—-—.w-—p-——-W~v—=v-~~-‘—v ~ 7
. a w . -‘ - . 'i . -n . .;\
421' " f“ '5 7’ ~"T‘FV' ..'-" ’ff‘

u 4
O

     

..:. z'. . ‘ If '
’ ‘ ' D O

    

    
 
 
  
   

    
 
  

  
   

    
 

      

 
  
  

        
  

    
  
 
 
   

 
 
    

       
 

- o O 3
. 0.. . . .
q. ,. . . w 5.} . ‘ .
w” . 1
» r «. . t 77'" M» .., ., . . .“ . . 7,
u . "l‘l ‘ . 'le ".I“ :‘T \ >"'{IH.:Y.:- .l,"‘£]: fluff; (3...; “:3 L-fn “951‘ ’_.
" l- c .. '-"'" ‘ - - «s . . ' *
I nl ..' .. ' U [.. I .1A_ 0 I}',. ."...c._ll_ .‘
'. . .\ ' .. “Ml-:- ')"o '1' w- . $&‘:‘IL';§”(2 k’k‘l'g‘q'fii . f‘ ‘
‘ I ' w . 0",, I ’ o" I' ‘, ,u , 3.. H. .l‘y.v I": V .‘I....""
v” “u 01' '.."' .v .'I- My}? k ,' 3'33!" '15:! P a .fi' "‘15-‘6‘: rats-L
. - v ,. ‘ Inn» . .... ... ”fir '\.’..'-:“\:y\ .' :1” 1'“ ‘L‘ "3'; 5“," "”1?
‘. J, I: I, n ll \ “h ”JIM - . up JJ‘ .1 ' ,‘I ",..‘{‘j’ v' H; u
I’Hvlff'fy'tfh l‘ q- ‘ H..- {L 9"}. .1. III“! '1 ‘.‘ I: .K "I'J'Ifkv‘ttq J.» \le” (in:
' J ~ u'”"'""' "' LYUp}‘"3 " - ‘ i".';~“5 Ifih'.L2?"

".' .";,,\.‘.‘ 1.0“ “1"". ”A l‘

} I .‘ “ .‘ st 3. ".J 11". ‘ .I"

‘ i A I \H‘.‘ ‘v'il ’h‘hu: 5"" INT», '.'.".‘:I'H I l
‘\ ',

  
 

 

 
  
 
  
 

      
   

    

  

 
                 
  
 
 

   

 

‘. 'h '.“:‘ ‘ ; "il‘ '. "1 | “ 1... ",i t 1 0”... at .‘M a
w ”,H M I- . a.“ I \'. _ I . .‘ no ..- H ' I.
“Vinyl. '3' “If” i"! ‘ ’5' *i' ’ Ilru: "II“. .'|:['n‘.-‘ “l" ‘ ‘ ‘
.‘t H: " lit". WM“ . i. .3. . :.' .p “1;; .' , .
.. .h I. , I , [I ." J n I, _..| ' III'VLV'I .'.
If ! ',’I""' ',"II Mm". 1:4,. q“ ‘v‘fl! . In. "':- n n "thy: .- flu.“ ,‘_ ' a r; 4
I § . c' . I. i Ijl; ".u ' ‘H 5| “'1'“ I'll’qlult.‘ ): :fle‘h _ H,- 'I‘f. }‘ flunk;
'1‘ ~—’-.'i"' - I '2“: 33"» ' - '~‘::5' M '~: .- ,- w. ; j-‘ti
"~*:i-- W» . " 116'sz 54.1.9“ ,;- Wflfiuflfi A I: :3“ -’:. .aiz‘c‘sw.‘
I ' .fi‘lfi".(¢~bn ‘. ‘Lf‘l _ ‘Pt'._’f-P..‘ l. ‘1...” u." ("“1" . r.“ ""-".'h' | . ,J'
.r .’ "‘1 ' . 'r v < . . A ‘. f . . . I}

 
      
 
 

  

. . ‘>'
:t'JILH \ ‘
.1

   

v: -'l
w-Hr
\‘ . . flux 9-
‘ ‘\ Ami-Lt,” :lr‘.

 
  
 

   
  

 
 

‘
‘ n

  

'L
- -»#
f"

we-“
‘ -1“.
u -- zk' I. ‘1 ‘_.. 323$. us :
5- 63:“ r. r ' ‘ .... “"chEF‘IYS-P‘. 7.11. 1
”-'%Q - . ‘2” wagfcb: g'm
- «do 7 .3; ' "
:1'. “LP ‘ 3 ""
\ :r. .413“ 51‘
£

$3.;

3-” .-
' ‘ ‘54:}. l '
.wurm, r: g“
3 a.“ |§‘_:~."+.:T .!
w ' - 5‘43“?
..

» -. \ :3"
‘l. I
kw»
. 53.?
' I. in? I

..
‘ In v
*1; .L. ’2;
fl“; .. -
"“ 3.}? an, .
V 71. A QLQTTJr

.
. .

S
O
E
O
5
q
)
4

§
§

J

\
\
\
\
N
x
x
\
\
X
K
R
\

//

 

///7i/'/717iif//'/'IF/I/W/777/! ,_——--——-\

/I/

+‘°662 7684 LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

W

\
N

/

WHESE;

0)
d
N
‘0
w

.w. M"

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

The Effect of an Experimenter's Presence
on the Quality of Interpretable Data
in Human Figure Drawings

presented by

Jeffrey Paul Roach

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph - I)- degree in Jasguzhnloggp

 

 

7/5/84
Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

 

TN! EFFICT OF AN [XPERIMTNTER’S FRESfNCE
0N TNf QUALITY OF INT£RPR£TAB££ DATA
IN HUMAN FIGURf DRANVNGS

By

Jeffrey Paul Roach

A DISSERTATION

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

DUCTUR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

1984

ABSTRACT

TNE £FF£CT DF AN [XPERIMTNTffi’S PRESfNCE DN TNf DUALITY DF
INTfRRRfTABLf DATA IN HUMAN FIGURE DRANYNES

By

Jeffrey Paul Roach

Handler and Reyher (l96h) demonstrated that
manifestations of anxiety in human figure drawings have two
sources: (a) the anxiety producing characteristics of the
laboratory situation and (b) the anxiety producing
characteristics of the task of drawing the human anatomy.
Man, woman. and automobile drawings obtained under stressful
conditions tended to show a dimunition of articulation,
effort, and detail. However, the effects tended to be more
comprehensive for human figures than for the .automobile
figure. In a subsequent study, Roach (198l) replicated and
extended this pattern of results. The current study
attempts to extend this line of research by addressing two
issues. First. it examines the proposition that
manifestations of anxiety in figure drawings that reflect
the participant's reactions to the task of drawing the human
anatomy tend to be masked or minimized when the drawings are
obtained under stressful conditions. Second, it examines
the proposition that figure drawing anxiety indices
(Handler, 1967) differ in the extent to which they are

sensitive to the situational source of anxiety. The current

study evaluates a proposed categorization scheme that places
Handler's indices into Highly, Moderately, and Mildly
Sensitive and- lnsensitive categories. Man, woman, and car
drawings were obtained by a male experimenter from l08 male
undergraduates in either experimenter present or absent
conditions. A three factor MANOVA was used to analyze the
effects of experimenter‘s presence-absence, drawing type,
and order of the drawings on the figure drawing anxiety
indices. In addition, a multiple groups, confirmatory
factor analysis was used to assess the effectiveness of the
categorization scheme. The results did not support the
first hypothesis that the effects of high anxiety producing
conditions tend to mask or minimize the effects of the
anxiety producing characteristics of drawing the human
anatomy. Mild support was provided for the proposed
categorization scheme which ordered the anxiety indices in
terms of their sensitivity to the situational source of
anxiety. Based on the these results, the indexes were
reordered, and a Post Hoc analysis indicated that the
altered scheme was more effective. Additional analyses were
also examined and discussed in terms of their practical
applications for the improvement of the measurement of the

figure drawing anxiety indices.

To JoAnn:
fior your Zove, support,
and understanding.

ii

ACKNDWMEDDEMTNTS

I would like to express my appreciation to those
individuals that have made contributions to this project.
Joe Reyher, my chairperson. served as a source of continual
enthusiasm and support. I appreciate his wisdom and
guidance, and have profited greatly by identifying with his
dedication to research. At different stages in the project,
Norbert Kerr and Terry Allen provided valuable insight into
complex issues. John Hurley was also available during a
time of need. Invaluable aide in the collection and coding
of the data was provided by Kevin Alverson, Bill Abler, and
Bill Chips. Their enthusiasm for learning was contagious,
during the arduous, monotonous phases of the project.
Finally, I want to express appreciation to JoAnn for her
'support, understanding, and patience during the frustrating

and frantic times.

mm or comer/75

Page

LIST DF TABLES .......................................... vi
LIST 0F FIGURfS ....................................... viii
INTRDDDCTIDN ............................................. l
Hypothesis I ......................................... 8
Hypothesis ll ........................................ 8
METNUD .................................................. lO
Participants ........................................ l0
Instruments ......................................... l0
Experimental Setting ................................ lh
Procedure ........................................... lb
RfSDITS ................................................. 18
Hypothesis l ........................................ 20
Hypothesis ll ....................................... 22
Manova Results ................................... 23
Multiple Groups Analysis ......................... 25

Post Hoc Analysis ................................ 27

Other Findings ...................................... 3l
Other Results for Drawing lndices and Time ....... 31

Head Variables Results ........................... 35
Debriefing Questionnaire Results ................. 36

iv

Page

DISCUSSION .............................................. 38
Hypothesis I ........................................ 38
Hypothesis II ....................................... AZ
Evaluation of Handler's lndices ..................... A7
Car and Human Scale Correspondence .................. 50
Conclusions ......................................... 56

REFERENCES .............................................. 58

TABLES .................................................. 60'

FIGURES ................................................. 76

APPENDICES .............................................. 81
APPENDIX A .......................................... 81
APPENDIX B ......................................... l03
APPENDIX C ......................................... 133
APPENDIX D ......................................... 150
APPENDIX E ......................................... lSA
APPENDIX F ......................................... 160
APPENDIX G ......................................... l66

LIST DF TABLES

Table Page
1. Hypothesized Groups that Reflect Degree of

Sensitivity of Drawing Indexes to Threatening

Situational Manipulations ......................... 6O
2. lnterrater Reliability for the Current

and Past Studies .................................. 61 ,
3. lnterrater Reliability for Open-Ended

Debriefing Items .................................. 63
A. Cross Drawing Correlations .. ...... . ............... 6h
5. The Analysis of Variance Design Used

in the Current Study .............................. 66
6. Means for Indexes that Significantly Differentiated

Present and Absent Conditions. .................... 67
7. Significant Differences Between Present

and Absent Conditions Within Drawings. ............ 68
8. Coefficient Alphas for Hypothesized Groups ........ 70
9. Correlations between Hypothesized Groups and

EXperimenter's Presence-Absence within Drawings. .. 70

vi

Table Page
10. Correlations between Hypothesized Groups

and Time Spent Drawing. ............ ..... .......... 71
11. Coefficient Alphas for Post Hoc Groups . ........... 72
12. Correlations between Post Hoc Groups and

Experimenter's Presence-Absence within Drawings. .. 72
13. Correlations between Post Hoc Groups

and Time Spent Drawing. ................ L .......... 73
IA. Means for Indexes that Significantly

Differentiated Drawings . .......................... 7A

vii

Figure

The

for

The

for

The

for

The

for

The

for

LIST DF FIGURES

Page
Present-Absent by Drawing (PxD) interaction
Body Simplification ........................... 76
Drawing by Order (DxO) interaction
Shading ....................................... 77
~Drawing by Order (DxO) interaction
Delineation Line Presence ..................... 78
Drawing by Order (DxO) interaction
Emphasis Line ................................. 79
Drawing by Order (DxO) interaction
Time (in seconds) ............................. 80

viii

Handler and Reyher (196A) proposed that manifestations

of anxiety in human figure drawings have two sources: “(a)

the laboratory stress situation, and b) the
anxiety-producing intrapsychic processes activated by
drawing the human figure." Their male, college student

participants completed figure drawings of a man, a‘woman,
and an automobile under high anxiety-producing conditions
(individually tested while attached to a polygraph in a
laboratory) and low anxiety producing conditions (group
administration in a classroom with implied anonymity).
Handler and Reyher (196A) included the' automobile as a
relatively neutral comparison drawing for the two human
figure drawings. They reasoned that drawing the automobile
was less likely to activate anxiety-producing intrapsychic
processes than drawing the human anatomy. They found that a
significantly greater number of figure-drawing anxiety
indicesI differentiated high from low anxiety-producing
conditions on the man (15 of 21) and woman (11 of 21) figure
drawings than on the automobile figure drawing (5 of

2

‘17). Based on this finding, they concluded that their

hypothesis was strongly supported.

1 Handler (1967) developed a set of 21 indices that measure
various structural and graphic aspects of drawings.

2 Analogous measures cannot be designed for the car drawing
for some indices such as hair shading and head
simplification.

When discussing the impact of the situational
manipulation, Handler and Reyher (196A) noted a common,
directional pattern for the figure drawing anxiety indices
that differentiated the high from low anxiety-producing
situations. They suggested that the indices reflected a
.”dimunition in effort, articulation, and detail“ in the high
anxiety-producing situation. Based on this finding, Handler
and Reyher (196A) hypothesized that "the anxiety-producing
characteristics of the task, and/or situation may create a
desire to finish the figures with a minimum of effort and to
leave the situation as quickly as possible (flight).”

Roach (1981) attempted to replicate and extend Handler
and Reyher's (196A) findings. He noted that multiple
situational variables were manipulated by Handler and Reyher
(196A), and reasoned that the most potent of the group was
the experimenter's presence versus absence during
administration of the DAP task (see appendix A for a
discussion of the literature pertaining to this topic).
Roach (1981) replicated Handler and Reyher's (196A) pattern
of a greater number of indices differentiating the high and
low anxiety-producing conditions for the human figure
drawings than for the car drawing. Furthermore, all of the
findings were in the expected direction; they indicated a
”dimunition of articulation, effort, and detail" when the
experimenter was present. Handler and Reyher's (196A)

hypothesis that participants finished quickly to leave the

anxiety-producing situation received additional support
since the time spent by participants in the present
condition was 62, 67, and 67 percent of the time spent in
the absent condition on the person, car, and opposite sex

3

person drawings respectively.

These findings suggest a serious problem for clinicians
who administer the Draw a Person test with the intent of
learning about interesting intrapsychic processes of their
clients. When figure drawings are obtained in
anxiety-producing conditions, the findings suggest that much
of the rich detail that is reflective of interest and
involvement with the task is omitted in the participant's
rush to flee the situation. When laboratory conditions
result in the participant producing a minimal effort, the
participant is unlikely to have sufficient time to react
fully to the task. Thus, differences between participants'
reactions to the task of drawing the human anatomy and the
participants' reactions to the task of drawing the neutral
car figure may be minimized or masked by the participant's
reactions to the more potent laboratory situations. The
primary purpose of the current study is to evaluate whether
the quality of interpretable data is diminished under high

3 The Mean number of seconds spent drawing the Person, Car
and Opposite Sex Person drawings for the present condition
were 107, 9A, 16A, and for the absent condition were 173,
1&1, and 2A6 respectively.

anxiety-producing test administration conditions.

In addition to the replication, Roach (198l) attempted
to extend Handler and Reyher's (196k) findings. He argued
that the graphic indices of anxiety could be separated into
the following three groups: a) indices that were primarily
sensitive to the situational (external) source .of anxiety,
b) indices that were primarily sensitive to the the
intrapsychic (internal) source of anxiety, and c) indices
with equivocal results. The classification of drawing
indices into these categories was based upon the pattern of
findings in Handler and Reyher's 196A study. indices that
differentiated high from low stress conditions across all
three drawings were considered to be sensitive to the
external source, because these variables seemed to be
unaffected by whether the drawing was animate or inanimate.,
indices that differentiated stress conditions on both human
figures, but not on the automobile figure were considered to
be primarily sensitive to the internal source, because the
pattern of findings indicated that the participants reacted
to the process of drawing the human anatomy, but not to the
process of drawing the car. Since the remaining indices did
not fit either pattern of findings across drawings, they
were not classified.

Roach (1981) predicted that the patterns would be
repeated for both of the classified groups of indices, i.e.

that the indices considered to be primarily sensitive to the

external source would differentiate experimenter-present
from absent conditions across all three drawings, while the
indices considered to be primarily sensitive to the internal
source of anxiety would differentiate the experimenter
present from absent conditions for both human figures, but
not for the car figure. The first hypothesis was strongly
supported while the second hypothesis was only mildly
supported.

Although Roach's (198l) attempt at classifying the
indices was interesting, careful reflection reveals flaws in
his reasoning. First, the indices that were classified as
”primarily sensitive to the internal source of anxiety“ are
clearly mislabeled. Although they may be highly sensitive
to the “internal” source, they are also sensitive to the
"external" source, i.e. they were also affected by the
situational manipulation. Thus, they should be considered
to be sensitive to both sources of anxiety.

Second, Roach's (1981) use of the terms "internal“ and
”external" to label the two sources of anxiety is
misleading. The problem lies in the fact that both sources
of anxiety originate externally to the participant, i.e.
the two "sources" of anxiety are the threatening laboratory
conditions and the instructions to draw the human figure.
Both external sources trigger anxiety-producing intrapsychic
processes that affect drawing performance. Although both

sources are external in origin, their effects are not

similar.' Each source activates different internal processes
that in turn produce different effects on figure drawing
performance.

Based on this conceptualization, the two sources of
anxiety identified by Handler and Reyher (196A) may be
labeled: a) the anxiety-producing characteristics of the
laboratory situation, and b) the anxiety-producing
characteristics of the task of drawing the human anatomy.
In the interest of brevity, in subsequent discussion. these
sources will be 'labeled the situational source and the
drawing-task source.

The third flaw in Roach's (1981) reasoning was in his
attempt to classify drawing indices as primarily sensitive
to one and only one source of anxiety. Since the two
sources of anxiety are considered to be independent,
classifying the indices as primarily sensitive to either one
source or the other denies the possibility that some drawing
indices may be highly sensitive to both sources. Further,
_it eliminates from consideration the possibility that one
source may elevate a drawing index while another source may
simultaneously depress the same index. For example,
traditional clinical interpretations suggest that the
presence of shading indicates conflict and anxiety.
Therefore, human figures should be more heavily shaded than
non-human figures. However, results from Reyher and his

associates are consistent in indicating that less shading

occurs under stressful conditions. Thus, a participant's
reaction to a threatening situation may act to depress
shading on the human figure while the participant's
reactions to the task of. drawing the human anatomy may
increase it. The solution is to abandon the attempt to
associate directly particular indices with each source of
anxiety in human figure drawings. A more productive manner
of proceding is to view the indices as variables that have
multiple determinants, i.e. that they can be affected by
more than one source. Once this assumption is adopted,
attention may turn to the more interesting problem of how
and to what degree the various indices reflect the'
participant's reactivity to each source.

The secondary purpose of the present study was to
evaluate the proposition that figure drawing indices differ
in the extent to which they are sensitive to the
anxiety-producing characteristics of the laboratory
situation. Based upon a review of the literature (see
appendix B), figure drawing anxiety indices were classified
into the following four categories: Highly Sensitive,
Moderately Sensitive, Mildly Sensitive, and lnsensitive (see
table 1 for a list of the indices within these categories).
The literature contains little information that is useful
for classifying the indices. Consequently, the
classification scheme relied heavily upon the original

studies of Handler and Reyher(l96h) and Roach (1981). The

indices were classified according to the number of drawings
(man, woman, and car) in which high and low anxiety
producing conditions were discriminated. Mildly,
Moderately, and Highly sensitive indices discriminated
anxiety-producing conditions on one, two, and three drawings
respectively; lnsensitive indices failed to discriminate
anxiety producing conditions on all three drawings.
Specifically, the secondary goal of this study was to
determine if figure drawing indices could be appropriately
classified into these categories.

With the two purposes of the study in mind, a formal

statement of the hypotheses is now appropriate.

Hypothesis 1

Manifestations of anxiety in figure drawings that
reflect the participant's reactions to the task source of
anxiety are masked by the participant's reactions to the
situational source of anxiety under high anxiety-producing
situations, i.e. the impact of the drawing-task source of
anxiety will be lessened or eliminated under high anxiety
producing conditions. Specifically, significant differences
between drawings will occur for the absent condition, but
not for the present condition. This effect will only be
manifested for those indices that are classified as Highly
and Moderately Sensitive to the situational source of

anxiety.

Hypothesis _1

Figure drawing variables differ in the extent to which
they are sensitive to variations in the anxiety producing
characteristics of the laboratory situation. Handler's
Figure Drawing Anxiety indices (1967) may be reliably

classified into the following categories:

1. Primarily Sensitive indices are shading, erasure,
delineation line absence, and body simplification.

2. Moderately Sensitive indices are reinforcement,
emphasis lines, light and heavy line, vertical
imbalance, distortion, and omission.

3. Mildly Sensitive indices are placement and line
discontinuity.

A. lnsensitive indices are transparency, length,
width, and area.

Six of Handler's (1967) indices were not included in one of
these categories. Four indices measure aspects of the human
head, and were not included, because analogous measures for
the car are not possible. Two indices (detail loss and
light and heavy pressure) were not measured in this study,

because the current procedures made the measurement of these

indices unfeasible.

l0

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and eight male participants were required
to maintain a balanced experimental design. Participants
were one hundred and twelve undergraduate males enrolled in
introductory psychology courses. The data from four of the
participants were excluded from the analysis. Two
participants were omitted due to mechanical failure of the
device that recorded drawing time, and two were omitted for
failure to follow instructions and perform all tasks. As
participants were dropped from the study, they were randomly
replaced until the one hundred and eight participants that
were needed for the balanced design were obtained. Well
after all data had been collected, a problem in the
measurment of drawing latency was discovered which
neccesitated the loss of data for five participants on this
variable. Fortunately, the five participants were spread
evenly across experimental conditions.

Instruments

A modified version of Handler's (1967) scoring manual
for Anxiety indices in the Draw a Person test was used to
rate the human figure drawings on the following variables:
shading, erasure, delineation line .absence, body
simplification, reinforcement, emphasis line, light and

heavy line, vertical imbalance, distortion, omission,

ll

placement, line discontinuity, transparency, length, hair
shading, head simplification, head size, and headzbody
ratio. Two additional scales were added that measure width
and total area. Two scales were excluded that measure
detail loss and light and heavy line pressure due to
procedural difficulties in measuring these variables.
Handler's (1967) scales for light and heavy line, length,
and head size were constructed so that deviations from a
normative middle range receive higher scores, e.g. very
large and very small sizes received a rating of three while
medium sizes received a rating of zero. Handler's (1967)
scales for size indices, and for light and heavy line are
essentially absolute deviation scales, where the greater the
deviation, the higher the rating. These scales were altered
so that low values represent light line and small sizes, and
high values represent heaVy line and large sizes. The
reason for this modification is that past research has not
demonstrated that a large size is equivolent in meaning to
small sizes nor that light line has the same meaning as
heavy line. Use of an absolute deviation scaling procedure
needlessly sacrifices potentially valuable information about
the direction of the deviation. Since the direction may be
important, the scales were left in monotonic form. An
additional modification in the three scales was to leave
them in their original units of measurement rather than

reducing them to four point scales. Light and heavy line

12

was left as a 7 point scale and the size variables were
measured in sixteenths of an inch. This modification was
made because greater precision in the variables was
preferred. Width was also measured in sixteenths of an
inch, and area was measured in square inches.

Analogous scales for the car figure were developed for
the current study that correspond to each of the human
figure indices with the exception of the indices involving
the human head. Although car scales have been used in
previous studies (Handler,l963; Handler, 196A)
doccumentation of the rating procedures was not provided.
Appendix C contains a description of the. procedures that
were used in rating the car figure. A close correspondence
between human figUre and car scales is required when the
drawings are compared. Of the sixteen car scales that were
developed, only ten appeared to achieve close
correspondence. The correspondence for the remaining six
scales (placement, omission, delineation line absence,
emphasis line, distortion, and body simplification) was
rough at best. The primary difficulty was that the method
for scoring each of the six scales was dependent upon the
nature of the drawing scored. For example, the criterea for
defining a simplistic figure were necessarily different for
the human and car drawings. Specific concerns about the
degree of correspondence between human and car figures for

each scale are also presented in Appendix C.

13

The amount of time spent drawing was recorded by using
an event marker that allowed the participant to press a
button after each drawing was completed. Each time the
button was pushed, a mark was made on a paper tape that
proceded at a rate of one inch per thirty seconds. The
distance between each mark was measured and converted to the
number of seconds spent drawing.

The debriefing questionnaire_(see Appendix D) consisted
of (a) two open ended questions that assessed the
participant's perception of the purpose of the study and the
participant's experiences while drawing and (b) ten
multiple-choice questions that assessed the participant's
level of artistic training, frequencyof drawing behavior,
appraisal of their drawings, distractibility, and evaluation
apprehension. The open ended questions were coded for the
presence of the following themes: (a) believed the purpose
was to evaluate the effects of being observed, (b) believed
the purpose was to learn about their personality, (c)
believed the purpose was to learn about how participants
react to different drawing tasks, (d) believed that the
amount of time spent on their drawings was important, (e)
believed that the amount of effort and/or detail spent on
their drawings was important, (f) disparaged either their
drawings or artistic skills, (9) disparaged the importance
of the study, (h) reported experiencing negative affect, (i)

reported experiencing positive affect, and (j) mentioned the

lb

presence of the experimenter, and/or concern about the

experimenter's evaluation of their drawings.

