceptions of Blanche and of Blanche-as-played in Lore detail. ~a D's geint of *ie;.-—It will be recalled that D ..-. - 1 --v- - L1 1- a a!" --A - , 0 'T‘ 3— 4‘ ,.- ‘ - A“ has unnaooJ Lien the peiiorian e oi s-acuieee auriro re- to her, but she continued to play tse Dart in that D felt ra~ an unsatisfactory manner. it the twelfth rch-arsal, alhcst halfway through the 1 - - ' ,1 "if .fi 1, - L: . II- ,3 ._ e ,‘ eneareai period, -lahche has still $061 as viahictite and H self-righteous." (D's dia;y.) On the next evening D took 4. a,“ J-‘ ., M ‘ or‘ .-. 4- 4—1- . _- . . M2 serohb acoioa 14 an errort to elimigaee buiS groning tehd- ency. _ J— r‘ 1 .< (N .' y-v - "I" 37, )f‘ W' V\ A A i stOpp e ner ialf a colon eihes, read lines f r her P ‘ ”3 r' ~ -a . L’A'u " 25 n ‘L‘ - ‘-fl P1 M. r~ ‘a r u‘ uflu asLe h r to dioo the vildieuivehess L a ’ uh- .1. . e r ten minutes. We backed off and 7 1 my . ,. . N. nearsal. inen betheea scches c inut‘s. hink I chang«d her desire to see the chal- ~ecs it, but I think she will acquiesce to \a ahead iii ‘1. about twenti * I do not acter as she my 'demands.‘ The scene that followed was the elos st Two she has yet come to what I am looking for. (u o Liary.) arH—j C Mter rehearsal twelve, D described Blanche—as- playea ard after rehearsal fifteen he described his percep- tion of Elanche. The correlation of these perceptions was .777, the highest of such correlations. At this time the C) performance of E-actress as D saw it was a- close to his dea ould ever be. The ‘1 of what the character should be as it i 62 only strong differences occurred over three items. D felt that Blanche was played as being too touah and eg£r« \ r1 (’1 p. <1 (D and not self-conscious enough. Nothing more vas said of Blanche for a few rehea s als. Apparently there had been some improvement in the eyes of the director for afte rehearsal eighteen, two weeks be- fore epening night, he spoke of "retrogression." The acting of B- ctres s is based on 'method' and very unpredictable. The last few rehearsals . . . have been a particularly bad retrogression to independent, self-righteous, vindictive, martyred traits I have been trying to e} :tinguis‘. In Blanche also a new trait ap- peared: childlike innocence. (D's diary.) One week later, o;:_e vm eh from opening night, the director felt that a climaz was reached in the problem of interpretation of Blanche. Wednesday's rehearsal was, I think, a turning point _3, B-actress' character. After two bad rehearsals of scene 4 (Blanche was played cities-li_sell-conrident, hard, and aggressive), I interrupted rehearsal for a twenty-minute te lh vith B-actress again stress n5 Blanehe' s softness, defenselessness, inability to strike out at others-—her insecurity. In the third run—through these qualities b gen to come, and they were even more in evidence ton ight (rehearsal 25). The actress says this 'kind of person’ is greatly 'disliked' by her; hence, I suppose, her opposition to playing' Blanche this wax (D's diary.) On the morning of the opening night, D made these 1The "method" is a term used to describe an ;nerican school of acting which stresses intense dcvelopnen t of the actor's emotio;al resources for the purpose of pr per y motivating his acting. It is eased on the system devised by the Russian actor-director, Cons mtin Stanis lavski, al~ though the modern version is somewhat different from the original. 3 . _ Vu r_Q _ m _ _ ii 3 a._ e me 1i 1 . 1m“ m“ ll 1i .dlns w a” w p ., 0 ll .a 14* m“ an we _. mu. he nw_ mi re .da 3 e o a z . s a. my. uhnvl t M... ww ’ S 9 ~. . ll 6 % gr 8 “e 9 MW .. Mn «, nu ma an a no es ww .w“ 1. C .3 b C S h S e 1 t .mw .1 n“ .v .wn vi “Ti m. .1. mi an «i .flw ... we as “a no an no .rc w-“ a. 1..L a as o “a c .1 oa¢ r h“ .n t a ”a .w Ca a,i no no so no .qa _ mi as .w awn nu mi mi sol me me say me an 0 Ta 7.... 0 16 .P. r ._ V 0 all mw Me n“ vi no. Au .mm no +e } i C e .l ; as . mhutfie as it c .4 Y H a i “W :l he W. r. pl mi vi an an as o vi \1 O 9 C o .1 e 0 v». 3 1i ..4i . Lt an. era hi as vi no a f U .3 .. Va 0 S OJ 1 9 B h .m. 0 my C 3 I S m I b. S n h .C .E u wi an all n ““ oe . on me no “ta “a we ~:_pc all.qa no as v“ ac .1i ma .md xmo at .a “a no .nV .nn .wd so as n.“ .nn mi ac m c it .t 0 vi ma 0 a c L; w~.nuwm as as VJ Le w“ no vu nu ca ”my gt VJ 0. mu 3. C fl 0 1 C 1 1 d S .9D .3 l 3 a a S r P .l f. h (x a J. _ O Q S .l e S 1 pl S S _ n; .l .r. e . O. H D S C O S ...1_ D s t O r Al mt Dy 8 C J. 0 am «A “J; AL. LU t r f -E l h e _ C O r O l t u 3% C I S m S C C C a G o 1 1C . .Jeaa .1 1 vi "h r U. _ ii is e .e 3 see W +v e +u c a 1i 1 hi a h .C V a t 6 1x C O G. .C t e o i h I t c b n d r t s o «i an as .lo we .a as .ec .1i i,o .wi as .nn H C. S n r T n 1 d .l. e O d.el.a i ma 0 D +e me is r d so .nl mi me .wn p.i an“ .1i ..l «u no as r,o an S S 1Q Nb u -3 C .Tu 3U. B a e C C .n me ”air. a. “a n. pl .nu an an 0a 0 h h a c o. 1. e l a t n t _ a 13* m-. no :1. m a .hu no .nu me “an on Le 4i so so no to “i as ms nu nu ma hnrwia r e w. .i e as V whooqi me o n al 6 t .1 r I..\ m E Di 10 C a S t C C a» sl+ Mm by 9% av a; nu vi ow ml ac no .10 mu wD C h 0 T .1. e O O S m _ f F t r C I C‘ ‘I‘ swu ced onl ~- J Q}. ~‘ — N | L)- a 8’18 1‘ h )1 I” o* l. ‘ Mild. C' 7 1 -L t f! D '5 CA. D I“ u v" Q T _n, ‘t th I ed v irly h 37 O 11. An v1 three). tion of t n Vv -pla ree (5‘ 8“: V n'\‘ 1" em .11 ressive, (r IJ. fair r\‘\ 01 to correl eh L1 felt .1 \ L). L) Tr} D of actress here i ‘ Qty-one and rr'lfi n-n . a V 7 1A 1 «f‘ ¢;~..- r‘ffi l \. UH v bLLLl , If ' I“ V?fl"‘ L b '3 C. 3 qile D rejected 0 IJ. earsal t IYT d filo—— ‘r 4.3. x, .L; 3 did not. noise :1), I 4.. U (3 1"? At re ‘fle ran (~15 L.) e DU. Q C‘ A.) :. h ile, le .. 3 £41- (231 n.4- UL! ‘017‘ .-U 3 (r o r h . ~ . .a o “1.. . w. \ ilaying ner as idseeure, driving, selr-eeltered, entressive, On oper ins ni; ht E-actress was convinced that her portrayal of 21a nche was close to her perception of her. The correlation between her peree ' d (If H O f.) O bfi Cf— :5' O O ’5)“ S) *‘5 C l O (‘1‘ CD *3 {.4 O C.) 0 1.. a per the final rehearse and her percent ion of the charac- ter-as-played after opening Ll was .o; . She felt that 7‘ 'T‘ ‘ A ’ I‘ 1'5 ‘\ ‘3 ‘ n-a 1‘ . .0 ‘- r alascne should so sell-colseieis, selsitive, feariul, hert- shc should have been. The perceptions of Blanche-as-played on opening ‘ Aa'x' w ' ~ ‘ A 5 fl ’3 t ‘ night by B-actress and D have a corielatioi of .LBC. D saw 1. ‘7 . 1 .x. ,.1, 4.. . '- ‘ . ._ ,1 -lancne as being bound, hostile, arrogant, eeserriae , as— “ ° . J- - . :3 f) ‘ 4. 13 . I... . 1 :c . aressive, controlled, and poised, out s-a beSS did not. M nunele, while D did not. There was fair amreem nt that she L ren B—actress' point of vien.-—The Q-sort data sur- gested that B-actress felt she had been euite successful in her port :yal of Blanche. n the interview she was ask-d to evaluate her performance Well, I do believe that the re were a couple of per— formances where I hit wnat the director was trying to ~motion "L 'to ilty, otion (N L. -. » ~1 fr .1“ from c .1 time delicacy, -6 m1A «- ’7‘ i-J C e doe . 7 “.1 C 'I‘ ‘M .11 ('1 e to hit. set a S S .. . co .3 _ . a — nu Tu. la 3 “A _ a "d _ _ t S e e 3 an an. .8 h H G S .11 S n e M...“ I . l O a . D. n e .1. a S r S I i e i h . e i n p u. n . s a . i k h n e t a. O o h.“ C h.” e nu 91* e AW w... Wu by -_1..u._ 11. hi 0 Lu .1 O C rp mu“ Ly.» av -Tv u 5 Va 00 M.“ e «C 1.1 u c .nm 1...: m5 .1 VJ LU. 9 _ ND C O h n. i C .l S S .l l h V .C C .v w. C n .t r .6 Va r C 3 m 2 S C a l l 0 d t l G at . . .l .r .l m. : C C C .3 C C rd yflat1l owv ad e e_.l .s v .vlhev.c dried .l C t .C G u I V a C a T 1 f. P. r T : C O C .l .l U ml .L a t .l .C C I e O O n h 2 m; me. .1 e C 2.... Cam .I a B n. l. C h m C A... .l .l .1 a... , i .. an S . l a e .l _ t E 1nd I t S d I .l T 3 C V. .D . C C C .D A...“ w... .531 r I h v.1 C. .... r T. t S l e V r C l d O O l d u C T O O I t 1 i w... 0 a C u t .1 pi. 3 e G O D. O .3. I 4 C t t .... e a .1 f t h C O c r ._ -. l v p. .. t o l d e a... h C t h I a e a t n. h a .C d. K C. .1 . l n . C a n .1. n t we. a a i h r h a” S ,l E. e t S ..._ .1 C .C. C C C C U. C .l _ n e d a v. c e t k. t a a n t D C S h l r L 0...... o u n." a t l .... r 1. h C n t A S t. ._.. . .l .l C Me O D. r C PU y L . . e a mac Cunaim.l it w. es 3. y. .n 1i 0 e.Cvla hue U h e c l a d .n u a I e h s t C l e h h t h ii 0 C C w.“ 9 w.“ .13 r .l .L C .E .J T a h :c 6 C .l 0 Die .3 . O .l .1. i t l a h r. a C t m. .l r a h f C C 9 S t d h 4 k U .l k C C. h t T. .1 h a... D C .n _ .I. r 31.... . .3 n V O C a d O C C U a I C. e C C C C n t h C .U. C. S T. a... 3.31 I t xi. C o b H S h 1.... .fl .1 C i0 3 n. .J «L k .1. h e S e u e O .L 4. d V. in .l f .1 t t L -C i l. C 1...... .a O 0. v4 4i +t an as an no an it an an at .1l mu no no no +c ln Pa as pi .. an a l o T e t . t d i a l n t e f C a l I lb. 2. 1. l l :u I H t 3 D. 6 .l 6 Au .3 C .Q 0 AI Va my T C .l t. C e n .l t l u.) r. a a a b. a n a a 1...... O s e S S A e h ....... f. . V .l .l l . C C. t r O a e f m .L A.. S A h I “a C .3 t t e O . r .l d a .J W .C. T S. f as o O C .l t O a. V C S h VJ C S 5 e «I a e m u f. 1.. -0 C S S n... J. .7” O t C 1... .l ttn ...l..nVOdV.l C C L d. O h t 1.. C .11.?le CH .011 t O t u .l e n. V .1. C O n S E. .i C 0 d A t t 1 a .l .0 C f C .i . C oh .i b a a r C a r a .1 t C r C C h i O u-.. v t .. ort Smatho "JO r. A r . C S S .e 10 a? rrrtnh. a PC . Oi Cant at ._ 8. Va 8 u C C f Ci uf Cl 3 C. i 0 pl t t a .l J. n e C V S C C .u C U... l C h V. .5 .1 C n T. u l l l r .l . u. S a a .l 1..“ h S _ f -E 0 AI C at I 1. C G. C l 3 UT. 0 O S a _ C ml n t .l 3 l .l S n O 6 Ta +0 c. d S l t C to d n 0 1a 1 .l C «G u aw n... .1 H .l 2 S a.“ C n a .J C. O .l t t .1. S l G .l l k r h .. O t C n .l t 1s .l a a. d n h 3. m t n... a e O S .l .1. .0 8 T. .8 e T .J S a C. .3 0 1-3 .7. .l t .ra U f. h b t t e v“ C S w, a n .l l 6 A .b C a. a. 1..“ 1.... 91 d O C .l t .l r n O r .1 T. .l t i O .rd .3 1.. Cf n ,b S .E t d n l h h d a d t t. a h f h C a. C m t .l O .l S a A e O u S t k a ..:. I l o n C Y W a. .A l m S 5.1 n C h t .t O t J. G .1 n a. 3 9 .l V l r a .E .l l 8. f t r C 0 a... S C l d S .l D. .l _ S n .l l .a a a C ...... .l O C t t n ma .3 u .l. O h 0 .e .1 3 f U. 0 d E a h S h I h h m n C .1 O. ELIfamtd ..LI\ 0 O .l e 1 .l C lief 11.200312 v. .E C L. t S v. ln a .e r e M e a. 1 mm a w...“ 21— mu m WM. 33* WV. .1 ’3 1"" fl ‘1 'oLavk. L16 1 (-4 .r.‘ ’ 3‘ .5.) ',‘~ do L ‘ 10 “Lb .- tre N. CH — t M 'v by “L C .71. A.“ 1 . D .1. m d. a .m e. _ 1 .o h e . . . C e .. .1 .f 1 C O t 1 J M a 1 h h h a. C t d u 81 r D. e . r s M .m M Pa!” 5 a .L m . _... t C. . n C) .I ._ C u C E S r o... O l S H .1 KW C .H an m. 8 0 e w. .u t 1. U. .1 y f S e E. . . . L .. 1 .- l n. .. .. t . .- . n a m... C .. . «.1 \z n. O E S s t h d. 6 f v. c e a a C m m. w. m 1:1 “w C v 15% “LL 0 6 MW»? 8 C LIV my.“ ”I— OL t h 6 L1.“ n 1Tb mum Cu r S C _ C 1.... .C E y m t. t” C .l .v 0 .1 +0 r t +0 .l C .1 Co 0. A... D C T. 6 an r e C nlw )0 mi A... D1 m.— 1 Nb 0 Lb Om m1 "at d n l r .L C t ..... .J O o... O O 6 ~10 we .1. S .1... d .E _ r .l O C .3 a. t . C .1 .1 a e t t C l S t .q. C .1 .1 e 3 C 6 S 1 .. . S 1 .1 0 m... d t t .1 S C . fl .1 0. Va d w 3 h h l . . .i hL S S 2.... Lb l S 1..“ V Cw .1.— d t l .l O m _ me a .L C .1. - u S S u l S e C C .3 C t C l .0. f t . O 1.. U h C Luv SC a...“ a.» ' GM 01 C u . Mr; J.U d v...u Cu O n e 0% D“ r. t 1am“ 3 t A 3 S C 8 E f C. t A o f e. f .1 Y D C e . e C m 1 E. .l /\ n1 3 C (W O G NJ . .G . t l 1.3. r r 1. Va 1 I .1 d C C h o u k t a u t h r. s n .0 .4... J. 3. e e a .15 C D. t t 1. r... .1. a . S T. C .8 8 . t C S h l L u k .3. L. a u e C n d m. - R D. 1.1 t C d 8. n O C D. h . a o h t P . s h d 5 n. c e . c. ,. s i e h l a t a...“ O S 5.. ...u u C . .fl l h C e C .C W .0. t. Vw t W C O M o .11 fl 1; 9 .-.u 3 a g...“ n... C S f t n l vfl n i. U b...” 3 e r H Tm Hm r... .9 Cu Cu 11— C L.-. l D, mu ~ 1 p Cu .1 0w. Cu h... l m... Mi NO D1 .1 o e u 3.1. .\.~._ C mun AL AU. C... t by O “A \. MU“. D... C wk .3... D1 0 9h 8 V .1 h e .0 S C. t l C t. e a L .7. _ .1. .1 a b (C S S a a .. -L C O . S I .3 C d. u C... C. 8 h .1 C S n t t /C S .1 h C a n .1 a S C. .l a 8. C .1 h t “1 d a 8. h t t S C 3 h f c n e .r n e .p .1 h r t .1 a V . m S C h a l C .C t C O .1 S .1 r r f S cm. .3. f a e C .1 .8 E V C. .1“ C Q C) .3. .l .C .3 «.1 e S 01 fl Hr. No 9 H... h a E .l S t E n. . .1. u S C O l t .1 .1 o t f. h a . S t C s a C m... 1 a r. O C e e a .L O 1.... A... .l O .1 t r S .1. n .5 G. . h C V... O 11 .J C .1 r r _ t 8. .3 t .C 1.. S C 6 9 a .l n V. g O f S .3 u .0 .1 .L e C e .3 1. r S a d C t 6. t r C l .1 m... n C L O f T I h h t C .1 d .3 3.1.1 C C l W C t h E e n C .1 a d S h a r O t -L n G X S n .1 .1 .1. C E f e a. C C h .,._. h n l C 1.. S T C .0. .1 n E C . C r 1.... f e r 8 .fl f C U. S G 3 Va h .1 C t S a. .1 .C. 8.. e h t n h a _ a O . n O D. 1 t "J F. 1. r C E S S U. n l .3 t 1 a t a .D C h E l a t O W C r C a .1 C C A C. S .J U D. 1 l o h 1 C D S l S a O t d t h L l .1 .1 u 0 PI 1 .1 t s a h n E a h s h C C T 3.. .L -1 n C c n e L . Cam r l C C P. o t a 1 .J S a S C. U .1. n S S a D. .1 d v." t .1 .1 e E h u 0 .1 .0. C f .C. a a. S l u .l O .l S S .1 O S d C t t O .C C 8 1... r O r... t V. . r C .. C .1 .C. C e O 8 h _ .f. C e h n D. V. 8. l C O S C O I G C .C r h ..L e S e e .C 3. v. f t 0 e a m C t S C D L t h .. L r e t C h a h h a r a O .1 C l .1 f C n S C e C m1 1L 0 1; C N. t Cu r e C S .1. a PD in t r p a O .L A t 3 r a A C D. .1 C. a C C l .1. h C .3. C S a r .1 S O .2 E O . C .1. h _ l C. t O a d C S C G .01 S .l I a t . .1 h 1 1. B . m t r .I. 2 E C C h l r. S n C S h e h D. .Jt v. E .LI\ 8 - C . r a .1. B a r e a I r G V C O t .3 m D m e C r m e .1 r n e C 3 O I O V t h t I p C t O W e r .C I O V... T a O t C O h C r O h C S f .. C f n C n O a f a t a f h t D. 67 a ters tend to perceive characters in terns of tLeir per- ceptions of themselves? Several questions hay be related to playing a role alter the perception of one's (.1- f. } _Jo ( 7 O H 8 :1 U) deal self? Ibes one tend to eerceive a character in terxs of his perception of h's idesl self? here USS little evil see to suee0“t the motion that -actress viewed Blanch e 11 terrs of her perception of her self. Ker self perceptions con: i te1tly1m1 11igh loadings on factor I (girls' selves) while her oerceotioss of Blaziche fell on factor III (Blanche). Correlations of Q-serts of herself and of Blanche were consistently low. They ranged from -.2 h to .458. correlations ~aetress felt that Elanehe should be much more C ",F\ 1‘- vv. ,3 ., L ..-.~|~ , J... [a . ‘1‘-‘ --| A n TN 1 . /' ~-r\ .~ 1‘\ . 1e31-1illee, intelaerste, flumOlleSe, hereia, vaig, nOt, , - Ir .- H ‘ a ,‘s ’I- V'- N ‘ ‘ . f‘ ‘ I: lA‘A 1 hosti e, erael, Aseeure, 11ard, aernous, deUCl1cut, and flishty than she was. C O O fi“"l‘fl"’q 1* vrr 4" r1 1"" '3 I‘VA'»‘ fl"! *‘ ~Yn fifi1‘flfi. P H‘L'fi'cfl A .1 .~ “L.~-~‘\.‘ x...’ L].— L- V V , V O u *1 , u..—.L‘l~& ’ L.- w“.-LJ-. 5/ l H \J , K ‘4 .L. \I , CV-.. V ... v '3 lb“ l_’l m ~ —‘--"--J- W..-“ as. , ‘ 0 + '1’ IA ‘ 'L- "‘ 1 '1 . ‘- —. 4. +1 ‘pv . ‘r P V\ " ‘5 ‘ Lisite, hosesc, hu1tle, gait, sees e, and has?! the; she (fl 1. . ,‘I 1" ,. i.‘ .— .. , ' ‘1. 2, 3, .. J. she felt t1£ sac aha slaache Lere sill ar in that ‘ v - n_o _,- 4,. .0 1‘- ,‘3. J— 1,“ . ,1 p ooth Lore lairly e11ressiVe, icerful, guilt—r_aiea, eel;- 7 t ow Ik w e H1 - .. h a l f _ _ .. _ 11 L 7. . . C C ._.. 1m T n a v; E. 0 Va. 8 f m _ “L C Q .1. .H a .1-.. u -1 t e t l n O 7,1 C .1 a. u r. 5 C . .1. O h s 1 O C . m 1 r t ”C1 C .. M 1 a M 1 .l 1 a. r V 5 3 . 1. y ”I; re Cu 3 1r p 14:“ C .3 .l 0.; Oi rh r i n mw. ..u o ,_ a 1 a t n l O .1 .l .V O C .l t . S -3 AW 9.. : _ 3 10 n1. .nU L U C by r. A. I st t 9 1w h L + c N 1. n1. 3 .0. J C O h l _ 1 1 1 L c an” O T C «.1. .3 a C H G n 8 fl 1 t w W we 01 n w r 3”,. u .0. “u .1; l C o 1“ O C a. 1H... 0 C . _ v.1. 1. n C a L S W. .1; w .. K. a .C S C .l r .7... _ ...b n .W .O 1 .. l 3n C 0.1; (a Cm 1 Lb C .1 — 8 mu 1'“ \ AIL , C .1 .1 . e“ r: e r. .t. m 1 l H r U. D. n f h .0. o e .a .3. .. y . VA r «n. 1 x V C .._ e o l t Ca 3 1 :1; w A Dru .- k .. v r . , A A1. a. L 1 1 . . e 1 o h e s D. c o e 1...- e S a. 1 1 .1 .1 .l 1 l t a .1 d .. . S . 1 r S t l S r u .1 m. .1 . .. _ S .l. .l C 1,1 C. O a C S n 7. e S .. w 1-. «1 U V Op . . 3L Luv 3 ; 7...“ O .1. o .1 s a a .1. .._ _r c 1 . m 1.1... .1... t o e . 1.... e. t m. i a w. a a i c n f t e e a t h 3 k r wJ. 7‘“. Cl LU 1n“. LIL ht “IV C 1 Wu (”La _ VJ rw e A O G C a 9 .e d 8. s a. .l r . O f 1 10.-” n 0w v e h h m... 1 c 1. a l .1 t S _ n C O C O . 1 my vml. cl T by :1. ml. :1. H mm m: d 0 GO mi h (U n _ M.— v nut S ..L l 9 - . .l 1. ., . .1. h I V (V e .t 0/ 8 cm 0 .J .L .1 u l t .. 1 a V .3. t S f 0 0/ h 0 . d a 1 d C d 6 n. ma. 1. e i h t .. t n. e f e h v e a a . - . 1.: e o h t e o .1 . o r s a a o h S e t v . . 1 . t S .1. 1 1 S 9 C .l t n e 0/ t .l, 7 .l J . . 1 1 C i t l l .a. t c C O n 8 S .11. Va 1.1. 2 11.. 1:. .._._ e t v. e h l a a l o a a i o 5 h. d h i r a s. . 1 .n .41.. l .l .l t O 1 c .l .i C . t o .0 fl Va 8 a e; G j 1.-“ fl.C .e t _ a.-. s e a C .1 E a S i a l e. . e .. .iI my 1. .\v :1— h) n . WWI. _ A; 3.! l 1 LL «b 8 ML .1 m6 r r e l 1 S 1 .1. a d e a .. D l r r e a b ...:.i S S e a. e l O n D ..l e r S h C a e O n. no t 1.1 1% C r l C .l 11 C C T r r S C S r h n n x S O t l 6 e .l t . w. . 0 e O a .l r T C t l . O G .5 _ O r W 1.1. a a 9 e o 1 1“ t C e h e a K B . h .0, S t .l e e. b .1 .1 1 1 l h 1. e C S s. e C _ C h s .1. s a __ e S n. a e V. h .1 d e .l k r n .. a t a s u o ... s a . r l r e h .. r h i .C . O r c e D. t a 1 e .11. r e r .. r V e 1 e _ s .1 e e r e 1c. h o r .i h e .1 .1. e d h h fl t a .E .n 1 A a C .l e C. n S. h C h d a t S Y L .1 C i h C a r n t .E f n .. a t C S t l a .1. e C .1 a .. 1. ,.. e e a .o. f e a h l r n u A o h _. .1 u e a h l e a e 8 Va _ e e O n O a I i t a 3 1.. ,1 o r e T e. s c r .1. l _ .r h .o. i i H... d .1 t . c . o r f .1 t . r U .1 t e a t l V s , e m .i 6 e l .v. e a o S a m e s .q. l a U i u C h S n o. e b e h S l n S C C h A. i S C. l C O l .l . S n S e 6 .l e t r t a _ S u . .s n1 b u "a f C n. V. r r .1 c r n r a e r m a c a l r v o r e t r l t e o n e r e t. l o .. l e e e i e h C o u C C C .1 n 1 I h. h .3 t i D. S h s t v t a c s a 1) I he. :1 f". '7 / » g,» -1 \_I 4‘ (a .7 cll to C14- wv iv'v A L. f.“ L.) J ,Dn/ '7 ( l I o 1 088 \ 1f). ‘n ‘ -C:.C bin; ()1 WV“. ‘0. Up- (\A 143*!“ I "Y. A .L 5"“ H “A uh u‘ an C7. A 4.1. ‘ C a 0-.) U - I‘C fin" c” ’ "1 litip n M 3413' j 1“ 4L Vk‘L‘ ‘f! r\ toll (.0 ‘- f“. %\ Lu (A. T l- 1hcy of $.44 O M to .703 to .681 to . 0‘11 J~ "n are not ou .n i {1le. U V P ‘ O ." '1 r» Lt—hLJ n "16536 I‘ L 11.0 CI: 1 7" a- 1 t S F - n o 5..) t4 hut C‘ U 886 C3 / N V 7s * Yu' Ii .1 A e 3.11 5 '0t 11;. d 10 ; Lav O P" J 1 1‘;- q €91 r.— A 101 h 10 L ."‘\ .13 1‘.“ $A-LU 4—..- . U '54“! Ce‘l I- , J— S barb . n. c r 111 e S L... a 1. 11 V a S _- 1 0. e .1 S 1.. I . LU - Lb a y W.“ 1. u a u .n 1.1 C L o w .l 71 C o. :0 .01 m 1 a.“ 11. 1 . o C 1Q N“ i m .V 1. . S S .0 .1 1 C U L .u o .1-“ «Q 1..U a. .1 , n. .1 u U. . 1. V l C Y .(1 m... f A . J C .1. .11 ....._. O . o -1 .5... .t 1.... e .1. a t S V. D a 1. r a .1 .. u 11 .1. x. O 71.1 nTv 9 l m u my .1 O 1..“ C S q 1 S -C an... .I 1 1 m D1 0.. .H u .1,“ 1 Va an C 2 n H 1.. 9 t C M” v. 1H)... v u. all... 10'.U r e L O n . 1.1 n m u 1 U 6 D1 7“ é... a O O .C O G a}. r Lb C r .1..— WV F. my 0 .l -1 u 1.... 1.1 N S .3 e D. .n . 1:-— «U C h C n 1 0 m1 .1 u C S r S a .4 1 ..b 4 1 e 1 V... A... C u 1 a .. h l l e D. O 4.... t .C L -v .1. .1 n. .r. .3. .1. C . b 3 .3. r S .r x V. .r .1 C C 11 h E l a 1 wfl O C t 1.... S C t n h w .1 S 41.. t C .C S n1 M... Lu D S S 0 e t n... C S S 1.... u I C ”1.1 C e O 0 1b r O h h S C 1. .1 - u e t e a C t .n n. _ a 8. P1 8 .1 m _ 1.. O .1 S .0 m. C 1 e C C .. 1 n u r G l i r O O .1.V .J .1 41. O 8 .fl C .11 um a c .1 S 3. a N \“ -LAL u so (:3 «1 t1}' Ja 1 ,1. 1 brc1ely - ,11 t. {JG 0:: -11 W a u L .hoxl C‘ I... 4 p,- a'LL...LJ ' q\.,« 1.).) . 'V W 1‘: Che- A V rej- v J l 1, v s t r011 :1 ix LJ (‘ q oul; v r14 L..'.L U L. J- 7...... Jile-v O C a u 1 C S .l A¢ & d C should & fitcll S 1 A +1 ufl A re «IL it AL 5 a ‘ ‘v HO CO am. .1 Q i COL. 1 -;Li -ou F711- U-‘ 1A,.v‘ul 7‘. 1;;LLJpjlj , .1. ‘ 3 (“I (A _ 'A Luv S-.C O Q 1 C .5 .4 v \g agrc ere v 1‘ Y. L («Ya L) _ ~r VJ iar‘.) In M (.3 Lrv n ‘fl‘ -11 JLL; ;11 j J. r- l OLA UV 1 (3'3 er rehe; \..-_, ..'.- \Q - \J .4. L—l ... Lab» wapg“. A " 1*. NF? 'H I EIe, l; I (5. v. f‘l— iescrioe /\ O'. l .raratic.'" 0 q _ -J‘ r SUV'il/$-- r1» 7 c140 U 3.. 1‘? J- —S-LCK4L L10 0 'f o J. 9 S S C 1 .fi ;_ .nd nochu. f.“ '- fiA~fi n“fl L.— VL-~V~V ' $ ‘41 ‘1’ -V‘h.o—.) , Lu“, Obx' V‘.‘ LL- V' I e fairl; 4. U 1 Tjflr ‘~\.1" 1-x 'u 111 1.. ‘ '4 _ " 1L f‘ 0.; --- L4 n '7‘ J -‘- n ,3 it 11 3 ~45 y“f\ q 1.. U4.» D o 001‘ .0 J. 1. we 101 o i . - Q items q; 001; e l ‘nr: 4- UV ., e 0 3V 1». U l H Q .L. U 1 ”h 1;) I ‘ 0.. ‘ tella O n L; S 71 O I e _ .C d _ D a r e _ a ._ _ e h e 9 t r .r S C b e l C 7 w r M. L b t a A 4 _ . H _ r o V. r a.“ .l «C. n C .l .l C 11.1. .9 M u my C S C G 3 J. G e 1.... a V. n r . .1 t 1. l S r t l e 1 .3 b t C 0 d C 7 H 1 9 O J v c f l r u l c t .. s n S s 9 c . ... t . .. . u 3 r D a C e o t o c V. r t a n e n - c s t b l ...- 1 .9 h h h t .J 1 n u r .1 d . 9 e c f s t C 1. w 04 m * S p; C r C O O r 1.. C r q.... c, h p . . C .l L 9 r .1 12. f S e C D S 1 w .n v O f i M; _ v r d a l h C. S _ . S ,- . C. 1.. . C, n... O C .l S . .A . e . l S . w y a -. C, .5 O. O o i .1. A . .1 l O . u b o J l u l t l .1 4. V O 9 .1 .1 . S C 3 C .l C C S O E C e a. e C 7., n, S C S .. c 1 . . w, m l C r m/ .. v S n L. .4 1 C S b D. l 1 .L .. . M o O l O C . S C e O O U 3 W S O Y a 13. .1 C n S d e S r h r i .L t h C .. v S .l 1 fl. u L ,. .l H .6 h C S t .5 S t l t T .1. C t C v F C A _ e 1:. a S C d C. l C S u D 9 ,b c r .. w . C h n a .. b 1 .1 .9... e S t O .1. f 2 t C e h 0 A... , Di 1.“. an b-.. — a}. 8 an d C 0 no C C C r «w i 9 C S h M .1 O r. .l S S e S S m .n O u. C C r t v... va b a t m... 3 i D A. 1 C a -E S O r _ C X .3 1 .1 e 9 G o e r a f .1. i M U S P e . .9 1.. i .5 t 1. M V. l 3 .l l l t .l. S .l O t C. C n . O 11. C O 1. .l n M .C a .l l C l S n1 .1 D. .C e G .C 1a. m u h n .1 t S S D. t h .l a c e t G N .V h S b r. ._ S . 3.. D“ r «L on ¢ A!“ ”1. Jr u — L u r Cu Ow C «In .CU 0v «u 9 am» hi. m“ d L 9 .l a C r C S S S t l 1 r O .l h i O A w v” C 3 .l _ T G r C 3 9 C 3 e C r n C l x 1 C S d h .1 C h t S .,_ 11 C t J. u a S r D. t n. t C C a C S C C C e 3 v u u l _ r w . S S f O C .l .n l D s 3 e r a d r G b C S o. o e .1. o h 3 C c 1 S d i _ ~ g .3 f C C h n .l S o . . C h C C van my 6 C. o 9 8 1H m _ .1 .1. .3. n. 1 m . t o r 9 S t C S a. H \I v S G C e C O 3 n .. 9 S \1 t v a r i C i 1. r n _ S m r V O .1 u. .1 l .. .3 C u u u n h 1C a u a e .l .1 . r O t l i l . t l 2. C e O a... t r O l r . t l .C 7 C a O H M _ 3 l C . S A. .. M .V l.\ fll t t C C n/ W . V 11“ -U 3 C .19 9 V S Y e D f D; .1 C O C t O 7 r C S h 4 _ n . .l 1 h e O a u a, A d a H r 01 P . V“ O I 9 t n y L v t t t h 9 .a . .r.. n C . O a S O f r t a... C S D . C u h t d H t .9 D S d 3 G i h C O a . u E a w .L e 90 n U Al O O S S r 1A.“ :1. 9 r .1 Lb 10 C as u. i n .4 O P .. . o r i i c ( .. d c a a t 1. .. c . n S 9 l e r L U f a U. . e l e l t O b d t e 2 S h t e a O .. S o s D r l h 9 .l S h d 9 n .1 d r U. C n.-. D. l i t Au an e m + m/w .TV U. m. . e .1 5Q C C x... O S a A C S y h r L u m . L p 7. 1 J C C l w. M d e l C. C n r n l t .U o u m u 7 u r l u 9 c V 1 O I C C l N .3 o o o m u l O C C C .l C a d .l O t - w i t C vu r a a O h V r S A. -. C l e .3 C i C C h e 9 b t 9 G l .3 S .l .. g 3 . l t a r t .. u S C .l r l S 1 Va 1 v t C. r «G d C C C C Y t C .1 C 1.. T .1 0v 0 C C A C ,. C t 1. .1 t e a h a w 4. C l h .l C h /C l t h C h C .1 C C a Cu 9d V m . f C 4 d S t S .U o C .1. u ml. C C C 1Q 3 rq lu .‘ .L' ”clapio. 01‘; fl V wr'. li._w J- i“ A r‘l'f'“ MUCH-L. V f" ‘l‘ Law-3‘ . -! U.L‘__.... ' ..,.,-,..~O V... vs- u... r5 1“”- v “~- ag r _ ,1. _ C .3 C 3 C .l . C _ C S a: l S C .1. e h b L n r n a e h l O .. a C h S C ; .1 .l b m. .,_ -C .3. .5“ O S C ..C C, Nb 3 C 4C. .1 t C h 1. a. .1. t C. r. f u 0 l ”J Au 0 C S C Mp 1.... x; .3“ o O S . r C. C C L f h .. H ... v.” C l 3.61 C 8 fi .m. .3 a... C O ...J C .l O C C . .1...“ C C l a .l O C O 3 L 1 X. h .3 a.“ S I S 7L C l S r 1“ 1L Lu T 1M . -N 1‘ C C 3 01b 3 r C D. O .0. 3 f O T O C L d .l C I r O l a, .l C I .L f S C S 1. . .L Q 3 .1“ a S .C C r .H. C. Q r S .l C l _ C n. u S l i C 15. .r. a C e S l -M C S u... M g C l a.“ U. 1. T L v d h t _- C r A (x S L .3 C t i 8 a l. i .L r f C 1. . .1 O .C O f t (K a C 8 .l I .C a... H n; O r O 3 .3 C L . an O t a o r yu .C .3. 3 “Can. 9 .4; Va 5 O .Q S C C O "J .1... J .l .l 8 i S 7+ C .u 0 L J U 1H w... w.“ a; 7H a; J I“ l m...“ -E G L 1+1; n1; C .1. V C l .l .1 a S. C C, V\1 C. a“ C. C L. a N. C a .fu C H” 1.9 C .C Luv 1 o C L. .C O C 3 Mu. o C C 1% C o «L 7-. .l O -u an“ .1. 1C 1.1% ”4d .u .1; l l t 1 l 1. a S r S ..._. S .l C .1... I O C 3 C. 3 n: .a O a l I .1 C a 3 C w V e t C C T l . .l r . C l d .D. a,” V C h f C r W n O S .4... d e A d i C, a t S r .C C 0 TC p...” .C .n L .L .l 1 O 9 S C p; u a C H C S S 3 3 3 -3 1.. r h L h h C a c t .3 . S i S -C s a e 31 l O C U .1. . h S .3 a O C 1. S C .4 C m V "J S 2 O L I C .l C C u .t u... C 8 1a.. C C C u l r i K M... 0 up 0 S .l a.“ r C . h 1. h h. C I S i .1. V A C -E O b .3. 51 C .C r r C t a O .l .3 T .l n n a h .1 d V. C C D. C h ,. .l h h .1 f G h C S t .l l a g .3 t C S t C J. C 1 -C l t L l C e .1. ..- .1. l _ S C C O i ..l .1 O, C r I. a C .C n O T... in h as r S a...“ -D 1... i f a .l r h ._ r O C .1 .11 i/\ .1 r C .w C ...,.. n O C 3 C l, .l. w-“ a .l ,C C n; C t 0 .H W. H 1r... u m; an. G M... O .U .l 2., C 9 3 1n... S r t S n1 1 t h S .3; w b h u o C .C u .l .l n S L 1 .J G t t i c J. o C S f S h. m .u r. 1.1 b .0. U .n l S 3 A O r .1...” i n S t r a u C O L i l u t. C. .3 A C V O c C a o r c O .L a. L” i .J m. C I R, r r 3 C M r h 1 .1. C C U. Q d .x. C . t J. l C C f l S 6 l .3 .2. h C a C e u .1 a .2 K m .C S a S t u C .l C C i. .0.) i t m c n . r f a \l e f u t I l S .1. . r J Y. r c 3 r o A l 9 S l A“ O S O i c _. C V. t i l .3 C i 1 f l C L P L L v ._ t i r .. O -u C. O J l C e V .31 a C 3 C C I 1 a .J “ _ O at t a H H .5 O t .1 a C 2“ t .1 a e a .l 1 fly: 0 ”v Lu Cy Cu “Yam «.9 0 Cu 1 fil— C “v.2.“ 1; vC Lu ”M .d» 1* “C Lu 3. C O. O C l 3 T l. .3 n .l C r C 3 C L .. a & fiC .q L“ A_.. a“ .a M. n; “C ; r-flrffi‘j " ~LLU~—~J- saw g ‘. -‘ 3 ,.(‘ LJy-‘xa. 4’1“"? UV; C finish . I “chi- V q , 1- n4. ,. {"J. Lib 3. 05.4.0 ’ 1.. . '1 9&4. kL .7 HO n 'vu 31:1.‘1 'r"1 1 l ‘ L IL U 1 - w rel C‘LL “\ (.m- W ‘w A? Lab-.L, be... V 1. cm; 1 (. .. L»\,«_ F‘ “ ': w’., b I ‘V a"." LiL—tJ..kp v- .41..“ ,{2 AV L L’v-a. 1‘" Va r\P-‘~ . - \4 I1 gnu Vb—K/ - F'- {VJ f v" - r- ‘ ~ 4" v ‘ ”C V .f- U \ I . ’ a O ‘. ll .‘ ' "\ . - l A hJ‘h kl UM---L - «. .1 .ULLZQ. ‘51 n: f“ '.' -'-‘-J WAR-L G 13.1 L3”; by“ r-u s.) .l . (“- j I /‘\ " S'cLVL; kl“ .L I“ .- '11 u, —— Vol-“*- '1 ‘P" “g- ..‘i ' ‘1 .,‘ N n 1 '2 ‘I 1“ f‘“\ f- ’3 V--.L~.~t.24-.LUL.‘\.-\L ol~ . ' "W V',‘ J, V‘. O -1~a .LAL 4-.0 Lulu-.11]. ~ — ‘ f, . \J.. I 0 71%|“ . A.~»~_A. A -~ v _ ‘In 7 VP! *\\A L- L... u- +1“ will r. V YT M ‘ fl ~.~—»r-.-- ,1,‘ o 1- \‘V'_g-&4-\AU l U P aluays an‘ T-r- '3- 1 arr _:_.._O Mgr. L240 ;1 up Y .1 l V- ;U,,‘.. V‘- * x rommgtic CC N "“ n ‘n 0.; , - \ 4. L Li-“ .L-tm bkA-LL“--'~A.L. .4 .~ ‘ r. I i a- .n ‘f . 4.- w, ~’\ AnJ - “QC: n A;-“VJ..L , 1i rhicn C I I ' ‘ I 'u LA); 7 - ‘ .1, ,. r. .I-kA-AU' . "fi 1" ‘3‘.’ 013' L. (‘1'r‘1f‘ us.) p‘.w-- '~~9 ‘1’“‘5 -“’7'V‘(‘" A. v LLV-‘. ”L i 1‘ CL .‘ is t1: I Q 0 +1 U 7% Cb hb/ (rug) -4.-q 4a 14‘ I .- .‘M v .0. ”o .L 4-~— U;I ,0 3-1- 0; Lani? ”1 O ‘333‘1 CO A'. V..-. ‘ C A -1. o 4, __ lL/Q..-So V'A‘fifil ’2--“‘\ “3‘ n‘q 1' VC-‘hv' .L‘--'_—"O-s bx.~..v so 03 Wc‘t _~- —- N‘./“ 0;;er ”“fect r C... ., I.r-.jfi '- V-AJ.-.’. ’ J. h" w- 5.3.1.4.. L/O ‘ 7" “WA-‘4‘}. f'" I‘ from d 11.0 V C (*7 1.1110 T". 4.). Q Izitk1 *r J; a Si Mn./‘ 1" .4. \— ,-;.... to g ”I- L30“ 0 1 211; .— L.»...L.LL “A“ 1r 11 ‘A frOI "——‘ \qu V v :i -W .1- L. Aw «(N'fi C“ p . ; w-‘ c- L.— y‘ '1 QJSCg ch 11 these ,‘\ fiv“. wan-‘1 1" .L. LbAA—L cight to , 1a .- 11‘1»: r 4.0-41 19:--1; .3 .VI. . L 3i _ 1- rj_")l/‘O:- C1- rs Vv to U “C 1- :1 C ‘1 --..L -1, \rt-.. 1.. h.” 4.. m-.. 1’. Q 1 VA .3 u. r'\ « 7... V I10 C T..- ‘- fi-VC o ‘ 7"” «I‘ " — L’vAAnL to .1. b ’u" *" ’O- 0 ~ 7 .o ., -V ‘- -1 LI‘OJ. 333.11-. a 4— A~~ .\_T by} v.» moved ‘ F. I"'- 4' vfl L; CrC- f-c change _,6 .- v- -- our. no '3. .L .o- Lama... 1- f") 1m even to H b.— fi. 1 .. nail—IL O v" .& ‘fl can «I the achci appro {ICC find ~: -w-L , CCi rm -116 S ,1 Mt“ J- to 7r .L... " - «L £on n \z “4\ A... rx M/ . (WT! \_."‘" 'L, at J. 1 not a lVC‘ p .1. rm" wAJ-L from .. 1 rngL$z 4.. LI wi'.- 631 '1 01131. ~ ~ ‘ IZOVCG. 1’10 o G l. C b J S 1.1. d e m... v.“ — 1WD 1 C a G u r ,3 .l t O .. O «G. a. n n l J M my + m ctvt7_nu 10( «a a v . d .r c. o. I h. t m... s l r. m w. e .C 7; .C D t t m m m .t S t r l 3.. 3 W. «C C .1 h d t «id. C .r. 2.. A. v.0 u _.. c .. C e S V 2 e S . . C C v. 5 3C 3 U. ~C t «x 3 r C C .l a «C T. 1 .L . . . _ . I. 1. .. 4a A r“ .a 1. w. 0.. ; 11¢.L d S .p U «U «. i O O . d . 1 l U .1 l u n f .1 r P... C r 6... C .1 DJ L S .1 .14 C O «.m\ 66. O .l O 1.1., f Cm. .6. . wJ U . .. u ..s .umr. Hun g o «C .1 x. A. .L r “Wig C a .:J r J m* ”L PL 0 h- — t AA cl my.“ d B My m“ C S « .u .. .n. h . e n h HE «. . n V 16.“ hp u u m mm by . . L ”4 «Ni .7” Au «n Di 1 JD NV rVd m A V i o c e c. a 1 1 .w I.“ .u n s o .2. .1 r z a” a m Vt; . .. A s A 0 ml. .. I « _ 7r. . . i a . . . L H... . A . 6; Di 7 . o r” . .U .... Law .L. w I .l C O 1?. C Q .3 .C e O x l .0 .3 C __ ,1. \¢ vwf. . P. ch Lv .11— !rU '75” Up , AM C av r n n» m T. .U. 7,. . AC ,CU t r Mu «H. e “U. .Tu m. My ant; l C Aw no 2 a «w M s .m. 6 a I «I C n t f O H n. u U D. _. C e s m s .. ii 0 p... .21 m 1 o c O U 0. C r .M .t C --. 1..“ t C «D n E 9 1w. .2 l r m; AC r;_ a; QC v“ M m. a u aw. a; m“ nu «u «C a. . mm 1” 4v me 1-..“ o . .C «1 1 LC . C a. .l 70 d «C C 0.1..” 3 ,1. r C «Q 1:“ Lu «-. my .1 .1+ .. w. by a; c~.hu “C m4 1; «u r“ Lu « a, w. my «M S C. O h 8. 1 39....“ .C. m 1.1... a t O C u .Q .T .l L. am 3 C a” .1 C x .. L _ h o 6 . . A“ _ v. & ow Q mpwub 02p a Dluovfi«1 .D WW I Nu m n. . 2:. d s . m .1 .«d .3 l e S 2 l e 1w 0 a C J .1 . ... .L m l m. E I. l C e U. G a S C. J A + a. m. “PM O... ark; Wm NW [NW 1. .. C v.“ 1.1. 7 9V «nu "I.“ n...”- an P» C um... —. WV 3v P.” r O .l. .1 Q .L my. r mu .3 C S .C C 7.. L «O Y T ab , n9 . L V «I 1 (W .3.“ ., J C 5U V0 C «I. r Mr.“ «L n; D 1 g .r t 11 . r .3. .1 a o o . l n; C 4.... e C i .«rL 32* 31.. ml“ 0 TH.“ C no 1:“ mm“ u) «1— mg by . 1* 6V 9 1+ 8 r. .. t a; - V.CwmaLwan,g+uh Q”. n my C a. C 1+ S i 1 t a. . a . a c t a s u t w .2 r c -. 1 2 Cu , fiw NJ ml...” 3, .u .. 31:4“ flu L U ML ' nu 4lv 0—D try .1 91* 3 N.“ 91* Lib ”TU Mv~ 1» H — GA by «.4 cl .Fv. 1.... C Llu 0 Mn” 1n Wt... 1n V A“ r r “O!“ Cw Luv 2 d S C «.1 O . r. 3 C S. .C t S S i at r L C 3 _.a C n,“ 1 J C. MW. C MID. 0.1.— Afib .Fv 1n ”In C Fr.» u flu C Mim . s f . ~ WIU A. I. Aw v... «i «C. . 9 1w. .i I n .C O .9 .L. t «K. O U. .3 0 Tu pt. 1 t O _ C mu .1. a S l + S 4.4 3 1 1% M C 3. a h .J a... .3. D .l 3 1 : 3 . 4.. r u 1 .. . rt . b o .4 i o . . . .. . .. r .m C T4 n t M .C l i o. C. h t. h t a l m d C .S a .1 G C «. 3 1mm A; ,3 a». .h 0 an S C (M S l o. 1 l. h 0 1.... 6L . ~ .1. .L cl 1A.; LU r “I. e . 1 . m « u 8 n9 6 .7..— 01* 1-. O 3 «u l n. .. 1 .L Va u S O 3 h C C U m _ C .l e in T.— V 1 z mj «U ml 1m”. VJ S O 5 a.“ _ _ .. Mr L-.. d t «D 1 l ,C. «L .1. S T u L1 W H...“ e m. S - a cw T n. S D. .e. l . .. 1n. U l l r S r .. C L a .l «a C m l .d a t C O 3 a O t C . . C my 3 . .- .u a a. .. an. O M. Mr... 3 mm.“ C 1 . ; h c d. t L ,H .L t n v... t rI .1. C. W m m m x C. S O «a C .1 MM .0. «A U C h C a r r C S «C S h _ C S .C «1 cu D. «a S W“ o. i ~. on factor - ’3‘ u ‘-/ OSCL 1,11,"? 3 l cctc., jfl .L- 61’") 4*- . 7-". 19*.J-VCVCI‘ a: 1 A 1« C 01.3. L U the 0 Th ‘- ~___o UV 0 0 1,« J. .. ”7 .LA. ally O .1 cl. «taint f‘ L.) ub C‘ 0...: 0 '1 ‘,3 *LL 1 fi .770 to .91M. ella or ‘1 ‘5 .1- x ". LJ 9' -1.- u \ est correlation fro of .‘ Pr“, .1,“ 1‘ 4.- by; \J Q“ 1‘14.” (w 9"“ Hf" VII“ J.\, le hi. % ~- J..-LL/'. r711 4.1 '16:] m» *1 ’lClI‘ .L‘l b; O 4r v ‘7 to I‘v T'\ 4.1. ’2 D “'1 4.; .. \J... A .2 j 0 O r L. i. closest ,3 b- .fi,‘ 4 O . c' e rol .T‘I‘e Dubai—J (A ' I J. ‘L Q “r! .4. J‘ 1"”‘A‘ .LLA;J. .L T 'f.