Experimental Setting

The experimental setting was a sparsely furnished, 8 x
12 foot research office within a psychology research
building at a major, midwestern university. Since the
office was in the interior of the building, it contained no
windows. Participants entered the room from the only door
that opened from an infrequently used hallway. They were
seated at a desk facing the wall with their back to the
door. The experimenter sat in a chair on the participants's
left at the side of the desk. The office was brightly lit,
and also contained an empty table and a metalic shelf that
stored stacks of paper.

Procedure

Upon arrival, the participant was greeted by the
experimenter who was a tall, thin, soft spoken, twenty-seven
year old male (the author). The participant was ushered
into the room, and seated at the desk about two and one half
feet from the experimenter. The experimenter read the
following instructions:

You will be asked to perform four different
drawing tasks today. Specific instructions
about what you will be asked to do will be
printed within the packet that is on the

table. Please follow these instructions
carefully.

15

Participants in the present condition received the following
additional instructions:

Today, I will sit with you while you complete

the tasks. I will be silent. If you have any

questions that come up after you begin, please

save them until you have completed all of the

tasks.
Participants in the absent condition received the following
additional instructions:

I will be outside the door while you complete
the task. If you have any questions that come
up after you have started, please save them
until you have completed all of the tasks.
When you are finished, please open the door.

Next, the experimenter asked all participants if they
had any questions about the procedures. Questions
pertaining to the procedures were answered; questions about
the nature and purpose of the study were defered until the
completion of all experimental tasks. The experimenter
asked all participants to read and sign the consent form if
they wished to continue their participation. Participants
were then instructed to fill out the cover sheet that had
places for their name, birth date, age, marital status, year
enrolled, and major. Once they had filled out this form,
they were told that they may begin by turning the page. At
this point the experimenter left the room in the absent
condition, and initiated his silence in the present
condition.

The experimental packet was identical across all

participants with the exception that the order of the man,

16

woman, and car drawings was varied across participants. Six
orders were possible, and participants were randomly
assigned to one of the six orders. An example of the
experimental packet is provided below with the drawings in
the order of man, car, and woman. The packet included the

following pages:

I. A cover sheet that has space provided for
demographic questions.

2. An instruction page that stated:
1. Press the red button

2. On the next page, draw each of the six
geometric figures that are listed.

3. Turn the page.

3. A page divided into six equal sized boxes
with the names of the geometric figures
(circle, square, rectangle, oval, star,
and box) in the tap left corner of each
box.

A. An instruction page that stated:

1. Press the red button

2. Select a fresh pencil.

3. On the next page, Draw a Man.
Please do not draw an incomplete

or stick figure.

A. Go to the next page.
5. A blank page.

6. An instruction page that stated:

l7

1. Press the red button

2. Select a fresh pencil.

3. On the next page, Draw a Car.
Please do not draw an incomplete

or stick figure.

A. Go to the next page.
7. A blank page.

8. An instruction page that stated:
1. Press the red button
2. Select a fresh pencil.
3. On the next page, Draw a Woman.
Please do not draw an incomplete

or stick figure.

A. Go to the next page.
9. A blank page.

10. An instruction page that states:

1. Press the red button.

Following the completion of the drawing tasks the
participant was asked to complete a debriefing questionnaire
(see Appendix D). Upon completion of the questionnaire,
each participant was told in detail about the the nature and
purpose of the study. All of the participant's questions
were answered, and participants were asked to avoid
discussion of the procedures with classmates until the end

of the data collection period.

18

RESULTS

lnterrater reliabilities for the drawing indices were
assessed by computing the Pearson product-moment
correlations between raters on each index for each drawing
(see Table 2). These correlations are similar to those
reported in past studies (Handler, 1963, 196A: Attkinson,
Waidler, Jeffrey, and Lambert, 197A: and Roach, 1981). The
lnterrater reliability estimates ranged between .63 and 1.00

and had a median of .85.

lnterrater reliabilities for the ten items that were
coded from the open ended questions on the debriefing
questionnaire were assessed by computing the Pearson
product-moment correlations between raters on each item (see
Table 3). The reliability estimates ranged between .AA and

.81 and had a median of .73.

The cross-drawing correlations for each index were
obtained by computing the Pearson product-moment
correlations for all possible pairings of the man, woman,
and car drawings for each index (see Table A). These
correlations were computed separately for participants in

the present and in the absent conditions, because the

19

correlations would be artificially higher when the
experimenter's presence/absence significantly affects an
index on a given drawing. The correlations for the
man-woman pairing were similar to those reported by
Attkinson et al (197A). Unfortunately, cross-drawing
correlations for the man-car and woman-car pairings have not

been previously reported. so a comparison is not possible.

A Three factor multivariate analysis of variance design
(2x6x3) was used to evaluate the impact of the
experimenter's presence/absence (P), the order of the
drawings (0), the type of drawing (D), and their
interactions on the sixteen drawing indices that were
measured across all three drawings (see table 5). In this
design, P and 0 were between subjects factors, and D was a
within subjects factor (repeated measure). This analysis
produces seven multivariate F-tests, i.e. three tests for
the main effects and four tests for the interactions. For
each multivariate F-test that was significant sixteen
univariate F-tests (one for each dependent variable) were
computed. To control for inflation in the Type I error rate
that is due to computing a large number of F-tests,
univariate F-tests were inspected only if the corresponding
multivariate F-test was significant. However, when planned

comparisons were specified by the hypotheses, univariate

20

F-tests were inspected without regard for the significance
level of the Multivariate F-test. Specific results from
this analysis will be presented in the subsections below to
which they apply. The analysis was performed using the BMDP

statistical package (1983).

A univariate analysis of variance (2x6x3) was used to
evaluate the impact of P, O, D, and their interactions on
the amount of time spent drawing. Time was not included in
the MANOVA analysis described above because of a decision to
limit the domain (dependent variables) to graphic indices of

drawing behavior.

Hypothesis i

The results did not support Hypothesis I which stated
that manifestations of anxiety that reflect the
participant's reactions to the drawing task source of
anxiety are masked by the participants's reactions to the
situational source of anxiety under high anxiety producing
situations. Specifically, this hypothesis predicts that
differences due to the drawing-task source that occur in the
absent condition will be lessened or eliminated in the
present condition. This effect was predicted to be
manifested only for those indices that were classified as
Highly or Moderately sensitive to the situational source of

anxiety (see table 1). If this hypothesis were valid, one

21

could expect a significant P x D interaction for Highly and
Moderately sensitive indices with the means forming a
pattern that indicated nonesignificant differences between
human and car figures for the present condition and
significant differences between human and car drawings for
the absent condition. The multivariate F-test for the P x D
interaction for the sixteen drawing variables and the
univariate F-test for the P x D interaction for time were
non-significant. Since the P by D interaction was
specifically predicted for highly and moderately sensitive
indices, the univariate F-tests were inspected for these
indices. Only one index (body simplification) had a
significant P by D interaction, and the means did not form
the expected pattern (see figure 1). Inspection of the
figure indicates that the differences between the car and
human drawings occurred for both present and absent
conditions. The interaction was significant because the
differences between present and absent conditions were
larger for the car than for the other figures. Since the
expected PxO interaction was not found for the highly and
moderately sensitive indices, Hypothesis I received no
support.

Hypothesis ll

Two types of analysis were used to evaluate Hypothesis
II which stated that figure drawing indices differ in their

sensitivity to the situational source of anxiety, and that

22

the indices could be reliably classified into four
categories (High, Moderate, Mild, and lnsensitive). First,
the results from the MANOVA analysis were inspected to
determine if specific directional effects due to the
experimenter's presence/absence occured (i.e. a main effect
for P).

Second, the four categories were evaluated using an
oblique multiple groups method of confirmatory factor
analysis (Nunnally, 1978) for each type of drawing. In this
latter analysis, the sixteen indices that were measured for
all three drawings were separated into the four groups
specified by Hypothesis 11. Prior to the analysis, shading,
erasure, emphasis line, and reinforcement had to be
reflected. i.e. the sign of the correlations of each of
these indices with all other indices was reversed. In past
research (Handler and Reyher, 196A, 1966) the absence rather
than the presence of these indices was associated with
anxiety. Following the reflection of these variables,
increases in all indices should be associated with increases
in anxiety with the exception of the indices that measure
size in which the relationship is unknown. The oblique
multiple groups confirmatory factor analysis was then
performed on the four groups for the man, woman, and car
figure drawing data separately using the Package statistical
program (Hunter, Gerbing, Cohen, and Nicol, 1980). Both the

experimenter's presence/absence (P) and the time spent

23

drawing were included separately as additional variables to
determine if the expected associations between the
situational manipulation and the drawing variables were

present.

Manova results. The expected patterns of results based
on previous studies were only confirmed for the highly
sensitive and insensitive indices. The multivariate F-test
for P was not significant (F- 1.73: df= 16, 81: p8.058).
However, when evaluating the main effect for P on the highly
and moderately sensitive indices, the standard procedure of
only inspecting univariate F-tests for the main effect of P
when the corresponding multivariate F-test for the main
effect of P was significant was not followed. Instead, the
univariate F-tests for the highly and moderately sensitve
indices were converted to t-tests, and a one tailed test of
the directional prediction was used for each index. The a
priori decision to use a one tailed test was made because:
a) specific directional predictions were made for the four
highly and moderately sensitive indices, and b) the results
from previous studies (Handler and Reyher, 196A; Roach,
1981) were consistent in the direction of the effects of
threatening situational manipulations on these 'indices.
Inspection of the one tailed t-tests of the effect of P on
highly and moderately sensitve indices indicated that all of
the highly sensitve indices and one of the moderately

sensitve indices were significantly affected, and that these

2A

effects were in the expected direction (see Table 6 for
means). There was significantly less shading (T-Z.86,
p-.005), fewer erasures (T-3.56, p=.001), more delineation
line absences (T-l.78, p-.078), greater body simplification
(T-1.72, p-.087), and greater distortion (t-2.71, p-.008) in
the present than in the absent condition. The univariate
F-test for the main effect of P on time spent drawing was
also significant (F-5.30; df81,9l; p-.02A). The means
indicated that there was significantly less time spent
drawing in the present condition than in the absent

condition.

As a means of exploring whether the current study
replicated past results, one tailed t-tests were computed
between experimenter present and absent conditions for each
type of drawing for highly, moderately, and mildly sensitive
indices. One tailed tests were used, because the direction
of effects was predicted and supported by past research.
Two tailed t-tests were computed between experimenter
present and absent conditions for each type of drawing for
. insensitive indices. The significant t-tests are listed in
Table 7 which also includes significant results from

previous studies (Roach, 1981; Handler and Reyher, 196A).

25

Inspection of table 7 reveals that the current study
failed to replicate patterns of results found in previous
studies. In the earlier studies, a greater number of
indices significantly differentiated high from low anxiety
producing conditions on each of the human figures than on
the car figure. In the current study, a greater number of
indices differentiated present from absent conditions on the
car figure than on the human figures. Further, the results
also indicate that several of the variables considered to be
highly sensitive did not differentiate all three drawings.
In short, the results from the MANOVA analysis indicate that
the expected effects were not obtained, and that the

proposed system of categorization was inadequate.

Multiple groups analysis results. The pattern of

results from the multiple groups confirmatory factor
analysis indicated that the groups of indices differed in
sensitivity to the situational source, but that the proposed
category system was inadequate. Appendix E contains the
results from the multiple groups analyses for the man,
woman, and car figure drawings. The key correlations for
Hypothesis II are between P and the cluster scores for the
four groups. The reader should note that a significant
correlation between P and a cluster indicates that the
corresponding t-test between present and absent conditions

for the cluster score would also be significant. Table 9

26

contains the correlations with P for high, moderate, mild,
and insensitive groups. Although these findings are not
compelling, they provide some support for the hypothesized
order of the drawing indices along a continuum of
sensitivity to the situational source of anxiety. As was
expected, the correlations increased in size with increases
in rankings of sensitivity of the groups of indices, i.e.
low correlations were obtained between mild and insensitive
groups and P and higher correlations were obtained between
high and moderate groups and P. The correlations were
significant (p<.05) for the high and moderate groups for the
human figures, and for the high group for the car figure.

The remaining correlations were non-significant.

The second set of correlations that are relevant for
Hypothesis II are between the amount of time spent drawing
and the cluster scores (see table 10). The correlations
between the high, moderate. mild, and insensitive groups and
time were much larger for the high and moderate groups and
smaller for the mild and insensitive groups. The order and
magnitude of these correlations suggest that the
hypothesized order of the indices clearly reflects
sensitivity to the amount of time spent drawing as well as

sensitivity to threatening situational manipulations.

27

Post hoc analysis. Although the proposed

 

classification scheme' was mildly supported, inspection of
the patterns of correlations between indices indicates that
an alternative mode of classifying the indices would have
done better at ordering the variables along a continuum of
sensitivity to the situational source of anxiety. The
reader should note that this post hoc analysis is
exploratory in nature, and requires confirmation by future
research before the results may be believed. Caution is
urged, because the post hoc ordering of the indices
represents many arbitrary decisions that take advantage of
chance factors.

The standard score coefficient alphas (which measures
the reliability or internal consistency of a cluster) from
the multiple groups analyses indicates that the hypothesized
clusters were poorly, grouped (see table 8). Only the
“insensitive” group had respectible alphas (above .70) for
man, woman, and car drawings. When forming new clusters,
careful attention was paid to the effect of inclusion or
exclusion of items on the potential alpha for each new
cluster. High coefficient alphas are desirable, because
when the alpha is high, the group of items becomes
interpretable as a factor. The changes in groupings were
made solely on the basis of inspection of the

intercorrelations between items. The correlations between

P, time, and the indices were only used to label the new

28

clusters. Based upon these criterea, three changes were
made.

The first change involves the removal of poor items
from the current clusters. Light and heavy line, vertical
imbalance, line discontinuities, and transparancies were
removed from their assigned clusters and placed in a
separate group, because of: (a) low item-cluster
correlations“ with all clusters, (6) uniformly low
correlations for each of these indices with all other
indices. The new cluster that is composed of these items is
labeled insensitive, because of low correlations for each of
these indices with P and with time. It is expected to have
a very low alpha for each drawing since these items are
unrelated.

The second change involves merging the first group
(highly sensitive) with the remaining members of the second
group (moderately sensitive). The new cluster is composed
of shading, erasure, delineation line absence, body
simplification, distortion, emphasis line, reinforcement,
and omission. The decision to form this group was made
because: (a) the correlation between the original high and

A All item-cluster correlations that are discussed have been
corrected for item-total overlap.

29

moderate clusters was uniformly high across drawings
(man-.A9, woman-.57, and car-.66), and (b) the item- member
cluster correlations were typically equivalent to the item
non-member cluster correlations. The correlations for these
indices with P and with time were typically high across all
three drawings. Thus, this group of eight indices is
expected to have a respectable alpha, and is labeled highly
sensitive.

The final change is to form a group of the remaining
indices which are placement, length, width, and area, and to
label it mildly sensitive. This grouping is appropriate
because: (a) length, width, and area were the core of the
original cluster that produced respectible coefficient
alphas across all three drawings, and (b) placement had a
stronger correlation with this original cluster across all
three drawings than with any other cluster. This cluster is
labeled mildly sensitive, because these indices had mild,
but frequently significant correlations with P and with
time.

The three changes that were outlined. above produced
three groups instead of the four groups that were originally
hypothesized. The current groupings are labeled highly
sensitive (shading, erasure, delineation line absence, body
simplification, distortion, emphasis line, reinforcement,
and omission), mildly sensitive (placement, length, width,

and area), and insensitive (light and heavy line, vertical

30

imbalance, line discontinuity, and transparancy). The
revised categorization scheme was evaluated using an oblique
multiple groups analysis to determine if the new groupings
represented a substantial improvement over the original
hypothesized groupings. Time and P were also included as
separate variables to determine if the expected associations
between the clusters and these variables were obtained.
Placement was reflected prior to the analysis because its
correlations with length, width, and area were negative.
Reflecting placement was a necessary step for obtaining an
accurate estimate~ of coefficient alpha for the mildly
sensitive cluster.

Appendix F contains the results of the oblique multiple
groups analysis for man, woman, and car drawings
respectively. The revised groupings represented a
substantial improvement over the hypothesized groupings. As
was expected, the coefficient alphas for the highly and
mildly sensitive groups were uniformly high across all three
drawings, while the alphas for the insensitive group were
uniformly low across drawings (see table 11). The
correlations for each of the clusters with P were in the
expected order and were of the expected magnitude (see table
12). The correlations for each of the clusters with time
were also in the expected order and were of the expected
magnitude (see table 13). These findings support the

proposition that the post hoc ordering of the indices is a

31

substantial improvement over the original hypothesized
order, and that the indices differ in sensitivity to the

situational source of anxiety.

Insert Tables 11, 12, and 13 about here

Other Findings

This section includes all results that were obtained,
but not covered in the previous sections on Hypotheses I or
II. It is separated into the following three subsections:
1) other results for drawing indices and time, 2) head

variable results, and 3) debriefing questionnaire results.

Other results for drawing indices and time. In

 

addition to the significant main effect for P, the MANOVA
also produced significant multivariate F-tests for D and for
the D by 0 interaction. The multivariate F-test for D was
highly significant (F-9.92; df-32,35A: p-.000). Inspection
of the univariate analyses indicated that significant
differences across drawings occurred for eleven of the~
sixteen indices, i.e. shading (F-3.1A, p-.0A6), erasure
(F-5.Al, p-.005), delineation line absence (F-5.97, p-.003),
body simplification (F-6l.89, p-.000), distortion (F-A.75,
p-.010), emphasis line (F-9.96, p-.OOO), omission (F-15.0A,
p-.000), placement (F-2A.8A, p-.OOO), line discontinuity
(F-6.2A, p-.002), width (F-ll.90, p-.000), and area (F-A.95,

p-.008). The univariate F-test for the main effect of D on

32

time was not significant.

The means for the significant indices for each drawing
appear in Table 1A. The results on drawing differences
reported by Handler and Reyher (1966) are also included in
this table. There is little correspondence between the two
studies. Three indices (shading, erasure, and emphasis
line) differentiated drawings in the current study, but
failed to differentiate drawings in the Handler and Reyher
(1966) study. Four indices (light and heavy line, vertical
imbalance, length, and transparancy) failed to differentiate
drawings in the current study, but succeeded in
differentiating drawings in the Handler and Reyher (1966)
study. Of the remaining indices that were measured in both
studies, one (reinforcement) failed to differentiate
drawings in both studies, while six indices significantly
differentiated drawings in both studies. Of these six
indices, delineation line absence, body simplification,
distortion, and line discontinuity replicated the
directional pattern of means found in the Handler and Reyher
(1966) study, i.e. the automobile drawing exhibited lower
values than the ,human figures. In contrast, omission and
placement provided opposite results from the previous study
with the automobile showing more omissions and greater

displacement than the human figures.

The multivariate F-test for O was not significant.
However, the multivariate F-test for the O by D interaction
was highly significant (Fcl.38; df-l60,153l; p-.002).
Inspection of the univariate Fetests revealed that
significant 0 by D interactions occured for shading (F-3.52:
df-lO,l92; p-.000), delineation line absence (F-3.5A;
df-10,192; p-.000), and emphasis line (F=1.93; df=10,192;
pc.0AA). In addition, the univariate F-test for the O by D
interaction for time was significant (F-A.02: df=10,182;
p-.001).

Unfortunately, the position of the drawing (first,
second, or third) is confounded with the effects of the
immediate previous history in drawing, e.g. the effect of
drawing the man second is not independent of which drawing
(car or woman) preceded it. Thus, six groups were necessary
to account for position and immediate previous drawing
experience. The unfortunate consequence of having six
orders instead of three positions is that when a position
effect occurs, it results in a significant 0 by D
interaction rather than an order main effect. This is
unfortunate because graphing a univariate O by D interaction
involves plotting eighteen means which results in a very

complex figure to interpret.

3A

Figures 2, 3, A, and 5 graphically depict the
significant 0 by D interaction for shading, delineation line
absence, emphasis line, and time respectively. The vertical
axis for delineation line absence was inverted so that the
direction of effects would be consistent across variables,
i.e. with the inversion of delineation line absence, all
four variables have a negative association with anxiety.
The inverted delineation line absence index will be refered
to as delineation line presence in subsequent discussion.

Visual inspection of the figures indicates that. the 0
by D interaction patterns for shading and delineation line
presence are quite similar. In both cases, the car figure
has more shading and more delineation lines present when it.
is in either the second or third position than when it is in
the first position. Although the pattern is not as clearly
displayed for the human figures, .the data suggest that
shading and delineation lines are more likely to be present
when the first drawing is a car than when the first drawing
is either the man or woman.

The 0 by D interactions for emphasis line and time are
more confusing. For emphasis line the woman drawing is
unaffected by order. The means across the orders for the
male figure also suggest that it is generally unaffected by
order with the exception of a sharp increase when it is in
the second position and preceded by the car drawing. The

means for the car figure indicate that the car is only

35

affected when it is in the third position. If it is
preceded by the man and then the woman, emphasis lines are
less likely to apear on the car than for all other orders.
If it is preceded by the woman, and then the man, emphasis
line is more likely to occur than for all other orders.
There is greater variability across orders for the
amount of time ,spent drawing than for the other indices.
The time spent on the woman drawing is consistent across
orders with the,exception of a decrease when it is preceded
by the car and then the man figure. More time appears to be
spent on the man drawing when the car drawing is in the
first position. This pattern for the man drawing is similar
to the patterns displayed for the man drawing for shading
and delineation line presence. The car data is more eratic,

and no consistent pattern was discerned.

552g variable results. Four variables were rated only
for human figures because they pertain strictly to the human
head. These variables were hair shading, head
simplification, head size, and head:body ratio. The effect
of P, O, D, and their interactions on the head variables
were analyzed using a three factor, multivariate, analysis
of variance design (2 x 6 x 2). Both P and 0 were between
subjects factors and D was a within subjects factor. To
control for the inflated Type I error rate due to computing
a large number of F-tests, significant univariate F-tests

were only considered to be valid if the corresponding

36

multivariate F-test was significant.

In this analysis, only the multivariate F-test for the
main effect for P was significant (F-3.83: df-A,93; p-.006).
Inspection of the univariate F-tests for the main effect of
P revealed that both hair shading and head simplification
were significantly affected by P. As was expected, there
was less hair shading (F-ll.Al, df-l,96, p-.001) and greater
body simplification (F-A.75; df-l,96; p-.O32) in the present

than in the absent condition (see Table A for the means).

Debriefing guestionnaire results. In order to increase
the reliability of the dependent measures used in the
debriefing questionnaire analysis, similar items were
grouped to form subscales, and four of the rated, open-ended
items were dropped entirely. The subscales were labeled
artistic experience, effort, self evaluation of drawing
efforts, affect (positive to negative), distraction,
evaluation apprehension, and understanding of the purposes
of the study. The procedures for forming these subscales
are described in appendix 0. The effects of P, O, and their
interactions on the seven self report scales were analyzed
using a two factor, multivariate, analysis of variance
design (2 x 6). Both P and 0 were between subjects factors.
The multivariate F-tests for P, O, and the P by 0
interaction were not significant at the .05 level. Four of
the subscales were included as manipulation checks, and were

expected to be affected by the main effect for P.

37

Participants in the present condition were expected to be
more critical of their drawing efforts, to experience more
negative affect, to be more distracted, and to be more
concerned about being evaluated by the experimenter than
participants in the absent condition. All other univariate
F-tests were ignored, because they were not predicted to be
affected and because the multivariate F-tests were not
significant. Three of the four scales that were predicted
to be affected had a significant main effect for P.
Participants in the present condition experienced more
negative affect (F-5.99, r df=l,96, p-.02), were more
distracted (F-6.63, df-l,96, p=.01), and were more concerned
about the negative evaluation (F-A.3l, df-l,96, p-.0A), than
participants in the absent condition. Participants in both
conditions did not differ significantly in the extent to
which they were critical of their own drawings. However, it
is intersting to note that over 75 percent in each condition
made a disparaging remark about either their drawings or

their drawing ability.

38

DISCUSSION

The discussion section is separated into five
subsections in order to facilitate communication of the
complex findings to the reader. The subsections are: a)
Hypothesis 1, b) Hypothesis II, c) evaluation of Handler's
indices, d) correspondence between human and car scales, and

e) conclusions.

Hypothesis 1

The findings did not support the primary hypothesis of
this study which stated that manifestations of anxiety in
figure drawings that reflect the subject's anxiety due to
the drawing-task are masked by the subject's reactions to
the situational source under high anxiety producing
conditions. Significant differences between the car and the
human drawings were expected for the absent condition, but
were not expected for the present condition. Contrary to
this prediction, the findings indicated that differences
between the drawings occured without regard to the condition
under which they were obtained. Unfortunately, the results
also indicated that this study was not a fair test of
Hypothesis I. A fair test would require that the figure
drawings be obtained under high anxiety producing
conditions; the results suggest that the experimenter's
presence did not induce high anxiety within the subjects.

Support for this conclusion was provided by 1) the failure

39

of the current study to replicate patterns of results found
in two previous studies (Handler and Reyher, 196A; Roach
1981),. and 2) the relatively low correlations between each
of the indices and the experimenter's presence/absence.
Although the experimenter's presence did not induce a high
level of anxiety, it did appear to induce a mild level of
anxiety within subjects. Thus, shading, erasure,
delineation line absence, body simplification, distortion,
hair shading, and head simplification were all affected by
the main effect for drawings.