‘ 17' + d U‘ of t ed HOC- ' I.) l 5“-vv all f\"\ (‘1‘ b‘ts J. u u CECE 000‘ 4.04. ‘r‘ .. \ $3370 ceptiO“ 0y r erfcr .L "Na .. 11 )J 3“. D flu a S D _ C M... (v 301118 A1 L. o .l C. C ‘A Tn J .0? th A. ,‘i L‘- ‘ I 1 ‘ ourtec l rob-oar: D .L M f her ner- 18 O (c. " (Inf 1 over )1 I (3. 7 6..) 7.»_ 6 IV?“ I .1 J. "101°." ' -A— C. M“. e correlation ‘1 —-q u lll r7115 .- L- H 10 1,1,?er 1" 4. L; 'f‘f" Kriv , ye: after rel ed her. m -1. ‘ 1,1 7".“ “‘- VioA- {'3 V ‘A 1 ,..‘ K) CA. v‘ ‘m -. v.14; ‘ ~ 1.0. I]. V 611 1‘.” C) W m fw'. 1119-! . -‘. r. R“ ’10 CO ‘ C C C lgl ., l ‘1 4’\ Y ‘- ws ‘ 1“,"? ' . VLJ 'vv.‘ 3 3110 i “tella .“\ f')‘.“ f: 99:3.“ -. h 16 o , l“ Lav JO -Dl C V ,3 A * r‘ La 1a A - h ,"n 01 c l& --8. o of O -‘ lit‘ CLI‘ l C C 17.1 's d y Elli I, a. -fl * A tall the rehe co (7‘ vc ception L \4 .r u Liv I A.“ no n. 7% PL 9 _ :1. mm _ no nu . Al n._ Va ”Q C by .0 _ CU 3 01 n C I“ O a C, V. W V t .r L L L .l O 9 9 3 C .. 1L 1L mm LL 1L AL NL “L “L or 4L LL qLL .uL a“ L .0, 1 Va 9 . ._ Q 9 .l r 0 Lb M L 1 L l C 9 .9 -C 3 D. C at. ,. .. f .. .L O a u S l a U. .l C 3 LL .4 T G r _ h a i. C E l o L L L L r .1 e O .hd mu fig m _ 3-. r4_ .9 3.4 a“ «mu no by no L; :L by no a“ “L no "L LL aw LL “L a._ 0 LL Ll . m. LL LL “L pl ~.L .nL _ . VL e a _. h ,.,.. n L. E L. w r 3 f .1. r C. m 2. H C 1 . VL r V 3. LL .1 . C O .l .1 C h r 3 .1. 1 H- l O m . C 1.... S fit. a.“ C 9 i C C n1 .3 .. l at C V V. t a L a .l C O c O _. L. H . w LL 0 t C L. r J i. O l .1 .L. o r h o A L o o o .C any 2 U 0 e "L 1P.“ on * an V. by w... 1|.“ C LIV 7“” i by n... .r m n 1 a L .f 3 U. T a 8 LL 0 LL u A. L L S O a S S t n.“ 9 m L O h C .l a S l .1. i C e 9 M d a n1 a .. "A D r... C .3 Lu 3. r 11* r m . n. ..._ a-.. S O W e o 9 l 1. _ C. 3 f a. L _ 3 LL 0 O r r h C J. O a 3 1 l O L L u C L t 3 mo no no “q“ mad no . "4 nu «l .wu no ail cu ~-L 4. FM n. m4” W Lu“ nu mu“ no. .1; mm L v wnL m. by no em .wl _ no «o w“ no :4 .:L LL ..L. LL 3. .L “L LL nL nL 3L no LL .1L no gm“ an“ .1; Wu no A» .LL. .1L .9 wnu ._L aw nu n_g .1L a u ”7* ml .1L -.L no .l o t a .D h A. w. L .. o L L 1L r C r e C 1. t .r .. 5 "Lu . nuL L L L L“ .L 11L pw mm 3-. av w¢u .9 “h .al .1L .L. nu Aw no so cu Cu cg. AL .1; a;¢ w.L no so no ow cw «ul q:L .nh ,3 LL. 1 L L C S a .1 C M, 3 a u L. h 1L. .. L C h a .0 C 7 .1 D. r O n i 3 Y .m e .1 L 1.. 3 EL . L r 3 u L n O O G r .1 a A C u: 3 C w- O n L G U. C. S O d. t D” t C a“ .3 n1 1 A .l n Mg C an O _ .3 h C VL 9 O P 3 ...L . LL .1 AL. ., L L 1. e 9 3 C S t a L a 8. 3 9 fl 9 - L .. L .L .J, .l P. C a L 5. LL .3 O . 1 LL 3 a L . L T c .l L L C LL 0 G l C t M v a; D. .. .w 14. S l. .3. 1L. .1 7L r S «D 9 3 LL .3 S C C 3 u d . . LL 3 3 S 1. o L a C C S h a L L .1 .L H h 0 O Y S O . n u. .l _, ,L . l S U S n L. t G O -.L G t .l b a .l n .L. C L L J .3. C O a L. C n .r L. -. r e t w... L L. .1; o S h 9 .. L _ d l _.... .- L LL .. L a l o +L .n o c C. o .. 8. VA A LL DL ‘4 mm .1 9 FM mu 1:. nu w.L ”v mu no ., w“ «L w“ av no a” co no a“ “U a no .mu M L mm L e l l f a L. L L“ L C O h "L n _ .l h l . H n l r i 1 T e f A r o l p _ C A _ h 1. LL 3 h t l 3 C. r l a b a r .1. C C. l r a. L L L 1...... l e C c C V C no Lu no LL LL wL" no 1L LL .ul Lu 9 LL _ «L LL .L nL Ln qu nu LL no oL no mo nL ,L Lo 9 uh nL L wyl ow 0L Au LL 1L .9 l 1; 1 w“ .3 r S .3 3 .3 Lu .1 7 1L 7“ 30‘ _ r n“ a“ 0% no p“ LL mu LL ,9 no a. n. "L ha LL 0. . .L nu vV .mu mu nu .L nu. ., 1L --u o m mL no no no Wu LL L“ e a. m. r h a 0. LL LL .4 JL 9 LL :L r 0L Dr .L S h S a t " CW 6 :_ . C m C LL 9 L e V O» “U no 1L .4“ no A; 9 no .1L (w ”L AL "a a; 9 a“ ml a“ .,L LL” 9 .LL 5L LL , -rL LL LL “L aL LL 0L . l m9 6 my . w. .3 .1 vb C m, 1.1.. mv 1L 1a.... C l 9.11. l . r C L . C - L C l C C S .1. r f L e b C r d r ._ L .1 a D t . .. o .l 3 n. L m L o i ._ L. ., u no nw mm LL me .u “L uh a no no .c Lu no . no .4 ML .w -L no L L C a o w L C i L h i t t D n .1 "a A 3 LL .V, 0103- (—V La O 11 A V o (" (‘X L; V...L More '7'”. f'fi fl Vat.) ., “ayeu. Dl ‘- M ~ I-“ Stall 001;;b —_ ‘9 . a -0- "l o ‘7 ’1 DC $.11 A ." '30., 7 77 1 t /"‘\ " L. J. \I \I\ Q I ‘1’-- ’1 tr Y'vl”~ '7‘ 7‘1? :3 v~» ‘_“:JJ__, .. .‘4 ‘N ‘P‘ "i O --~"\ r1 5+».V4‘ ' ”‘5‘; U V... ..-.L-~ 1.1 v O n .J) _ S S we . C 1Q a; mu .5“ _ 1Q .1 Q. _ S .11 3 . 1 no A I J C O. r i H h H d PL _ C h r t 3, 1C 1 C 3.1 I l C a C. (C .11 C Cl 8 Lu .1 3 l _ 01 I C t f. l .3 h _ 1.. r n C b C C C. 8. .C 1 n r C. 9 a C C D. e S C . P. v .1 S r L d f 4... C e .l D. a; S C T 3 Lb .l . C C q.” d "J "(u C C C (TV 9 .C 7.. (C C C. C h U 3 S r C a... 3 .1 C (C a h I (1. (G 0 Va 3 S 9 S h (I. .1 Lu J n: C C 1.1. l U .l .1. w... _ t C. O L 3 3.1.3 t C t h r (C b C m, 0 _ 1...... T Q C 1(_ a... f U. h Lu .1. f C r a .3 Lu 0 . S a C Lu J l a O h C. C 0 0L f :1 O.D.C h C C r 0.11 _._1_iav.rCC .1. V O T a h L.V .1 3 h 0. .l h v. . f O p U u C C .1. r f .l u C e I _ (o t -5 C 1 Y S 9 Lu n... O h a o C o e f 0.: V o t S n. G .J C C 3.1 r A... Ly.-.“ S .1 1. n o a t l f c h C r .1 S C h o V. a t C t (C C C h h C .I. t O 11. t C. e 40 LV 1.1 (J l t I e T C .1. h Lu .3 f . a a V. V S "J: l . t a 3 C h C S S L... I O h h I .1 D. .. r .1. LV 8 C h c t... C .1. l C t C 3 m c 3.: 3C 0 ii 3 0 e t . r .C 3 r t 1 .l (E 2 ”oh .1 6 V1 C O S C S C C S C . a C. .1. l N (E C .. S S .1 Lo U. (I. A C l r) t C p S . m. A C h 3 Lu 1 3 T C C t O r O .0. C C C . l C C A... l L. AT. G .1... C. S 7. 6 r C 0 .3 b 3 u 1....“ S r C v. C r r l 3 r .1 O f C (C O 3 .3 L, a V. a... C y 0...“ O f t C h C u l u S L.U D .1. h C t h C C C l m .l C h 0 h C C .l O S. D C a LU C. h a H. t .2,“ d r .f V S a... t S t. S J. O 1 Lu 1.... r d 0 SO! r J11 r T S _ C "(u S C r S U 1.... (C "d 8 3 fit a _.._ 1n .1 O 9 S 1 O C C S .1 v. J. va h .011 . f... a h h a C l 7,11 _ C T. f a t t r i l r b C C h 0 .3 .1 C l t C 31 a o _ i l C n t f 3 V. l .l n I t t I A .1 D. O f C O H... a d Lb C. C G 3.1 C o w. o a t C .1 a f e v. t .3 _ u S 2 r f C. C l a C. O C C .l C C C O H .l e S t LL S e C r b... O C S . t C C S (n. l S t 1 u. d. 1. l .1. t h C v.0 H... a C m .19 S u .1. a t 3:1 a C .1 .3. t e .1 LU .1 o t a c t D C O S h S Sf\ S l. S o S w 3 C T. l h 8 Va 3/\ (C L... C C t C .l C C 9 C S r C. 1. n _ S r t . l C h Lu 3 h J. u C C h L e .313. (.. .. C 2 O C .3 a. O h a r S .l S O .1 n. h a t C r a (x O C t .l .l . S t I n .t C d. a . .l l 3 .1 S f t l c l f S va .1 e t .C o 1 t .1 t n C .l t .3 a C :. U, C a C S 9 O l T” 9n n ril C O .1. V (E n .J C S a... A . .3 9 .l U. U 0 C. . C e C e C t 0 mg. C a 0 Lu h 0 C _ C C r O S S h C t u r O V i .31 Sf l C 1. i C C .1. t l 1. S h (1. C f u .1. S S a. C t .1 .1. Lu .1. D. .9 . .l l .1 Lu C (E C 0 Lu 0 .1 .l 8 Lu S C C S O I Lu T 1 3 f a a L S C i O b V H t d (A C 1!. C 1 n D. 31 «1.1 C a h .1 l u 0 m. 8. 3 f r a .3 O t V. C 3 C C C i 3 d O D. D_ t r .l. O. .f H“ Al 1:. O C .3 .C C E (C r C r .l r .3. G 9 l O O a c f S t a S n C .. .1. a w 3 h :1. 1. It 1. Viv C S l ”C C a U 3 S a u C C C .l L... 1... H Li ..1 1. 1. Lu C 1. a. C :9 r 31 O C l C J C C S J S a C a C. .l .C .l e r O .1 u C l A e C r r O .L S m Ht .1. W . 1 3i “ f C I C V C. G l O h l S S C 1 Lu T w... .1. 11 a O 1 w. o cotsath; m t C S e ahaoeoionulm C S CSih SmLLu n r T It C n VC Cl C 0.0%.. C t .5 C O 3 H J C .. Q (C O O -. C. .l O C r C mu .Tn ".4 C a D. «L O p; m». .3 a .L C .1 n . . O C. h. L a t 1. l. t _ :0 O J .1 C L We . _ H a; h i .l .l C. C S .l 1C. O S C ‘3. l .l C e 0 Oil 3 to 3 f ,1. h C h e t .l S n r C C Q 1 b T h u .3 T h .l h C Lu T .C S C 1Q .1 .l .l l. C, “a C 1 t C C C .11“ hp “\H. H» O O l h; M A: a; flu A. 1...“ fly ’17..“ “U” "V y 3 h C i a ,2 1 C 2 S a L C r. n. .3 C h C O S m C l T h t C C r T. C 0,. i O .t a t C .C t 3 O 1L l H. S 1. I t r r C T .4 S l V. r S 8 A v“ C C .l .3 O O C O C O .. v C C. C A C 8 LL u .1 . $ ._ C a t C h C T. 1.... C .L u C C V f u S p 3 .l u -._ .E _ _ r C l 1. u a-.. S f C l 3. a. L 3 S V. O t l C _ 0L 6 f C T 11. C C C . A“ C h «L C r r .3: ..2 S J. T. O a... 3 Va 3 C ,1. no“ ml Ow va C r C m C a... ,J .l C a .C .3 E. a m L 3 i 1. t h L. .C 9 C a W Va va .3 S C _l r r l G l o _l l .1 C m C .TV C O .1“ r S. a C C n 3. O S l h 0 5., C. u L. a r 3 .l C V C l .L t 8 O _ C. 3 C C \4 .l 2 C r _ O U .3 u E C t L; «I I .C. S _ .7... E .L o .C .3 7. S .r. C a. f C Q .3 51C. h C C\/ 3 t 3 A w 3 ,. V .w. 3 C o 3 L . _ .L up,” u _ a 3 10. C 3 _ G S C h C V. C C _ S ,V O T. t I V t N t 8. .i a a r S .l .3 mi. 3 1,.“ AL. . C m .D C . u. 3 0 C S _ l 1 C 8 e I T I 3 0 W O C r C 3 u 313T. 3.1 .1 S C l C h h C .5 _ :1. C "L. a... n C C r -L C e L S .C a V .J t C h t t -E G L p S C. T .1 .3 n h C mo ..u .l r t S t t C t l .H h 0 v. C .1 .l 1.1 9.3 C h C t a S S d 5. .1. 3 C O t t a i I a -C l h t .C a h “I n L L .l r .l C M“ .1 an“ n... C 3 O I 3 h C -U 1 Ln LL 8 O f 0 e a V t t to S n C J h V T t S Sf S .l t 7. O t d h C C 8. u I C n. t C .l C C l S .l i J A .l 6 C l r h 1 O C Q .C .1. .l U. I T C h I «1 5 O n O C D C C i b .1 b S h. 0 .J S C l t s C U .l O S .3 a C /\ .3 C T .C C .1 I .1. C S .1 L 1 v. O S I O t .1 i t l h 6 r S C C O .l C. C I l C r i C e h p «U r X D. t V... I O 3 L.“ v. . .0 MN," r S v. S 1. C r 1. C L .0. C .l .I. I. C 3 3 a. L .0. U. i a .L V t L C G p S C A: . t C C h C o. u 3 a I S . A: C O C C S r C T O i S O S C _ J S S h v H C O h l C 3“,. .6 e r O C C H C l. H .1 ,1. n; . 1C. 3 C a t -C J .l t .3 mm. . 6 r P e C h I A o L t 1 l l 3 .3 . c C 3. .1 .1 t .L. O c S r O O. .. Lb o .1 w.. H. A; u mt my hp ML ML. by a?“ _ 1.x“ C n; rm ( Cu 0 f“ S Q n w L v .l a; C O Ly. C n” .L .1 .1. _ .3 U. 17;. C _ S r n. L L; «a. C .J 1Q C LL. 2 C a; C C r C . m [U VJ «_U A «a S C O C t I C . n: C C a C .3 .E T S C T” O . .i l o C h .. t .l C .C Q C n.“ V. _ S C .3 .0. 3 V O I C I 1.1 l f r an: e .1 .C r 1 C h 3. C S a... C S H C S Pb a 6 l O t i l V l d C a; h S l C r u C n C 3 t .l C n 9 i C C a .0. : l L 1L i - L O i t d l o l r 3 v. a 3 no a A: S A: Mi. 3 C S u C C C r a ~ a.” .1. T I C l .3 O C. O _ _ C r l R .U C .C .L _ C ..L .L h V L T T. .1 .0 8 CM 1 S vu bu DJ _ . C _.i C r n. L.» .1. fl: .7” 1. u mu. C C _ «J C ul— .1 Ow do Lu W; o 11* by O M. L.“ r; .l A“ h“... by :L m... ‘U Cu Lb 31* r 3. Cu .1“ .7” S L i "L «Tu a.“ AL Lu 3.1. a.“ mu 1..“ PC nu :1— 1 Lb Tu G M m C .C 3 d. h _ L .L .3 L C. S r _._“ C V C nu 6 n p e. c Lm. U . r .1 e .5 C. c u l 3 c s. 0 Pt f a L Di 0V LN; LU LIV O . a flu +U u A v Di LU V v.— ..1.« HI; 7.“ AU .3 vfl ho H S .l O C r L. “ _._ L. C l C e o i a e _ o p L u .n o e a ,. M ., c n L b r n i m Q -5 o q t .L L I l C .L x o . \Q “\J v o '1’! play u bus 0 6 W1“ 3. V0 VV; cot 10V 001 V VV 3“ .,V. . _fi, 1 1 1 ~ 2 _l ‘ V 5'" .V.‘ .'—‘ V. . ‘ f‘ V. -.,. ,- ‘ \ - --r-\ O o r~ .‘T- r‘, ‘ ‘ . . " . . . -438 («undo V e SLCZ-JLIVA'VL':L$U tUJ-«H M-~«VAVV w'c Doug U¢..~ ..\,: .-_\,‘4 VA 0.4 v4; UK“). £_LJ ‘ <7 x A r— ‘I‘ a. z'- ' _ ,‘u le‘JU LlquLLo " 1 ' .2 ‘ n ”V v ‘ V V 6“ .V 1 V . 0 V1 JV ‘ " -“ . .F-r‘ -~ ~ 3-i‘1 “’I . . r. .‘ nr— . " .'_.Ll “Aubupg;xxc lVCr £9 .1. *VVV'CVLLCV .LVaVVL Ul'vL «4" vb*L-w- J.v.1.v I‘ 1 ‘ ‘ ‘V- J . .‘J V V . °. . 1- .. '. V V ' L 3, _. I V ' ,L. ‘ a: .fi.‘ r‘ . .ij ‘I (2‘ V f““|“y ( V ’3 ‘0’") .. I" '1.‘ I .\ f‘r. I I ,- Six ' 1&9? quLLLU V C v- L.£.-~.L 9.1.11.0 J. &- CL&»V‘J— VvL/UVVLJVan-UAOA‘, yLsU M‘- o-.'y:. *k») u. ,- .a.‘~ - C" V'v'vh (7.1-1 "J—Allr_ (“uhxwfi‘w VA finx.;,V. t..’-':--(., V.V1 ; L.LU Lllb H1N$bi¢U~~U “_VLCL SVQVLLA. baby 9 —vULVV-.L‘\/J (-Luibéb't- x4 .sJVJLV “hr 1 ~14 '- l- v. -C' r.r~_ ‘1 Af-x 1,“ f‘. fl 4”}. f _Y , .' r‘t.‘ '. ‘V‘_‘__,V. 1 ., .,..V, " _ J.‘ ' ‘. (-1}. IAOLJ L.» tive s.) Fuka' C bum”. (I'LL UAVVU‘ .4;.a..I'.'.VU 1.“.U—VV LIVVJVA. d- DA;-~..;J.... LVLJ-U .V.-- 1, ,-- .V or- ,V. w .3 -. 21 V 4. ”V. n V9. : ,.x .- -,..- 1- ~ If V -- .- O AVVvsd. llv~v V Cquv CL .1. 0..” _.L...LI Viki UCV 5..) '»,'x..|_;,4L/.LL/L~uvn4_. u~Cu Klugu { ’. V V . 1 P71 ‘ ° . l ‘V V- V . - V.- - .‘ . V 3. . 1.1 . . _V‘ - fl 7 . 1"..T ' ‘ «1' 1 I “\‘A “[AI . ., I‘ ‘ l . ‘ 1 ' ' . ‘~. _' r «Lil L-L \IJ-bu. 0) *ll Lela. (Qt/LIL}... , I- ~o\4 b VL , Li’s; U‘-'LI-¢J—~a€—~J Ll..b.‘ -4.U )1L' C(Vlu. .. ~ .0. v ,- 4. .1 .2 1.. _n: .1 . P1 .1 V . ." 2 .1 .- f‘f‘ ! . ',.P. r.» , "W H ', 1 ~ n Afr“? -\ r -1 5.x AV.L.L-~/...VV VVVVV LL]. .V»--.'V- 4..L.Vv’ 5.4.AJ. C w-Lvy'v LILJLJ "1s—~L\«» .LU .LA..L v-u "‘ ‘ - f '_ .7.‘- t. ' V' 1‘ f‘ "' J. J- V V- . .V...‘ ' V W, ' c‘ v I" I ‘6 , 1‘ ' (w ‘1 r~ (" ‘r‘ ‘F‘I‘. , . - ‘ l .LMLJVJx u .“-. an L; Lilly-sU (14.;L'V’sz ULLK, J. v_Lv UL- v-V- L) V- v V 'J :V/U _ILLl _ 4- ' m— L lymuuu. .-1 V V v, V _ J- V - . .. .9. V n .1- 3 A - l 1. _ V: -- ~. (fl 1. ,x_- ’31- fi ,r‘ ~ P I". ‘If -\ -“ , ‘ 3 . ‘ ~~. * . ,. \ .-- ~q "-»~V )UU 5.. ‘VIL.-U \V. lbvfi \_.'L/ V—_...OW¢.U OJ- 4.4;.‘K/ .J-‘J. Uilb J—LJ-UV.L - ~‘ g ’ v” - o o _y_ j_ 0 _ v _ _ w 1 1 I 1 o f. _1.1 J V “ - ‘1 ~ - v— - - ~ ' " ~ -‘ -'~ - “ - ‘ . ‘ , ' (K n’“ 1 ~ \ 'V ‘ . Yb ‘. r“ A . _ ‘ _ ‘- .* ‘ ~ .A ‘—\r‘ A V .LK/cc LLJ—LV‘VL/V‘. ulVAlx LI;A\V/ A.-J U‘VVL 3v; LJV‘Aw-L- a. VJ.~-U-L.VVLU...L >4 - --k" Ll..... 'V'v . .V .- V , PM, A .‘1 1V 4 ‘V .. l. .' ‘I. V '7 . ' ' .I , fifi ( A fl-i ‘l . . ., r- A’\ V. ,V~‘lo — c,‘ .31 (a .— ~ . Luv-d34- CiAL—-lL-~Ct\-- p. oaV'VLu JV K1,}. vi «VVU UL-VLJ\-’ .zb... ~U;L:.-_1_ 4. V“--L,_l_'\,~_u.- V ‘ _' , _ , A A ' fi w r'W 'w n fi 9 ' 7 o r‘ ‘ r ' ’5'? K ’ .- ~\- ‘ (a 75 ‘_-"A -v. x" ‘3‘ ‘r‘ ‘ .\ - .\ I“ . r-c ~ (- - q- .V’ - L.&J..L -JL— .A_V.VJ J.-~_.. ‘fL Lx‘J. ybpym ;,.\_.., -./.V,;.....\.'_ _._.V..L.i.bv. Lav L-JVVIO .L \V.;..L1 v.-\V.v 1L .. ‘0- . .1. 1 "' ‘ 1 ‘11 1 11 3' ' ° 1 .10 ‘ , ' 1 1 ~ . 7“ r. .‘\ 1 . A ‘ ~ -—- 1,~_ - f“ ' r- ‘ . .- --_‘4 r“ --- - ‘ I‘ v F‘ ‘ - , -- -.- ,- —4 UllL/ Ml; LICK/0‘. ULLLLU lib.v V L-k.vil LfiL/UV V‘u-K-l U-L ULLL-b'J—VAJ. :JCU UV». . T 1‘ .172- .-.—\-°. .. L-«wm » "~—~--’- ~—~ ~-v~ ., : ~- -’~ r--- n 4. VLvJVU quVLVV J..-L-‘J L'VaVU'vuVus. L/J. A Lb “VJVC \.C’J.AA U0 V‘s.» V9 9-- ’J’(§V\‘|r '3‘ ‘61’ (—V'Lfififi“ r. I: -: -fl~ fl!‘f‘,-4 ru- 1 T ' r‘ r‘ ‘,/\‘7' ~~-- 43-1- a r1 -. f. t v‘. , V dud 5.1 Ll... ‘_.LC K.-.L._ LVUV— , L--l\-4. —. o-L. L.) V \Vr—Vd Ltd—V-gpukl‘J- b.“ O 1.:A,. 1.14%.! _Vflfl‘,‘ , Y'O‘ '1 ,1 L V‘L -.;..n,-.,,‘ LV“.. (‘1.\.‘,_ ‘r ,nr.\'1y_ lib'ol VL‘J-La KIKIJ. UV-J~ I L]..J.~A U va [\V- U'AAL'... U.-V LVAk/u . .— J. \aJ. J _,_ . 1. VV, a r» .3,qu 1 11 .- ‘ ,. .1”: vim— 44.}: (V U¢-g..u L—- L49.— VVL:J v. VUVvJ— ~-'~/\.V—~Vt .a. V-~.......d Lav .Va.' V—-VVVV i. v11 (1-..; t.» ..\,VV/,J.: ,..'y,--,. V. , .V: 7' 77V -V .V,-- CVV,,—°: 1 ,V " 7". ,‘V 7 ,V‘ ,V‘nm.‘ "— .n’. UJ—Uv—.A.i—.A. 5.1::Ohu , p.._\_- on. o.-‘h_4 b bfid ‘-‘v-A-VV-_. nlLLv~L i.b v_.~..-‘\,’ . ' '. 1 V N V: . 3, “ _.VV . x ‘ - .. 1-x / (‘ _ ~ A 4— .. f - ' .. 4‘ v I [A x . ‘ \ r'\‘ ’- _‘ . ' . ,. y ' \‘1 , ‘- k‘.» IVAJ. l¢AUV L’Aav U KIA. ' L)bvlcgl&l.‘.')__- ubu‘a' 'VIV'L-IV L-U V.~\.l ~.U Ung. VV "fi ‘ . " '1' ‘ .!V -1. ' ‘ a 0 v P~M ‘ m*‘-vs -.1 «a: -nr-r\ . "v ‘,n~‘r“ (a rip. v ' ,A 75px -' .- r 1 ‘fl".r\"n-\n UV. .VKJ .— C.’.-L/L...- HV._L,._,"'"... L'uny‘ci UO 54L; V. . 4.1.x]... ~4 ULAV w—VJ. \xv-V'V__ Own?» L 1»~ “W r. qu L1». .crH— - ‘ 7w n 1 2.: 4 '7 .V \a LL‘BL.- Ll LA‘ J..-'.\A_‘.\.a K—v.‘_.J— U-A\' 9VK- U M -V- .Uk -- L). -—L-v~-&’ V' J.-.— V .LV . _ ._. n 1‘ ,V..,. O T 'fi‘f' "‘ W ”MO ‘r‘r-z- '1 ~'T *1 7- ‘7‘ h '3 H" nr‘“ 6*.“ A ‘ q L "‘ n r‘. uA-Uv... V-, .- ;- \4 a»... u .L V9.1- ~.Lo--\-J4LAV\I\- L/v‘v» V'.~-\—J .- J. VVV. _ ‘/ V .x- ’ ’I". r-w 1' 11 ‘1" 1" ,-V hf ‘ x (W .«J T --‘ ,1 ‘ M) ' ""‘ , \ ’- "‘ c“ r. x (N .'\ -" Ch ‘~ —‘ ‘L r" r (-u 'I' 7' A O but... AV“... k4 , s-ngva‘_L_/k’ so \__' V1.5- U \‘v U kvp ..- "~‘L" v.. -VVVV-L'LJ ko-L ;..v +1“ am V~ 1". “.1 .A “'1‘ ”'7"r\ 34‘ *“F r,‘ 1‘ r5 Ari]: "‘ v'N ‘ 7.“ N "1 ‘3 1‘.“ C ‘ an“ M ‘3, J- ‘ ' ’- V;-La.n. :Jv ‘JLV O “VU UV .A.U u‘v.p b. qu-m L~AK¢ U‘.V »--....V \V V u....; U .'~ : .1- T .V'V,V1V,': 11V ,. 1VV5V r,, 1.1.. 'r .‘:,.' '7' 4-1.:..1, .' -,~. (5,, v.4..L“.VL ‘- ‘LyVJLVVg L'Agv..-, LI'V.U s.“_l__hu‘ ch \a-.L.\.A.. A. UL..L-L—\ UL4K/ Ll L;--d' fl DJ— r\-Y‘ 0—,. f.‘ n! .Vfi,\ "H V.‘ A r 1 _‘ J,— “ - x~__“(‘ ‘1‘,“ A ,‘ _._ Vq', ,\ Ly‘.a C r‘ ...!I ,. ».vLJ\J_ 4. pavv+v~u AJ-vvxuk.) LIV .VV ALVv JV kH- “-1.-Av U»... u»J—L-.a, ' C‘ n" " J" 1- ' f‘ ‘. ,-~ v.1 '. ~ -. ‘ ~. 7",” 1*" r ‘ ‘ "(‘5 ‘ ‘1, '7 ' h‘,“ ' ' ‘ 3 ~ '. f" ‘3. A r- -' 1 “""d , LLLJ.L.4 5.1 A. LaL.).LJ....L;L’ v v4.0 uVVVvV UVAVVU , v- DAL-h...) _y 4. 