A comparison of the methods of the current study with
the methods of previous studies provides an explanation as
to why the situational manipulations were more powerful in
previous studies. First, previous studies differed from the
current study in the nature of the conditions that were used
to induce anxiety within the subjects. In the current
study, only the experimenter's presence/absence was
manipulated with all subjects tested individually in a
sparsely furnished room. Roach (1981) also used the
experimenter's presence/absence manipulation, and tested
subjects individually in a sparsely furnished room.
However, unlike the current study, Roach (1981) measured
Galvanic Skin Resistance for all subjects. Neidig (1970)
demonstrated that the experience of being attached to a
polygraph was anxiety producing when he replicated Handler

and Reyher's (196A) pattern of results by comparing drawings

A0

of subjects who were attached to a polygraph to drawings
from subjects who were instructed to fake anxiety, but were
not attached to a polygraph. The combined effects of being
observed and of being attached to 'a polygraph probably
resulted in a higher level of anxiety within subjects in the
Roach (1981) study. In the original study Handler and
Reyher (196A) simultaneously manipulated the following group
of variables: a) experimenter's presence/absence, b)
polygraph versus no polygraph, c) individual versus group
administration, d) identified versus anonymous performance,
and e) laboratory versus classroom setting. The combination
of these variables probably produced a higher level of
anxiety within subjects than any of the variables
separately, .and thus induced a higher level of anxiety
within subjects than the current study.

Second, the current study used a less powerful design
than Handler and Reyher (196A). The current study tested
the effect of the situational manipulation using a between
subjects comparison, while Handler and Reyher (196A) used a
within subjects comparison. Roach (1981) used a between
subjects comparison to test the situational manipulation,
and therefore is equivalent on this dimension to the current
study.

A third difference between the current and previous
studies was that many of the subjects in the experimenter

present condition in the current study shielded their

Al

drawings from observation with their free arm. In the Roach
(1981) study, subjects were unable to shield their drawings,
because they were instructed not to move their free hand due
to the fact that electrodes were attached. Handler and
Reyher (196A) had the experimenter sit behind the subject
and look over his shoulder at the drawing in the high stress
condition. Presumably, the subject was unable to prevent
the experimenter from observing the drawing process. Thus,
some of the subjects in the current study may have reduced
their anxiety about being observed by preventing observation
of their drawings. Unfortunately, a tally was not-kept of
the subjects that shielded their drawings.

The fourth, final, and perhaps most important
difference was that the current study included instructions
that subjects should draw complete figures and should not
draw incomplete or stick figures. Both of the previous
studies allowed stick or incomplete figures. to be drawn.
The inclusion of the instruction to draw a complete figure
may have served as a subtle demand to produce an elaborate
performance, and thus reduced the likelihood that the
subjects would produce an impoverished performance in order
to flee the situation.

In short, all of these differences may have served
either to induce less anxiety than previous studies or to
lessen the liklihood that flight might be used as a defense

against the anxiety that was induced. As a result, this

A2

study was not a fair test of the effect of high anxiety
producing conditions on the quality of figure drawing
performance. A future study which successfully induces a
high level of anxiety, and which allows subjects to have the
freedom to draw stick or incomplete figures will be
necessary before the fate of Hypothesis 1 is determined.
Although a fair test of Hypothesis I was not performed,
the findings have relevance for the usage of figure drawings
in clinical settings. During clinical administration of the
Draw a Person test, the presence of an administrator is
likely to be the most threatening aspect of the situation.
The results of the current study suggest that drawings
completed under experimenter present conditions are not so
impoverished that they are of little utility. If the
presence of a psychodiagnostician in a clinical setting is
no more anxiety-producing than the presence of an
experimenter in a laboratory setting, then drawings obtained
in the presence of a psychodiagnostician should still be
clinically useful. However, the equivalence of the anxiety
producing. statuses of the observers from each setting must

be demonstrated before this proposition may be believed.

Hypothesis _j

The second hypothesis was only mildly supported by the
results. Hypothesis II stated that figure drawing indices
differ in their sensitivity to the situational source of

anxiety, and that they could be reliably classified into

“3

four groups (high, moderate, mild, and insensitive). The
findings indicated that the indices differed in their
sensitivity to the experimenter present/absent manipulation.
Some of the indices were related to the experimenter's
presence/absence and some were not.

The attempt to validate the proposed category system
demonstrated that it was inadequate. The failure to
replicate patterns of findings from past research for
individual indices was surprising. However, it seems likely
that the patterns were not replicated because the effect of
the situational mainipulation was relatively weak compared
with previous situational manipulations (Handler and Reyher,
196A; Roach, 1981).

The failure to replicate the pattern of a greater
number of indices differentiating experimenter present from
absent conditions for the human figures than for the car
figure was the most surprizing result. The decision to
restrict subjects from drawing stick or' incomplete figures
may be the reason that this pattern was not replicated. The
car cannot be represented by a stick figure, and an
incomplete car figure is quite rare. Consequently, only the
human figures are likely to be affected by the decision to
instruct subjects to draw complete figures. Since the human
figures were less free to vary, the indices were less likely
to differentiate the experimenter present from absent

conditions for the human figures.

AA

The results from the multiple groups analysis provided
some support for the hypothesized ordering of the variables:
they also demonstrated that the categorization system was
inadequate. The attempt at reordering the variables proved
to be interesting and useful. The post hoc multiple groups
analysis clearly indicated that the new groupings of the
indices were a substantial improvement over the original
hypothesized groupings. However the new ordering of the
indices must be validated in a future research project
before the results from the post hoc analysis may be
believed. Confirmatory research is necessary because the
current solution represents many arbitrary decisions which
take advantage of chance factors. A second limitation is
the small sample size upon which the analysis was based.
Nunnally (1978) recomends an average of ten subjects per
variable to insure that sampling error is small. The
current study had slightly less than seven subjects per
index when both present and absent groups were combined.

In spite of the limitations, the results of the post
hoc multiple groups analysis are surprisingly similar to the
results from previous factor analytic studies (Nichols and
Strumpher, 1962: Adler, 1971). Utilization of the critereon
that the new groups should have high coefficient alphas
allows for the opportunity to interpret the highly and
mildly sensitive clusters as factors since each cluster

successfully met this critereon for each drawing. The

A5

highly sensitive cluster of indices was composed of shading,
erasure, delineation line absence, body simplification,
distortion, emphasis line, reinforcement, and omission. The
indices with the highest item-cluster correlations
(loadings) were body simplification, distortion, and
emphasis line. A review the content of these scales reveals
that they were designed to measure both proportionality and
attempts at creating a sense of depth within the figures.
The common theme of the remaining variables is the
elaboration or embellishment of the figure. Thus, the first
group of indices in the post hoc analysis appears to be an
elaboration and body sophistication factor.

The second group of indices in the post hoc analysis
(mildly sensitive) is clearly a size factor. Three of the
four indices are direct measures of size (length, width, and
area) while the fourth measure (placement) is heavily
affected by the size of the figure, i.e. the larger the
figure, the less likely it is to be displaced from the
center of the page.

Both of these factors appeared in previous studies.
Nichols and Strumpher‘ (1962) factor analyzed five scales
(sexual differentiation, adjustment, maturity, aggression,
and body image) and fourteen details of drawings for 107
college students and 90 hospitalized VA patients (30 normal,
30 neurotic, and 30 psychotic). For the total sample, they

retained four factors. The first factor accounted for most

A6

of the common variance and was described as the ability to
draw life-like human figures. A second factor was labeled a
size factor. The remaining factors were considered to be
artifacts of the measurement procedures that were used, and
were not interpreted.

Adler (1971) factor analyzed thirteen scales and
fifteen items for 216 short term psychotic patients. He
retained four factors and labeled them: a) sophistication of
body concept, b) size and placement, c) failure at
integration of parts, and d) poor motor control. Adler
(1971) argued that his results strongly confirmed Nichols
and Strumpher's (1962) findings, because his body
sophistication factor was so similar in content to Nichol
and Strumpher's first factor which they labeled the ability
to draw a life-like figure.

Despite major methodological differences between all
three studies, the results are surprizingly similar. Each
study produced a primary factor that represents the ability
of the subject to produce a figure that is elaborate, life
like, and/or sophisticated, and a secondary factor that
reflects the size of the figure. An important contribution
from the present study is that the primary factor of the
ability to draw an elaborate and sophisticated figure is
sensitive to the effects of stressful situational
manipulations. It is also heavily correlated with the

amount of time spent drawing.

A7
Evaluation pi Handler's indices

Some of the current findings are of special concern for
future studies in which Handler's (1967) figure drawing
rating scales will be used. The major question addressed in
this subsection is whether all of Handler's scales are
sensitive, reliable measures. The results from the multiple
groups analysis indicated that four of the indices were
poorly related to other indices and to each other, and thus
they were labeled insensitive indices. These were light and
heavy line, vertical imbalance, line discontinuity, and
transparency. The fact that these variables are unrelated
with other indices is not a sufficient condition for
concluding that they are unreliable. Each of these indices
may simply be an “isolate“ in the sense that they are
solitary measures of an attribute of drawings that is not
measured by the remaining indices. Inspection of the other
analyses conducted in this study provides useful information
that is helpful in evaluating these indices. Each of the
four indices will be discussed individually below.

Line discontinuity is judged to be reliable and
therefore is considered to be an isolate. judgement is
based on the the following results: a) it is reliably scored
by raters across all drawings, 6) it successfully
differentiates drawing types, and c) it is symmetrical about
its mean and shows good dispersion across possible values of

the index. Although it currently appears to be reliable,

A8

its sensitivity can be improved by abondoning Handler's
method of condensing line discontinuity into a four point
scale, because specificity of the scale is needlessly
sacrificed. In future research, simply counting the number
of line discontinuities is recomended. A ceiling limit is
necessary to prevent the distribution from becoming too
skewed. Thus, a ten or more limit is suggested.

Light and heavy line is judged to be only mildly
reliable and thus somewhat insensitive. It was reliably
scored, symetrical about its mean, and shows good dispersion
- of scores,' but was unaffected by the independent variables
and their interactions. Since its reliability is unknown,
and can only be estimated, judgements about whether or not
it is an isolate would be misleading. Several improvements
in the scoring of this scale should improve its reliability
and thus its sensitivity. Handler's rating procedures
require that the rater judge the quality of line for the
entire drawing and then assign a value along a seven-point
monotonic scale (very light to very dark) which is then
recoded to a four-point absolute deviation scale. The scale
that was used in the current study involved having the rater
judge the quality of line using a reference guide that had
seven lines (light to heavy) drawn on a piece of paper. The
ratings were not recoded to a four point scale,but were left
in monotonis form. Inspection of the drawings revealed that

the degree of lightness of line varied greatly whithin a

“9

drawing. If the lightest line and the heaviest line within
the drawing were rated, the range would be three to four
points on the seven point scale for most drawings. As a
means of reducing the degree of judgement that is necessary
in rating the drawings, the scale could be altered in the
following manner: a) the scale should remain a seven point
monotonic scale, b) a reference guide (lines drawn on paper
representing each point) should be used for making the
ratings, and c) four preselected points should be
individually rated and averaged to produce a global rating.
This procedure would reduce the amount of judgement required
to produce the rating by the rater, and thereby reduce the
amount of measurement error.

Vertical imbalance is judged to be somewhat unreliable
and fairly insensitive within the current study. Although
it is reliably scored, it is heavily skewed and essentially
dichotomous in nature with most of the drawings receiving a
zero rating. It was not affected by independent variables
or their interactions in the current study. in past
studies, vertical imbalance was affected by situational
mainipulations. This suggests that it is only responsive to
high anxiety producing conditions, and is insensitive to
mild anxiety producing conditions. lts sensitivity could be
increased if Handler's (l967) four point scale were
abandoned, and the number of degrees of tilt of the figure

were measured instead. A ceiling limit would have to be

50

imposed to prevent the distribution from becoming too
skewed, and an upper limit of ten degrees deviation or more
is recomended.

Finally, transparency is judged to be highly unreliable
and insensitive. lts lnterrater reliability was only
marginally acceptible; it is heavily skewed; and it is
essentially dichotomous with most of the drawings having no
transparancies present. Handler and Reyher (l96h) reported
similar difficulties. Due to the low frequency of
occurance, the sensitivity of the scale would be difficult
to increase. Thus, it is suggested that the measurement of

transparency be discontinued in future studies.

Car and Human Scale Corresgondence

Prior to the analysis, concerns were raised about the
degree of correspondence between the car and human figure
drawing rating scales for six of the indices (omission, body
simplification, delineation line absence, distortion,
emphasis line, and placement). The difficulty in achieving
close correspondence for these scales occurred because the
procedures for rating the six indices were tied to the
content of each drawing that was rated (see appendix C for a
discussion of specific concerns for each index). For
example, the rating of the number of omissions was based on
the number of essential features that were omitted from each
drawing. Examples of essential features for the human

figure were feet, eyes, and ears. Examples of essential

51

features for the car were bumpers, headlights, and door
handles. Acievement of close correspondence on this scale
is dependent upon whether or not all of the features in each
list were essential. Since the definition of "essential”
was not specified by Handler (l967) for the human figures,
items may have been inadvertently included in the car scale
when it was constructed that are not essential. If the
human drawing index includes only essential features and the
car drawing includes non-essential features, then the car is
likely to receive an inflated omissions rating.

This example provides a good illustration of the
consequence of a failure to achieve a close correspondence
between human and car scales. When close correspondence is
not achieved between scales, the interpretation of
significant differences between human and car drawings is
impossible, i.e. it is unclear whether the significant
differences between drawings are true differences in the
attribute that is being measured or artificial differences
due to measurement problems.

The cross drawing correlations, and the analysis of
significant main effects for drawing type (0) provide
information that is relevant for the current discussion.
All six of the figure drawing indices for which
correspondence concerns were raised between car and "human
figure scales were significantly affected by the main effect

of drawing task. If the correspondence between the car and

52

human scales was close, then based upon past findings, the
car drawing should have less body simplification, less
distortion, more emphasis line, fewer omissions, fewer
delineation line absenses, and. less deviated placement,
because the task of drawing the car should induce less
anxiety within subjects than the task of drawing human
figures. The results for delineation line absence, body
simplification, and distortion were in the expected
direction; the results for omission and placement were in
the opposite direction; and the results for emphasis line
were mixed.

Inspection of the cross-drawing correlations between
all possible pairs of the man, woman, and car drawings
within experimenter present and absent conditions provides
information about whether or not to trust the findings for
each of these indices. The cross drawing correlations for
each pair of 'drawings (man-woman, man-car, woman-car) for
body simpification, distortion, and emphasis line are all in
the moderate to high range (.3 to .7) with the exception of
emphasis line for the woman-car pair for present subjects.
There is relatively little difference between the
correlation for the man-woman pair and the correlations for
the man-car and woman-car pairings. These results suggest
that the correspondence between the car and human scales is
adequate, and that the results for these indices may be

trusted.

53

The findings for body simplification and distortion
were expected and confirmed. The results for emphasis line
are puzzling. However, a careful review of the scoring
procedures for each drawing revealed that the woman drawing
was more likely to recieve a higher rating on emphasis line
than the man drawing, because the attempt at delineating
breasts on the female figure was scored as an emphasis line.
Since many of the subjects delineated breasts on the female
figure, and since the male and car figures had no
corresponding feature that consistently appeared, the score
for emphasis line on the female figure was artificially
higher. In future studies, if delineation of the breasts is
not considered to be an emphasis line, the expected result
is likely to be obtained.

Almost all of the cross drawing correlations for
delineation line absence, placement, and omission were high
(.5 or higher) for the man-woman pair and either low (.3 or
lower) or non-significant for the man-car and woman-car
pairs in both the present and absent conditions. The
discrepency between the correlation between the human
figures and the two correlations between human and car
figures suggests that a correspondence exists, but that the
correspondence is rough. Thus, less trust should be placed
on the findings for these indices. The fact that two of the
indices had results in the opposite direction provides

additional support for the argument that revision of these

5h

scales in future research is necessary.

Future studies might score each delineation line and
each essential feature that is omitted for both human and
car figures separately. Frequencies for each delineation
line and omission may be computed, and only the delineation
lines and omitted items that appear in 75 percent of a
normative sample of drawings obtained under low anxiety
producing conditions should be retained. Use of this
procedure should improve the correspondence between scales
by providing an operational definition of the term
”essential”.

A complete revision of the placement scale for the
human and car figures is necessary to improve the
correspondence between human and car scales, and to reduce
the impact of the size of human figures on the ratings of
displacement. First, a midpoint should be obtained for both
human and car figure drawings by drawing a midline across
the length and width of the figure. The intersection of the
midlines is the midpoint of the drawing. The midpoint of
the page is the intersection of the vertical and horizontal
axes that separate the page into equal sized quadrants.
Displacement is measured by obtaining the distance between
the midpoint of the drawing and the midpoint of the page.
If the direction of displacement is considered to be
important, a protractor may be placed along the horizontal

axis of the page, and the number of degrees of deviation

55

from the zero degree mark may be obtained for the line drawn
between the midpoints of the drawing and the page. This
latter scale might be labeled displacement direction.

CloSe correspondence between the human and car scales
was considered to be achieved prior to the analyses for the
ten remaining indices. Five of these indices (shading,
erasure, line discontinuity, width, and area) significantly
differentiated drawing tasks. The direction of effects
could be predicted for three of the indices with more
shading and erasures, and fewer line discontinuities
expected for the car figure than for the human figures.
Directional effects cannot be predicted for width and area,
because these scales were introduced in the current study.
As was expected, there was more shading and fewer line
discontinuities for the car figure. Contrary to
expectation, there were fewer erasures on the car than on
the human figures. In the current study, the width and area
of the car was smaller than the width and area of the human
figures.

Inspection of the cross-drawing correlations for the
five indices that significantly differentiated drawings and
achieved close correspondence between scales reveals, that
most of the correlations between all possible pairs were in
the moderate range (.3 to .5). Discrepancies between the
man-woman and the human-car pairings were relatively small

for all five indices. This finding supports the original

56

assessment of close correspondence for these scales.

Five of the indices did not significantly differentiate
the drawings. These were reinforcement, light and heavy
line, vertical imbalance, transparency, and length.
Reinforcement, light and heavy line, and length had cross
drawing correlations that were in the moderate range (.3 to
.5) or higher. Thus, the correspondence between human and
car scales appears to be adequate. In contrast, cross
drawing correlations for the man-car and woman-car pairs for
vertical imbalance and for transparency were
non-significant. These indices are either highly reactive
to the drawing task or the scales correspond poorly across
human and car drawings. Since these indices failed to
differentiate between drawing tasks, and since they appear
to be highly unreliable in the current study, measurement
problems are probably the cause of the failure to find
_significant human-car cross drawing correlations. If the
measurement of vertical imbalance is improved 'in later
studies, and the cross drawing correlations between human
and car figures remain non-significant, then the data would

suggest that it is highly reactive to the drawing tasks.

57

Conclusions

Several general conclusions may be drawn from this
study. First, the presence of an experimenter appears to
induce mild rather than high levels of anxiety within
subjects. Second, figure drawings obtained under mild
anxiety producing conditions are not sufficiently
impoverished to warrant alteration of the standard clinical
administration procedures of having the psychodiagnostician
present. Third, figure drawing indices differ in their
sensitivity to anxiety producing situational manipulations.
The indices that are most affected share the common theme of
reflecting the subject's ability to produce an elaborate and
sophisticated representation of the object that is drawn.
Finally, the results indicate that Handler's (l967) figure
drawing anxiety indices and the procedures used to rate car
drawings need to be revised in future studies. Specific
suggestions concerning how these scales may be revised were

included within the preceding discussion section.

REFERENCES

58

REFERENCES
Adler, P. T. Evaluation of the figure drawing technique:
reliability, factorial structure, and diagnostic

usefulness. Journal 9: Consulting and Clinical

Psychology, l970, 35, 52-57.

Attkinson, C. C., Waidler, V. J., Jeffrey, P., and
Lambert, w. E. lnterrater reliability of the
Handler Draw-a-Person Scoring. Perceptual and

Motor Skills, l97h, 3g, 567-573.

BMDP Statistical Software: l983 Printing with Additions, w.
J. Dixon (ed.), University of California Press,

Berkley, 1983.

Handler, L. The effects of stress on the Draw a Person
test. Masters Thesis, Michigan State University,

l963.

Handler, L. Anxiety indices in the Draw a Person test: A
Scoring manual. Journal 2: Projective Techniques

Egg Personality Assessment, l967, 31, h6-57.

Handler, L.. and Reyher, J. The effects of stress on the
Draw a Person test. Journal 2: Consulting

Pszchology,l96h, gg, 259926h.

Handler, L. and Reyher, J. The relationship between GSR

and anxiety indices in projective drawings.

59

Journal 2: Consulting Psychology, l966, 39, 60-67.

Hunter, J. E., Gerbing, D.H., Cohen, S. H. and Nicol, T.
S. Package l280: A System 2i Fortran Routines for

the Analysis 9: Correlational Data, Academic

Computing Press, Baylor University, l980.

Nicols, R. C., and Strumpher, D. J., A factor analysis of
Draw a Person test scores. 'Journal 2: Consulting

Psychology, l962, 26, l56-l6l.

Nunnally, J. Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York,

1978.

Roach, J.P. The effect of an experimenter's presence or
absence during administration of the Draw a Person
test. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State

University, l98l.

Sanders, R. S. and Reyher, J. The clinical applicability
of nude figure drawings. Journal 2: Projective
Technigues and Personality Assessment, l972, 36,

25h-263.

TABLES

60

Table l
Hypothesized groups that reflect degree of sensitivity of

drawing indexes to threatening situational manipulations.

Highly Sensitive Indexes

Shading
Erasure
Delineation Line Absence
Body Simplification

Moderately Sensitive Indexes

Distortion
Emphasis Line
Reinforcement

Light and Heavy Line
Vertical imbalance
Omissions

Mildly Sensitive Indexes

Placement
Line Discontinuity

lnsensitive Indexes

Length
Width
Area

Transparancy

6l

Table 2

lnterrater reliability for the current and past studies.1

 

 

 

Current Study m _0_tl_\_§_r_ 3.1M
igggggs Man Wom Car Per Qpp Car A g C
Shading 89* 83 79 88 82 85 9O 93 83
Erasure 8h 8l 82 9l 69 78 9i 87 93
Del. Line Abs. 90 83 89 97 96 81 89 8O 90
Body Simp. 65 68 69 83 81 -- 71 73 76
Distortion 73 63 65 -- -- -- 77 77 82
Emph. Line 78 68 80 -- -- -- 89 8O 9]
Reinforcement 88 83 85 9h 88 8A 76 9A 77
Light/Heavy Line2 76 77 71 -- -- 77 80 -- --
Vertical imbai. 82 8O 93 82 77 97 91 70 9O
Omissions 89 7A 9A 9A 9A 95 9O 92 87
Placement 91 8h 89 9A 90 78 ** -' -'
Line Discont. 79 8h 89 9l 9l 93 8A 97 67
Length3 m: M M 97 91+ 96 9h 97 97
Width 96 99 99 -- -- -- -- -' --
Area 99 ** *9 -- -— -- -- -- --
Transparancy 82 7l 66 83 66 8l 7h -- --
Hair Shading 79 85 NA 95 90 NA 87 89 NA
Head Simp. 8A 9l NA 89 82 NA 88 80 NA
Head Size3 96 ** NA 96 95 NA 99 #- NA

Head:Body Ratio 88 88 NA 87 90 NA 95 -- NA

**
NA

The past studies were Roach (l98l), and (A) Handler (l963),
(B) Handler (l96h), and (C) Attkinson, Waidler, Jeffrey, and-
Lambert (l97h).

In the current study, a 7 point monotonic scale was used;
previous studies used a A point non-monotonic scale.

In the current Study, a monotonic scale measured in
sixteenths of an inch was used; previous studies used a A
point non-monotonic scale. '

The decimal point for all correlations was omitted to save
space.

lnterrater reliability for this index was l.OO.

Not applicable because this index cannot be measured for the
car drawing.

This index was not measured in previous studies.

63

Table 3

lnterrater reliability for open ended debriefing items.

Number item Reliability
l Subject suggested that the purpose involved

comparison of the drawings ..... . ........ I .......... .7A
2 Subject suggested that the purpose involved

comparison of experimenter present and absent

conditions .... ........ ................. ........... .81
3 Subject suggested that the purpose involved

assessment of how much time was spent drawing ..... .7A
A Subject suggested that the purpose involved

assessment the amount of detail and/or effort put

into the drawings ................................. .LA
5 Subject suggested that the purpose involved

assessment of the subject's personality ........... .SA
6 Subject demeaned his drawings or his drawing

ability ........................ ...... ... ....... ... .78
7 Subject expressed concern about being

evaluated or mentioned the experimenter's presence .68

8 Subject mentions experiencing a negative affect

(e.g. anxiety, frustration, irritation) . ...... ... .66
9 Subject mentions experiencing a positive affect

(e.g. calmness, enjoyment) ........... .. .......... .72

lo Subject demeans the study ... ...... ................ .81

Cross drawing correlations1

6A

Table A

Indexes
Shading
Erasure
Del. Line Abs.
Body Simp.

Distortion

Emph. Line

Reinforcement

Light/Heavy Line2

Vertical Imbal.
Omissions
Placement

Line Discont.
Length3

Width

Area

Transparancy

Hair Shading

Head Simp.
3

Head Size

Current Study

Present

mutt-2

67* 27

39
75
72
6A
52
7I
52
38
73
52

87

73
86

5A
70
86

69
NS
60
A7
AS
6A
36
NS
28
19
32
63
52
72
NS

NA
NA

NA

32
39
NS

A8.

A7
26
5A
37

NS

A0
30
26
55
6A

75

NS

NA
NA

NA

Absent

flflfli

51
56
61
36
6O
57
60
37

37
A2

6A
1+9
8A
65
72
26

51
51
33

30
50
2]
A8
58
A8
5A
AA
NS
20
27
38
63
A7
60

NS

NA
NA

NA

A3
55
NS
3A
58
A7

A6

NS
26
20
Al
61
33
AA

NS

NA
NA

NA

 

Attkinson

Rater l R

M-W

37
7l
5A

 

AA
66
5A

Head

Time

NA

NS

65

:Body Ratio 77 NA NA 63 NA NA SI 57

77 70 73 73 71 69 " "

Cross drawing correlations were computed for all possible
pairs of man, woman, and car drawings for subjects in the
present and in the absent conditions seperately. Cross
drawing correlations for the man-woman pair for two different
raters from Attkinson, Waidler, Lambert, and Jeffrey (l97A)
are also included.