'VVVAL vs: \-\1<‘~.rr ' -:‘1'-f— ’1' ‘}-V‘:‘ .7- .!.7V,- vv'vyn‘ r-lw -,-V C" (.OL- +-,.‘ ’7 ,V 1. ““ 9J1,“ ‘1 ‘V..~-,V,VJ o ~v.u — u;a....;4._‘ UV-.J » K, n vav u L' J vv pk. U v. . ;;L. -. 4. (J :J V __ I V.\iCL,._,‘, ,. .3.___; V,|,.fl.. J-.- ,\ ._ .g *CVLVVV.‘.- ‘-‘.V,...J.,V V 1.... ,V ,_ L1,.W ,.1 r. J. ' r‘ v ‘UM.~ v , L, .. Y LI ‘1 «v; VJ. V .I U».-- V! “\r‘-n- v'u LAU_~U vb.) LJV -.L—.L—- 3., O ‘.- r,‘_/‘ ‘0 1. ."\vr: T (JO ' 'nr 'A. "“‘P‘IL‘ J"\ A A a. ‘rh/W 3‘. A“ ' j- ‘ ‘L‘fij. m I&s.,~iJ JLDOL-_L-1; '. AQL..V\. u.— .. U .3- VV LIAakchl U.VAV -L... \aK-a'Vv-- Kw. \..VV L/L‘flh .3 y. w _1 1 ,_ .‘..‘I. ,V 1.. ‘1 "." V ,V V V' J. - V T _L L t '7-1 ,a , “(a “0-0 'L f‘f.‘ F !— x ‘ P, .1 _LL) .1 ‘, ‘I UL \v“. ‘J‘LO ..‘~\-/A-AL/VJ— L.‘ J- Ub-n vhf-l. k1 , SILL“ .- ldka L.) Im' go. Unn- L20 ’— i 2!. ..L t. q p L- LL; v0 ' .,. .1 li...\., 1 ~‘. l‘.\~r 1 uv, “fi¥& ‘A ‘ '.~ \AL 0 .Lrnc 0.1 0.116 7" '7 “n 3' L'Oll 1‘. ~~ 1 ,- T-I» .‘—L/~, h‘l44véi ‘ Q A. 1.- w,...;'l . J O ('G "- rm n--’ Ly UL-- f. v I (“1- H U D n - .-L I LLU 0 Erik“ Q C -- of Lu .v ,3 C o 0 t .u y T .0.“ LC .m M.C C $ _ +uj Mu .u ww m h. .1 t a n f h I l .. _ r a ., o O t. .. 1 U. c. a c C o 1 F c C c t Z . n. x” . c , .. L DI. r; L “.9 Lb 1k .1; . ., O a . 1 Lb f .l r. 1. . 4....— C «,9 £1— . r . . -. . . . n. f. 1 O t v (U .L ‘ d by I C .r. (V C O . . m . «A «1A 1 1 l. r . ‘ l c ...i_ M; o vd ......J. v .n+ f O fin T ... Mr“ S 1b a». m. C my. .xw. 1:... pi C C v. r“ m. Lb xiv a a; .. h b O x... w h C T. p... r V L C .1 C .Q l C r H 1. 1 my I .3 C a; L C I 3 C w m an S .1“ a 1.... C. .1 1; C w... H L D. C .1 Ln]. m. ._ . ML «2.. 1.“ fig LU LU 0 mm .‘n my w... .{v 1 1v. ..,.. DO 2A . 1. M A.“ H O T. 3.1 3 H... .O -U -L a... C .O .16. 2 oh C C L C O C L“ .C C C a... S .1 my 3 my I At“ .. .1. .ma C. L 1.... o 1“ v“ a. .p “u w. mu 4. n. v. W» .. .n . .H mu v. o Lu +u xi“ 11v ._ ‘ v a-” :1; fv 0.. v): «(V r.» M; 1|.” ”Tu . .. w”... . . O O r .... .C m... U. S T i O U. .C. .Q Q 0 -. C fi.:.pr.a .. m. m” C 7. C a .3. 0 w“ a C +. .G.. uunhtwd C .. t w. 1. u“ ~.171Hp V p. C v. S “n u .a“ c. he ..H L. w:. a. mu .. L-U W“ n. n m. «i. ”a A. ”w M“ m; 1m. .Tu vd C m... MU ; 1 M ”Id m. C . 1.0. O my a C «.9 O 0 3b nu... 11* 0 no «.w 1 AU «L r» m.“ LU . 0.1— C ab w» ML My...“ 0...— ow; C t .L 7.. w... .L o. .L r r S r U. L... .C S u U. .-. C O .1. D. C f .0. a». n-.. t. C. r C . O .L .1 r m. A C .C O i t o V C C A r a.” a .w. M... r t 1 l C U .1 CLuvuAflpr.C a“ O my C _L L .. u f. o v e c r e 4 o A . n: 2 o. c m i s. o c +. U. x. 1- -. .. , .. 1. . .ru .,. r .. ... .. a. .. _ 1.1. »A v. v: PL v O “I. . ¢ L _._V "by. 1% u“ . ‘ Av ....nvv. Bibby .l p. e v. C . O C .L. .1 A. C .p i. C a. 0. av Lu mu r. fl. . 1; m. n u .u Lu .. w. nu . vvu .1. w. . .. Lur.5.uv C “h we .Q +u .D an S . .Jfi.. a n. T. .p Lu 3 x. by C by L «U. ad. u Ag 0 L“ A... .14 Lu an; 4W) 1 .U .1 O C L.. 1.... t C L. O l C C v. H C .C .3. CH C "J J ... C p T m C. t C t C I r .l u 3...; S O S 1 w... C 1.: .1, l 5 fl 1 U C D. .3 MJ 1.4..; 1. n..c . a; w“ a. an a. .c w. Lu p. Mu.. c. a. A. w. A. .J Irv 1.. fl.-. _1._ .U u... M.” an m... mu. C Di h... m. mi. 0 rpv onl— . 4 «J. of“ my «I; ”L 1.. l .l C Q .U C T .T. T... C n... Lu C x. .7 r. 1.1.. - .3 T e 16 c h u .1 s 1. s c c .5. k .1 r s r w. m a d n. p. r4 an a. n. av a. n. .1. vu Lu N. a. Lu n. ”A ,A..c «1 o. . Lu .. 1; 1”“ LU rw .w\U .. “ Mr. 131. Hi i . Ab O O Luv 01.; fig I", LIV 1.. O «I. ‘1‘ . u 0%" I ...... K i .. .L t . r .J. s n h t n . r 3 1 _C .1 a. .. a. nu . .L w; .u mu .u a. .u «I. 5. my ”W Lu .. 4. A. a. Mr W” . . nu a. 7.. .L t C .1. .3 .g C r C T .l .1 T. C .1 1. C. 01 .. O Si . i 1.... t i 1 i U C a C. h C o u 3 m... _C . x. 1 S 3 9h .3 v t l C. l t . n. t d s. t a c L n. . L .1 H. .. .1 C i . S C c C S d C 3 O G K 1 L .1 C .r 8 Au . 1 l h V ”J i . a.-. S t 1 Q m 2 C _.O. .l/\ .L r F. S 1!. . 1.. L» .c .c a; 1; . M. H. .u a. n. v. a). .w .9 no pg .4 .p .u m. r. aw .‘L. ml... L“ P91; LU O 0 T1— ». .l mu PM o my .0; flu 1.“ Wu: C C g Mg v...” AW nv nva n. n v“ m. mu v. a nu v n“ . H .L .c an nu . .. n_ 0. Lu . .- L n .l S f C. . .C C. .1. l .l r C C _ r C. l w- .L +. p. w..u .. . nv .h 0. av up #4 *u_.p +u. . v. r. n. n. a. no .- cw C. L. L C C t a U. .1 a. C. .C C C u L _ h... 1 O C C h l c _ .l t O .L .l ”v C. C C. t ,u _L .1 up 6 1. C u-“ h u C a. h .3. .3 n... 1. . an. .H C. l. 2L h l O w.ng.n n... nun. .I\ w. a. D. O a. h. S . .4 .L ,c L. L. A av U A.. C M. C .u H No 3 o r o m V 3. 3 a C n C .l 6 T O C .C l C .3 .l _ L» n: mg n. an h. my a. o. .u p. Va .0 it o MW Cs .T. ”J o o _ .L ti w 0. O S C S 9 m .1, U C... 0 tag I O f 3 AW v.“ L “I“ rL M...“ Tu 1A..“ “U. l "J h mu. WJ. .e’».n.w .ri. «— r; «WA 1" 1,“ “L L. a; ”V“ C t 1.177? 5 q .. t .l mu. Hi. LL 4: mm .m .C .u 1 m3. 0 my: 1“ U33 3 a” a.“ T o| w; _ 7.. r \u .. . r: 1 _ w 31. 1 A ,C u 2 vu C n... 3 C c t .1 f w R. A“ A s 1 ; C 1 .3 L m C m x19“; .H n. S C, i. C h r J V .1 p L L ..... 12.3“ . L. C C O J .1: V. I C” M; «M 0 Wu .5 +91%“ T n. 1 C C .2; 3 a. C 31L 3 .n . . ..V.I. owl «I. ., i i .1“ I“ .. . 1 , w . 13:.me t .C . t m. r af;OS._ $1 _Smwmmufo‘mfio 31. Z t l ..u El 0 c o 3 v C l . t g T c C i 1 d t L. I V t , m... C owl C a t L_ .J. a nu LU .__v .3. l T. 2. C. J 3L - 3. «M ‘3 .l .3 ... I .J _ Q c C C Y S I t 31C, C .l._ f“... ~_.; nil L r l 2 f .1; C 1 r m : r 71.13 1:31 _ 9 L c: r 0 Q a .2. O I C 1 1 3. 1: C n 0. 1 C TK u i : . A a. a. . . C C L y C _.. 3.. K _.V if“ n .u .1. hp vd hi. fi; 1 km 0 AL LU Liv wax» “J.o1,_ — h. Mp~ {v .g A .L "\- . ‘L M! 1U n. C an“ 1!“ "L Mugn. O m; w» «I. A; flu CL Lpfiu up 07- 03 «A. q-.. .L w. .:. V :s* j. ‘ x . Ni ‘ . v. A: e r, Av _rL n u. , .-.:I._ t o C 1 t C c .3 a 0 n1 6, I C l g L L 1 AL .A.. "v —I* l "\s C 9'. Q c .h r ”(V a: nd 3::— r.“ "I... O 1.“ a“. rv C W; 1V; ~ FV AU. u a o u S i C L 1 . l l - h :1 r i A C. t 1 u .w Mr L r h ,3. l P. "u C L n. r S f r a Q t 11...; iv 1 l O «w 1.9 O t S C C r .1. t P C J. n C 3 u r L i ‘ r O C -3 t .u .3 .L . .C C r 2.1 .l n: .1 p C T G «.m C. a... C: an -L -C u. . V -J 1 :V DC r f l t O Q .3; a L C b C t iridwx w. a l n O C C C t h C C A C C T C r O ..1 Wu C K _ww L 2* 1 C i t r c a c H... c c c h h c f C s -L 1 n o ., 3 o x mm. .1 ML wwv C p“. Lab 1‘!“ 7- JV .1.“ r t GK ”J Lu n9 H. m. 31* 0 Lb flv. ... ....J u. .0 1L. 0 V T .. O 1 C C r C. a; L 1:. We .2. _l ,L a: fl... 0 C w O T. r Cf \/ n.” C 3 i 3.51 313 C C 411- o _J C n \l I T 0.1 H O o o .t D. n C 10.133“ O n... C“ V o _.u.l .l E .1 _-v nu” N. C l a H“ “XML .3 o S v.1 .1 4b Lb .11”. mi ‘1,“ C ..H .w 0 f1. 1. r O. ... C. C +4 0 C .3“ C .C S 3 .C _i. -C .C J H 9 .V v .fu.l .f .l Q n1 h w0 L U. C S a I. S C .1 a S .1 .1 C O .L n L C “1 O .3 1L . t l , .1 S t O C l r. h n U. 1 C. 1 n C Q 1. .U. Q .I. I C S C .D .L .. i e u r b r t a C i J. U 6 UL c L 3 .L. u a a. t M.-. g s V r .m t C L r b vat O C C S 3 . 1 ..,u .1 .1 .. : C. 2 C3 C: 3 -v :2. O l m .1: u 103-3 a“ C .1 3.91.0. i C .3 r l C. C 3.1.3 3 3.: L 1 .ml. S 918. pH 1“ x; a; 3 .0. .1 Q C 1.12.0 C r S S L Hi :4 _.W “I LN - t S a _ .l .1 C h . t C .1 C. r C. 3:1. C 0 f i N. C. .F I C I L r . .1, r L: 1 h .r 1 a C a o c r x h .71. $3.13-; .. x .1 g R 09 c O C. S L S l m c t C t t a D. C. C C t a 3 L _ L L . .1 0 LI t rh a: .0 1 a . r 2 3h v a z u a t 0 CI 3 V L 2 n i C pt 0 3 t r w..-“ .l ,3. C .c... C 3 S S r l I .l L “L in. ,L w;. ha .1 .1.‘( 1n“ u o .1“ ¢U C A... a..-“ nu an #4. e a...“ 1i ry 3 7+ yrv 1g av : . S It 3 O C S . 1015.8 th t a U C : Lb Cr\ C 2 f n c i o i c a i t C t x r 1 I l a 1.; o .x. i s I 3 w o C h C a . r. u c a h 1 s U. c C. e b 3 ;.._L P h a c i xu 2.1 S L. 6 h H r -L C O nu t r .C 1. V. f .L L 2 CM. _ my . C t .9 i i S e f S O f l i C C O C e e n C C O G. h l .M f h t i .l d O l .3 d C T C C v C 9 s, B. u r 2.1L C .1 l C u h 0 t C .3. C E C C I C .3 h o a. n L .3 C O t .l . C C. 1 C S t a t "a S O .L I .1. C C S h C 15. 1T: . f $1.: C u u 1 AI C I O t £1?va .1... .L C. 3 .w C31 0 U .l l u u C. O u 0 G C C l C O h h C. C C t . c ,11 3111. .K 3. d C : C vu C h .J V C a .01. t h a .l .1: Z I S L p L -6 t C O .U C r 1; r O n...— 8 T O J ‘F ‘fiL- VLA v ‘1 f a V {.IO A.M.. «c Y 3 ~‘-. h \J 3 _.‘V '7‘- .-' ~ & Uv.‘ L K79- ‘ \L V' .U .L \Jv—UL— If "‘ iQL 1. \— » ... ,... u .1- A“ 'V'. L \I '1 I . Op; “\‘iflfl‘. -. ~~- '51. \ O ‘0‘ ., \1\,.LJ. r‘: 1' I ,. -10 “‘0‘ $o~’ Idi- ‘-‘\ O N 1"" ‘5 .5. 'IV. T'\ :‘\ .- : 1 0 )C T . _fi , 1 I g" &L A 3-: - 1,. ‘- t. .h «7 V'Ckabu 7"} I -sufi-U t - 11' ZULA— Luv»... 0 rel- "\ I s. ‘— (5 V A "l I 4b 4. C v0 MN xi. 77"? , ,—‘ fl L; 3: SJ... [7 3 “A \A..L.L ’V 9'00 10 _.‘ L21. 1 ‘1fi‘r (.3 u LLvLo V7 ‘4 4.1.1,. 4. UL ,. u YI-"<‘_' bus/9L. '.‘ C!‘ \r‘. & .L V c.- —--\’~L ‘ “0" -flV-\" L11” _3 C ‘ :3. V mp 3, Lub'.‘ n r. V“ luv C'V‘ L 7 L about how she V"° do’ , w. M .!.1 .T‘- , ., ‘_:- 3" . ’. ‘.-. - Ii i’cu3531 baa 'UVQlOfT“: of Lao meac of "4- H1 (Va ,1 “x J. O 3 ,- ,3 , . . - ("J '! “do“ 3, Que deulOdUu that 110 01; cally saw upc¢la as , ~nn..+7a4~w‘—%~~.-~ r?!» . ~ 2 r.“ 1 -1..-“ on M...” 1 -" . 2.: w. .1 ‘ “Lynx v1--'_-:_._:.....;..* 0 udALC ulexA LJI‘LO _._C/it/UJ. (ALA. JUCLL J 8 JUL; uLlLLC ‘1. 0 1 . (‘1 a 0 ‘ C‘ ‘f‘ ' '\ ‘\ - ”A r‘j n, Hz“ *3 AK‘IJ“ ~‘- 1 v .7 n1- ~ - *- L, , tr‘lu Lip-L1 Lab 0 ULLV 9.4.40 “mg; ¢ALAU {4139 p 3. ’0‘; hawk/11:» H4. U$1 CO« 10 O ‘1 (‘1 I J C F :3 CI 3 a. O L {_ P (D (’1' 33‘ U L Ci C.“ bxd >-—‘ {3 (-3. (J a O {D I‘ J P‘J I) V! .3 d‘ C) (‘4 'J O ‘1 J _.J J O .4. 1 u an K4 v A .1- t4. . r3 \ - L .f‘ L? ' n 1.1,. _- ‘ 1,,., . . r l- fl '1 . g .7 , ' ~ .‘ J- .0 Hus QCLCQbG‘ unlU Chalgc 0; pm i3345 amp 3310 go Ju3igcup o; 7.. . __ H _... ‘ n ' 1. r‘r‘w A ,. - .0- ,1 3.4,. ‘,,__,. - 1-‘ :. 1' 3 . mar LorL_udml 03 lo. 3no 3—susu “avg rc¢uglcd thaw J felt S“*1l; 3;: too ”9;.334 uvcg o; 0);Jlu; Jixnt. S—QCL“JSS l; th akinio; of D cam" closes” id 3::- }? r:--:.1cc U0 JJ'“ pC“CCIJLlO.1 of t.:c role. 31:; can}. .J Ugrcci fairl* wall 0a how the role was being 913331. S—uctresc felu tnwt 1p“ perforgan a was e:*rc;£ ” close to gar 1;;33 (comrclatio; .714). 3 tuouwht he: pcrfor:auvc t9: quite 1 J" *5 '3‘ “‘ . h ’1 ‘ .1 "a «1 ‘ ”r‘ r’ \ O OH»; UO ILL»! A..l .( ( O 'urU-Lk)4- .{ki I. “ ”a“- «4-3,, _.«fi 'v-u,‘ -31 -fifi—qx‘ml-xqwa n“ r r: n “A. c‘_,\,,r--.vw.,-. av..- \a'v lx'J.\/.-u_ ‘u'... MUV--_ 3.-»~ JAVJ;I£.Ll—l v- L.'ua..._J. 3-4} I: -‘avfl v...., Thar; nu: :31: evidcn‘c to zu5302t that S—acbresz gerccivol Cbcl-; Q4; he: L315 Llith y :;;il£“1y. thLou ; L-gcp_u 3' >r*ce;tio;: of 1:: sclf fyll 0; ?;cth I (31:33' w w_ __r. if. P “'1 ,_\ , J_ 2 I.“ ‘ (_1 \_ .“v ("'7 1 m 3) ll (. 1 J." - ‘Lfi... ”T'TT , 9»_-KL L;L,_L JV... VJUJ.L;-.‘..;) L... :gv-...~.,~ .. L J- .LC-«Ci/Vg --.. I 1"‘(1‘7 1r *,—u~r\,~,-1 (‘1':_ .1 fi‘\ H ‘-‘-“--.-_.._) "3.1 h (7‘ /‘¢‘{‘.““. 1‘71 \ -< w." "M (~qu «5‘ \~/V\1,*,. LIV) , 033.4. _..\,_gx_.'4'\/.L(.I‘_J.LL u.) u'K.LvL.L 23'- Cl LIZ) --_K.'L«~_/.~—LAJ—L-ALQ ...\./ L'.";,_‘,__L ‘ "IV- . --. -3 '1- ‘ ' -73 "fi‘ _...- -\- - "1" 3‘/“ r“ j ( 1 ‘5 3“." 1' \ ‘\ r ,‘1 _ L, L4...L'v- abblld u H 3 -OLuLJT 91$)de 1.4.1»?on ~$LL¢J v- *U 0‘. J., o . 4‘2 3 / I 3 . U r! r-q v I“ r’f‘ 3' fry': .r ' (fa/“A Va: 01*»: ‘.,’/‘9 034-3 ~~-~- °/~/' 7“” "3‘ ’7 3‘1”: '7 r‘lg- {‘ 4— ‘ f- " ‘2 CO ‘71‘r‘ 31 3"“ ‘1‘ 3‘ 'N‘5 C1 hj‘ (‘5 \ {5‘1 x a" (U 1 at-AJ-U AL*L_/'AA‘ U O... U..1V5_'IV ‘ d. o-- LJ-“ _UALU . { ‘1 V J Dev .L VLA. ‘,. W 1 . 1 ’1 7' 9 ‘ . (‘1 u \ ~ t ..~ ‘3--“_ ‘T i {—1 r\ M 1 1' “‘5 “’1 "3., 2‘. " f“'\-\- ’3 \, bi -‘- m :3 (-1 —‘ 6‘ f'l‘l‘ 4- qr. v— “VOL/1, a.'-L "AN-kz'v'dv 1 Li-1\/ Jr. 6-1‘vW-L 5.1“,” 9 LO—N. H-V'C‘ .L nth-ital uL . U LILLVI-U C' ,. ".3 m~ .3 'Y‘ fij 1 r: itrcm's <3 r~ ' "“ :1 h N‘ i‘”\ "7- " ‘ ‘3‘,”1 V' ‘-‘."n ‘fx'f’L'W "x“ (‘11 “’ MILK! LU.1\¢L I—ILJC.&..J_k/‘v ~~V K4 Ul' ' » ‘L V'U MC V‘L“ ..v.,‘..\./ V"‘U'LLA'LQ'L. 83 m, m, mid ham. They were also very W, mun. m. 131?.» W: 2123.95.12: and m: m. S-actress felt that Stella should be much more 222.8113. than she was, but she felt she was very much more mm, W, and detemmeg than Stella. Near the end of the rehearsal period a comparison of similar Q-sorts showed the differences to be intensified (correlation .529). S-actress felt that she and Stella were both mm, m, 21.8.1221: and 82222212313172- However, she felt she was extremely more W, W, and egg}; 2119. than Stella ought to be and quite a bit more 2.29.5.1: 53; W, and W. Conversely, she saw Stella as being more mails. 92.1.22. and steals than she W38- S-actress also perceived Stella slightly similarly to her perception of her ideal self. This was to be expect- ed, since her perceptions of her self and her ideal self were quite similar (correlations .772 and .795). The correlations of perceptions of Stella and perceptions of S-actress' ideal self were $69, .667, and .690. A comparison of Q-sorts showed that S-actress would like to be far more M sated, m: W: W! and th Stella. Stella was perceived as being more wea , m, w, W, and W than her ideal self. There was no evidence to suggest that playing the role strongly altered S-actress' perceptions of her self or her ideal self. Correlations of self perceptions were .853, 81} .926, and .931. The correlation of ideal self perceptions was .929. mm Te t 0 ct bK-ator dD X-actor and D generally agreed upon a perception of Stanley early in the rehearsal period, but their perceptions grew further apart as opening night approached. The corre- lations between K-actor's perceptions of Stanley and those of D were high before rehearsals (.6’+7), went a bit higher (.754), but at the end of the rehearsal period had dropped off ($96). This was an indication of growing disagreement. W.~~Before the beginning of rehearsals K-aetor and D described Stanley. The correlation of these perceptions was high (.647). They were agreed that Stanley should be extremely m, mug, and W. They were also agreed that he should be very Md, 2221: and m0 D felt that Stanley should be Iain, W, W, and W, while K-actor did not. K-actor thought Stanley should be extremely W (rank ten), but D felt it was not important (rank five). In the diary of the first two rehearsals little or nothing was said about K-actor. Perhaps D's mind was taken with problems with B-actress. At the third rehearsal, how- ever, he devoted some time to K-aotor. 85 Nothing much from K-actor. He seems to hold back, to keep from experimenting with the role. He says he hasn't had time to study the role yet and hasn't any clear ideas. I talked at length on how I saw Stanley: 29; angry or hostile in general, but strong, masculine, sexy, dominant, secure. K-actor doesn't agree, I think, though this isn't clear. (D's diary.) A comparison of Q-sorts describing Stanley done by K-actor and D after the third rehearsal showed that there was fair agreement (correlation .612). They were agreed that Stanley should be extremely drivin , self-centered, and virile, and that he should be very tou h, a ressive, deter- mlggg, callous, and sensual. K-actor felt Stanley ought to be very affectionate and honest, but D did not. D thought Stanley should be nonchalant and childlike, but K-actor did not. Between this description and the previous one neither D nor K-actor changed his perception very much. The correlation between D's perceptions was .850. The strongest change he made was to bring brilliant and child- ;ig§_from rank two to rank six. The correlation between K- actor's perceptions was .757. He moved sensual and gglgz centered from rank six to rank ten. After rehearsal four, which followed a vacation - period, K-actor and D again described Stanley. The corre- lation of their Q-sorts was quite high (.75h). They were agreed that Stanley ought to be extremely virile, fun-lovin , driving and very tou h, self-centered, determined, arro ant, and aggressive. D thought he should be intem crate, but K- 86 actor did not. D had ignored K-actor in his diary for some time. But after the fourteenth rehearsal he made this evaluation of his performance. Am doing very little with K-actor. He is groping for lines and appears to resist direction at this stage. He has still too much splem, anger, spite--rather than sheer animal strength, vitality, insensitivity. (D's diary. After rehearsal fifteen K-actor and D described Stanley. The correlation of these descriptions was not as high as it had been previously (.536). They were still agreed that Stanley ought to be extremely 1111.12 and Mg and very mush. W. 599%. and W- D, however, felt that Stanley should be extremely W (rank ten), while K-actor thought he should be only slightly so (rank six). K-actor had self-centeged at rank eight on the previous description. D thought Stanley ought to be very W (rank nine), while K-actor rejected this (rank three). D had intmerate at rank seven in the previous Q-sort describing. Stanley. D also thought W and 19.59.9332 were slightly descriptive of Stanley, while K—actor strongly rejected them. K-actor felt that Stanley ought to be quite m (rank eight), but D strongly rejected this (rank one). K-' actor also thought that Stanley should be W (rank eight), but D am not (rank four). K-actor thought Stanley should be extremely My; (rank ten), but D only saw him as 3? 3-8‘31‘01‘ had W and W in ranks six and five respectively on the previous descrip- tion of Stanley. slightly so (rank six). By the last rehearsal K-actor and D had drifted further apart in their perceptions of Stanley (correlation A96). They were agreed that he should be extremely toggh and very dailies. 29119.ne- W. 14.2.1.1 e. run-10m . and W. However, K-actor felt Stanley should be very W and e essive, but D did not. K-actor also felt he should be nervous, while D strongly rejected this. D thought Stanley uught to be extremely intemperate, while K-actor rejected this. D also thought Stanley should be my; and honest, but K-actor did not. Mm K-actoz'g pgint of view.--K-actor kept no diary; therefore, his comments were made during the inter- view. In discussing the development of his character K- actor said that, at first, he thought of Stanley as cruel, but he later realized that this was erroneous. The more I worked on him, the more animal came out in him, as we progressed from the beginning, rather than playing him as a cruel slob, you know. A real harsh "meanie' is the word. I found that he wasn't really bad. It was Just that he had been living a life of Riley, as it were, and had this thing come into his house to almost ruin the whole love life. Actually, in the long run, she does-~Blanche, that is--does ruin his home life. (K-actor's interview.) K-actor was asked whether D had an influence over his thinking in terms of the I‘animalistic" traits he found in Stanley. He maintained it was largely his idea. 88 It was the more I studied it and the more I got to work with the girls. I found that this was the best way to do it. It was my own idea basically, and I felt as long as D didn't say anything about it, it was okay. And I changed my ideas about Stanley quite a bit from the beginning. I went in as I usually do with a set idea of the first approach to the character, and then as we progressed, I found that this one element, the element of cruelty-«you know, really being cruel for cruelty's sake. . . . It wasn't that at all. It was Just a misconception I had from Just quickly going through the thing. But I eliminated that quite a bit. I tried to make him a human character more than any- thing, and that's why I achieved that in some respects. (Ii-actor's interview. Later in the interview K-actor recalled a conversa- tion with D concerning the matter of cruelty. We only . . . talked about the character really once or twice and that was at the very beginning, . . . during the reading rehearsals. And that's when we studied, you know, all the characters together, and that's when we first had a disagreement about the cruel part of Stanley coming out. I mentioned it there and then a couple-11 think about once later I mentioned it-- and than we went through the show. (Kt-actor's inter- view. In spite of this concern both D and K-actor felt over the matter of cruelty, comparisons of Q-sorts describ- ing Stanley showed that D and K-actor differed no more than two or three ranks in the placement of mg]. It was usual- ly placed in ranks five, six, or seven. Although D and K-actor initially agreed upon their perception of Stanley, their descriptions showed more and more disagreement as opening night drew nearer. h—actor and D agreed fairly well on their percep- tions of how the character was played. K—actor felt that 89 his performance of the role was extremely close to his per- ception of Stanley. Correlations of K-actor's perceptions of Stanley and of Stanley-as-played ranged from .871 to .908. Similar correlations of D's perceptions were only slightly lower. They ranged from .824 to .879. The corre- lations of perceptions of Stanley-as-played by K-actor and D were fairly stable until opening night, when it dropped slightly. They were .627, .663, and .533. Mm D'g point of xieww-About midway in the re- hearsal period D observed that K—actor's performance had too much "spleen, anger, spite--rather than sheer animal strength, vitality, insensitivity.” In spite of this ob- servation the correlation of D's perception of Stanley and of Stanleya-as-played was .879 at this time. The only strong disagreement between the two sorts was that D felt Stanley should be more insecgze than he was being played. No further mention was made of K-actor until a week before opening night. ”Stanley came alive for a few flashes of real driving power. So far he is still weaker than I wish.“ (D's diary.) His observation on the afternoon of opening night was that Stanley was ”more cruel than I wish.” By the time the interview was held his opinion had changed little. The fact that he was playing Stanley as a vindictive angry person shouldn't be there. That rather he should be so self-confident that he doesn't have to be vindic- tive. And that this vindictiveness, if you want to call it that, doesn‘t appear until he is aware that Blanche is taking him for a ride and in fact is going to 90 threaten to destroy the relationship between him and his wife. And then he retaliates, and he is very ruthless and callous at this time. But this is not really an angry sort of general characteristic. (D's interview.) He also added a comment about K-actor's response to directicn. I had felt that K-actor was not very responsive to direction and one reason I felt was that-~a general at- titude that he had-u-that he was experienced and knew what he was doing. Another reason was that his lines didn't come very soon, and I had the feeling that, when I gave direction, it seemed to interfere with what he was daing. So I tended to postpone things. (D's inter- view. D felt that K-actor came closer to his image than did B-actress but not as close as S-actress. Q-sort data seemed to belie this Judgment. On opening night the cor- relation between D’s perception of Stella and of Stella-as- played was .725. The similar correlation for Stanley on opening night was .839. D felt that Stanley should be and was played as extremely inte crate, drivgg, m, selfi- cgtered and very callous, vain, determined, mg, and aggressive. D felt Stanley should have been played as being more hogest than he was. And for the first time a compari- son of Q-sorts revealed that D felt he had been played far more 9333; than desired. Egan K—ggtor'g 232‘; g: 1iew.--K-actor felt that his portrayal of Stanley was very close to his perception of Stanley. Correlations of his perceptions of Stanley and of Stanley-as-played were near .900 all through the rehearsal period. On opening night the correlation was .875. 91 In discussing his performance, K-actor was asked whether he felt he had projected his image of Stanley. Yeah, I think I achieved that. At least, the only way I can really tell is from the comments I had from the kids. And, some comments I respected, and they seemed to be favorable, and they got the picture when I talked, you know. I didn't really want to tell what I was getting across, but from all that I could gather from talking with the kids, they got the image. They t the picture of what I was trying to get across. K'actor's interview.) On opening night the only strong difference revealed by comparing K—actoer perception of Stanley and his percep- tion of Stanley-as-played was that K-actor felt he should have played Stanley as more gppgpggpp,than he did. A comparison of the perceptions by K-actor and D of Stanley-as-played‘ (correlation .533) showed that D saw Stanley as being played extremely more W than did K-actor, who perceived his Stanley as being more e us, pm, egppessipe, and affectiogate than D did. Pgrceptipps 0; Stanley and perceppions of self bz K-actop There was evidence to suggest that K-actor perceived Stanley and himself similarly. Correlations between Q-sorts describing himself and Stanley were high. They were .679, .h78, .665, .705, .6514, .663, and .886. The sharp rise on the last correlations suggested a strong identification with the character toward the end of the rehearsal period. A comparison of the Q-sorts which resulted in the lowest of these correlations revealed that K-actor consider- ed Stanley to be extremely more 5% and W 92 and more 2211225.. W. rain. 5133299213.. ml. and pittg: than he was. He viewed himself as being more 2231221.: 1.99.: W, m, and .1311; than he considered Stanley ought to be. He saw both himself and Stanley as being ex- tremely 1.331.129 W, agzgctiopppe and very poppsp, staplg, to h, and w. The Q-sorts which resulted in the highest correla- tion (.886) showed that K-actor saw both Stanley and himself as being extremely W. Inna. ml. W: w, W, W and very egppessive and 322221- A comparison of K-actor's descriptions of himself before and after this change in thinking revealed that at both times he considered himself to be extremely affectiog- 233.. 112112 mm d 1vin M“ ed and very hma . W, stablg, and aggpessipe. Whereas, before this change he thought of himself as M, iggalispic, W, jpgt, and slightly Quiet and W, he rejected them afterwards. In the later Q-sort he thought of himself as being extremely M: very w and sglf-cenpgped, and slightly bittgruall of which he rejected previously. Unfortunately, there was no information as to why this change took place.1 1There is the possibility that K-actor misunderstood his directions and described Stanley when he was supposed to describe himself. This would account for the radical change in his self perception. However, this is only a guess. There is no evidence to suggest that this occurred. 93 K-actor perceived his ideal self as being only slightly similar to his perception of Stanley. The correla- tions of perceptions of his ideal self and of Stanley were .563, .308, .uus, .359. .429, and .527. K-actor's perception of himself was altered as noted above. However, it was consistent up until that time. The correlations of his self perceptions were .839, .857, and .569. There was no evidence to suggest that K-actor's per- ception of his ideal self was changed substantially by playing the role. The correlation of perceptions of his ideal self was .772. CHAPTER V PERCEPTION 8 OF THE AUDIENCE This chapter includes an analysis of the data re- ceived from the members of the audience sample. These data are the results of Q-sorts done by the members of the sample. The chapter begins with a description of the members of the audience sample. The factors resulting from the au- dience Q-sorts are then described. The factors resulting from the audience data are then compared to Q-sorts by the actors and director to examine the question 3 how closely do the perceptions of character by the actors and director relate to those perceived by the audience? The relationship between the perceptions of self and perceptions of the char- acters is then examined to determine whether members of the audience tend to perceive characters in terms of their per- ceptions of themselves. Audience sample.--There were sixteen members of the audience sample. Eight were male and eight were female. Nine were between the ages of eighteen and forty. Seven were between the ages of forty-one and sixty-five. Nine were married and seven were single. A profile of each mem- ber of the audience sample is presmted in Table XIV. Three clinical psychologists from the Michigan State University 91} 95 TABLE.XIV.--A.profile of the members of the audience sample Marital Number Occupation Sex Age Status 1 Teacher F 55 Widow 2 Teacher F 25 Shngle 3 Social worker F 62 Widow Student F 18 Single 5 Salesman M 31 Married 6 Hememaker F ii married 7 Restaurant manager M Married 8 Homemaker F 31 Married 9 Student M 18 Single 10 Graduate Student M :2 Single 11 Engineer M Married 12 College Teacher M #1 Married 1 College Teacher F #2 Widow 1 Retired Secretary F 65 Single 15 College Teacher M 45 Single 16 Sales Engineer M 32 Single 96 counseling Center were also asked to describe the characters as “expert” judges of personality. The audience sample was not intended to be a pro- portional, representative sample of the playgotng audience. Instead the audience sample was selected purposefully to provide a variety of persons. Each member of the audience sample was asked to make four Opsorts. They all (with the exception of the psychol- ogists) described themselves. They all described the char- acters-~B1anche, Stella, and Stanley-~as they saw them played on Opening night. Factops ip the audigpce matrix Four clearly defined factors emerged from these descriptions. There was one for each of the characters and one for the self perceptions of the members of the audience. Factop A.--Factor A (audience's selves) was deter- mhned by high loadings of Q-sorts by fourteen of the sixteen audience members describing themselves. The self percep- tions of audience member one had a high loading (.584) on factor A but also had a fairly high loading (.ulo) on factor D (audience's Stella). The self perception of audience mem- ber seven had a low loading (.388) on factor A and a high loading (.6#8) on factor D (audience's Stella). Loadings of ~— 1Fromthis point forward "audience“ is meant to imply "members of the audience sample,” not all the members of the audience. 97 the self perceptions of the other audience members ranged from..537 to .762. The factor A.arrays may be found in Tables XV'wnd .XVI. The highly accepted items suggested a person well ad- justed to society (m, kind, 53.9212: M, W). They suggested a person with high ideals (293.291. .113.» 1925113212) and one with some sensitivity (m, peg: ppppizg, iptgitize). It may seem strange that most of the audience sample members described themselves so similarly. It seems ex- tremely unlikely that these persons of different backgrounds would see themselves so similarly. One explanation could be that the ooncensus was an expression of "social desirabil- ity."1 It may be that the audience members liked to think of themselves in this way or that the self they described was one which they would be willing to display in society. An alternative explanation could be that this set of adjectives was quite useful for descriptions of these dra- matic characters but was somewhat limited for self descrip- tions by persons who generally consider themselves posi- tively. Factop B.--Factor B (audience's Stanley) was deter- mhned by high loadings from.Qrsorts by all the members of the audience sample while describing Stanley-as-played. lAllen L. Edwards, ”Social Desirability and Q-sorts," Jgurnai o; Conspiting szchoipgz, XIX (1955). p. 462. TABLE XV.--Items strongly accepted by factor A (audience's selves It em Standard Number Score Item 2 1.780 Determined 18 1.7#1 anest #1 1.715 Happy 7 1.Z07 Just 3 l. 15 Affectionate 23 1.382 Sensitive #6 1. 362 Kind 35 1.271 Perceptive 13 1.266 Stable 57 1.2#6 Idealistic 21 1.130 Fun-loving 3 1.120 Poised #9 .965 Intuitive TABLE XVI.--Items strongly rejected by factor A (audience's selves It em Standard Number Score Item 5 -2.001 Cruel 16 -1.581 Humorless 37 -1 o 531 Morbid. 21 -1.312 Hostile ”2 -1 e 52‘ B1 tt er g3 ~1.381 Fragile -1.350 weakdwilled 6 -1.213 Lazy 52 -1.196 Guilt-ridden 2# -1.127 Childlike 50 -l.003 Callous 58 "' o 92 T011811 39 - . 8 Gluttonous 99 Loadings of these Q-sorts on the factor ranged from .5#3 to .888. The factor B arrays may be found in Tables XVII and XVIII. Factor C.--Factor C (audience's Blanche) was deter- mined by high loadings from Q-sorts by all the members of the audience sample while describing Blanche-as-played. Loadings ranged from .617 to .868. The factor 0 arrays may be found.in Tables XIX and XX. Epctor D.