In the current study, a 7 point monotonic scale was used;
previous studies used a A point non-monotonic scale.

In the current Study, a monotonic scale measured in
sixteenths of an inch was used; previous studies used a A
point non-monotonic scale.

Decimal points for all correlations have been omitted to save
space.

Not applicable because this index cannot be measured for the
car drawing.

The correlation was not significant at the .05 level.

This index was not measured in previous studies.

66

Table 5

The analysis of variance design used in the current study.

£9222 __9Nes‘tin £922; Em M;
Present/absent (P) Subjects l
Order (0) Subjects 5
P by 0 Subjects 5
Subjects P by 0 None 96
Drawings (0) D by Subjects 2
P by D D by Subjects 2
O by D D by Subjects l0
P by O by D D by Subjects 10
D by Subjects P by 0 None I92

Total 323

67

Table 6

Means for indexes that significantly differentiated

present and absent conditions.

Indexes Present 52552;
Shading .98 l.A7
Erasure l.50 l.98
Delineation Line Absence .97 .7I
Body Simplification l.89 l.66
Distortion 2.23 l.9l
Hair Shading .9l l.53
Head Simplification l.A5 l.06

Time 2l7.50 298.80

68

Table 7
Significant differences1 between present

and absent conditions within drawings.

 

 

 

Current Study Handler-Reyher Roach
____Indexes £144: MMi .2922};
Shading 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 1
Erasure l l l 2 2 2 l l l
Del. Line Abs. l 2 2 2 l l
Body Simp. l 2 2 2 l l -
Distortion l l I 2 2 - - -
Emph. Line l l 2 2 - - -
Reinforcement 2 2 l
Light/Heavy Line2 2 2 ‘ - - -
Vertical Imbal. 2 ’2 1
Omissions l 2 2
Placement 2
Line Discont. 2
Length3 2
Width - - -
Area - - -
Transparancy
'Hair Shading 1 1 NA 2 2 NA 1 1 NA

Head Simp. l 1 NA 2 2 NA 1 NA

Head

Head

Time

69

Size3 NA NA NA

:Body Ratio NA NA NA

Significant one (I) and two (2) tailed tests of differences
between high and low anxiety producing conditions for each
drawing seperately for the current study, Handler and Reyher
(l96A), and Roach (I981).

In the current study, a 7 point monotonic scale was used;
previous studies used a A point non-monotonic scale.

In the current Study, a monotonic scale measured in
sixteenths of an inch was used; previous studies used a A
point non-monotonic scale.

Not applicable because this index cannot be measured for the
car drawing.

This index was not measured in previous studies.

70

Table 8

Coefficient alphas for the hypothesized groups.

Drawings
92.925 mm. m La;
Highly Sensitive .56 .5A .5l
Moderately Sensitive .52 .A9 .35
Mildly Sensitive -.2l -.09 .ll
lnsensitive .7A .7A .76
Table 9

Correlations between hypothesized groups and

Experimenter's presence/absence within drawings.

Drawings
m :22 82112.8 sad
Highly Sensitive .26 .22 .39
Moderately Sensitive .16 .23 .l5
Mildly Sensitive -.02 .05 .l5

lnsensitive .l2 .08 -.ll

71

Table l0

Correlations between hypothesized groups

and time spent drawing.

Drawings
m nan E93123 m
Highly Sensitive -.5A -.A9 -.52
Moderately Sensitive -.A6 -.A9 -.5A
Mildly Sensitive -.17 -.31 .oo

lnsensitive .22 .2A .l9

72

Table ll

Coefficient alphas for the Post Hoc groups.

Drawings
£2295. ‘ men Lorilee Ea
Highly Sensitive .7l .7A .77
Mildly Sensitive -.86 .89 .86
lnsensitive .05 -.38 -.l8

Table l2

Correlations between Post Hoc groups and

Experimenter's presence/absence within drawings.

Drawings
mes nan me .92;
Highly Sensitive .2A .23 .33
Mildly Sensitive .l3 .l0 -.ll

lnsensitive .02 .07 -.07

73

Table I3

Correlations between Post Hoc groups

and time spent drawing.

Drawings
M £92 8mg 9.3.:
Highly Sensitive -.6O -.55 -.57
Mildly Sensitive .l7 .27 .20

lnsensitive -.0l -.23 -.07

7A

Table IA

Means for indexes that significantly differentiated drawings

 

 

Current Stggy Handler-Reyher1

Indexes Man Woman £2; Sjggjj Direction
Shading l.l9 l.ll l.37 no

Erasure l.l5 l.Al l.09 no

Del. Line Abs. .83 l.02 .67 yes A-least
Body Simp. 1.93 l.98 1.35 yes A-least
Distortion 2.l3 2.l3 l.95 yes A-least
Emph. Line .55 .90 .88 no

Reinforcement no

Light/Heavy Line2 yes A-most
Vertical Imbal. yes A-least
Omissions .92 .8A l.37 yes A-Ieast
Placement .60 .79 l.28 yes A-Ieast
Line Discont. l.08 1.36 .93 yes A-least
Length3 yes A-least
Width 38.00 32.87 3l.l6 ---

Area l3.60 ll.99 ll.09 ---

Transparancy yes A-least

l Handler and Reyher (l966) did not report means, but did
report the direction of effects for significantly affected
indexes.

2 In the current study, a 7 point monotonic scale was used;
previous studies used a A point non-monotonic scale.

75

3 In the current Study, a monotonic scale measured in
sixteenths of an inch was used; previous studies used a A

point non-monotonic scale.
--- The index was not measured in Handler and Reyher (l96A).

FIGURES

2.0

1.8

l.6 1

l.A

l.2

J-“O‘CDO

76

" Present

0 Absent

L l
I l

 

+D

Man Woman Car
Figure l. The present/absent by drawing interaction

(PxD) for Body Simplification

77

T

 

 

l I l l l
l I 1 U I T

MWC ‘HCW HHC WCM CNN CHM
Figure 2. The drawing by order (DxO) interaction

for Shading.

l.2
l.A
l.6
I.8

2.0

78

 

 

I J +
j T T

MWC MCW WMC WCM CMW CHM

Figure 3. The drawing by order (DxO) interaction

for Delineation Line Presence.cr

79

Woman

Car

Man

 

 

l l
r ‘I f I I if

1 l J l

MWC MCW -WMC HCM CMW CHM
Figure A. The drawing by order (DxD) interaction

for Emphasis Line.

360
330

300

270 "

2A0

2lO "

l80

ISO

80

 

 

I 4 J
I

HWC 'MCW 'NMC WCM CNN CHM
Figure 5. The drawing by order (DxO) interaction

for Time (in seconds).

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

81

The situational manipulation that was selected to
induce high and low levels of anxiety in subjects was the
presence of the experimenter during DAP administration.
This manipulation was selected because: 1) it was previously
demonstrated to have powerful effects on DAP performance
(Cassel, Johnson, and Burns, 1958; Roach, 1981), 2) it has
i been the subject of extensive empirical and theoretical
efforts under the rubric of “social facilitation" in the
area of Social Psychology, 3) much is known about its impact
on a variety of tasks, and A) it is clearly relevant to and
easily manipulable in the clinical setting. The focus of
this section will be on briefly presenting each of the
currently contending theories that attempt to explain the
impact of the presence 'of another individual on task
performance, and then to discuss the implications of each
theory for the current experimental task of interest, i.e.
the DAP.

The effect of the presence of another individual on
task performance has been the subject of a lively
theoretical debate in Social Psychology. Social
Facilitation of performance was first noted by Triplett
(1898). He discovered that speeded performance improved on
two different tasks (riding a bicycle ans reeling a fishing
line) when individuals performed in the presence of a
coacter as compared to working alone. This study stimulated

many others that attempted to isolate the effects of the

82

presence of an observer while controlling for counfounding
variables such as competition, modelling, and distraction
(e.g. Pessin, 1933). Instead of providing greater clarity,
the results of these studies led to confusion about the
impact of an observer on task performance. Numerous
empirical demonstrations of social facilitation were matched
by a variety of studies in which performance decrements
occured as a function of the presence of an observer. Since
the field of social facilitation research lacked a theory to
organize and make sense out of the data, interest in the
topic waned from 1935 to 1965. Following the appearance of
Zajonc's theory in 1965, interest was again sparked in
social facilitation research. Zajonc's theory provided a
framework that adequately explained previous results. Since
the appearance of his theory, three alternative positions
have appeared, i.e. Cottrell (1968), Sanders and Baron
(1975). and Wicklund and Duval (1972). Each position will
be presented separately along with its implications for the
experimenter's presence during administration of the DAP.
Prior to examination of‘these theorists, it is necessary to
complete a careful task analysis of the DAP test situation
to determine the extent to which theories formulated to
account for the impact of the presence of an observer may be
applied.

Drawing the human anatomy is clearly a complex,

infrequently practiced task for most adults to perform.

83

Typically, the subject that is asked to draw a person has
had little artistic training and highly limited experience
in drawing. Thus, drawing skills are poor, mistakes are
frequent, and dissatisfaction with performance is likely.
Unlike other social facilitation tasks, performance is not
likely to improve significantly over a series of trials
unless the trials are frequent or the subject receives
training (Leviton and Kiraly, l97A; Burns and Velicer,
I977). Since the DAP is unlikely to be administered with
high frequency in the clinical situation, it is of
relatively little interest to examine DAP performance for
well practiced subjects. However, the amount of artistic
training of the subject should be taken into account when
evaluationg the DAP since artisitc quality appears to be
related to clinical judgements about subjects (Cressen,
1975; Solar, Bruehl, and Kovacs, l971).

A second difference between the DAP and other social
facilitation tasks is the-manner in which DAP performance is
evaluated. Most social facilitation tasks have clearly
defined measures that are simple, easy to obtain, and can be
measured at various intervals. For example, some variables
are speed of task performance (e.g. reeling a fishing line,
riding a bike), frequency or quantity of task performance
(amount of prose copied, volume of hand clapping), or
correctness of response (list learning, word recognition

under brief exposures). In contrast, DAP performance is

8A

assessed using a variety of quality measures. Speed,
quantity, and correctness are not directly asssessed.
Subjects are free to make drawing errors, and then
spontaneously correct them. In short, the task involves the
development of an image that gradually evolves from the
productive and corrective efforts of the artist.
Performance is not periodically assessed in the research
setting although observations of the drawing process are
valuable to clinicians. The final product is typically the
only part of the process that is evaluated in research
settings. The implication is that direct, simple effects of
the presence of an administrator are difficult to assess due
to the complex processes involved in task performance.
Third, research on the impact of experimenter's
presence of the DAP performance confounds the variables of
observer's status with observer's presence. Many social
facilitation studies use observers with a low status
(confederates who are said to be subjects waiting for
another study). Use of a high status observer is likely to
increase ”evaluation apprehension” of the subject which
leads to the combinatorial effects of "mere presence" and
"evaluation apprehension” (Henchy and Glass, 1968). Using a
confederate as an observer in the DAP situation makes little
sense whenever the focus is on evaluating the DAP as a
personality assessment instrument, because disinterested

observers are unlikely to be present during administration

35

of the DAP in the clinical setting.

A final difference lies in the freedom of 'the subject
in the DAP situation to determine the length of time that
she or he will perform the task. This differs from previous
social facilitation tasks which include clear demands for a
set amount of performance during a period of time. The
result of the subject's freedom to determine amount of task
performance on the DAP is that many of the subjects draw
stick figures, incomplete figures, or unelaborated complete
figures so that they can leave the situation (Handler and
Reyher, 196A; Roach, l981). Thus, a clear easy path for
taking instrumental action to avoid aversive aspects of task
performance is open to subjects in DAP research.

The implication of this discussion of the differences
between the DAP task and other typical social facilitation
tasks is that the DAP task is too complex, and the situation
contains too many confounding variables, to serve as a test
of the validity of different theoretical efforts which
attempt to explain “mere presence“ effects. Thus, the
intent of examining social facilitation theories is not to
evaluate the adequacy of each theory, but rather to explore
the contributions to understanding the DAP situation that
each theory may provide, and to determine which theory would
serve as the best frame of reference for research on the

impact of the experimenter's presence on DAP performance.

Zajonc's Agglication g: Spence-Hull Drive Theory

86

Zajonc proposed (1965) and defended (1980) a specific
application of Spence-Hull Drive Theory to the field of
social facilitation research. He hypothesized that
contradictory results could be reconciled if the mere
presence of another person was considered to be a source of
general arousal (drive). If this assumption is accepted,
then he argued that the multiplicative law of Ej - f(D x Hj)
(Spence, I956 in Zajonc, I980) could be applied to resolve
the contradictions. In this equation "E” represents the
likelihood and vigor that respose j‘ will be made, ”D”
represents the level of drive (non-specific arousal), and
”H” represents the habit strength of a response j which is
defined as the frequency of pairings of response j with a
given stimulus in the past. This law accounts for the
contradictory social facilitation results since it indicates
that increases in drive level result in a greater likelihood
of producing dominant responses, (i.e. responses with
higher habit strengths) for a given situation. Since
dominant responses on simple and/or well learned tasks tend
to be the correct responses, the pressence of drive inducing
stimuli result in performance facilitation for simple, well
learned tasks. In the case of complex and/or unfamiliar
tasks, the dominant response is typically incorrect, and
thus performance decrements occur in the presence of drive
inducing stimuli. Therefore, if the presence of an observer

is drive inducing, then performance facilitation is likely

37

on simple well learned tasks, and performance decrements
will occur on complex, unfamiliar tasks.

Zajonc (I980) indicated that his use of the word “mere
is an abstraction since another individual may not be
present in a situation without also being a “rich source of
meaningful stimulation.” The meaningful stimulation that
the other person provides is likely to produce directive
effects on one's performance. However, Zajonc (I980) argued
that in addition to directive effects that are situation
specific, 'there are also non-directive effects that result
from the ”mere“ presence of another person. He states that
”non-directive effects are always the same and always there,
whereas directive cues vary in kind and magnitude from
context to context." Thus, Zajonc (I980) states:

When we speak of mere presence in context of social
facilitation, we must mean that performance
associated with the presence of others can be
obtained even though all other factors and
processes commonly associated with the presence of
others are eliminated. That is presence of others
can have performance effects even though there is
no chance of imitation, even though competition is
ruled out, even though the spectators or the
companion does not control the performer's
reinforcement, and even though the companion's
pressence does not signal rewards or punishments.

Based on Zajonc's theory, one might expect performance
decrements on the DAP when it is obtained in the presence of
an observer since it is a very complex, poorly learned task

for most subjects. In short, the theory would predict that

the presence of an observer would enhance dominant responses

88

which in this case would be incorrect drawing behaviors.
Since most experience with drawing occurs in childhood, one
might expect that when a subject's level of arousal (drive)
is increased, drawing behaviors which were frequently
practiced in earlier years (greater habit strength) are
likely to reappear (dominant responses). Thus, one might
expect- more childlike drawings (greater primitivization) of
the human figure in the presence of stimuli that induce
arousal. This hypothesis is supported by the data obtained
by Handler and Reyher (l96A) and Roach (1981) who found
greater amounts of head and body simplification and of
distortion in human figure drawings obtained in high stress
conditions than in low stress conditions. Thus Zajonc's
(1965, I980) theory accurately predicts and explains greater
primitivization of the figure drawings in the observer
present condition.

Unfortunately, Zajonc's theory does not explain all of
the findings of previous studies since level of sympathetic
nervous system arousal (mean galvanic skin conductance) was
not significantly different across experimenter present and
absent conditions. If general arousal level was the
mediating mechanism that affected performance, then a main
effect for experimenter's presence versus absence should
have occured on the arousal variables.

Zajonc's theory also does not explain why subjects

spend less time drawing in the presence of the experimenter

89

than in the alone condition (Roach, l981). Zajonc (1980)
suggested that increases in drive level were not aversive,
yet Roach's (1981) findings suggested that the experimenter
present condition is experienced by subjects as aversive.
Zajonc (1980) has argued against "evaluation apprehension“
explanations stating that these positions assume that
potential for being evaluated is present when effeCts are
obtained and that this situation is experienced as aversive
by the subjects. In his 1980 defense of his theory, he
pointed out that there had been no evidence that subjects
take instrumental action designed to alter aversive
conditions in social facilitation studies. The conclusion
that the DAP situation is aversive for subjects when the
experimenter is present indicates .the liklihood that
evaluation apprehension is opperating in addition to ”mere
presence” effects. In order to account for these findings,
Zajonc's theory would have to be seriously modified, and
this seems to be far from appropriate since it was not
intended to explain anything more than “mere presence”
effects.

Cottrell's Learned Drive Hypothesis

Cottrell (1968, 1972) proposed a revision of Zajonc's
theory that he felt was required due to the failure to find
significant differences in performance between subjects
tested alone and subjects tested with two blindfolded

confederates present who were unable to evaluate the.

90

subject‘s responses (Cottrell, Wack, Sekerak, and Little,
1968). This study included a third condition in which
subjects were tested in the presence of two observers who
were not blindfolded, and this group differed significantly
in performance in the expected manner from subjects in the
alone and “mere presence" (blindfolded observers) condition.
'Cottrell (1968) suggested that mere presence was not a
sufficient conditions to enhance the dominant response, and
that observers that could evaluate the subjects performance
were required. This led to his hypothesis that the presence
of others is a learned source of drive, and that at birth
the mere presence of others is motivationally neutral. It
is through life experiences that one learns to associate the
mere presence of others with either positive or negative
outcomes. Concequently, most subjects anticipate a negative
outcome (a negative evaluation) when they are asked to draw.
This leads to increases in drive levels which result in
greater primitivization of the drawings in the manner
described above.

The advantage of Cottrell's position is that it assumes
that the presence of the experimenter is aversive
(presumably because the experimenter will evaluate the
subject's performance), and thus explains the motivation to
finish quickly and leave the situation. However, it does
not explain why subjects stay in the situation and produce a

drawing that at least meets minimal task demands before

91

leaving. If the dominant response is flight, then the
conflictual motivational mechanism of desire to please the
experimenter must be specified to explain the typical
pattern of findings. Specification of a heirchy of
responses in terms of reacting to the situation i.e. the
dominant response is to please the experimenter, and the
second most dominant response is to flee the situation,
would account for the gross behavior, but would ignore the
level of analysis of greatest interest which is the drawing
behavior. Thus, Cottrell's position would have to be
modified in terms of nesting dominant responses of drawing
behavior within dominant responses of gross behavior in
reaction to the situation, and this is not desirable,
because his theory was not intended for this purpose.

Sanders and Baron's distraction hypothesis

Sanders and Baron (1975, Baron, Moore, and Sanders,
1978) also attempted_ to address the problem of why the
presence of others increases drive level. They argue that
”drivelike effects occur because the presence of species
mates creates attentional conflict within subjects in social
facilitation research settings“ (Baron, Moore, and Sanders,
1978). The conflict lies between attending to the task and
attending to the present individual. Ample evidence has
demonstrated that mechanical auditory distractors have
effects on task performance that are very similar to effects

due to the presence of an audience or a coacter (e.g.

92

Pessin, 1933). Thus, their arguement rests on whether they
.can demonstrate that the mere presence of others is
distracting. Attempts to substantiate their hypothesis have
produced equivocal results. Baron et al (1978) failed to
find significant differences on self report measures of
distractibility between observer present and absent
conditions. Yet, Sanders, Baron, and Moore (1978) produced
data that indicated that subjects were more accurate in
estimating the amount of work performed by a coacter than a
non-coacter. They reasoned that the greater accuracy was
the result of increased attention directed away from the
task toward the coacter, and that this ”distraction" was
responsible for producing poorer performance on the task.
When taken together, these findings suggest that many
subjects may not be aware (retrospectively) of whether or
not they were distracted by the presence of others when
other sources of evidence suggest that they were distracted.

Sanders and Baron's (1975) distraction hypothesis does
not add to our understanding of the DAP experimental
situation. It is reasonable“ to posit that the present
experimenter is a source of distraction, but their position
suggests that experimenters are interchengeable in the DAP
test situation. Although differences between individual
experimenters have not been found in the past (Star and
Marcuse, 1959: Holtzman, 1952; and Roach, 1981), the sex of

the experimenter has entered into important interactions

93

with the experimenter's presence and sex of subject for two
drawing variables. Thus, Sanders and Baron's (I975)
position would have to be modified to account for
differences in experimenter's status and sex.

Wicklund and Duval's Objective Self Awareness Theory

Unlike Cottrell (1968) and Sanders and Baron (1975) who
modified Zajonc's theory, Wicklund and Duvall (I971,
Wicklund, 1975) proposed a theory that is essentially
different from Zajonc's theory. They argue that concious
attention is directed either entirely toward the self or
toward external events in the environment. Particular
stimuli, such as a mirror, the presence of an observer, or a
tape recording of the subject's voice, focus the person's
attention on some dimension of self, i.e. results in
objective self awareness. All other stimuli distract
attention away from self and toward the environment. When
attention is directed toward some dimension of self, the
result is self evaluation of the discrepancy between
attainment and aspiration on that dimension. If this
discrepancy is positive (typically due to a recent success
experience), then a person should experience positive
affect, and will seek out situations that stimulate
objective self awareness (approach response). However, if
the discrepancy is negative, an individual will experience
negative affect and will actively attempt to avoid stimuli

which result in objective self awareness. In situations

9A

where the discrepancy is negative and objective self
awareness is inescapable, the person will attempt to reduce
the discrepancy between attainment and aspiration by
improving performance. The degree of affect that is
experienced is condidered to be a joint function of the
degree of the discrepancy and the proportion of attention
focused on the discrepancy during a time interval.

In an attempt to apply their theory to the study of
social facilitation, Wicklund and Duval (1971) start by
agreeing with Cottrell (1968) and Henchy and Glass (1968)
that the possibility of being evaluated in a situation is a
necessary condition for the enhancement of the dominant
responses. Wicklund and Duval (1971) then question whether
the enhancement of dominant responses needs to be explained
through variables related to the presence of others. Thus,
the presence of an observer is relegated to the status of
being one member of a class of variables that induces
objective self awareness.

Social facilitation is explained by the presence of
another person inducing objective self awareness in subjects
to the extent that the other is judged to be observing and
evaluating performance. Objective self awareness results in
evaluation of performance against standards of correct
performance which produces efforts aimed at reducing the
discrepancy. The efforts will be effective for simple, well

learned tasks, and ineffective for complex, poorly learned

95

tasks.

Wicklund and Duval (1971) succeded in replicating
social facilitation effects with the presence of a mirror,
but they noted that their findings could not rule out
alternative explanations. They argued that a critical test
of Objective Self Awareness theory versus Zajonc's
generalized drive theory would be to produce social
facilitation effects without manipulating drive level.
Apparently, the critical test has not yet been performed
although attempts have been made ( e.g. Liebling, Seller,
and Shaver, l975a; Wicklund, 1975b; Liebling, Seller, and
Shaver, 19756).

Roach used Objective Self Awareness Theory to interpret
his results. Thus, the present discussion will borrow
heavily from this previous application. Roach (1981)
proposed that objective self awareness was induced in all of
his subjects by the process of recording Galvanic skin
resistance. He then suggested that his findings indicated
that subjects in the experimenter present condition differed
from subjects in the experimenter absent condition in terms
of the dimension along which self evaluation occurred. In
the experimenter present condition, subjects seemed to be
more concerned about .their interpersonal appeal than in
their drawing performance. This interpretation was based on
the findings that in the present condition: 1) the drawings

were of poorer quality since they reflected less

96

elaboration, effort and detail, and 2) subjects spent less
time on their drawings.

In contrast, task performance seemed to be the critical
dimension of self evaluation for subjects in the absent
condition since: 1) the drawings were of better quality, and
2) subjects spent more time on their drawings.

Roach (1981) suggested that differences in the time
spent on and the quality of the figure drawings obtained
between the experimenter present and absent conditions were
due to differences in the degree to which subjects could
avoid objective self awareness and take instrumental action
to reduce the discrepancy between performance and standards
for performance. In the present condition, the presence of
the experimenter was probably so salient that the subjects
could not avoid objective self awareness by distracting
themselves. Further, the imposition of silence prevented
the subject from taking action aimed at reducing the
discrepancy between their judgements of their appeal and
their desire to be liked, e.g. engaging the experimenter in
pleasant conversation. Since these subjects‘were unable to
avoid objective self awareness, and unable to reduce the
discrepancy and thus avoid negative affect, they had to
finish the task quickly to get out of the situation. In
contrast, subjects in the experimenter absent condition
could distract themselves from self evaluation by

concentrating on the mechanics of the drawing task. This

97

focusing of attention on the process of drawing was also
likely to result in improvements in their drawings, and
this,in turn, reduced the discrepancy between their desire
to draw well and ongoing judgements of their drawings as
they complete them. THerefore. these subjects were able to
tolerate the situation better, and stay longer.

Conclusion

The application of Objective Self Awareness theory to
Roach's (1981) results demonstrates that the theory is
sufficiently comprehensive to account for complex findings
obtained in the DAP testing situation. Drive theories are
not sufficiently complex to account for the subjects need to
flee the situation and the specific drawing behaviors of
interest, the subjects ability to evaluate and correct their
drawings, or the differences in the impact of the
experimenter's sex and status. Therefore, Objective Self
Awareness theory appears to be the best available frame of
reference in which to consider the impact of the
administrator on DAP performance, primarily because too many
factors opperate in the DAP test situation that prevent it
from being reduced to the status of a ”mere presence" study.
Thus, the application of the theoretical positions of
Zajonc(l965), Cottrell (1968), or Sanders and Baron (1975)
would require the specification of additional modifications
of their theories. Since their theoretical positions were

not designed to account for the complex DAP situation, it

98

seems inappropriate to modify them. Thus, Objective self
awareness theory was selected as the frame of reference for
interpreting the results of the current study since
additional theoretical mechanisms do not need to be created

to account for previous results.

Barron,

99

REFERENCES
R. S., Moore, 0., and Sanders, G. S. Distraction
as a souurce of drive in social facilitaion

research. Journal 2: Personality and Social

 

Psychology, 1978, 36, 816-82A.

Burns, C.J. and Velicer, W. F. Art instruction and the

Cassel,

Cottrell

Cottrell,

Cottrell,

Cressen,

Goodenough-Harris Drawing test in fifth-graders.
Psychology 13 the Schools, 1977, 15, 109-112.
R. H., Johnson, A., and Burns, W. H. Examiner,

ego-defense, and the H-T-P test. Journal 9:

Clinical Psychology, 1958, 1A, 157-160.

,N. B. Performance in the presence of other human

beings: Mere presence, audience, and affiliation
effects. In E. C. Simmel, R. A. Hoppe, and G.
A. . Milton (Eds.) Social Facilitation 22g
Imitative Behavior, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968,
91-110.

N. B. Social Facilitation. In C. McCIintock
(Ed.) Experimental Social Psychology, New York:
McGraw Hill, 1972.

N. 8., Wack, D. L., Sekerak, G. L., and Little,
R. H. Social facilitation of ldominant responses
by the presence of an audience and the mere

presence of others. Journal f Personality and

Social Psychology, 1968, 35, A2A-A3A.

R. Artistic quality of drawings and judges

IOO

evaluation of the DAP. Journal 9: Personality

Assessment, 1975, 39, 132-137.

Duval, S.and Wicklund, R. A. A theory 9: objective self

Handler,

Henchy,

awareness . New York: Academic Press, 1972.

L. and Reyher, J. The effects of stress on the
Draw-a-Person test. Journal 2: Consulting
Psychology, 196A, 38, 259-26A.

T. and Glass, D. C. Evaluation apprehension and
the social facilitation of dominant and subordinate
responses. Journal 2: Personality and Social

Psychology, 1968. lg, AA6-A5A.

Holtzman W. H. The examiner as a variable in the Draw a

Person test. Journal _1 Consulting Psychology,
1952, 16, lA5-1A8.

Leibling,B. A., Seller, M., and Shaver, P. Self awareness

and cigarette smoking behavior. Journal 2:

Experimental Social Psychology, l97A, 19, 325-332.

Leibling,B. A., Seller, M., and Shaver, P. Unsolved

Levlton

Pessin,

problems for self-awareness theory:_ A reply to
Wicklund. Journal 2: Experimental 325121
Psychology, 1975, 11, 82-85.

H. and Klrally, A. The effects of a short term
training program on the Draw-a-Man test scores of
Pre-school children. Educational egg Psychological
Measurement, l97A, 3A, A35-A38.

J. The comparitive effects of social and

Roach, J.

Sanders,

Sanders,

‘Solar, D.

Starr, A

Tripplet

Wicklund,

lOl

mechanical stimulation on memorizing. American
Journal 2: Psychology, 1933, 35, 263-270.

P. The effect of an experimenter's presence or
absence during administration of the Draw a Person
test. Unpublished Master's Thesis, Michigan State
University, 1981.

G. S. and Baron, R. S. The motivating effects
of distraction on task performance. Journal 2:
Personality Egg Social Psychology, 1975, 33,
956-963.

C. S., Baron, R. S., and Moore, D. Distraction-
and Social comparison as mediators of social
facilitation ‘ effects. Journal 21 Experimentgl
M Psychology, 1978, 3, 291-303.

, Bruehl, D., and Kovacs, J. The Draw-a-Person

test: social conformity or artistic ability?

Journal 2: Personality Assessment, 1971, fig,

 

325’332-

.and Marcuse, B. Reliability in the Draw a Person

test. Journal 2: Projective Technigues, I959, 23,
83-86.

N. The dynamogenic factors in pace-making and
competition. American Journal 2: Psychology, 1898,
9. 507-533. '

R. A. Objective self awareness. in L. Berkowitz

(ed.) Advances jg Experimental Social Psychology,

IOZ

New York Academic Press, 1975a.

Wicklund,R. A. Discrepancy reduction or attempted

distraction? A reply to Leibling, Seller, and
Shaver. Journal pi Experimental Social Psychology,

1975b. 11. 78-81.

Wicklund,R. A. and Duvall, S. Opinion change and

Zajonc,

Zajonc,

performance facilitation as a result of objective
self awareness. Journal pi Experimental Social

Psychology, 1971; 1, 319-3A2.

R. B. Social facilitation. Science, 1965, 139,

269-27A.
R. B. Compresence. In P. Paulus (Ed.), The
Psychology pi Group Influence, Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum, 1980.

APPENDIX B

l03

Although the Draw a Person test (DAP) has enjoyed wide
interest and usage in clinical settings in the past (Lubln,
Wallis, and Paine, I971; Sundberg, 1961), empirical support
for its reliability and validity as a measure of various
aspects of personality has been lacking. In a 1957 review
of the empirical literature on human figure drawings,
Swenson concluded that most studies had not supported
Machover's hypotheses, but that much of the research had not
been designed to examine the DAP as a measuring device. In
a subsequent review of the literatue between 1957 and 1966,
,Swenson (1968) concluded that research during that period
was more sophisticated and thus provided more support for
Machover's theory. However, he qualified this comment by
stating. that the validity of a particular aspect of a
drawing was directly related to the reliability of that
aspect. He argued that reliability was ,in turn, a direct
linear function of the amount of drawing behavior that was
used to assess the aspect under consideration. Thus, global
ratings were found to be more reliable than structural or
content variables. He concluded that the reliabilities for
structural and content variables were too low to make
reasonably reliable, clinical judgements, and therefore
suggested that if these variables were to be used, the
clinician should obtain several drawings from the client so
that clinical judgements would be based upon a larger sample

of drawing behavior.

lOA

In a 1968 review of the literature on the clinical
utility of figure drawings in performing clinical
assessments, Roback was not as optimistic as Swenson. He
concluded that Machover's hypotheses were not supported.
However, he also stated that there was a paucity of well
designed studies to test the validity of the DAP. Thus, he
suggested that well designed studies were required to
discern whether the DAP contributed any useful information
during clinical assessments.

-In 1965, Handler and Reyher reviewed the literature on
twenty-one figure drawing anxiety indices, and proposed a
viable explanation for the low level of reliability of
structured variables. They examined the results of
fifty-one studies, and then tallied whether the results
agreed, opposed, or were non-significant with respect to
traditional clinical interpretations of anxiety for each
index. They discovered that for eleven of the indices, at
least one study opposed the traditional clinical
interpretation, while twenty indices had one or more studies
that had non-significant findings. Seven of the twenty-one
indices had a greater number of studies that reported
opposed or non-significant findings than studies that
reported findings in aggreement with traditional clinical
interpretation.

Handler and Reyher (1965) argued that the failure to

differentiate between the task (intrapsychic) and the

l05

situational (external) sources of anxiety might account for
many of the contradictory and non-significant results.
Handler and Reyher (196A) had previously demonstrated that
figure drawings were affected by situationally induced
stress. In this study, a greater number of indices-
significantly differentiated high from low stress conditions
for human figure drawings than for car drawings. This
pattern of results was interpreted by Handler and Reyher
(l96A) as being supportive of their hypothesis that
manifestations of anxiety in human figure drawings have two
sources: the laboratory stress situation, and the anxiety
producing intrapsychic processes that are activated by the
task of drawing the human figure.

In the 1965 literature review, they noted that
contradictory results occured for the indices in which
presence of index was traditionally considered to be an
indicator of intrapsychic anxiety (e.g. shading, hair
shading, reinforcement, erasure, and emphasis lines). They
argued that when subjects react to the stressful testing
situation by attempting to produce the figures quickly and
then flee the setting, they are likely to produce
significantly less of the drawing behavior in question.
Thus when figure ,drawings are obtained in high anxiety
producing testing conditions, presence of the index tends to
indicate attempts to cope with situational sources of

anxiety rather than the presence of intrapsychic anxiety in

106

reaction to the task of drawing the human anatomy. Reyher
(1965) concluded that:

The presence of anxiety indices in a drawing cannot

be used to measure intrapsychic stress. Instead,
the presence of shading, erasure,
reinforcement,heavy line, heavy pressure, (and to a
lesser extent, delineation line absence and body

simplification which seem to reflect both
intrapsychic and external stress) may be a reaction
to an external source of stress. These indices
seem more sensitive to external stress than to
intrapsychic stress, and thus seem to be less
reliable indices of symbolic conflict than the
other indices.

Handler and Reyher (1965) also discussed the set of
indices in which the absence of the index is traditionally
associated with the presence of intrapsychic anxiety (e.g.
omission, detail loss, and distortion). They note that the
findings for these variables show strong agreement with
traditional clinical interpretation, but that the results
also support the avoidance hypothesis since these indices
also reflect '”a dimunition in effort, articulation, and
detail". In short, for this set of. indices there is a
confounding of effects from task and situational sources of
anxiety.

The present study is concerned with separating the
effects of task and situational sources of anxiety. If
figure drawings are to be accurately interpreted within the
clinical setting, then the relative contributions to the
variance of drawing variables of each source must be studied

and understood. Traditionally, DAP researchers have

I07

concentrated their efforts on the task of examining the
effects of the task source to the exclusion of the
situational source. Thus, the remainder of this literature
survey will only be devoted to a review of all DAP studies
that provide information concerning the degree to which DAP
variables are sensitive to the anxiety producing
characteristics of the laboratory situation.

Three types of studies emerge from the DAP literature
that provide information on the degree of sensitivity to the
situational source of anxiety: reliability studies, factor
analytic studies, and situational manipulation studies..
Each of these areas will be reviewed in independent
subsections below. The number of potential drawing
variables that could be studied is immense, and therefore
must be limited for the sake of brevity. The review will be
limited to the set of variables that will be used in the
current study, i.e. Handler's (1967) figure drawing anxiety
indices. Following the review of the literature, an attempt
will be made in the final subsection to classify Handler's
indices into four heuristic categories that reflect degree
of sensitivity to situational sources of anxiety. This
attempt will be made based on the contributions of previous
DAP studies.

DAP Reliability Studies

Reliability studies serve as a possible source of

information about the degree of sensitivity of Handler's

108

(1967) figure drawing indices to external sources of
anxiety, because reliability estimates reflect the degree of
error variance in the indices. The anxiety producing
characteristics of the laboratory situation are likely to be
the most significant component of error variance for many of
the drawing indices. Therefore, comparisons of test-retest
reliability estimates of-a given variable obtained under
high and low anxiety producing testing conditions and under
cross situational conditions would provide an indication of
the degree to which index is sensitive. The studies that
are reviewed below have been separated into three types:
lnterrater, reliability, test-retest reliability, and

alternate forms (man-woman figures) reliability.

lnterrater reliability. Estimates of lnterrater
reliability for each of Handler's (1967) anxiety indices are
uniformly high. Handler (l96A) reported that lnterrater
reliabilities on a rough version of his scale ranged from
.67 to .97 with a median of .87. Handler (1967) also
reported two unpublished studies in which reliabilities
ranged from .79 to 1.00 with a median score of .88
(Jacobson, 1966 in Handler, 1967) and from .79 to 1.00 with
a median of .91 (Nordqulst, l966in Handler, 1967). In two
additional, independent studies using the Handler scales,
Attkinson, Waidler, Jeffrey, and Lambert (197A) found that
lnterrater reliabilities ranged from .71 to 1.00 with a

median of .90, and Roach (1981) found that they ranged from

109

.66 to .97 with a median of .90. Clearly, Handler's (1967)
anxiety indices are reliably scored by different raters.
This leads to the question of whether these indices are

stable over time.

Test-Retest reliability. Unfortunately, test-retest
reliability data are lacking on the Handler scales and in
the field in general. Only one study has been reported that
examined the test-retest reliability for variables that were
measured in a similar fasion to that suggested by Handler
(1967). Star and Marcuse (1959) examined test-retest
reliability for the following three groups: A) same
experimenter, tested one month apart, 8). different
experimenters tested one month apart, and C) same
experimenter, tested immediately afterward. All subjects
were tested in groups, and following the second drawing
session they were asked if they thought on the second
administration they were supposed to draw figures that were
as simmilar as possible, as dissimilar as possible, or that
it didn't matter. The only variables that were measured
that were related to Handler's scales were placement, body
size, and head:body ratio. Test-retest reliabilities across
all groups for these variables were

.A3, .52 and .52 for placement, size, and head:body
ratio, respectively. Unfortunately, test-retest
reliabilities were not reported for individual groups so

that the impact of conditions on the reliabilities could be

110

assessed. Out of 193 subjects, only 20 thought that they
should draw their second set of drawings similar to the
first se, while 5 subjects thought they should draw them
differently. The remaining 168 subjects thought that it did

not matter .

Alternate forms reliability. Two additional studies
offered results that are pertinant although they were not
direct assessments of test-retest reliability. Attkisson et
al (l97A) computed the correlations between male and female
drawings on Handler's (1967) measures as an approximation of
alternate forms reliability. They found that cross drawing
correlations for two raters on each index were: erasure
(.59,.67), shading (.65,.65), delineation line absence
(.53,.23), transparancy (.5A,.2A),hair shading (.37,.AA),
distortions (.78,.72), reinforcement (.6A,.A8), light and
heavy line (.65,.57), placement (.68,.68), omission
(.70,.68), size (.A7,.A3), head size (.5A,.5A), head:body
ratio (.51,.57). emphasis line (.32,.A6), line discontinuity
(.56,.60), head simplifi- cation (.7l,.66), and body
slmplificatldh (.58,.58), Attkisson et a1 (l97A) concluded
that the amount of shared variance was too low for the
drawings to be used interchan- geably.

Nichols and Strumpher (1962) estimated reliabilities
for their individual items for their factor analytic study
by scoring them as present or absent in the male and female

figures , and then computing the phi coefficients for the

111

items between drawings. They combined their college student
sample (tested in groups) with their VA sample
(normal-hospitalized, neurotic and schizophrenic inpatients
all tested individually). Thus, it is difficult to
determine the impact on reliabilities of level of anxiety
induced by the testing procedures. They reported the
following phi coefficients for the items that are of current
interest: erasure (.A6), shading (.31), delineation line
absence (.A5), vertical imbalance (.38), and transparancy
(.26). With the exception of vertical imbalance, these
cross drawing reliabilities are much lower than the
correlations reported by Attkisson et a1 (197A). This
probably reflects a restriction of range problem that
resulted from the 0-1 coding of items in the Nichols and
Strumpher (1962) study. Since Handler's scales use four
points instead of two, more information about the aspect
that is scored is retained in the rating and thus
correlations will tend to be higher.

In conclusion, the data on test-retest reliability are
quite meager, and thus no conclusions may be drawn about the
degree of sensitivity of variables to external sources of
anxiety. Clearly efforts must be directed toward examining
the stability of Handler's indices over time if validity
questions are to be answered.

Factor Analytic Studies

112

Factor analytic studies serve as a useful source of
information about the sensitivity of drawing indices to the
anxiety producing characteristics of the laboratory
situation if they include situational manipulations of the
conditions under which figure drawings are obtained. Under
these conditions, a factor might emerge that would reflect
sensitivity to external sources of anxiety.

Only two attempts have been made at examining the
factor structure of DAP measures (Nichols and Strumpher,
1962 and Adler, 1971). These studies have produced
surprizingly similar results despite differences in
methodology and in populations. Nichols and Strumpher
(1962) obtained male and female figure drawings from 107
male college students through group administration, and from
90 male VA patients (30 normal hospitalized, 30 inpatient
neurotics, and 30 inpatient schizophrenics) through
individual administration. Drawings were scored on all
scales that had previously appeared in the literature, e.g.
sexual differentiation, adjustment,' maturity, aggression,
and body image. They also scored the drawings for the
presence or absence of fourteen details some of which were
described above. Data from the total sample (VA and college
samples merged) and from the VA sample alone were factor
analyzed using a principle components method with
communalities estimated as the highest correlationin each

row, followed by varimax rotation. Four factors were

113

retained for both the total sample and the VA sample. The
first factor for the total sample accounted for most of the
common variance among drawing variables, and was described
as representing the dimension of drawing ability, i.e. the
ability to produce a life like human figure. Factors II and
IV appeared to be spurious factors that were artifacts of
the kind of items that were included. Factor III was a size
of figure factor that seemed to be related to artistic
quality since items from this factor also loaded slightly on
the first factor. This analysis failed to produce a factor
that reflected sensitivity to external sources of anxiety,
although one might have been expected to emerge given the
differences between methods of administration for the two
populations. The sample variable (VA versus College
student) did show a moderate loading on the artistic quality
factor which indicated better quality drawings by tHe
college students. This finding may have been due to
differences' in method of administration rather than
population although it is impossible to tell since these
variables are confounded.

For the VA sample Nichols and Strumpher (1962) decided
to use an oblique rotation. They found that the first
factor (Factor A) again accounted for a majority of the
common variance, and that it reflectd ability to draw a life
like human figure. Factor B was interpreted as a tendency

to draw big, bosomy figures; Factor C was interpreted as

11A

defensiveness and constriction (missing hands, hands behind
back,- vertical imbalance); and Factor D was a spurious
factor that did not reflect aspects of the drawing. Factor
B and C were bothe negatively correlated with A and showed a
mild positive correlation with each other.

In the second study, Adler (1971) obtained person and
opposite sex person figure drawings through individual
administration conditions from 216 consecutively admitted,
short term, psychiatric patients. The drawings were scored
for thirteen scales that reflected size deviation, placement
deviation, and other ”aspects of form level, detailing, and
individual differentiation.” The drawings were also scored
for the presence or absence of fourty additional items.
Twenty five of these were discarded due to low rate
agreement or low frequency of occurance (appearance in less
than five of two hundred cases). Adler used a principle
components method with unities in the diagonals followed by
a varimax rotation. Adler's (1971) findings clearly
replicated those of Nichols and Strumpher (1962) since he
retained four factors with the first factor accounting for
572 of the common variance. Adler (1971) argued that this
factor represented cognitive maturity or sophistication of
body concept since the loadings suggested the degree to
which the figure was a mature body representation. Factor
II was a size and placement factor that he said resembled

the size factor in the Nichols and Strumpher (1962) study.

115

Factor III was interpreted as representing “a disturbed
relationship between the discrete parts of the figure, a
failure in the integrative process." Factor IV seemed to
reflect a lack of motor control and/or concern about control
in execution of the drawing.

Taken together, thee studies are rather compelling
support for Adler's (1971) arguement that the DAP is a one
factor test that measures one aspect of cognitive maturity,
i.e. sophistication of body concept. However, several
methodological issues need to be addressed that may limit
the applicability of this conclusion.

The first issue concerns the manner in which the items
were scored in each study. Use of a dichotomous scoring
system limits the amount of useful information that can be
provided by scoring an item. It necessarily results in
restriction of range problems since normative base rates for
most of the items imposes ceiling effects when a two point
scale is used, i.e. many of the items would fail to
differentiate more than a few subjects from the norm if a
present/absent coding system is used. The restriction
problem then lowers the reliabilities of the items which
limits the pairwise correlations between items that were
then factor analyzed. Concequently, items scored on a pre-
sent/absent basis contributed relatively little to the fac-
tor scores, and this is confirmed since inspection of the

loadings shows that 2 point items showed much lower loadings

116

on all factors that scales that used three or more points in
both studies. If Handler's scales had been used, interltem
correlations probably would have been much higher, and the
factor structure would have been significantly altered with
greater variance accounted for by later factors. This
argue- ment is highly speculative, and it seems likely that
a “cog- nitive maturity" factor that accounted for a large
portion of the variance would emerge even if the items were
scored differently.

The second methodological question concerns the effect
of conditions of DAP administration on the variables, and
concequences for the factor analytic results. Both clinical
populations were tested individually with the administrator
present in both studies. Since Roach (1981) demonstrated
that normal subjects leave more impoverished and primitive
drawings when subjects are tested with an experimenter pre-
sent, it seems likely that the same effect could occur in a
clinical population, although this remains to be demonstra-
ted. If subjects from the clinical population did finish
quickly then they may have produced impoverished drawings
that lack articualation and detail upon which personality

interpretations may be reliably based. In short, under high

. .anxiety producing test administration conditions, the only

substantial source of variation left in figure drawings may
be for data that reflects sophistication of body concept

with other, richer sources of variation shorn from the fi-

117

gures due to the need to finish quickly ,e.g. the conflict
indicators of shading, erasure, reinforceement, etc. If
this arguement is correct, then the DAP should not be
adminis- tered unddr high anxiety producing conditions
unless a com- paratlve set of drawings is also obtained
under low anxiety producing conditions. It is unfortunate
that Nichols and Strumpher (1962) did not report a factor
analysis on the college sample alone since comparison of the
factor structures produced by college stu- dents tested in
low anxiety producing conditions and VA pa- tients tested in
high anxiety producing conditions might have confirmed or

disconfirmed this arguement.

Experimental Manipulation pi Situational Variables

Studies which manipulate laboratory testing conditions
and then assess the impact on drawing indices are probably
the most important sources for distinguishing between
variables that are sensitive to external sources of anxiety
and variables that are not. Not surprizing is the fact that
the primary contributors of these studies are Handler,
Reyher and there respective associates.

The seminal study was reported by Handler and Reyher
(l96A) which was briefly described above. In this study,
Handler and Reyher obtained male, female, and automobile
drawings from 57 males in high stress conditions (tested
individually, while attached to a polygraph, with the

experimenter present, in a laboratory) and low stress

118

conditions (tested in groups, with implied anonynity, in a
classroom). The automobile drawing is included in these
stddies as a relatively neutral comparison drawing. It has
been shown to be equally difficult to draw (Handler, 1963),
and to result in less sympathetic nervous system arousal
than human figure drawings (Handler and Reyher, 1966).
Handler and Reyher (196A) found that out of 21 drawing
indices, fifteen and eleven indices significantly
differentiated conditions for the male and female drawings
respectively. Only five of 17 indices significantly
differentiated conditions on the automobile drawing (four
indices were omitted due to a lack of correspondence with
human figures, e.g. hair shading). As was noted above,
they considered their pattern of findings to be supportive
of their hypothesis that manifestations of anxiety in human
figure drawings have two sources: the laboratory stress
situation, and the anxiety producing intrapsychic processes
that are activated by the task of drawing the human figure.
In an attempt to determine if demand characteristics
might account for Handler and Reyher's (l96A) findings, one
of Handler's students (Neidig, 1970, in Handler, 1967)
repeated his high and low stress manipulation, but also
included two control groups (instructed to fake anxiety
after seeing polygraph, and to fake anxiety without seeing
the polygraph). Significantly, more drawing indices

differentiated high from low stress conditions for the

119

experimental groups than for either control group. This was
judged to indicate that demand characteristics did not
produce Handler and Reyher's (I96A) results.

In an attempt to replicate and extend Handler and
Reyher's (l96A) findings, Roach (198l) evaluated the effects
of the experimenter's presence or absence during
administration, the sex of the experimenter, individual
experimenters (3 male, 3 female), and the sex of subject on
person, opposite sex person, and car drawings. Dependent
measures were fifteen of Handler's drawing indices, the time
taken to complete each drawing, and two measures of
sympathetic nervous system arousal (mean galvanic skin
resistance and frequency of galvanic skin responses). After
noting that Handler and Reyher (l96A) had confounded a
number of variables in their high stress/ low stress
manipulation, Roach (1981) hypothesized that the
experimenter's presence. was the most potent of the group
that Handler and Reyher had manipulated, and- that the
presence/ ~absence of the experimenter would replicate
Handler and Reyher's findings. This hypothesis received
strong support since out of 11 indices that had previously
discriminated between high and low stress conditions on at
least one drawing in the Handler and Reyher (l96A) study,
six, seven, and two indices significantly discriminated
between experimenter present and absent conditions for the

person, opposite sex person, and car drawings respectively.

120

Of the four indices that had not previously discriminated
between high and low stress conditions, all failed to
discriminate experimenter present from absent conditions in
the current study.

Roach (1981) also found that the amount of time spent
on all figure drawings was significantly less (A0 to 60
seconds per drawing) in the experimenter present than in the
absent condition. This finding combined with the
directional findings for the drawing variables gave strong
support to Handler and Reyher's (l96A) hypothesis that their
”findings indicate that the anxiety producing
characteristics of the task and/or situation may create a
desire to finish the figures with a minimum of effort and to
leave the situation

In general, the drawings were not affected by
individual experimenters, sex of experimenters, or sex of
subjects. Although the latter two variables did produce
some significant results, these findings are not pertinent
for the current discussion. The interested reader will find
them described in Roach $1981).

Handler and Reyher (1966) also produced a second major
study that provided interesting, relevant data. They were
primarily interested in examining whether the automobile
drawing served as a comparison figure for the human figures,
and found that their hypothesis was strongly confirmed.

Summed anxiety indices, frequency of galvanic skin

121

responses, and mean skin conductance significantly
differentiated man and woman figure drawings from the
automobile figure, but not from each other. Analysis of the
individual anxiety indices indicated that 13 of 18 indices
successfully differentiated both man and woman drawings from
the automobile drawing. One might expect that only
variables that were sensitive to external sources of anxiety
would fail to differentiate the drawings since all drawings
were obtained in individual administration, experimenter
present conditions, i.e. the strong situational effect
which occured for all three drawings would mask the effects
of the internal source of anxiety for those variables that
were highly sensitive to anxiety producing characteristics
of the situation. Of the five indices that failed to
differentiate the drawings, four had differentiated high
from low stress conditions in the Handler and Reyher (196A)
study on at least two out of three of the drawings (shading,
erasures, reinforcement, and emphasis lines). Only one of
these indices (large size) had not differentiated drawings
in the Handler and Reyher (l96A) study.