--Factor D (audience's Stella) was deter- mined by high loadings frcm storts by most of the members of the audience sample while describing Stella-as-played. Those descriptions of Stella which did.not fall clearly on factor D, did not do so because they had fairly high load- ings on factor A (audience's selves) as well as high load- ings on factor D. There were some similarities between factors A and D. The factor D arrays may be found in Tables XXI and XXII. Summapz of iactopp.--Fbur factors were clearly de- fined. The correlations among estimated factor arrays pre- sented in Table XXIII indicated that they were each differ- ent from the others. The highest correlation existed be- tween factors A (audience's selves) and D (audience's Stella). The highest negative correlation existed between factors B (audience's Stanley) and D (audience's Stella). Co ison 0 Pa c ti 0 ct b Audience and Acto s- rector In this portion of the chapter the factor arrays 100 TABLE XVII.--Items strongly accepted by factor B (audience's Stanley) - 11: on Standard. Number Score Item 31 1.675 Aggressive 56 1 . 662 Virile 50 1.625 Callous 38 1. 6 Arrogant 58 1. 78 Tough 3 1.#72 Impulsive 5 l.#20 Sensual 2 1.313 Determined 15 1.276 Self-centered 39 1.105 Gluttonous 51 1.102 Fun-loving 3O 1 . 091 Hot 5 1 . O75 Cruel TABLE XVIII.--Items strongly rejected by factor B (audience's Stanley) Item Standard Number Score Item 55 -1.76E Mbtherly 25 -1.70 Fragile 12 -1.675 Quiet 6O -1.#97 Shy 29 -l.#63 Sophisticated 53 -1.373 Passive 26 -1.267 Humble 11+ ‘1 o 170 me 3# -l.l#3 weak-willed 57 -1.113 Idealistic 17 -1 . 09 5 Deep-thinking 36 -1.093 Brilliant 32 - e 926 Dreamy TABLE XIX.--Items strongly accepted by factor C (audience's Blanche) W Item. Standard Number Score Item 8 1.9 5 Insecure #0 l. 7 Nervous 52 1 . 505 Guilt -ridden 13 1. 03 Self-centered 1. 39 vain 23 1.#22 Sensitive i2 1 . #19 Flighty 1.398 unrealistic 11 1.382 Dependent 4? 1. 3m Fearful 2# 1.175 Childlike 3# 1.118 Weak-willed 33 .907 Impulsive TABLE XX.--Items strongly rejected by factor C (audience's Blanche) Item. Standard It Number Score on 13 -2.132 Stable 5 -1 o 523 ME]. 58 -1. 00 Tough 31+ -1 . 13 Controlled 50 -1.228 callous 1# -1.150 Pure 12 -1.088 Quiet 39 -1.00 Gluttonous 59 - .98 Nonchalant 56 - .961 Virile TABLE XXI.--Items strongly accepted by factor D (audience's Stella) Item Standard It Number Score em 3 l.9#2 Affectionate 13 1.799 Stable #6 1.609 Kind 55 1.60 Mbtherly 12 1.3 Quiet # 1.261 Sensual 33 1.2#O Controlled 3 1.198 Poised 18 1.1 6 Honest 11 1.1 3 Dependent 23 1.067 Sensitive 7 1.063 Just TABLE XXII.--Items strongly rejected by factor D (audience's Stella) Item Standard It Number Score em 5 -1 e 836 Cruel 50 -1.603 Callous 33 -1. 90 Arrogant 21 -1. 7 Hostile 15 -1.30# Self-centered #2 -1. 295 Bitter 27 -1 . 205 Driving 39 -l.203 Gluttonous l -1.0#5 Aggressive O - o 976 Nervous 103 TABLE XXIII.--Correlations of audience factors A-D ’— L I; A B C D A (audience's selves) X. .006 -.095 .597 B (audience' s Stanley) x -.021 -. 33h C (audience's Blanche) X -.192 D (audience's Stella) X derived from the audience data and from.the actor-director data are correlated. In addition the audience factor array for each character is compared to the Q-sorts by the actors and director describing the characters and the characters- as-played. The correlations between the factors derived from the audience data and those derived from the actor-director data are presented in Table XXIV. These correlations indicated that generally there was strong agreement between the actors-director and the audience concerning the characters. The correlation of the Stella factors was .937. The correlation of the Blanche factors was .898. The correlation between D's Stanley and the audience's Stanley was .758. The correlation between K-actor's self and Stanley and the audience's Stanley was .670. Apparently the actors were relatively successful in communicating what they tried to communicate. 10# TABLE XXIV. ~~Corre1ations between audience factors and actor-director factors Actor-director . Audience Factors Factors Selves Stanley Blanche Stella I (Girls' selves) .7#9 -.131 -.125 .56# II (K-actor's self and Stanley) .836 . 670 «2&6 .029 III (Blanche) -.0#1 .005 .898 -.270 IV (Stella) .599 -.358 -.285 .937 V (D's Stanley) .153 .758 ’ -.332 -.197 Bianche Perceptions of Blanche and the audience's Blanche.-- B-actress felt that she had done a good job of communicating her character. The correlation between B-actress' percep- tion of Blanche just before opening night and the audience's Blanche factor supported this opinion. The correlation was .885. Hewever, the correlation between D's perception of Blanche just before opening night and the audience's Blanche factor was a bit lower--.689. A comparison of the Q-sort in which B-actress de- scribed Blanche and the factor array of the audience's per- ception of Blanche (correlation .885) showed that they were agreed that Blanche was extremely ipgecure, ervous, pgp:, Mend V917 W, W! 17.9.3214 fli ht 9 Iggpipi, and dependgpt.p The only strong difference revealed 105 in this comparison was that B-actress thought Blanche should be slightly mg (rank six), while the Blanche the audi- ence saw was not (rank two). A comparison of the Qrsort in which D described Blanche and.factor C (audience's Blanche) (correlation .689) showed that they were agreed that Blanche was extremely isms. minis. W. ram and very w. Ilishiz. LERBISLIQa and 1322221: D» however, felt that Blanche could be slightly pipe} (rank six), but the audience strongly rejected this as characteristic of Blanche-as- played (rank zero). The audience saw Blanche as being extremely gpiit- IL§Q§3.(rank ten), while D thought of her as only slightly so (rank six). They also saw her as being chiigiike and pfiipppiopate, while D rejected these terms. Percgptiops o; Bianche-as-piazed.and the audiencg'p glppppp,--B-actress' perception of her portrayal of the role was very similar to that of the audience. The correlation between B-actress' Q-sort describing Blanche-as-played on opening'night and.the audience's Blanche was .760. D's perception of Blanche-as-played, however, was not very similar to that of the audience. The correlation was .#26. A comparison of Bhactress' stort describing Blanche- as-played and.the factor array of the audience's perception of Blanche (correlation .760) showed that they agreed that Blanche was played as being extremely ipseoppe, gpiit-pidden, e. 106. name: Wand very W» d6 6 <1 t: and m. B-actress felt that she played Blanche as being m and 22212 (rank eight), while the audience did not. (ranks three and two respectively). She also felt her por- trayal showed Blanche as motpepiy and piriie (rank seven), but the audience did not (ranks three and two respectively). A comparison of factor 0' (audience's Blanche) and D's Q-sort describing Blanche-as-played on opening night (correlation .#26) showed that they were. agreed that Blanche was extremely ou , 3gp, seii-centered and very i_n_-.-_ gm, 211521.22: and impulsive. D thought Blanche was played as being extremely tough (rank nine), while the audience definitely did not (rank zero). He thought she was extremely driving (rank ten), but the audience did not (rank three). He found Blanche to be extremely intemperate (rank ten), but the audience saw her as being only slightly so (rank six). D thought she was a ressive, hostile, and arrogant (rank eight), but the audience slightly rejected these (rank four). He saw Blanche as being pgippgi and 29p; trolied (rank seven), but the audience did not (ranks three and one respectively). The members of the audience sample saw Blanche being played as extremely sensitive (rank nine), while D did not (rank one). They saw her as being ppreaiistic and 135k; flligci (rank eight), but D did not (rank three). The au- dience saw Blanche being played as peig-conpcioup (rank 107 seven), but D did not (rank two). They thought shewas slightly m and gzgegtiggage (rank six), but D did not (rank two). A possible reason for this divergence between per- ceptions of the character-as-played by D and the audience was noted by D just before opening night. "I suspect I have come to emphasize those aspects of characterization upon which the actors and I did pp; agree (or did not pip; as I wished).” (D's diary.) Steiia I Perceptions of Stelia and the audience's Stella.-- The correlation between S-actress' perception of Stella just before opening night and the audience's Stella factor was .813. S-actress communicated her character very well. The character-as-played as seen by the audience was also close to D's perception of the role. The correlation between D's perception of what Stella should be just before opening night and the audience's Stella factor was .867. A comparison of the Q-sort in which S-actress de- scribed Stella with the factor array of the audience's per- ception of Stella-as-played (correlation .813) showed that they agreed that Stella was extremely ping, affectionate, m, m, gpiet, pepceptive and vary 1 ed, hpnest, and W. The only strong disagreement occurred over W. The audience felt it didn't really apply positively or negatively to Stella (rank five), but S-ac- 108 trees strongly rejected it (rank one). A comparison of D's Q-sort describing Stella with the factor array of the audience's perception of Stella-as- played (correlation .867) showed that they were agreed that she was extremely stable. W. kind. 51—21116 . m_____:_othe - 11 and very hauler. manila. tassel, 221292. and __r2_l.l__cont e - There were no areas of strong disagreement. Per e t ons o Ste a-a - a ed and the aud enc 's §peiia.--S-actress' perception of her portrayal of the role was extremely close to that of the audience. The correla- tion between S-actress' stort describing Stella-as-played on opening night and factor D (audience's Stella) was .898. The correlation between D's perception of Stella-as-played and the audience's Stella was .785. A comparison of S-actress' description of Stella-as- played with the factor D array (correlation .898) showed that there were no strong disagreements. They were agreed that Stella was played as being extremely apiectiqpate, gpppig, king, ppthepiz, guiet and very pagest, just, ised, and 2211122112... A comparison of D's description of Stella-as-played with the audience's perception of Stella (correlation .785) showed that they agreed that Stella was extremely 321.1: etzgctippate, ppipp.and very ppthepiz, pgppppi, jppp, and W. D felt Stella was played as being m (rank ej~8‘ht), but the audience did.not (rank two). He also felt 109 she had been m and sgii-gppgcious (rank eight), but the audience did not (ranks four and three respectively). stealer Pepceptions of Stgpiez gpd tpe audigpcg's Stanlez.-- The correlation between K-actor's perception of Stanley just before opening night and factor B (audience's Stanley) was .629--the lowest among the three actors. The correla- tion between D's perception of Stanley just before opening night and.the audience's Stanley was also the lowest in the series--.615. A comparison of the Qrsort in which Kkactor de- scribed Stanley with the factor array of the audience's perception of Stanley-as-played (correlation .629) showed that they were agreed that Stanley was extremely zipiip, figgpppi, pggppppipp, popgh and very caiious, determined, and Inn;lpyipg, The audience saw Stanley as being chiigiike and iptgmpepapp (rank seven), but Kpactor did not (ranks one and two respectively). They also saw him as being slightly hanger. (rank six), but K-actor did not think he should be (rank two). A comparison of D's Q-sort describing Stanley with the factor B (audience's Stanley) array (correlation .615) showed that they agreed that Stanley was extremely callous, £91181). and very a essive, virile, a ant, W3, hot, self-centered, and.determined. D thought Stanley should be 29.1129. (rank sight), but the audience did not find 110 him.so (rank three). The audience saw Stanley as being my, (rank eight), while D thought he should not be (rank two). The audience also viewed Stanley as slightly ipsecure (rank six), while D strongly rejected this (rank zero). WW §§§n1g1.--X-actor's perception of his portrayal of Stanley was not very close to that of the audience. The correlation between K-actor's Q-sort describing Stanley-as-played on opening night and the audience's Stanley was .59#. The correlation between D's perception of Stanley-as-played and the audience's Stanley was .675. A comparison of the factor array with K-actor's description of Stanley-as-played (correlation .59#) showed that they agreed that Stanley was extremely zipiig, aggres- airs. sensual and very £9382! W9 and W. K-actor felt he played Stanley as being extremely aifection- ass. (rank ten), but the audience found him to be only slight- ly so (rank six). Kéactor felt Stanley was played as being both.peppous and stabie (rank eight), but the audience did not think so (rank four). K-actor also thought Stanley was sensitipe (rank seven), but the audience did not (rank three). The audience thought Stanley was extremely callous (rank ten), while K-actor thought he was only slightly so (rank six). The audience viewed Stanley as iptemperapp and depgpdent (rank seven), but Ksactor rejected these (ranks three and two respectively). The audience also felt Stanley 111 was chiigiike (rank seven), but K-actor strongly rejected 'this (rank zero). A comparison of D's description of Stanley-as-played with the factor array (correlation .675) showed that they agreed that Stanley was extremely 5925p, pggpg§§i13,and very We 11:11.2: W: 21921! W9 and 191-1; gggpgzgg. D felt Stanley was played as being ppised.and 229§121129,(ranks eight and seven respectively), but the audience did not (rank three). The audience found Stanley to be slightly hopept and insecure (rank six), while D did not (ranks two and one respectively). Summapz From the actors' point of view B-actress came the closest to portraying her perception of the role. The cor- relation between her perception of Blanche and the audience's Blanche was .885. S-actress came next closest. The corre- lation between her perception of Stella and the audience's Stella was .813. K-actor was furthest away. The correla- tion between his perception of Stanley and the audience's Stanley was .629. From D's point ofview S-actress came the closest to portraying his perception of the role. The correlation be- tween his peroeption of what Stella should be and the audi- ence's Stella was .867. B-actress came next closest. The correlation between D's perception of Blanche and the audi- ence's Blanche was .689. K-actor was furthest away. The 112 correlation between D's perception of Stanley and the audi- ence's Stanley was .615. I S-actress was able to perceive her performance with the closest resemblance to that of the audience. The cor- relation between her perception of Stella-as-played on opening night and the audience's Stella was .898. B-actress was next closest. The correlation between her perception of Blanche-as-played and the audience's Blanche was .760. K- actor was furthest away. The correlation between his per- ception of Stanley-as-played and the audience's Stanley was .59#. 0f the three characters D's perception of Stella-as- played had the closest resemblance to that of the audience. The correlation between his perception of Stella-as-played and the audience's Stella was .785. His perception of Stanley was next closest. The correlation of D's perception of Stanley-as-played and the audience's Stanley was .675. His perception of Blanche was furthest away. The correla- tion of his perception of Blanche-as-played and the audi- ence's Blanche was .#26.1 Perceptions of Chapactep and Perceptions of Self bx the Audience One of the questions involved in this study was: do 1It will be recalled that three psychologists were invited as “experts" in personality description to describe the characters. However, their descriptions were not suf- ficiently different from those of the rest of the audience members to warrant separate consideration. 