When evaluating the individual indices, Handler and
Reyher (1966) also examined adaptation effects for the
drawing indices. The order for the drawings was
counterbalanced so that an analysis of adaptation effects
independent of order was possible. They found that seven

indices showed adaptation that indicated decreasing anxiety

122

with time. One might predict that anxiety stimulated by the
task of drawing the human figure (task source) should remain
stable over time, and that anxiety stimulated by the
situation should decrease as time progresses. Concequently,
indices that previously descriminated high from low stress
conditions should show adaptation effects while indices that
failed to differentiate stress conditions should not. The
pattern of findings for adaptation effects supported this
hypothesis since six of seven indices that showed adaptation
effects (shading, hair shading, erasure, reinforcement,
emphasis lines and head simplification had previously
differentiated high from low stress conditions, while one-
(head size) had not,

One other analysis by Handler and Reyher (1966)
provides important information, i.e. their attempt to
correlate the skin responce frequency and mean conductance
measures with each drawing index for each drawing
separately. Only 15 of 138 correlations were significant at
the .05 level, and this was only slightly better than
chance. The significant correlations that were obtained
were uniformly low (.21 to .37). and thus not supportive of
a direct relationship between physiological measures of
arousal and drawing indices.

Five additional studies were located that examined the
impact of situational manipulations on figure drawing

performance. However, these studies did not use Handler's

123

scales. Cassel, Johnson, and Burns (1958) evaluated the
effect the experimenter's presence/ absence on the area (in
square inches) and on the number of "interpretable features”
of each drawing of the House-Tree-Person test. These
drawings were obtained from 130 white employment applicants
at a State College. They found significantly smaller person
drawings and significantly fewer interpretable features in
the person and house drawings. The decrease in area seems
contrary to the failure of size and head size to
discriminate high from low stress conditions in previous
studies (Handler and Reyher, l96A; Roach, 1981). This
indicates that adding an area measure to Handler's scales
might be beneficial since area may be sensitive to external
sources of anxiety although height is not.

Silverman (1966) evaluated the impact of different
experimenters and of experimenter attitude (tough or tender)
on figure drawing performance of high and low anxious
mentally impaired children. The Harris Quality Scales (a
measure of sophistication of body concept) were not affected
by the experimenter variables, but did differ between high
and low anxious children with better quality associated with
lower anxiety.

Ludwig (1969) used a pretest-posttest design with his
male adolescent subjects randomly assigned to experimental
and control groups. One month after the pretest, he had

confederates test these subjects on a variety of physical

12A

skills. Following their performance, experimental subjects
received negative feedback on their physical abilities,
while control subjects received no feedback. All subects
were immediately evaluated on the same measure as in the
first session. Dependent variables were self ratings of
physical skills, subjects ratings of the physical skills of
their person drawing, and judges ratings of the height,
athletic appearance, and affect of the subject's person
drawing. For the experimental group, they found significant
decreases in the self ratings of physical skills, and in the
height of the person drawing following negative feedback.
However, they also found an increase in the experimental
group's ratings of the physical skills of their person
drawing and in the athletic appearance of the drawing. The
control group showed no changes on any of the measures from
pretest to the post test. Ludwig (1969) concluded that the
decrease in self esteem concerning' physical skills was
reflected in a decrease in the height of the figure, but
that a defensive, compensatory mechanism resulted in
increases in athletic appaearance of the figure, and in
ratings of the physical skills of the figure by the
experimental subjects. The control subjects did not change
from the pretest to the post test. This study was difficult
to evaluate with regard to the current purposes since

multiple sources of anxiety were simultaneously manipulated.

125

As was mentioned above, Star and Marcuse (1959)
compared three groups to determine if different
experimenters or if the length of time between testing
sessions (immediate versus one month) would affect DAP
performance. No differences between groups were found.
Since the DAP was administered in groups, it seems likely
that the test of whether different experimenters would
produce different results was not a fair one.

Holtzman (I952) evaluated the impact of different
experimenters, sex of experimenter, and sex of subject on
size, head size, head:body ratio, vertical imbalance, and
placement. None of these variables were effected by the
independent variables. The findings of Star and Marcuse
(1959) and Holtzman (1952) concerning the impact of
different experimenters is consistent with findings by Roach
(1981) who failed to find any differences between six
experimenters (3 males and 3 females).

Classification 9: Drawing indices

The development of a rough, heuristic classification
scheme that reflects the degree of sensitivity of the
drawing indices to the anxiety producing characteristics of
a laboratory situation is possible based on a careful
analysis of past results. Roach (1981) suggested that the
degree of sensitivity of drawing indices to task and

situational sources of anxiety was apparent through

126

inspections of the pattern of differences between drawings
obtained in high and low stress conditions across all three
drawings. He argued that drawing indices that
differentiated high from low stress conditions on all three
drawings were primarily sensitive to external sources of
anxiety, and that drawing indices that differentiated the
conditions for only the human figures were primarily
sensitive to the task source of anxiety. Based upon this
crude classification system, his first hypothesis stated
that drawing indices considered to be primarily sensitive to
external sources would differentiate experimenter present
from absent conditions for all possible drawings. This
hypothesis was strongly supported since thirteen of fifteen
specific, directional predictions were confirmed. His
second hypothesis stated that drawing indices that were
considered to be primarily sensitive to the task source of
anxiety would differentiate the experimenter present from
absent condition on the human figure drawings only. This
hypothesis received mild support since two of four predicted
findings were obtained while the two vairiables did not
differentiate conditions on the car drawing. This result is
not of great concern since one would expect fluctuations in
error variance to mask occasionally the effects of external
sources when these effects are not strong. Finally,
inspection of Roach's (1981) results indicate that all of

the variables that were left unclassified failed to

127

differentiate experimenter present from absent categories
for all three drawings.

The heuristic classification scheme that is proposed
for for the current study is based on the combined results
of Handler and Reyher (196A) and Roach (1981). The major
difference between the current scheme and the one used by
Roach (1981) is that the current scheme is based only upon
sensitivity to the anxiety producing characteristics of the
situation rather than attempting to match indices with
sources of anxiety. This modification was made because of
the realization that drawing lndices that differentiated
high from low stress conditions for any of the drawings must
be considered to be sensitive to the situational source.
Thus, Roach (1981) was in error when he labeled his second
group of indices "primarily sensitive to the intrapsychic
source of anxiety“, because the group was obviously
sensitive to the situational source as well. Therefore, the
current attempt represents an effort at conceptualizing the
sources as independent of each other, and thus focusing on
ordering the indices in terms of their sensitivity to one of
the sources.

Based upon the combined results of Roach (1981) and
Handler and Reyher (l96A), Handler's (1967) indices may

classified into the following categories:

1. The Primarily Sensitive indices are those indices
that previously differentiated high from low stress

128

conditions on all three drawings. The indices that
meet this critereon are shading, erasure,
delineation line absence, and body simplification.
Measures of hair shading and head simplification on
the car drawing are not possible, but these indices
are included in this category becauase of their
similarity to shading and body simplification and
because they differentiated conditions for both
human figure drawings.

2. The Moderately Sensitive indices are those indices
that differentiated high from low stress conditions
on two of three figure drawings. indices that meet
this critereon are reinforcement, emphasis line,

light and heavy line, vertical imbalance,
distortion, and omission. With the exception of
omission, all of these indices' differentiated

conditions on person drawings only. Omission is
only tentatively placed in this category since it
failed to differentiate experimenter present from
experimenter absent conditions in the Roach (1981)
study.

3. The Mildly Sensitive indices are those indices that
differentiated stress conditions on one drawing.
indices that meet this critereon are placement and
line discontinuity. Both indices differentiated
conditions for the first drawing only (Man) in the
Handler and Reyher (l96A) study, which suggests
that they may reflect a combined effect of the
novelty of the situation and the stress
characteristics of the situation. None of the
variables in this category differentiated
experimenter present from absent conditions in the
Roach (1981) study.

A. The lnsensitive indices are those indices that have
not differentiated high from low stress conditions
in the past. indices that meet this critereon are
length, head size, head:body ratio, and
transparancy. Due to their similarity to length,
both width, and area are included in this category
for the current study.

The dimension that seems to underly this categorization

system is the extent to which the drawing behavior that is

129

measured by an index is crucial to meeting minimal task
requirements. For example, size and placement cannot be
omitted by subjects unless they refuse to do the task. In
contrast erasures and shading are easily discarded in haste.
This proposition is essentially a restatement of Handler and
Reyher's (196A) hypothesis concerning decreases in the
elaboration, articulation and detail of drawings when
subjects finish quickly in order to leave a situation that

induces anxiety.

130

REFERENCES

Adler, P.T. Evaluation of the figure drawing technique:
reliability, factoral ostructure, and diagnostic
usefulness. Journal pi Consulting ppp Clinical
Psychology, 1970, 35, 52-57.

Attkinson, C. C., Waidler, V. J., Jeffrey, P. M., and
Lambert, W. E. lnterrater reliability of the
Handler Draw-a-Person Scoring. Perceptual and
m §£l_l.l_§. 1971+. 3d. 567-573.

Cassell, R. H., Johnson, A., and Burns, W. H. Examiner,
ego-defense, and the H-T-P test. Journal pi
Clinical Psychology, 1958, 15, 157-160.

Handler, L. Anxiety indices in the Draw a Person test: A
scoring manual. Journal pi Prpjective Technigues
ppp Personaliiy Assessment, 1967, 31, A6-57.

Handler, L. and Reyher, J. The effcts of stress on the
Draw a Person test. Journal pi Consulting
Psychology, 196A, 38, 259-26A.

Handler. L. and Reyher, J. Figure drawing anxiety indices:
A review of the literature. Journal pi Projective
Technigues ppp Personality Assessment, 1965, 29,
305'313.

Handler, L. and Reyher, J. The relationship between GSR
and anxiety indices in projective drawings.

Journal pi Consulting Psychology, 1966, 39, 60-67.

Holtzman,.tt W. H. The examiner as a variable in the Draw

131

a Person test. Journal‘pi Consulting Psychology, 1952, 15,

1A5-1A8.

Lubin, B,Wallis, R. R., and Paine, C. Patterns of
psychological test usage in the United States:
1935-1969. Professional Psychology, 1971, ;,
'70-7A.

Nichols, R. C. and Strumpher, D. J. A factor analysis of
Draw a Person test scores. Journal pi Consulting
Psychology, 1962, pp, 156-161.

Roach, J.P. The effect of an experimenter's presence during
administration of the Draw a Person test.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State
University, 1981.

Roback, H. 8. Human figure drawings: their utility in the
clinical psychologist's Armamentarium for
personality assessment. Psychological Bulletin,
1968, 19, 1-19.

Silverstein, A. 8. Anxiety and the quality of human figure
drawings. American Journal pi Mental Deficiency,
1966, 19, 607-608.

Star, A. and Marcuse, B. Reliability in the Draw a Person
test. Journal pi Projective Technigues, 1959, 23,
83-86.

Swenson, C. H. Jr. Empiracal evaluation of human figure

drawings. Psychological Bulletin, 1957, 55,
A31-A66.

132

Swenson, C. H. Jr. Empiracal evaluation of human figure

drawings. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 19, 1-19.

APPENDIX C

133

Appendix C describes the scales that were used in
rating the car figure drawing. An attempt was made to
develop rating scales for the car figure drawing that
correspond as closely as possible to Handler's (1967) scales
for rating the human figure. A close correspondence was
obtained for ten of the drawing indices, while only a rough
correspondence was achieved for the remaining six indices.
The close correspondence was possible for shading, erasure,
reinforcement, light and heavy line, transparancy, vertical
imbalance, line discontinuity, length, width, and area,
because these indices may be rated without consideration of
the content of the drawing, i.e. human versus car. For
example, the type of figure that is drawn is irrelevant when
rating line discontinuities. The rater simply counts the
number of breaks in the figure's exterior surface, and then
assigns a rating. The issue of whether the figure is a car
or a human is irrelevant to the completion of the rating.

In contrast, the development of corresponding scales
for the car figure that measure omission, body
simplification, delineation line absence, emphasis line, and
distortion was a difficult task because the method used to
rate each of these indices was dependent upon the nature of
the drawing that was rated. For example, the delineation
line absence index requires that raters count the number of
delineation lines that were absent for each figure drawing.

For human figures, “delineation lines" are lines that

13A

indicate: 1) sleeve cuffs or arm holes, 2) neckline, 3)
beltline, and A) pants cuffs or hemline of a skirt.
”delineation linesD are lines that indicate: 1) the presence
of a window, 2) the presence of a car door, 3)a connection
between the tires and the body of the car, and A) the
presence of hubcaps. In this example, the "delineation
lines are roughly related because they internally separate
parts of the figure. However, the parts that they separate
differ in terms of content, e.g. a human head does not
correspond well with a car window.

A second problem in the construction of analogous
scales occured for human figure drawings that require the
figure to be separated into parts. Handler (1967) divides
the body into the following areas: 1) head, (including
facial features), 2) neck, 3) one or both hands, A) one or
both feet, 5) one or both legs, 6) one or both arms, and 7)
the trunk. Roach (1981) used a system that divided the car
into the following five distinctive areas: 1) the area
forward of a vertical line drawn tangentially to the front
edge of the front tire (typically this area includes the
front bumper, head lights, grill, and part of the hood), 2)
the area backward of the vertical line drawn tangentially to
the back edge of the back tire (this area typically includes
the back bumper, tail pipe, tail lights, and part of the car
trunk), 3) the area above a horizontal line that is drawn

between the point where the windshield meets the hood, and

135

the point where the back window meets the trunk (this area
typically includes all windows and the roof), A) one or both
tires, and 5) the remainder of the car. Roach (1981) noted
that division of the car into smaller areas did not add
additional precision to the measurement process.

Each scale is described below. Following the
presentation of each scale, concerns about the
corresppondence of the scale with the human figure scale

will be discussed.

I. Shading

Shading within any of the five previously defined car
areas is scored. A design, emblem,. ar any consistent
pattern of lines (e.g.. cross hatching) is scored as
shading. Exhaust smoke is also scored as shading.

Score 0 when there is no shading present.

Score 1 when there is shading on one of the car areas.

Score 2 when there is shading on two of the car areas.

Score 3 when three or more car areas have been shaded.
Correspondence Concerns: Human figures may receive slightly
higher scores because the human figures are separated into
more areas (7) than the car figure (5). However, since a
rating of three is assigned to three or more areas that are
shaded, the differences between drawings in the number of
areas that are counted are less likely to have an impact

since a ceiling is imposed.

136
II. Erasure

An erasure on any of the five previously defined car
areas is scored.
Score 0 when there are no erasures on the car figure.
Score 1 when there is an erasure on one of the car
areas.
Score 2 when there is an erasure on any two car areas.
Score 3 when three or more car areas have an erasure
present.
Correspondence Concerns: As with shading, human figures may
receive slightly higher ratings due to differences in the
number of potential areas to rate. However the ceiling
imposed by regrouping the the upper ranges into three and

above should reduce differences.
III. Reinforcement

Reinforcement consists of the retracing of lines, i.e.
lines that have been redrawn or gone over. This does not
include shading. Some subjects habitually draw using a
sketchy line. If most of the drawing is sketchy, then
reinforcement should not be scored. Also, lines that have
been erased and redrawn should not be scored as
reinforcement.

Score 0 when less than a quarter of the figure is
reinforced.

Score 1 when approximately a quarter of the figure is

137

reinforced.

Score 2 when approximately half of the figure is
reinforced.

Score 3 when approximately three quarters or more of the

figure is reinforced.

Correspondence Concerns: None

IV Light and Heavy Line

The quality of line of a drawing is scored according to
the predominant (more than half of the figure) type of line
that is used. In the current study, a concrete scale
representing each point described by Handler (1967) was
developed by drawing a series of seven lines that range form
very light to very dark. This scale was then used by the
raters to assign ratings by matching a representative
portion of line in the figure with the line on the scale
that matched it most closely. The same procedure was used
to rate the human figures. A second difference from
Handler's (I967) procedures for rating light and heavy line
was the use of a _monotonic scale in the current study
instead of assigning higher values to deviations from the
middle of the range. The current scale assigns higher
values to increasingly darker lines.

Score 0 when the line quality is predominantly
light-light.

Score 1 when the line quality is predominantly light.

138

Score 2 when the line quality is predominantly
medium-light.

Score 3 when the line quality is predominantly medium.

Score A when the line quality is predominantly
medium-heavy.

Score 5 when the line quality is predominantly heavy.

Score 6 when the line quality is predominantly
heavy-heavy.

Correspondence Concerns: None.

V. Placement

A transparent overlay that is divided into four equal
sized quadrants is placed on top of the car figure drawing.
The drawing receives points depending upon where the figure
,lies in relation to the vertical and horizontal axes. For
the vertical axis, the car figure receives 0 points if the
vertical axis passes entirely between both tires, 1 point if
it touches either tire, 2 points if it falls outside of the
tires but still passes through the car, and 3 points if it
does not intersect the car. For the horizontal axis, the
car figure receives 0 points if it passes between line A
(the line that separates the window and roof from the car
body) and line B (the line that runs along the bottom of the
car), 1 point if it passes above line A or below line 8
while still intersecting part of the car, and 2 points if it

does not intersect the car at any point. These points are

l39

summed for the two axes.

Score 0 for zero points.

Score 1 for one point.

Score 2 for two points.

Score 3 for three or more points.
Corresppndence Concerns: The method for rating the placement
for the car figure differs in several important ways fnom
the scale used in rating the human figures. These
differences may affect the correspondence between the
scales. The length of the car figure tends to be stretched
along the horizontal axis while the length of human figures
tends to be stretched along the vertical axis. If placement
deviations tend to occur more upon one axis than the other,
then the deviations are more likely to be picked up by one
scale than the other. For example, if placement deviations
occur more frequently along the horizontal axis than the
vertical axis, then the car scale will be less likely to
pick up placement deviations because its length is stretched
horizontally while the human figures width is extended
horizontally. There is more space for a deviation from the
vertical axis for the human figure, because the width of the

figure takes up less space than the length of the car.

VI. Omission
Score if there is an omission of any essential car area
or when the figure is placed so that one or more essential

car body areas has been cut off by the edge of the paper

1A0

(paper chopping). Essential car body areas are: 1) front
and back bumpers, 2) headlights, 3) door handle, A) door
outline, 5) window outline, 6) one or both tires, and 7) one
or both hubcaps.

Score 0 when there are no omissions.

Score 1 when a car body part is omitted.

Score 2 when two car body parts are omitted.

Score 3 when three or more car body parts are omitted.
Correspondence Concerns: The correspondence for omissions
between car and human figures is rough. First, the number
of "essential areas" for the car (7) is fewer than than for
the human figures (13 if each favial feature is cobnted).
Second, the ambiguous nature of the phrase “essential“
leaves open to question whether each of the areas listed for
the car is essential. An attempt was made to include only
'features of the car that occured in more than half of the
figures drawn. However, that criterion may have been too
lenient to qualify for the status of ”essential". If
non-essential areas of the car were included in the list,
then the omission score for cars is likely to be higher than

for the human figures.
VII. Transparancy

Transparancy is scored when part of the car body that
normally is not visable due to the structure of the

automobile is visable in the drawing (e.g. when a tire

1A1

shows through a fender).
Score 0 when there are no transparancies.
Score 1 when there is one transparancy.
Score 2 when there are two transparancies.
Score 3 when there are three or more transparancies.

Correspondence Concerns: None.
VIII. Delineation Line Absence

This index refers to the absence of lines that separate
the interior body space into parts. An extreme case is a
car that is merely an outline or shell. THe car figure was
'scored for the presence of the following: 1) at least one
vertical line that delineates a window, 2) at least two
vertical lines that delineate a car door, 3) the presence of
a circle that indicates a hubcap, and A) the presence of
lines that connect the tires to the car body. .

Score 0 when no delineation lines are absent.

Score 1 when one of the delineation lines is absent.

Score 2 when two of the delineation lines are absent.

Score 3 when three or more delineation lines are absent.
Correspondence Concerns: The delineation lines for the car
corresponds only roughly with the delineation lines for the
human figures. Both sets separate the outside shell of the
figure into different parts. However, the parts that they

separate do not correspond across drawings. Consequently,

it is difficult to determine whether each type of

1A2

delineation line considered in each drawing is important for
producing a well drawn figure. A second problem is similar
to the difficulty discussed for omission. If one of the
delineation lines for the car occurs reletively infrequently

in drawings, then the scotre is likely to be inflated.
IX. Vertical Imbalance

The angle formed by the bottom edge of a protractor
which was parallel to the horizontal edge of the paper, and
a line which passed along the bottom of the car was
measured. The number of degrees that deviated from the 0
degree mark was counted.

Score 0 when the figure has less than a two degree
deviation.

Score 1 when the figure has a deviation between 2 and
1/2 and 8 and 1/2 degrees.

Score 2 when the figure has a deviation between 9 and 17
degrees.

Score 3 when the figure has a deviation that is 17 and
1/2 degrees or greater.

Correspondence Concerns: None.
X; Emphasis Lines

Emphasis line refers to a line or series of lines that
are drawn to give the car figure a three dimensional

quality. An attempt to create a three dimensional quality

1A3

for the car figure might take the form of a) a bumper that
curves around the car, b) a display of the top of the hood,
roof, or trunk, c) a display of two sides of the tire, and
d) display of features inside the car such as a steering
wheel or car seats that give the appearance of depth.

Score 0 when no emphasis lines are present.

Score 1 when one or two attempts are made to indicate

depth.
Score 2 when three attempts are made to indicate depth.
Score 3 when four or more attempts are made to indicate
- depth.

Correspondence Concerns: The correspondence between human
and car figures is likely to be quite rough for emphasis
line. in addition to measuring attempts at indicating three
dimensional space, the human figure scale also measures
attempts to emphasize specific body areas. Since similar
attempts rarely occur on the car figure, that aspect of the
.drawing was not included in the scale for car drawings. A
second difference lies in the greater ease with which a
subject may indicate depth for the car than for the' human
figure. Car figuures tend to be in the shape of rectangles
which have smooth flat surfaces and sharp distinct angles.
Relatively, little skill is required to transform a
rectangle into a box. Most subjects are able to do it with
ease as was demonstrated by their drawings of a rectangle

and a box in the geometrical figure warm up task. In

1AA

contrast, the shape of the human figure is irregular,
rounded, and lacks sharp, distinct angles. Creating a sense
of depth in the human figure is a more complex task; one
that requires artistic skill and/or training. Thus due to
the nature of the shapes of each figure, the car is more

likely to be given a three dimensional quality.
XI. Line Discontinuity

Line discontinuity refers to the frequency of broken
lines used in the drawing, and to the spaces left between
various body parts. Carefull inspection is required,
because body parts may appear to be unconnected when a
connection is present. A line discontinuity is scored if it
is possible to go from the outside of the car body wall to
the inside space of the figure without crossing an exterior
body line. Special care must be exercised when the drawing
is completed with sketchy line. Close inspection is
required to insure that a light line is not crossed
accidentally.

Score 0 when there are three or less line
discontinuities.

Score 1 when there are four or five line
discontinuities.

Score 2 when there are six, seven, or eight line
discontinuities.

Score 3 when there are nine or more line

1A5

discontinuities.

Correspondence Concerns: None.
XII. Distortion

This index refers to either size (proportion)
distortion, or to oddly shaped car body parts. Some of the
features of the car that were considered when making the
distortion rating were the following: 1) the size of the
tires in relation to the car body, 2) the shape of the
tires, 3) the length of the car in relation to the width
(height), A) the size of the window and roof area in
relation to the remainder of the car body, and 5) the length
of the front of the car in relation to the length of the
back of the car.

Score 0 when the drawing is well proportioned, and when
the body parts are not oddly shaped.

Score 1 when one or two body parts are out of
proportion, but not to any great extent, or if
one or two body parts are oddly shaped

Score 2 when approximately half of the drawing is out of
proportion and/or oddly shaped.

Score 3 when more than half of the figure is out of
proportion or oddly shaped.

Correspondence Concerns: For both the human and car figure
drawings a well proportioned (0) or poorly proportioned (3)

figure is easy to discern. The lack of correspondence is

1A6

likely to occur for mildly (l) and moderately (2)
disproportionate figures, because the greatest amount of
judgement is required to make the distinction. It is
impossible to know if the correspondence is close for the
middle points because formal, explicit criterea for rating
the proportionality of each figure is lacking. A second
problem is similar to the difficulty described for rating
emphasis line. Drawing the human figure proportionally is
probably a more difficult task than drawing the car
proportionally, because the human figure is composed of more
complex shapes than the car. Thus, the distortion score for
human figures may be inflated due to the difficulty of the

task rather than in response to drawing the human anatomy.
XIII. Body Simplification

This index represents an “accuracy“ or “developmental"
score that corresponds roughly to the construct measured by
the Goodenough-Harris Draw a Man test. It should not be
confused with distortion which is strictly a proportionality
measure.

Score 0 when the car is: (a) well proportioned, (b)
three dimensional,' and (c) appropriately
rounded.

Score 1 when the car is: (a) moderately well
proportioned, (b) appropriately rounded, but (c)

represented as a two dimensional figure.

1A7

Score 2 when the car is: (a) not well proportioned (b)
not appropriately rounded, (c) has a semi-circle
as a representation of the window and roof area,
and/or (d) is still an approximation of a real
car.

Score 3 when the shape of the car is primitive
(rectangle, square, or circle), bizarre, or
amorphous.

Correspondence Concerns: As with distortion, both a highly
simplistic figure (3) and a highly sophisticated figure (0)
are easy to rate for the human and car drawings. The
correspondence for the mildly (l) and moderately (2)
simplistic categories between car and human figures is more
difficult to estimate, because of the lack of clarity
concerning how many features represent a mild versus
moderate distinction. Fortunately, the criterea for car and
human figures is provided and incorporated into each scale.
The criterea suggest that "accuracy” is roughly measured by

each scale.
XIV. Length

Car length was measured by placing an axis line along
the bottom of the car figure. Perpendicular lines were
extended from the axis line to the farthest points' to the
left and right of the car. The distance between these lines

was measured to the nearest l/16th of an inch.unlike

1A8

Handler's (1967) scale for the human figure, the
measurements that were obtained were not reduced to a four
point scale. Measurements were left in the original form
(l/l6th of an inch) for both human and car figures, because
increased specificity of the data was prefered. A second
difference from Handler's (I967) scales was that his
decision. to assign higher ratings to deviations from the
middle range was abandoned. .A monotonic scale in which
larger numbers represent greater length was prefered.

Correspondence Concerns: The length of the car (horizontal
axis) was compared to the length of the human figures
(vertical axis). For both types of drawings, the length
represented the largest measurement, and the width
represented the smallest measurement. This type of

comparison ignores the content of the drawing, but seems to

be the most reasonable comparison available.
XV. Width

The width of the figure is measured by placing a line
tangential t9. the bottom of both tires, and constructing a
perpendicular axis at the midpoint between the tires. A
line that is perpendicular to the axis was drawn between the
axis and the highest point on the roof of the car. The
distance between the two parallel lines was then measured to
the mearest l/l6th of an inch. As with length, the

measurements were left in their original form, i.e. a

11,9

monotonic scale measured in l/l6ths of an inch.

Correspondence Concerns: The width of the car (i.e.height)
was compared with the width of the human figure. This
comparison is only reasonable if the content of the drawing
is considered unimportant. The wisdom of that approach

seems somewhat dubious. However, better alternatives are

not available.
XVI. Area

The area is computed by multiplying the length of the
car by the width of the car. The product represents the
number of square inches used by an individual if a rectangle
were drawn around the figure.

Correspondence Concerns: The area of the human and car
figures correspond closely with one exception. The area
measurement represents the area within the rectangle drawn
around the figure, not the area within the exterior boundary
of the figure. The boundaries of the car are likely to
include more of the space within the rectangle than the
boundaries of the human figure, particularly if the arms of
the human figure are extended. If the actual area within
body boundaries is desired, then the method described above
will tend to overestimate the area within the human figures

far more than for the car figure.

APPENDIX D

150

Appendix D contains the debriefing questionnaire, the items
that were coded from the open ended questions, and a description
of the procedures that were used to construct the seven subscales
that were used in the current study. These topics will be
presented in order.

Debriefing guestionnaire

INSTRUCTIONS: For this study, it is important that you answer each
question with complete honesty so that we can learn
what people experience while they draw. Please
answer each question in the order given without
reading ahead.

I. What was the purpose of this experiment? Please be as

detailed as possible.

2. Please describe the thoughts and feelings that you experienced

while drawing. Please be as detailed as possible.

3. Have you ever taken a drawing course or had drawing lessons?
Yes (1) NO (2)
A. Do you like to draw?
Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3)
5. Do you like to draw or ”doodle“ very often?
Often (1) Sometimes (2) Rarely (3)
6. How often do you draw for more than 20 minutes at a time?
Once a year (1) Once a month (2) Once a week (3)

7 How seriously did you take the instructions today?

Very

151

(I) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

8. How hard did you try to draw well?

Very

9. Were

(1) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

you pleased with what you drew?

A) Man- Very (l) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

8) Woman- Very (l) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

C) Car- Very (l) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

10. Did you feel nervous or anxious while you were drawing?

Very
11. Were
Very

12. Were

(l) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)
you distracted by anything while you were drawing?
(1) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)

you concerned that the experimenter would evaluate you

negatively?

Very (l) Moderately (2) Somewhat (3) Not at All (A)
Ten Coded Items from the Open-Ended Questions

Subject suggested that the purpose of the study involved
comparison of the drawings.

Subject suggested that the purpose of the study involved
comparison of experimenter present and absen conditions.

Subject suggested that the purpose of the study involved
assessment of how much time was spent drawing.

Subject suggested that the purpose of the study involved
assessment of the amount of detail and/or effort put into
the drawing.

Subject suggested that the purpose of the study involved
assessment of the subjects personality.

Subject demeaned either his drawing or his drawing
ability.

Subject expressed concern about being evaluated or

152

mentioned the experimenter's presence.

8. Subject mentions experiencing a negative affect such as
anxiety, nervousness, irritation, or frustration.

9. Subject mentions experiencing a positive affect such as
calmness or enjoyment.

10. Subject demeans the study.
Procedures for Scale Formation

Seven scales were constructed from the open-ended and forced
choice items. These were I) artistic experience (AE), 2) effort
(E), 3) self evaluation of drawing efforts (SE), A) affect (A), 5)
distraction (D), 6) evaluation apprehension (EA), and 7)
understanding of the experimental purposes (UP). Forced choice
items are labeled "F-n” with n equal to the number of the question
that is listed above. Open-ended items are labeled "O-n'l with n
equal to the number of the item listed in the preceding section.
For the open-ended items, a yes response was coded as a "l”, and a
”no” response was coded as a “A“. These values were selected to
correspond with the extreme values of the corresponding forced

choice items. The formulas that were used to construct these

scales were:

1. Artistic Experience = F3+FA+F5+F6
2. Effort - F7+F8

3. Self Evaluation - F9a+F9b+F9c+O6
A. Affect 3 FIG-08+09

5. Distraction - Fll

6. Evaluation Apprehension c F12-O7

153

7. Understands Purpose - Ol+03
All of the forced choice questions were used within one of the
scales. Four of the open-ended items were not used; two of the
items (0A and 05) had very poor lnterrater reliability, and two of
the items (02 and 010) occured too infrequently (less than five

percent in the total sample) to be useful.

APPENDIX E

15A

Multiple Groups Analysis

for the Man‘Drawing

Original Hypothesized Groupings

Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total

Index Number
Shading l
Erasure 2
Del. Line Abs. 3
Body Simp. A

Distortion 5
Emphasis Line 6
Reinforcement 7
Lt./Hv. Line 8
Vert. Imbal. 9
Omission 10
Placement 11
Line Disc. 12

Length 13
Width IA
Area 15

Transparancy 16

High 21
Moderate 22
Mild 23

lnsensitive 2A
Present/Abs. 31
Time Al

corrected for overlap.

155

1.1667.969563.30 .1359. .A672.90
A.AA22.333..2.11.1111. .5A12.10

“....u... .u.." n“...”.1
1.0099.A19738.11.9855. .6622.09
3.23 .2 .... 11.. .21.1.01

. . . . . . .1.

. . . . . . .
A.A65A.00A603.96.9623. .3590.22
2.1111.132.1..32.8893. .22.0.12

"....u... . n. u u "..1“
3.7302.220A81.77.0182. .5109.2.I
2.222..1 2....66.11. . .2.0...1

u n. . ... u n i n .
2.195A.8A39A8.01.A79A. .9015.66
2.2135.666AA3.11.312 . .A0.2.1A

“ n u u . .. L .
1.2209.568037.95.7525. .0953.6A
2.7675.3A21 3.2 .212.. .0A22.25

. . . .... . .1 .. .

. . . . . . .
6.1276.962851.58.8630. .5A20.59
1.1.. .. .. . ..0. .. ..1

u. u u u 1" u "
5.06A7.756031.5A.6303. .298A.55
1.1111..3211..32.890.. .22.8.11

"....“ .....u. n 1 n u.. "
A.00A5.25972A.27.2036. .5712.83
1.12... 21.1 .31.,709.. .1117.11

u.. n .. . u. u 1 u u... "
3.0217.577093.A0.0268. .7A07.97
1.1122.1321.1.A3.078 . .2317. 1

..............l ......

. . . . . . .
2.7701.755038.90.07A8. .5196.10
1.1 1..1111...0.312. .1.2..1

. . . 1. . n . n .

. . . . .
1.9A67.082527.09.A255. .9099.13
1.122.111 .0..A33.. .21.3..l

. .. .1 .... . . .. .
r. . . . . . .
e.123A.56./890.12.3A56. .123A.11
b. . 1.11.1111.s.2222.3A
m. . . . .r. .

. P. e e .tc. .a. .
N. em. ncnbn.ns. r.V. e .s

.gen.l.t.lr.lm0.e.l. a... t ...D
..nriS.rLoLIi.wD.h 0...... a s.A
x.iuL .o f 5. .th 8.0.. r n./
e.ds.Y.t.nnets.ce.9tan.u.hede.se
d.aald.spitri.an.ndea.o.9dls.em
n.hreo..lme.lem.li.e.lrr.r..IO.ln.r.I
I.SEDB.DERLV .PL.LWAT.G.HMMI..PT

156

Multiple Groups Analysis
for the Woman Drawing
Original Hypothesized Groupings

. Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total corrected for overlap.

Index Number: 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 IO
Shading 1 100 13 A1 11 22 26 25 19 1 31
Erasure 2 13 100 32 10 21 15 ,21 -15 7 1A
Del. Line Abs. 3 A1 32 100 31 31 32 20 5 0 18
Body Simp. A 11 1o 31 100 62 55 31 1 7 21
Distortion ‘ 5 22 21 31 62 100 AS 35 8 13 8
Emphasis Line 6 26 15 32 55 A5 100 3A 1A -A 18
Reinforcement 7 25 21 20 31 35 3A 100 13 5 6
Lt./Hv. Line 8 19 -15 5 1 8 1A 13 100 A 0
Vert. Imbal. 9 l 7 O 7 13 -A 5 A 100 9
Omission 10 31 1A 18 21 8 l8 6 0 9 100

Placement 11
Line Disc. 12

Length 13 -6 -23 -23 -35 -2A -31 -25 -16 6 -l3
Wldth 1A '6 '19 -16 ’22 ’9 ’26 '11 '22 '8 '16
Area 15 -5 '20 '17 “29 '16 '28 '1A '23 '3 '11

High 21 31 25 5A 2A 53 A9 37 A 6 32
Moderate 22 39 20 33 56 A1 A0 3A 13 9 1A
Mild 23 21 12 7 -10 -1 17 15 0 -3 0

lnsensitive 2A

Present/Abs. 31
Time

157

1 . 9296 . 973376. 20. 01451. .991A . 50
A.3A21.23A1.2.22.222 . .AA32.20

n....u.... .a.." n u... “.1
l . 382A . 1731453. 314 . 2332. .2358 . 05
3.211 .2111 . .1111. .22 .02

. . . . .. . .1.

. . . .. . . .
I4.9895.692722.89.6039. .7A10.814
2. .112.1222.1.A1.8992. .2320. 2

n ...n.... .n. n n “...1u
3.1270.175030.99.1093. .1901.51
2.21 l..11 . .66.12ll. .1 02. 3

n .u “ “...." u l." .
2.9036.65130A.63.2909. .709A.39
2.3235.666AAA.1..323.. .50 3.2.4

L L L L L .. L .
l.AOBB . 3971462 . 93...“...“73. .0717. 29
2.6675.5A3 3.1. .322 . .0512.2nu.

. . . .... . .1 .. .

. . . . . . .
6.1801. 22A91A.6l.51u.30. .3931“ . 21
1.1 1. .11. ..1....0. . .1..1

L. L .. L .L 1L L . L.
5. 5079.68A331. 59. 7503. .7096 . 35
1..212.1212.1.A1.890.. .2318.12

” ...u.... ..u. u 1 u n... ”
14.6962. 961286. 91 .7051“. .1.-.909. 31...
1..112..212.1.A2.709.. .2227.12

" ...” ... .n. n 1 u n... “
3.6335.A15663.38.0775. .A213.20
l..223.2321 l.A2.078.. .3317.12

. ........ ... .1 . .... .

. . . . . . .
2.9152.338AA0.A0.8191. .33A9.A0
1.1..2.. 1. ..0.2211. ....1. 2

L L . L .L L L L .
l . 17147. 213.“.00 . 0A . 3956. .96A8 . 32
1.111 . 211 .0..AAA.. .11.A. 2

. . .1 .... . . .. .
r. . . . . . .

e. . . . . . .
b.123A.56./890.12.3A56. .123A.11
m. . 1.11.1111.s.2222.3A

. . . . .r. .
N. P. e e. .tc. .a. .

. em. "Chbn.n5. r.V. e .S
.9eni.tirimo.ei. a... t ..b
..nr.I$.rLOLl.I.mD.h 0...... a 8.x»
x..IuL .o f 5. .th S.P. r n./
e.ds Y.thnets.ce.9tan.u.hede.se
d.aald.spitri.an.ndea.o.9dls.em
n.hreO..Ime.Iem.l.I.Giff.r..IO.In.r..I
I.SEDB.DERLVO.PL.LWAT.G.HHHI.P.I

158

Multiple Groups Analysis
for the Car Drawing
Original Hypothesized Groupings

Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total corrected for overlap.

Index Number: 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 IO
.................. 1---------------- ----------_-------------
I
Shading 1 :100 15 26 29 21 15 36 -3 5 29
Erasure 2 15 100 12 22 22 1A 17 '7 8 16
Del. Line Abs. 3 26 12 100 21 27 26 15 '10 '13 58
Body Simp. A 29 22 21 100 75 59 Al 9 -7 3A
Distortion 5 21 22 27 75 100 39 37 0 2 A1
Emphasis Line 6 15 1A 26 59 39 100 22 -2 -39 31
Reinforcement 7 36 17 15 A1 37 22 100 7 '15 16
Lt/Hv Line 8 -3 -7 -10 9 0 -2 7 100 -1A -6
Vert. Imbal. 9 5 8 -l3 -7 2 -39 -15 -1A 100 A
Omission 10 29 16 58 3A A1 31 16 '6 A 100

Placement 11
Line Disc. 12

Length 13 '11 'IA '20 '12 '10 '16 '10 '13 3 '10
Width 1A '19 '6 '25 '16 '9 '36 '2 '8 27 '20
Area 15 '19 '13 '22 '12 '8 '23 '3 '7 16 '13
Transparancy l6 -1 A 6 3 0 2 -3 -1A 23 8
Groups-Variables

High 21 3A 23 28 36 57 A5 A3 'A '3 5A
Moderate 22 36 2A 35 72 53 20 27 '5 '21 36
Mild 23 12 1A 11 '20 '2 '12 3 '17 13 2

lnsensitive 2A

Present/Abs. 31
Time

-_---—--—-—-—-------————-—--—---_

l59

1.5953.193256.22.0A17. .2A09.60
A.3323.A2A..3.. .312.. .55 1.10

“...."... .u n u u.. ".1
1.1595.278006.03.9996. .9551.06
3.2312.21 111.11...... .3111.01

. . .. . . . . ..1.

. . . . . . L .
A.6902.8A6A32.A1.21A9. .3A60.19
2.1.21..2.121.31.8993. .2110.11

u. ..u . . .n. u n ”...1".
3.2A10.223732.33.6267. .6A06.50
2.1112..1 11 .77.211 . . .01.1

u .u . . u u... u u 1.”
2.6A52.52893A.85.9736. .60AA.5A
2.3237.755216. 1.111 . .60.1.15

L L L .L... L L1 .L .
1.7827.753A3A.A6.2665. .0663.92
2.6566.5AA..5. .222 . .06 2.35

. . . .... . .1 .. .

. . . . . . .
6.1A63.023A38.10.3290. .5677.67
1.. . .12 .1 ..1 0. . ...

L L . L L 1L L L
5.9322.833763.39.3A09. .6367.91
1.1121..2..11.3 .890 . .2118..2

"...." . ... u 1 u n... u

.
A.9656.962870.13.00A2. .6721.9A
1.1.21..3..22.31.7091. .2118..1

u. ..u . .u. u 1 u u... ”
3.1A02.060330.9l.0033. .2965.90
1.1121.1111 1.A1.078.. .2126..3

.......... ... .1 . .... .

. . . . . . .
2.6563.672363.60.1390. .6561.32
1.11 2..1 31.. 0.11 . . 1 1.1

L .L . . L 1L L L . L
1.0506.302836.06.9131. .A86A.02
1. 1.. .0 .A331. . 3.1.

. . .1 .... . . ..

r. . . . . . .
e. . . . . . .
b.123A.567890.12.3A56. .123A.11
m. . 1.11.1111.s.2222.3A
u. . . . .r. .
N. P. e e s.tc. .a. .

. em. ncnbn.ns. r.V. e .s
.9eni.tirimo.ei. a... t ..b
..nriS.rLoLIi.mD.h P.s. a s.A
x.iuL .o f 5. .th s.P. r n./
e.ds Y.thnets.ce.9tan.u.hede.se
d.aald.sPitri.an.ndea.o.9dls.em
n.hreo..lmeiem.l.l.e.lrr.r..IO.In.r1
I.SEDB.DERLV0.PL.LWAT.G.HMMI.PT

APPENDIX F

160

Multiple Groups Analysis
for the Man Drawing
Post Hoc Groupings

Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix.
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total corrected for overlap.

Index_-Number: 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 10

Shading l 100 3A A0 1A 6 12 19 31 '19 '10 '10 '10
Erasure 2 3A 100 17 13 5 12 11 31 '2A '12 '20 '16
Del Line 3 A0 17 100 27 23 31 17 20 '26 '21 'A '1A
Body Simp A 1A 13 27 100 58 67 28 1A -7 -27 -5 ~17
Distort 5 6 5 23 58 100 A6 33 7 10 '15 2 '7
Emph Line 6 12 12 31 67 A6 100 33 9 -18 -37 -25 -35
Reinforc 7 19 11 17 28 33 33 100 11 '12 '27 '19 '26
Omission 10 31 31 20 1A 7 9 11 100 '7 '13 A '1

Placement ll

1 Length 13 -10 -12 -21 -27 -15 -37 -27 -13 AA 100 72 86
Width 1A '10 '20 'A '5 2 '25 '19 A 32 72 100 93
Area 15
Lt/Hv Line 8 3 0 23 1 22 6 19 3 '5 '10 '7 '10
Vert lmbal 9 '3 2 0 9 16 16 9 '7 '2 '9 '12 '13
Line Disc 12 17 7 0 -ll -7 -15 15 -8 9 30 17 2A
Transpar 16 -11 -2 -7 6 -9 6 2 l 5 8 -6 -3

High 21
Mild 22
Insens. 23
Pres/Abs 31
Time Al

161

1.16679693.3735.5609. .071.90
A.AA223332.1111...11. .61..10
u........u ” . u n. ".1
1.0099A198.1985.7315. .A32.09
3.23 2 . 11. ... .21 .01
. . . . . .1.
. . . . . .
3.23821725.A0A1.3920. .130.21
2. 1 2.. l...5AA6. .1 0. .
L L L L L ..L
2.51973A55.309A.91A1. .003.37
2.1211.32..6989..12 . .30 .11
”.... .. u u . u ".1 u.
1.58900758.2567.7903. .001.A0
2.5A57665A.2312.1 .. .031.26
. ...... . .1. . .
. . . . . .
6.12769621.5863.8580...313.59
1.1.. . . ... 0. .. 1..1
L. L L ..L L L
2.77017558.907A.0308. .0A8.10
1.1 1.11.. 312.110 . . 2...1
u . . . "..1 u n u .
.
9.32096697.2923.9035. .910.36
.. 11 ....11. 01 . . 1 . .
L L ..L 1. L L _ L
8.30312693.5070.0908. .79A.75
. 2 2 1 ..1.l.0 l . .1. . .
. . . ..1 . . . .
r.. . . . . .
e. . . . . .
b.123A5670.13A5.8926. .123.11
m. 1.1111. 11.5.222.3A
. . . . ,.r. .
N. s t . . .a. .
.. b n . .e. Y.V. ..
. A e . .n1 c. . e.s
. .new . .ia.n.d. v.b
. ePon .t .Lbca.n. i.A
. nmiicn.n . msr.a. t./
.9eiitLro.e ..lia. . i.t
.anSr 0.1.Mh .V 06...... 5.0
x.iu o.fs. th .H. s.P. n.e
e.ds.Ythns.c9ta./ten.u.hde.se
d.aaldsPii.ande..rna.o.91s.em
n.hreoimem.1eir.teir.r.iin.ri
|.SEDBDER0.PLWA.LVLT.G.HMI.PT

162

Multiple Groups Analysis
for the Woman Drawing
Post Hoc Groupings

Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix.
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total corrected for overlap.

Index -Number: 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 10

Shading 1 100 13 A1 11 22 26 25 31 ~11 ~6 ~6 ~5
Erasure 2 13 100 32 10 21 15 21 1A ~17 ~23 ~19 ~20
Del Line 3 A1 32 100 31 31 32 20 18 ~1A ~23 ~16 ~17
Body Simp. A 11 10 31 100 62 55 31 21 ~7 ~35 ~22 ~29
Distortion 5 22 21 31 62 100 A5 35 8 ~2 ~2A ~9 ~16
Emph. Line 6 26 15 32 55 A5 100 3A 18 ~21 ~31 ~26 ~28
Rerinforc. 7 25 21 20 31 35 3A 100 6 ~13 ~25 ~11 ~1A
Omission 10 31 1A 18 21 8 18 6 100 0 ~13 ~16 ~11

Placement 11

Length 13 '6 '23 '23 '35 '2A '31 '25 '13 A3 100 77 87
Width 1A '6 '19 '16 '22 '9 '26 '11 '16 A9 77 100 95
Area 15

Lt/Hv Line 8 19 '15 5 l 8 1A 13 0 '1A '16 '22 '23
Vert. Imb. 9 l 7 0 7 13 -A 5 9 0 6 -8 -3
Line Disc 12 19 '1 '5 '22 '3 3 8 0 A 28 21 19
Transpar 16 -11 8 0 ll 2 -2 -1A A 6 -5 -A -3

High 21 A0 29 A9 53 5A 5A A0 27 '18 '38 '26 '29
Mild 22 '8 '23 '20 '27 '15 '31 '18 '12 A8 79 87 90
lnsens. 23 16 -l 0 -l 11 6 7 8 -2 7 -7 -6
Pres/Abs 31 23 18 12 A 21 17 13 3 '3 12 13 13

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:
~5 ~20 ~17 ~29 ~16 ~28 ~1A ~11 : A5 87 95 100
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Time Al

163

l . 92969736. 20A5. 3701. .573. 50
A.3L~2123A2.2222.1.2 . .522.20
”........" u. . n u. .n.1
l.382Al733.3233.A5A2. .307.05
3.211 211 ..111.1 1. .21 .02
. . . .. . .1.
. . . . . .
3.61011678.2776.1609. .020.73
2.1. .l .. ...A5A3. .l.0. 2
L L L L L ..L .
2.83075182.9935.2212. .202.07
2. .22213ll.6899.2.2.. ..30..12
” .......u u. u “.1 “
1.77A88876.8869.9800. .020. 35
2.514.668.6514. 1322. . .031 . 25
. ...... . .1. . .
. . . . . .
6.180122AA.651H3.9110. .029.21
1.1 l .1 . ....l.10. . .l.1
L. . L L. ...L L .L.
2.91523380.A.819.1u.1.~01. .018.I40
1.1..2. . 221.1.01. . 21. 2
L . L L. 1L L L .
9.17073A59.0683.A0A1. .821.57
. l. . ... 0... . ... .
L L L 1 L L L
8.955181430.A623.014.u.9. .927.A.3
. . ......l ... . ... .
r. . . . . .
e. . . . . .
b.123A5670.13A5.8926. .l23.11
m. 1.1111. 11.5.222.3A
U. . . . ..1. .
N. S et . . .a. .
.. b no . .e. Y.V. ..
. A .18 . .n1 C. . 2.8
. .flLm . ..Ia .n.d. v.b
. ePo e .t .Lbca.n. i.A
. nmiscn.n . msr.a. t./
.ge.l.lt.1r.0.e . .118. . .I.+L
.anSFSO.I.Wh .v 00...... 5.."
X..IU 08:15. th .H. 8.0.. n.e
e.ds.Ythns.cgta./ten.u.hde.se
d.aaldsPii.ande..rna.o.91s.em
n.hreo.lmem.le.lr.te.lr.r..l.1n.r.l
l.5EDBDER .PLWA.LVLT.G.HMI.PT

16A

Multiple Groups Analysis
for the Car Drawing
Post Hoc Groupings

Factor intercorrelations and loading matrix.
Lower Left Rectangle is item-total corrected for overlap.