113 audience members tend to perceive characters in terms of their self perceptions? It will be recalled that before the members of the audience sample saw the play on opening night, they were asked to describe themselves. The correlations between the audience members' perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of'Eflanche, Stella, and Stanley are presented in Table XXV. The self perceptions by members of the audience were quite unlike their perceptions of Blanche. The correlations ranged from -.397 to .309. Their self perceptions were much more similar to their perceptions of Stella. The correla- tions ranged from .138 to .71h. Their self perceptions were also unlike their perceptions of Stanley. The correlations ranged from -.208 to .272. The self perceptions of the audience members fell on the same factor (factor A) or on the Stella factor (factor D). Either the items in the Q-sort pack were not able to differentiate among their personality types, or the self de- scriptions by members of the audience approached a ”social desirability“ concept. There was no evidence to support the notion that audience members tended to perceive characters in terms of their self perceptions. The near unanimity of the similar- ity of their perceptions of themselves with their percep- tions of Stella suggested that Stella was played as being slightly snmilar to their perceptions of themselves. 114 TABLE.XXV.--Corre1ations between self perceptions of the audience and the perceptions of the characters Audience Member Blanche Stella Stanley 1 .160 .480 .007 2 .223 .uoz .188 a -0 397 .3u6 0121 0092 0525 -0056 5 -.259 .502 .056 6 .071 .625 -.208 7 -0368 0502 0009 8 .On5 .138 .196 9 .309 0636 ”9002 10 -.087 .364 -.018 11 -9236 0627 0272 12 -.355 .#78 .150 l .065 .308 .033 l -.2#8 .701 .217 16 .129 .u33 .063 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS The purpose of the study was to gain further under- standing of the communication process in theatrical pro- duction as it related to the formation of perceptions of characters. An empirical description of perception was needed. The instrument used to study the communication process was based on Qétechnique. The study was conducted withbn the context of the production process. The participants were the director and three of the actors who were rehearsing a play and a sample of the audience members who saw that play. The study involved only one play, one production, one group of actors, one director, and one audience sample. Therefore, no broad generalizations may be inferred from the results. Generalizations must await the accumulation of additional empirical data. Conciusions Several rather specific questions were posed at the beginning of this study. These questions may be answered on the basis of the data collected in the study. 1. Whap eifect may communiggtipn pgtwegp the actcpg gpd girectop have uppn character perception? How do tpg 115 116 peppgptions ghgpge? The second part of this question may be answered quite specifically. The perception of character changed in each actor-director relationship. The comparison of specific Qrsorts pointed out the nature of these changes. The director and the actress playing Stella were most successful in reaching a high level of agreement on a perception of Stella._ The actress playing Blanche and the director reached a lower level of agreement on a perception of Blanche. The actor playing Stanley and the director reached the lowest level of agreement on a perception of Stanley. Two distinct patterns of the deve10pment of charac- ter perception emerged from the study. The actress playing Stella and the director started with a low level of agree- ment, but the amount of agreement continued to grow until the last rehearsal. The actor playing Stanley and the director started with a fairly high level of agreement; it went higher; and then it continually dropped off to a low on opening night. The varying levels of agreement between the actress playing Blanche and the director revealed no dis- cernible pattern. Since the only record of actor-director communica- tion was that provided by the diaries and interviews, it was not possible to answer the first of these questions con- clusively. Nevertheless, it was possible to point out 11? changes in perception which apparently resulted from com- munication between the actors and director. Fbr’instance, the actress playing Stella gave up her perception of Stella aslgggp:ppip§ipg,as a result of discussions with the direc- tor. 2. t dif e e es an e ist between the ract s s 6 ca ved the i ati f e a t d ct r and t e r e ce 0 s f the cha act s-as- piazgd? The actors were convinced that their portrayals were very similar to their perceptions of the characters. The audience reaction seemed to verify this Judgment, especially in terms of the performances of the actresses playing Blanche and Stella. The director consistently held a lower Opinion of the performance of the characters in relation to his per- ception of them. Comparisons of Q-sorts pointed out the numerous specific differences between perceptions. The actress playing Blanche felt that her por- trayal of Blanche was very similar to her perception of the character. The director felt that her portrayal of Blanche was only slightly similar to his perception of the character. The actress playing Stella thought that her por- trayal of Stella was extremely similar to her perception of the character. The director felt that her portrayal of Stella was close to his perception of the character. 118 The actor playing Stanley felt that his portrayal of Stanley was very similar to his perception of the char- acter. The director thought that the portrayal of Stanley was very similar to his perception of the character. The above conclusions were based on the Q-sort data. The director's subjective evaluation was that Stella was played closest to his perception, Stanley was played next closest to the director's perception, and that the portrayal of Blanche was furthest from his perception. 3. Do the actors tend t2 pepceivg pharacters ip pgpps 9: their pepceptions o: thgmseivgs? The actress playing Stella and the actor playing Stanley seemed to perceive themselves as being slightly similar to their characters. The actress playing Blanche did not. b. 39w pipsely do the characters perceived by the agtppg Egg dipectpp pelate to those perceived by the audi- gppgj To what expent do the actors and director communi- gate t9 gp audience what they try to communicate? The actors and director were quite successful in communicating their perceptions of the characters. The correlations between factors derived from the audience's Q—sorts and factors derived from Q-sorts by the actors and director describing the characters were high. The actresses playing Blanche and Stella were more successful than the actor playing Stanley in communicating 119 their perceptions of their characters. The perceptions by the actresses of their characters-as-played were also closer to the audience's perception than was the actor's. From.the director's point of view the actress play- ing Stella was more successful than either the actress playing Blanche or the actor playing Stanley in communi- cating the director's perception of Stella. The director's perception of Stella-as-played was more similar to the audience's perception of Stella-as-played than his view of the other two characters. ' The audience's perception of Blanche-as-played was very close to the actress' perception of Blanche. The actress' perception of the way she played Blanche was similar to the audience's perception of Blanche-as-played. The audience's perception of Blanche-as-played was slightly similar to the director's perception of Blanche. The director's perception of Blanche-as-played was not very close to the audience's perception of Blanche-as-played. The audience's perception of Stella-as-played was quite close to the actress' perception of Stella. The actress' perception of the way she played Stella was extreme- ly close to the audience's perceptiOn of Stella-as-played. The audience's perception of Stella-as-played was extremely similarjto the director's perception of Stella. The director's perception of Stella-as-played was similar to the audience's perception of Stella-as-played. 120 The audience's perception of Stanley-as-played was slightly similar to the actor's perception of Stanley. The actor's perception of the way he played Stanley was slightly smmilar to the audience's perception of Stanley-as-played. The audience's perception of Stanley-as-played was . slightly similar to the director's perception of Stanley. The director's perception of Stanley-as-played was slightly similar to the audience's perception of Stanley-as-played. 5. Do gpdigpce members tend to perceive characters ip terms of their perceptions of thgmselves? There was no evidence to suggest that audience mem- bers tended to perceive characters in terms of their self perceptions. Correlations between their perceptions of themselves and their perceptions of the characters generally were low. ct e nter tat one Although it is not possible to generalize from the above data, it is possible to interpret them.and to speculate upon them. 1. The Q-sort was a valuable instrument to measure empirically the perceptions of character in this play. The factors which were derived from the Q-sort data provided a vgeneral picture of the perceptions of each of the characters. The comparison of Q—sorts pointed out specific similarities and differences in perception and specific changes in per- ception. The correlation of storts provided a measurement 121 of the degree of similarity among perceptions. 2. The actress playing Stella and the director reached the highest level of agreement on a perception of the character, and.the director was well satisfied with her performance. Several possible reasons for this may be offered. One reason may have been the actress' cooperative attitude. She seemed to be most interested in filling her place in the whole production picture. whereas, the actress playing Blanche and the actor playing Stanley seemed to be more interested in their individual performances. Another reason may have been that the actress playing Stella, because of her relatively limited experi- ence, depended more on the direction given by the director than did the other two performers who both had extensive experience. Still another reason may have been that the actress playing Stella saw herself as being slightly similar to Stella. This may be support for the concept of ”type” casting. 3. Several problems concerning the direct communi- cation between actor and director seemed to be revealed. The actress playing Blanche and the director seemed to have the greatest problem in communication. The director felt he accomplished little in the many discussions he held with the actress playing Blanche, but she felt that 122 they were very useful. The two did not reach a very high level of agreement on a perception of Blanche, and the direc- tor was quite dissatisfied with the actress' performance. One of the reasons may have been the concern the actress playing Blanche felt about the morality of the play and, particularly, about the morality (or absence thereof) of the behavior of Blanche. The actress seemed to have difficulty identifying with the kind of person Blanche seemed to be and, at one- time, mentioned to the director that she did.not like the kind of person Blanche seemed to be. Perhaps Blanche was not a good ”type” of character for this actress to play, shnce she did.not perceive herself as being very similar to her perception of Blanche. O ' 4. The director's Judgment of the performances of the actors seemed to be biased by his image of how he wished the characters to be. A rather marked difference was noted among the director's perceptions of the characters-as-played and the perceptions by the audience of the characters-as- played. The amount of dissatisfaction the director had.with the performance of an actor seemed to have a direct rela- tionship to his loss of objectivity. The director was most satisfied with the portrayal of Stella. The portrayal of Stanley came fairly close to what he desired, and he was least satisfied with the portrayal of Blanche. His per- 123 ception of Stella-as-played was closest to that of the audience; his perception of Stanley-as-played came fairly close; and his perception of Blanche-as-played was furthest from that of the audience. In summary the director had clear perceptions of how the characters should be played. He and the actress playing Stella reached agreement on a perception of Stella, and her portrayal was close to that perception. The direc- tor was not able to reach strong agreement with the actress playing Blanche or with the actor playing Stanley on per- ceptions of their characters. As a result, with the ex- ception of Stella, the characters performed for the audience were closer to the perceptions of the actors than they were to the perceptions of the director. estions fo urther esearch There are many areas in theatre amenable to re- search using Q-technique. This study has been broad in scope dealing with actors, director, and.audience. It would be possible to narrow the scope to either the actors or the audience. Perhaps the actor's perception of his character depends partially upon how he sees the other characters. Perhaps age, sex, socio-economic status, and similar vari- ables have an effect on character perception among audience members. It would be interesting to compare the perceptions of the playwright to those of other members of the produc- tion team. 124 Perhaps the perception of character by a costume designer helps to determine the costume the actor wears. The director, scenedesigner, and lighting designer must communicate with each other concerning perceptions of mass, light, space, shadow, color, and line. It would be valuable to have empirical data on perceptions of mood, theme, emotion, and timing. The image of the impact of a theatre program on a community might be examined using this technique. The uses for the technique seem to be limited only to the researcher's interest, im- agination, and resources. A cautionary note.--Further researchers are reminded that the pool of adjectives and the application of Q-tech- nique used in this study were developed specifically for the problems presented herein. Given other problems, there will likely be other more appropriate items and more appropriate applications of Q-technique. Certainly students should investigate thor- oughly the criticisms of Q methodology and should seek ex- pert advice before applying it. \O (YD-Q O\\n irks NH I—‘i—‘I—J NHO I O C IJFJH oxaxn 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 28. / O N \1 O Q to) \1) L.) k0 \o \o k.) Lo m Lo m O\O Cow O\\n like N WORK insecure anxious suspicious arrogant hostile negative self-conscious cautious impulsive passive dependent aggressive protective retiring thoughtful introverted idealistic gentle ambitious persevering resourceful beneficial pessimistic altruistic egotistic sociable kind ungrateful quarrelsome wise hard masculine severe hot stable intuitive orthodox rash sensitive defensive APP“: V.‘ b . IE TEE PRELIFINARY STUDY 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. E; o 53. 55 56. 57. 58. 590 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. 72. 73- 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 125 (DIX A Inc LIST or 153 voans USED sophisticated humble subjective lethargic energetic clever gluttonous morbid compromising opportunistic self-centered disillusioned objective fanatical hypocritical prejudiced tense driving Vicious warm affectionate stubborn intemperate perceptive authoritative fun-loving weak-willed nervous charming humorless perfunctory excitable mature bitter cruel masochistic passionate pure honest deceitful 810 82. 830 84. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95- 96. 97- 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 121. 122. 123. 124. 125. 126. 127. 128. 129. unrealistic nonchalant frightened desperate proud honest vain fearful childlike fragile haughty cold callous just brittle vengeful goulish iniuman unhappy brilliant careworn guilt-ridden powerful weary quiet controlled unostentatious deep-thinking dreamy folksy silly motherly tough lazy moody sensual hard-skinned cowardly bored jealous shy depressed insolent talkative extravagant frugal ashamed brave fatuous 126 Psnnlx A (COKTINUED) 130. 131. 132. 33- 134. 135. 136. 137. 1°8. 129. 140. 141. 142. 14°. 144. 145. 146. 147. 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153. virile resigned smoldering flighty fearless sadistic condescending respectful poised fragile sympathetic timid subtle analytical haggard determined embittered detached frank sexual doninant reflective Xpressive imaginative APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS TO PRELIMINARY STUDY SUBJECTS AND CHART FOR RECORDING RESPONSES This is a pretest for the "study of perception" research project being done by A1 Kepke. Your help in this will be greatly appreciated. You will be given (1) a stack of 153 cards, each with a word descriptive of personality on it; (2) a set of 15 score- cards, number 0 to 14, each indicating a certain number of cards to be assigned to it; (3) two charts by which you can record your responses. PROCEDURE: Fill cut the charts with name, age, etc., and I’condition of instruction." Your first condition of in- struction is to describe ygur personality as it appears to you today. Your second condition of instruction is to de- scribe a favorite character from modern dramatic literature (that should be identified on the chart). MECHANICS CF Q-SOHT: For gagh condition of instruction go through the entire pack of cards, first dividing them into three general piles: (1) those most obviously descriptive; (2) those which are least descriptive; and (3) those about which you are not sure. Now, on a large table (or the floor) spread out the fifteen score-cards, in consecutive order from O to 14. You are now ready to make a description by placing those words which most describe your personality (or that of the character) in the higher (14) piles and those less descriptive in the lower (0) piles. Some people find it easier to work from both ends toward the middle by selecting the four most descrip- tive cards, perhaps the next six, then moving to the other end and selecting the four least descriptive, the next six, and so forth until the middle piles are finally filled. After you have sorted the entire pack, check to make sure that the correct number of cards are in each pile. now 23; cord the identifying number of each word (not the word it- self) in the squares on the chart according to your place- ment. Thus, you will have four numbers to record for pile 0, six for pile 1, etc. 127 128 APPszDIX B (CONTINUED) how go through the same process for the other condition of instruction. Your help is needed in this pretest to narrow the number of descriptive words from 153 to a more easily handled number. naturally your responses will be held in the strictest con- fidence. PudiY HfifibiKS 2129 Condition of Instruction: ( ) Self Character: ( ) Dramatic 1 I (least) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 (m08t1_ (4) (4) (1.) m Ta) (6) (10) (10) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) (15) Subject No.: Date: Subject's Name: Sex: A89: Harried:___ Family: Major: Class: Commentc: HI" 'Lo 11...-” .0: HFJ FJO\OOTflChu1$KohJH O O O C O O O O O O O H N O H “KO 0 14. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. }_.l \n APPENDIX C FIJAL SIXTY ITEMS brave determined affectionate vain cruel lazy just insecure weary intemperate dependent quiet stable pure self-centered humorless deep-thinking honest flighty moody hostile self-conscious sensitive childlike fragile humble driving fruga sophisticated hot USED IE Q-SORT DECK aggressive dreamy impulsive weak-willed perceptive brilliant morbid arrOgant gluttonous 40. nervous 41. happy 42. bitter 43. poised 44. unrealistic 45. sensual 46. kind 47. fearful 48. expressive 49. intuitive 50. callous 51. fun-loving 52. guilt-ridden 53. passive 54. controlled 5. motherly 56. virile 57. idealistic 58. tough 59. nonchalant 60. shy 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 130 APPEJDIX D DIRECTIOJS GIVEN TO PARTICIPAHTS Allow from twenty to thirty minutes for each Q-sorting. You'll need a large flat surface to work on (a long desk, table, or even the floor may be useful). This packet contains (A) a deck of sixty, non-colored, ad- jective cards n each of which is printed a single adjec- tive; (E) a deck of eleven yellow rank cards numbered from zero to ten. Indicated on the lower half of the rank cards is the number of adjective cards to be placed in that rank pile. Procedure: Remove the sixty cards with adjectives on them. First, sort these cards into three general piles. The three piles should include (A) cards which least appropriately describe the personality you are considering; (B) those cards about which you are not sure; and (C) cards which most appropriately describe this personality. After you have made this initial sort, remove from this envelope the eleven yellow rank cards. Spread these out be- fore you in consecutive order from zero to ten (zero on your left and ten on your right). The higher the number of the rank card, the more descriptive are the adjectives assigned to it. Thus, you should place the most descriptive adjec- tives in a pile on top of rank card ten, and the least de- scriptive adjectives in a pile on top of rank card zero. In assigning adjective cards to these piles, please be sure that you place the correct number of cards in each pile, so that the three most descriptive adjectives are placed in the rank ten pile, the next four in the rank nine pile, etc. Hany people find it easier to start at both ends and work toward the middle. After you have completed sorting the sixty adjectives into the eleven piles, pick up the cards with the yellow rank (base) card on the bottom of each of the eleven piles. Put the rank nine pile on top of the rank ten pile; then the rank eight pile on top of the rank nine pile; then the rank seven pile on top of the rank eight pile, and so on until the rank zero pile is on top. The stack will now be in the 131 132 APPS .'DIX D (COITIJUED) following order. Three rank zero adjective cards, RAJK ZERO ase (rank) card; four rank one adjective cards, RAIK 03E base card, and so on. Put a rubber band around either 3g; of the deck of cards and place back in the envelope. PLE 8E CO”PLETE THE SOHTIIG AT THE SCHEDULED TIRE AJD RETURJ THE EJ' JTT0188 TO AL KEIKE. YOUR COOPEJAT IOJ 18 GREATLY AP :‘ECIAT ‘p please feel free to call A1 Kepke at ED 2-2469 or 355-6690 Note: If you have any questions about doing the Q-sort, COMPLETE FACTOR ARRAYS APPENDIX E Standard Scores Item Number Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor I II , III IV V 1 +1.573 +0.918 —0.043 +0.718 +0.159 2 +1.313 +1.431 -O.288 —0.143 +1.452 3 +0.849 +1.795 -0.037 +1.794 +0.219 4 -1.016 +0.278 +1.094 -1.160 +1.385 5 -2.108 +0.244 -1.028 -1.883 +0.625 6 -l.36l -1.318 -O.642 -0.097 -l.128 7 -1.102 -0.546 -0.793 +0.874 -O.982 8 -0.583 —0.956 +1.992 ’ -0.933 -1.184 9 -0.413 -o.978 +1.153 +0.060 -0.504 10 -1.236 —0.626 +0.785 -0.566 +1.391 ll -O.505 -O.551 +1.207 +0.830 -O.451 12 -0.189 -1.162 -1.330 +1.594 -l.288 13 +0.673 +0.96? -1.880 +1.875 +0.480 14 +1.629 -1.582 -O.799 +0.568 -0.421 15 +0.133 +0.724 +1.545 -0.941 +1.835 16 -1.081 -O.772 -O.709 -O.5OO -O.202 17 +0.838 -O.85O -0.033 —0.250 -0.254 18 +1.399 +0.236 -O.689 +1.180 -0.274 19 -O.609 -1.720 +0.916 -1.271 -1.199 20 +0.266 +0.584 +0.655 -0.241 +0.047 21 -1.581 +0.349 -o.459 -1.821 +0.723 22 —0.517 —o.337 +1.480 -0.725 -1.112 23 +1.441 +0.32? +1.529 +0.792 -O.653 24 +0.756 -1.666 +0.255 -O.206 -O.l59 25 -o.504 -1.363 +1.041 -0.473 -1.788 26 +1.320 -O.276 -0.99 +1.172 -1.839 27 +1.493 +1.445 -0.225 -1.164 +1.860 28 +0.349 +1.115 -1.428 +0.137 +0.233 29 +0.103 -O.484 +0.23O +0.161 -O.808 30 -0.740 +0.464 +0.585 +0.11? +0.610 3 +0.152 +1.53? -l.118 -1.408 +1.530 32 -0.152 -O.707 +0.156 +0.653 -1.196 33 +0.158 +0.623 +0.924 -0.001 +0.680 3 -1.485 -1.427 +0.293 -0.354 -1.153 133 134 Standard Scores Item fhnnber Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor I II III IV V 35 +0.705 +0.227 +0.589 +0.756 —0.110 36 +0.586 -0.825 -o.034 -0.098 +0.055 37 -1.400 -0.346 +0.421 -1.388 -o.674 38 -0.479 +0.823 -0.113 -1.554 +1.088 39 -l.762 +0.044 -O.487 -l.121 +0.685 40 -0.313 +0.838 +1.844 —0.863 -1.429 41 +1.072 +1.109 -1.641 +1.383 +0.720 42 -l.l7O +0.419 +0.16? -1.631 +0.012 43 +0.46O +0.116 -O.757 +1.12? +0.9OO 44 —0.393 -0.431 +0.343 —0.839 —0.588 45 -1.027 +1.641 -0.105 +0.730 +1.039 46 +1.543 -0.387 -0.410 +1.81? -1.268 47 -O.208 -l.O71 +2.039 -O.596 -1.248 '8 +1.587 +1.075 +1.216 +0.130 -0.179 49 +0.65? +0.598 +0.51? +0.423 +0.169 50 -1.827 +0.?30 -1.2?? -1.142 +1.327 51 +0.5?9 +1.839 -0.089 +0.938 +0.969 52 -0.757 -1.107 +1.347 -1.033 -0.939 53 -1.293 -O.551 -1.502 +1.188 -O.592 54 +0.649 -0.24? -1.441 +1.452 +0.?43 55 +0.491 -1.926 -0.253 +1.455 -0.052 56 +0.4OO +1.925 -O. 75 +0.34l +1.65O 5 +0.84? -0.501 +0.L22 -0.205 -0.843 5 +0.644 +1.243 -1.237 -0.381 +1.?81 59 -0.874 +0.033 -i.783 +0.947 +0.836 6O -O.178 -O.989 -O.746 -O.223 -l.689 135 Standard Scores Item Number Factor Factor Factor Factor A B C D 1 +0.21? +0.116 -l.025 +0.808 2 +1.?80 +1.313 -0.296 +0.412 3 +1.415 +0.553 +0.311 +1.942 4 -0.206 +0.432 +1.439 -1.341 5 -2.001 +1.075 - .523 -1.83 6 -1.213 —0.358 -0.244 -0.5?6 7 +1.70? -O.239 -O.498 +1.063 8 -O.797 +0.56O +1.995 -O.6OO 9 -0,697 —0.645 +0.715 +0.049 10 -0.439 +1.050 +0.375 -0.874 11 -0.758 +0.736 +1.382 +1.143 12 +0.204 -1.6?5 -1.088 +1.564 13 +1.266 -0.325 —2.132 +1.799 14 -0.109 -1.1?0 -1.150 +0.326 15 +0.541 +1.276 +1.503 -1.304 16 -1.58 +0.020 -0.661 -0.250 17 +0.84 -1.095 —0.433 -0.094 8 +1.741 +0.239 -0.607 +1.196 19 -0.659 -0.266 +1.419 -1.495 20 +0.255 +0.353 +0.806 —0.787 2 -1.512 +0.983 -0.58 —1.347 22 +0.619 -O.622 +0.839 -O.710 2 +1.382 —0.715 +1.422 +1.06? 24 -l.127 +0.735 +1.175 -O.118 25 -1.381 -1.704 +0.865 -0.421 26 -0.008 -l.267 -O.914 +0.722 27 +0.43 +1.051 —0.715 —1.205 28 -0.040 —0.248 -1.398 +0.186 29 +0.251 -1.463 +0.182 -0.189 3 -0.783 +1.091 -0.097 +0.363 31 +0.659 +1.675 -0.43? —1.045 32 -0.349 —0.926 +0.750 -O.1€4 3 +0.830 +1.472 +0.907 +0.156 34 -1.350 —1.143 +1.118 +0.306 35 +1.2?1 -0.665 +0.115 +0.869 36 —0.474 -1.093 -0.444 -0.530 37 -l.531 -O.43 +0.032 -1.h33 38 —0.539 +1.546 -0.366 -1.590 3 —0.854 +1.105 -1.009 -1.203 40 +0.351 -0.355 +1.547 - .976 41 +1.?15 +0.632 —1.400 +1.477. 42 -1.454 —0.122 -0.035 —1.295 136 Standard Scores Item Number Factor Factor Factor actor A B C D 43 +1.120 -0.?94 -0.?45 +1.198 44 —0.?75 —0.203 +1.398 +0.148 45 +0.532 +1.420 +0.78 +1.261 46 +1.362 -0.737 +0.204 +1.609 4? -0.740 -0.365 +1.344 -0.287 48 +0.835 +0.697 +0.900 +0.366 L9 +0.965 -0.116 +0.059 +0.669 50 —1.003 +1.625 -1.228 -1.603 51 +1.130 +1.102 +0.1?2 +0.418 52 -l.196 -O.665 +1.505 -O.786 5 -O.714 -l.373 -O.915 +1.039 54 +0.831 -0.?56 -1.413 +1.240 55 -0.062 -l.764 -O.€78 +1.605 56 +0.246 +1.662 -0.961 +0. 69 57 +1.246 -1.113 +0.5?1 -0.053 58 -0.923 +1.478 -1.500 -0.815 59 -0.098 -0.079 —0.984 —0.161 60 -0.377 -1.497 —O.348 +0.035 BIBLIOGRAPH Books Abt, Lawrence Edwin, and Bellak, Leopold (eds.). Prgjective Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1950. Anderson, Harold H., and Anderson, Gladys L. (eds.). Ag Introduction to Projective Techniques. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1951. Block, Jack. The Qrsort_Nethod in Personality_Assessment and ngehiatric Research. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas, 1961. Chall, Jeanne S. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1958. Gage, N. L. (ed.). Handbook of Research on Teachipg. Chicago: Rand thally and Company, 1963. Goodman, Randolph (ed.). Drama on Stage. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Hall, Calvin 8., and Lindzey, Gardner. Theories of Person- alitz. New YorI: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957. Lphology, Vol. II. Lindze Gardner. Handbook of Social F A 9 g Company, Inc., S‘T Cambridge: Addison-Wesley Publishin 1954. KcKellar, Peter. Imagination and Thinking. New York: basic Books, Inc., 1957. Osgood, Charles E., Suci, George J., and Tannenbaum, Percy H. The Keasurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Reymert, Martin L. (ed.). Feelings and Emotions. New York: KcGraw-Hill, 1950. Rogers, Carl R. Client-centered Therapy3_ Its Current Practice, Implications, and Theory. Boston: Houghton, 1951. 137 138 . Counselipg_end Psychotherapy: Hewer Concepts in Practicg. Boston: Houghton, 1942. Snygg, D. and Combs, A. W. Individual Behavior. New York: Harper, 1949. Stephenson, William. The Study of Behavior: Q-Technioue and Its Kephodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. Tagiuri, Renato, and Petrullo, Luigi (eds.). Person Per- ception and Interpersonal Peha vior. Stanford, California: Stanford University lress, 1958. Tliurston, L. L. Iultiple Factor Analysis Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947. Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln: University of Hebrask Press, 1961. Articles and Periodicals Caplan, S. W. "The Effect of Group Counseling on Junior High School Boys' Concepts of Themselves," Journal of Counseling Psychology, (1957), 124-128. ' Dale, Edgar, and Chall, Jeanne S. "A Formula for Predicting Readability, " and “Instructions," Educational Peseargh Bulletin, XXVII (Jar uary 21 and February 18, 1948 , 11-209 289 37‘540 Edwards, Allen L. "Social Desirability and Q-Sorts, Journal of Consulting Psyphology, XIX (1955), 462. Goodling, Richard A. and Guthrie, George M. "Some Practical Considerations in Q-Sort Item Selection," Journal of Counseling ngchology, III, Ho. 1 (1956), 70—72. Kabie, E. C. "The Responses of Theatre Audiences, Experi- mental Studies," Speech r01o~ranhc, XIX, No. 4 (November, 1952), 235-243. ’orsh, Joseph E. "The Q Sort Technique as a Group Keasure,’ Educational and Psyphological Keasurement, XV, Ho. 4 (Winter, 1955), 390 3:5. Loss, C. Scott. "Current and Projected Status of Semantic Differential Research, " The Psychological Record, X, No. 1 (January, 1960), 45- 53- Junnally, Jum C. "A Systematic Approach to the Construction 139 of Hypotheses about the Process of Psychotherapy," Journal of Consulting_Psyphology, XIX, Ko. 1 ‘TFebruary, 1955 , 17-20. Peterson, 0. D., Snyder, William U., Guthrie, George K., and Ray, William S. "Therapist Factors: An Explor- atory Investigation of Therapeutic Biases, " Journal of Consu1t1L~ Psycholo v, v, No. 3 (195 8), 169-173 Revie, Virgil A. "The Effect of Psychological Case Work on the Teacher's Concept of the Pupil," Journal of Counseling Psychology, III, Ho. 2 (1956), 125-129. Segal, Julius. "The Differentiation of Well and Poorly Integrated Clinicians by the Q—Sort Method," Journa of Clinical Psychology, x (1954), 321-328. Smith, Ra mond G. "A Semantic Differential for Th atre Concepts," Speech '01ocianbs, XXVIII, Ko. 1 (March, 1961), 1-80 Stephenson, William. "'Ideal' Types," The Psv ychol ogica 1 Record, XII, No. 1 (January, 1962I,9 -l6. "Scientific Creed-~196l: Philosophical Creed, “Scientific Creed--l96l: Abductory Principles," and "Scientific Creed--196l: The Centrality of Self, The Psychological Record,III, Ko. 1 (January, 1961), 1-3, 9—17, 18-26. Whitehall, Buell, Jr., and Kodman, Francis, Jr. "A Study of Audience Reaction to a Stereotype Character," Educational Theatre Journal, IV, Ho. 2 (1952), 139- f“ 117.; o Hittenborn, J. R. "Contributions and Current Status of Q Kethodology," Psychological Bulletin, LVIII, To. 2 (1961), 132-142. Other Sources Prather, Jack G. "Punched- Card Q—Sortin A Kachine Kethod for Q Deck Preparation and Scoring Communications Research Center, Michigan State Ur iv versity, anuary, 1963. (Kimeographed.) r“ C , I Kichigan State University. Personal interviews with cast members and director of "A Streetcar Named Desire." July, 1962. Michigan State University. Diaries of cast members and director of "A Atreetcar Named Desire." Kay, 1962, ROOM USE ONLY "IIIIIIIIJWIITII'“