Index -Number1 l 2 3 A 5 6 7 10

Pres/Abs 31
Time Al

I
I
I
I
Shading l 1100. 15 26 29 21 15 36 29 1 0 '11 '19 '19
Erasure 2 1 15 100 12 22 22 1A l7 l6 1 '5 'IA '6 '13
Del. Line 3 1 26 12 100 21 27 26 15 58 1-10 -20 '25 '22
Body Simp. A : 29 22 21 100 75 59 Al 3A 1 6 ~12 ~16 ~12
.Distort 5 1 21 22 27 75 100 39 37 Al 1 -3 -10 -9 -8
Emph. Line 6 1 15 1A 26 59 39 100 22 31 1 0 -16 -36 -23
Reinforc. 7 1 36 17 15 A1 37 22 100 16 : ~2 ~10 ~2 ~3
Omission 10 1 29 16 58 -3A A1 31 16 100 : ~6 ~10 ~20 ~13
............. I-------------------.------------I----------------
I I
Placement 11 : 0 ~5 ~10 6 ~3 0 ~2 ~6 :100 A9 31 33
Length 13 1-11 -IA -20 -12 -10 -16 -10 -10 1 A9 100 70 83
Width 1A :~19 ~6 ~25 ~16 ~9 ~36 ~2 ~20 : 31 70 100 9A
Area 15 1-19 '13 '22 '12 '8 '23 '3 '13 1 33 83 9A 100
............. I--------------------------------I----------------
I I
Lt/Hv Line 8 : ~3 ~7 ~10 9 0 ~2 7 -6 : ~8 ~13 ~8 ~7
Vert Imb. 9 1 5 8 '13 '7 2 '39 '15 A 1 '3 3 27 16
Line Disc 12 1 16 15 6 -23 -6 -l7 2 -3 1 -6 ll 13 9
Transpar l6 1 -l A 6 3 O 2 '3 8 1-11 -3 12 9
............. I--------------------------------I----------------
I I
Groups -Vars 1 1
............. I--------------------------------I----------------
I I
High 21 1 38 26 A2 67 62 A7 A2 52 1 -A -21 -27 '23
Mild 22 1-15 -11 -23 '10 '9 -22 -5 -15 1 A0 81 78 86
lnsens. 23 1 9 ll '6 '10 '2 '30 '5 1 1-15 '1 23 1A
I I
s s
1 :

 

I65

1.59531936.20A1.2527. .707.60
A.3323A2.h.3. 312. .. .. .52. .10
“........n n u u. ".1
.15952786.0999.0036. .317.06
.231221 1.1. . . .111.. .31. .01
. .. ... . . . .1.

. . . . . .
3.91602051.513A.06A8. .670.77
2. 1.1.3. .1.21.26A5. .. 0. ..

L . _ L. L L L 1L
2.51309255.1u.083.1382. .20—[.17
2.112l.2.1.6989.11 . .20 .1.

u.... . .u u. n ".1 u.
1.59873286.A173.212L.. .02/6.32
2.5A577656. .222. .1. . .02. .3

. . .... . . .1. .

. . . . . .
6.1A630238.1329.A300. .A26.65
1.. . .1.1 .l2 0. . ...

L L. L. 1L L L
2.65636723.6139.3600. .280.32
1.11 2.1 ...1l .310 . .. 1.1.

L . . L L. 1 L L L
9.5837295A.3376.A063. .137.01

. l. 31 .. 21.1012. .111.12

u . .. u ".1 . u. u.

.
8.37090276.8387.0A3A. .212.0A

...1 . ...1. . .0131. ..13.11

. . . . .1. . .. . ....
r. . . . . .
e. . . . . .
b.123A5670.13A5.oo926. .123.11
W. 1.1111. 11.5.222.3A

. . . . . .r. .
N. S 8... . . .a. .
.. .0 Oh . .9. VI.V. .

. A .18 . .01 C. . e. S

. .an . ..Ia .n.d. v.b

. 80.0 .t .Lbca. n. l.A

. nm.lscn. n . NSF. a. t./

.ge.l.lt.lr0. e ..1.13. . .1....

.anSrSO.I.w.h .V DP.S. s.n
X..IU 0351.... Ch .H . S. p. n. e
8.05 .VrthnS. Cgta. ten. U.hde. So.
.0. aaldsp.l.l. ande. .rna. O. 0.15. em
n.hreo.lmem.le.lr.te.lr.r..I.In.r.I
I.SEDBDER0.PLWA.LVLT..G.HMI.PT

APPENDIX G

166

************************************************************

THE FIRST SET OF FREQUENCIES ARE FOR PRESENT CASES ONLY EACH
VARIABLE REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE OF SINGLE RATINGS PROVIDED

BY TWO DIFFERENT RATERS EXCEPT FOR TIME VARIABLES

A***********************************************************

Q29 SHADING MAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 2A AA AA 1.0 8 15 70 2.5 3 6 87
.5 6 11 56 2.0 6 11 81 3.0 7 13 100
MEAN .95A STD ERR .152 MEDIAN .500
MODE 0 STD DEV 1.117 VARIANCE 1.2A8
KURTOSIS ~.909 SKEWNESS .795 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM o MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 51.500
C.V. PCT 117.128 .95 C.I. .6A9 T0 1.259
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
Q31 SHADING WOMAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 2A AA AA 1.5 5 9 78 3.0 5 9 100
.5 8 15 59 2.0 5 9 87
1.0 5 9 69 2.5 2 A 91
MEAN .861‘ ' STD ERR .1A0 MEDIAN .A38
MODE 0 STD DEV 1.025 VARIANCE 1.051
KURTOSIS ~.A68 SKEWNESS .922 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM A6.500
C.V. PCT 119.059 .95 C.I. .581 TO 1.1A1
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
Q33 SHADING CAR
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 20 37 37 1.5 5 9 69 3.0 11 20 100
.5 9 17 5A 2.0 A 7 76
1.0 3 6 59 2.5 2 A 80
MEAN 1.130 STD ERR .162 MEDIAN .639
MODE 0 STD DEV 1.190 VARIANCE 1.A17
KURTOSIS ~1.30A SKEWNESS .568 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 61.000
C.V. PCT 105.372 .95 C.I. .805 TO 1.A55
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0

Q73

CODE

0
.5
1.0
MEAN
MODE
KURTOSIS

MINIMUM
C.V. PCT

VALID CASES

ERASURE WOMAN

CODE

MEAN
MODE
KURTOSIS
MINIMUM
C.V. PCT

VALID CASES

ERASURE CAR

MEAN
MODE
KURTOSIS
MINIMUM
C.V. PCT

VALID CASES

ERASURE MAN

ADJ CUM
FREQ PCT PCT

27 50 50
3 6 56
8 15 70

.8A3

0
-.358
0
12A.059
5A

ADJ CUM
FREQ PCT PCT

21 39 39
A 7 A6
6 11 57

1.19A

0
~1.A78
0
100.062

5A

ADJ CUM
FREQ PCT PCT

29 5A 5A
8 15 69
A 7 76

.69A

0

.307

0
1A1.5A5
5A

167

CODE FREQ
1.5 5
2.0 A
2.5 1

STD ERR
STD DEV
SKEWNESS
MAXIMUM
.95 C.I.

MISSING CASES

CODE FREQ
1-5 3
2.0 6
2.5 A

STD ERR

STD DEV

SKEWNESS

MAXIMUM

.95 C.I.

MISSING CASES

CODE FREQ
1.5 3
2.0 A
2.5

STD ERR

STD DEV

SKEWNESS

MAXIMUM

.95 C.l.

MISSING CASES

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

9 80
7 87
2 89

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

6 63
11 7A
7 81

.163
1.195
.388
3.000
.868

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

6 81
7 89
A 93

.13A
.983
1.271
3.000
.A26

CODE FREQ

3.0 6

MEDIAN
VARIANCE
RANGE
SUM

CODE FREQ

3.0 10

MEDIAN
VARIANCE
RANGE
SUM

CODE FREQ

3.0 A

MEDIAN
VARIANCE
RANGE
SUM

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

11 100

.250
1.093
3.000

A5.500
1.128

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

19 100

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

7 100

168

QA9 DELINEATION LINE ABSENCE MAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 25 A6 A6 1.5 1 2 78 3.0 10 19 100
.5 A 7 5A 2.0 1 2 80
1.0 12 22 76 2.5 1 2 81
MEAN .926 STD ERR .155 MEDIAN .500
MODE 0 STD DEV 1.1A3 VARIANCE 1.306
KURTOSIS . ~.561 SKEWNESS .977 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 50.000
C.V. PCT 123.A1O .95 C.1. .61A T0 1.238
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
Q51 DELINEATION LINE ABSENCE WOMAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 21 39 39 1.0 9 17 59 2.0 5 9 80
.5 2 A A3 1.5 6 11 70 3.0 11 20 100
MEAN 1.1A8 STD ERR .157 MEDIAN .972
MODE 0 STD DEV 1.156 VARIANCE 1.336
KURTOSIS ~1.178 SKEWNESS .518 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 62.000
C.V. PCT 100.676 .95 C.I. .833 T0 1.A6A
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
Q53 DELINEATION LINE ABSENCE CAR
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 21 39 39 1.0 16 30 78 2.0 A 7 93
.5 5 9 A8 1.5 A 7 85 3.0 A 7 100
MEAN .82A STD ERR .121 MEDIAN .781
MODE 0 STD DEV .886 VARIANCE .785
KURTOSIS .527 SKEWNESS 1.0A7 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM AA.500
C.V. PCT 107.A81 .95 C.I. .582 T0 1.066

VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0

BODY SIMPLIFICATION WOMAN

.----------------------------------.

Q91
ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 1 2 2
.5 l A
1.0 6 11 15
MEAN 1.981
MODE 2.000
KURTOSIS .836
MINIMUM 0
C.V. PCT 32.869
VALID CASES 5A
Q93
ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 1 2 2
.5 3 6 7
1.0 3 6 13
MEAN 2.009
MODE 2.000
KURTOSIS .339
MINIMUM 0
C.V. PCT 36.010
VALID CASES 5A
Q95
ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT
o A 7 7
.5 5 9 17
1.0 11 20 37
MEAN 1.5A6
MODE 1.500
KURTOSIS '.601
MINIMUM 0
C.V. PCT 55.215

VALID CASES 5A

169

BODY SIMPLIFICATION MAN

CODE FREQ
1.5 5
2.0 26
2.5 8

STD ERR

STD DEV

SKEWNESS

MAXIMUM

.95 C.I.

MISSING CASES

CODE FREQ
1.5 8
2.0 21
2.5 8

STD ERR
STD DEV
SKEWNESS
MAXIMUM
.95 C.|.

MISSING CASES

BODY SIMPLIFICATION CAR

CODE FREQ
1.5 1A
2.0 9
2.5 A

STD ERR

STD DEV

SKEWNESS

MAXIMUM

.95 C.I.

MISSING CASES

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

9 2A
A8 72
15 87

.089
.651
-.621
3.000
l.80A

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

15 28
39 67

15 81

.098
.72A
-.615
3.000
1.812

ADJ CUM
PCT PCT

26 63
17 80
7 87

.116
.85A
.110
3.000

1.313
O

ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT
3.0 7 13 100
MEDIAN 2.019
VARIANCE .A2A
RANGE 3.000
SUM 107 000
TO 2.159

ADJ CUM

CODE FREQ PCT PCT
3.0 10 19 100
MEDIAN 2.036
VARIANCE 523
RANGE 3.000
SUM 108.500
T0 2.207

ADJ CUM

CODE FREQ PCT PCT
3.0 7 13 100
MEDIAN 1.500
VARIANCE .729
RANGE 3.000
SUM 83.500
TO 1.779

 

Q85 DISTORTION MAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
.5 3 6 6 1.5 A 7 19 2.5 13 2A 63
1.0 3 6 11 2.0 11 20 39 3.0 20 37 100
MEAN 2.315 STD ERR .100 MEDIAN 2.A81‘
MODE 3.000 STD DEV .735 VARIANCE .5A1
KURTOSIS .280 SKEWNESS ~1.023 RANGE 2.500
MINIMUM .500 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 125.000
C.V. PCT 31.761 .95 C.I. 2.11A T0 2.515
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
087 DISTORTION WOMAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
.5 2 A A 1.5 2 A 19 2.5 12 22 63
1.0 6 11 15 2.0 12 22 A1 3.0 20 37 100
MEAN 2.296 STD ERR .101 MEDIAN 2.A58
MODE 3.000 STD DEv .7A3 VARIANCE .552
KURTOSIS ~.156 SKEWNESS ~.903 RANGE 2.500
MINIMUM .500 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 12A.000
C.V. PCT 32.357 .95 C.I. 2.093 T0 2.A99
VALID CASES '5A MISSING CASES .0
Q89 DISTORTION CAR
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
1.0 6 11 11 2.0 26 A8 70 3.0 11 20 100
1.5 6 11 22 2.5 5 9 80
MEAN 2.083 STD ERR .082 MEDIAN 2.038
MODE 2.000 STD DEV .605 VARIANCE .366
KURTOSIS ~.509 SKEWNESS .000 RANGE 2.000
MINIMUM 1.000 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 112.500
C.V. PCT 29.022 .95 C.I. 1.918 T0 2.2AB
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0

170

171

067 EMPHASIS LINE MAN
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 33 61 61 1.0 6 11 85 3.0 5 9 100
-5 7 13 7A 1.5 3 6 91
MEAN .537 STD ERR .12A MEDIAN .159
MODE 0 STD DEV .910 VARIANCE .829
KURTOSIS 2.655 SKEWNESS 1.892 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 29.000
C.V. PCT 169.519 .95 C.I. .289 TO .786
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
069 EMPHASIS LINE-WOMAN
ADJ CUM . ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 16 30 30 1.5 A 7 93 3.0 1 2 100
.5 6 11 A1 2.0 2 A 96
1.0 2A AA 85 2.5 1 2 98
MEAN .787 STD ERR .092 MEDIAN .85A
MODE 1.000 STD DEV .677 VARIANCE .A59
KURTOSIS 1.263 _ SKEWNESS .831 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM A2.500
C.V. PCT 86.036 .95 C.I. .602 TO .972
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0
071 EMPHASIS LINE CAR
ADJ CUM ADJ CUM ADJ CUM
CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT CODE FREQ PCT PCT
0 27 50 50 1.0 3 6 78 2.0 3 6 89
.5 12 22 72 1.5 3 6 83 3.0 6 11 100
MEAN .69A STD ERR .136 MEDIAN. .250
MODE 0 STD DEV .997 VARIANCE .99A
KURTOSIS .793 SKEWNESS 1.A37 RANGE 3.000
MINIMUM 0 MAXIMUM 3.000 SUM 37.500
C.V. PCT 1A3.603 .95 C.I. .A22 T0 .967
VALID CASES 5A MISSING CASES 0

16 A
$8 7
09 L

LJd LOd
WOO FOV

SHSVO ONISSIW

'1'0 96'
WOWIXVW
SSSNMaxS
A30 0L5
883 0LS
7 9':
z 0'z
7 9'1
0389 3000
870

75 sasva OITVA

66 z
16 7
£8 6

LJd lOd
W03 POV

$3570 DNISSIW
'1'0 56'
aniwi
SSENM3NS
A30 0L5
883 0LS

5
Z 0'
S

P'NN

3003

760'1 0L
000'07 was
000': 30NV8
851'1 30NVI8VA
ZLI' NV103N
001 6 5 0'6
L08 L08 0389 3000
WOO r0v

zig' 0L
000'IS an
000's 30NV8
169' 30NVI8VA
171' Nv10au
001 L 7 0'8
L08 L08 0388 3000
wna r07

[78' 0L
OOS’ZE an
000's 30NV8
509' 30NVI87A
591' N7103N
001 9 E O'E
L08 L08 0383 3000

WHO FOV

000's
157'1
[69'
221'

76 2
£6 9
L8 6

lOd Lad
WOO FOV

SBSVO ONISSIW

'1'0 56'
anvaw
ssaNMaxS
A30 0LS
883 0LS
1 5'2
9 0'z
5 9'1
0388 3000

0LZ'971 L08 'A'0
O WOWINIW
89Z‘- SISOL8nN
o 300V
171' Nvaw

CL 9 6 0'1

L9 L 7 S'

65 65 CE 0

L08 L08 0388 3000

WOO r07

LN3W33803N138 £90
75 $3570 OITVA
£6E'791 L08 'A'0
0 WOWINIW
36t'1 SISOL8nN
0 300w
715' NVBW

91 7 2 0'1

7L ll 9 5'

£9 £9 78 0

L08 L08 0388 3000

N00 F0V

LN3830808N138 190
75 53570 0177A
021'671 L08 'A'0
0 WOWINIW
260'1 SIS0L8nN
0 300w
209' Nvaw

at L 7 0'1

at £1 L 5'

L5 L5 IE 0

L08 L08 0383 3000

Nn0 r07

va LN3N30808N138 610

ZLI

0
988‘5
000'9
105'-
571'1
951'

19 oz
19 11
05 61
15 11

L3d 13d
N03 FOV

ll

9
Cl

9

53573 0815518 75
'1'3 56' ' 77Z'Lz
8n81x78 005'1
55388385 727'-
A30 0L5 000'5
883 0L5 761'7

0'5 oz 6 5
5'7 11 z 1
0'7 6 L 7
5'5 z z 1
3000 L38 L38 0389

0388

H03 FOV

HV3-3N11 AAV3H-LH911

S3SV3 0|1VA

i3d ’A'3
HnNININ
SISOLHflM
300W
NV3N

momo
r-NNM

3003

01010

I8
65 11
87
15 11

13d i3d
H03 FOV

53573 0815518 75.
'1'3 56' Z95'Lz
8n81x78 005 1
35388385 092'—
A30 0Ls 000'5
883 0L5 692'7

21 0'5 oz 6 5

9 5'7 11 9 5

6 0'7 9 7 z

9 5'5 z z 1

0389 3003 L38 L38 0388

NVHOM-3Nl1 AAV3H-1Hfll1

H03 FOV

S35v3 0|1VA

L3d 'A'3
HflNINIH
SISOLHOM
300W
NVBH

momo
PNNM

3003

8660

905'7 0L
005'9zz 80$
005'7 30878
905'1 3387187A
052'7 871038
001 9 5 0'9
76 51 L 5'5
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 r07

065'7 0L
005'052 wns
005'5 30878
795'1 3387187A
£55 7 871038
001 z 1 0'L
96 L 7 0'9
16 6 5 5'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
8n3 r07

789'7 0L
005°9£z 80$
000'7 30878
572'1 3387187A
591'7 871038
001 51 9 . 0‘9
58 L1 6 5'5
69 7 2 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 r07

59 11
75 92
9: 11

13d l3d
H03 FOV

33573 0815518 75
'1'3 56' 7L7'52
8081x78 000':
$538n3xs Z9L'-
A30 0Ls 000'7
883 0Ls 095'7

9 5'7 51 L 7

51 0'7 L 7 z

9 S'E 7 7 z

0389 3003 L38 L38 0388

{Ll

H03 POV

NVN-3Nl3 AAV3H-LH3I1

S35v3 0|1VA

L3d 'A'3
HflNINIW
SlSOLHflM
300W
NV3N

omo
NNM

3003

8L60

6L1'
005'
000'
9L7'
776'

OOl

i3d
H03

0
OLL‘
OO§'Z
ZZZ'
SL9'
260°

58 L1 6
69 05 91

L38 L38 0389
803 r07

3N|003 S18330NVH-UV3-3N11 AAV3H-LH3I1

S3SV3 SNISSIH

'1'3 56' 95L

HnHlXVH 0
55388385 99L
A30 0Ls 000'
883 0L5 756'

5'1 65 02

0'1 61 61
3003 L38 L38
800 r07

0 53570 0815518 75
209' '1'3 56' 299'
000'5 HOH|XVH o
1L5' 55388385 952'
069' A30 0L5 000'
760' 883 0Ls 166'
96 2 1 5'2 OL 55
96 11 9 0'2 L5 22
59 51 9 5'1 51 51
L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38
H03 r07 H03 r07

3N|003 518310NVH-NVH0M-3Nl3 AAV3H-LH913

SEl'
005'
000'
955'
SLB'

OOl

L3d
H03

1 0L
15 805
2 30878
3387187A
871038
2 1 5'2
51 L 0'2
L08 0388 3003
r07
1 0L
55 805
5 30878
3387187A
871038
2 1 0'5.
L38 0389 3003
r07
1 _OL
05 805
2 30878
3387187A
871038
61 01 0'2
L38 0389 3003
r07

0 53573 0815518 75
55L' '1'3 56' 577
000'2 HnHIXVH 0
121' 55388385 107
75L“ A30 0L5 0
001' 883 0L5 556'
19 02 11 5'1 97 22
19 51 8 0'1 72 72
L38 L08 0389 3003 L38 L38
803 r07 803 007

3N|003 $18310NVH-NVH-3Nl1 AAV3H-lH9l1

7L1

53570 0117A
0L L38 'A'3
8081818
'- 5150L808
1 3008
8738
11 5'
01 o
0389 3003
1010
53573 01178
69 L38 'A'3
8081818
5150L8n8
1 3008
8738
91 0'1
21 5'
9 0
0388 3003
660
53573 0117A
'9L L38 'A'3
8081818
'1- 5150L8n8
3008
8738
21 5' '
51 o
0389 3003
L60

WOZ’
OOO’S
ZlO'Z
009'
880'

96 7
76 22

L3d L3d
H03 POV

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
HnHIXVH
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

Z O'Z
Zl O'l

0388 3003

8V3 33NV3V8HI 1V3ILH3A

75
L95'691
o
929'7
0

095'

ll 9 6
£9 £9 96

L38 L38 0389

H03 POV

S3SV3 0|1VA

l3d 'A'3
HOHIN|H
SlSOlHflM
300H
NV3H

76 2
56 17

13d i3d
H03 POV

53570 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081x78
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

1 5'1
22 O'l

0389 3003

NVHOM 33NV1VOHI 3V3|L83A

75
561'06
o
022'-
000'1
059'

ZS L1 6
96 SE 61

L08 L38 0389
803 r07

53573 0|1VA

l3d 'A'3
HOHINIH
SlSOlHflX
300H
NV3H

555' 0L
005'02 805
000'5 30878
717' 3387187A
521' 871038
001 2 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007

59L' 0L
000'75 805
000'2 30878
525' 3087187A
769' 871038
001 9 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 r07

22L' 0L
005'05 805
000'2 30878
155' 3387187A
055' 871038
001 7 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003

H03 FOV

000'2
015'
5L5'
9L0'

96 7
66 66

l3d l3d
H03 POV

53573 SNISSIH
'1'3 56’
HOH|XVH
SS3NMSNS
A30 015
883 015

Z S‘l
lZ O'l

0389 3003

NVH 33NV1VOHI 1V3|L83A

5L1

75
509'101
0
729°-
0

595'

79 6 6
77 77 72

L38 L38 0389
803 r07

53573 0|1VA

l3d 'A'3
HOHINIH
SlSOlBflX
300H
NV3H

om

3003

960

75 53573 0117A

OOl

L3d
H03

L3d 13d
H03 FOV

S3SV3 SNISSIH

'1'3 56'
' 8081x78
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
2 5'2
01 0'2
5 5'1
0388 3003

001

l3d
H03

619‘
OOO'E
860‘1
806'
"Zl'

59 L
9L 05

l3d L3d
H03 FOV

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

7 5'1
91 0'1

0389 3000

052'
005'
000'
106'

688‘

00l

L3d
H03

OL
59 805
30878
3387187A
871038
92 71 0'5
L08 0388 3003
r07
1 OL
97 805
30878
3087187A
871038
6 5 0'5
9 5 0'2
L38 0388 3003
r07
1 OL
55 805
5 30878
3387187A
871038
11 9 0'5
L38 0388 3003
r07

000'5
706'
676'
621'

'69 2

£8 9
19 L

l3d l3d
H03 POV

53573 SNISSIH

'1'3 56'
HOHIXVH
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
1 5'2
5 0'2
7 5'1
0389 3003

9L1

59L'2L L38 'A'3
0 8081818
727 1- 5150L808
000'5 3008
975'1 8738
97 61 01 0'1
82 L 7 5'
02 02 11 0
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 r07
873 80155180 L20
75 53573 0117A
657°501 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
095' 5150L808
0 3008
198' 8738
87 51 L 5'
55 55 61 0
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 r07
87808 80155180 520
75 53573 0137A
009'56 L38 'A'0
0 8081818
200' 5150L808
000'1 3008
166' 8738
7L 55 91 0'1
17 11 9 5'
05 05 91 0
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 r07
520

NVH NOISSIHO

"5 53573 0|1VA

0
560°l
OOO‘E
SLO'
lfiO'l
371'

59 7
19 92
75 2

13d L3d
H03 FOV

S3SV3 SNISSIH

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
2 5'2
51 0'2
1 5'1
0389 3003

595'
000'5
259'
526'
921'

8L 9
2L 61

13d L3d
H03 FOV

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

6 9'1
01 0'1

0383 3003

799'1 0L
005'7L 805
000'5 30878
790'1 3387187A
212'1 871038
001 51 9 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

L90'1 0L
000'77 805
000'5 30878
259' 3387187A
055' 871038
001 9 5 0'5
76 L1 6 0'2
L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007

69L' 0L
000'25 805
000'5 30878
025' 3387187A
555' 871038
001 2 1 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3000

H03 FOV

lZL'
860'

86 6
68 06

13d L3d
H03 POV

$35V3 DNISSIH

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
5 0'2
91 0'1
0389 3003

[Lt

9L7'5L L38 'A'0
0 8081818
L12 1- 5150L808
000'2 3008
095'1 8738

25 72 51 0'1

82 7 2 5'

72 72 51 0

L38 L38 0388 3003

803 007

870 L83833718 50
75 53570 0117A
2L2'511 L08 'A'3
0 8081818
075'- 5150L808
0 3008
519' 8738

75 6 5 5'

77 77 72 0

L38 L38 0388 3000

. 803 007
87808.L83833718 50

75 53570 0117A
L59'121 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
5L2'1 5150L808
o 3008
565' 8738

65 11 9 5'

87 87 9: 0

L38 L08 0389 3003

803 007

878 L83833718 10

955'1 0L
005'L5 805
000'5 30878
151'1 3387187A
009' 871038
001 51 9 0'5
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

79L'1 0L
000'9L 805
000'5 30878
90L'1 3387187A
005'1 871038
001 05 91 0'5
L08 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

LL5'1 0L
005'L5 805
000'5 30878
215'1 3387187A
05L' 871038
001 51 9 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
2LL' '1'3 56' 1LL'001 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
17L' 55388385 96L'- 5150L808
5L0'1 A30 0L5 o 3008
971' 883 0L5 590'1 8738
59 9 5 5'2 L9 61 01 0'1
09 7 2 0'2 97 L1 6 5'
9L 6 5 5'1 15 15 L1 0
L38 L08 0389 3003 L38 L38 0388 3000
H03 007 803 007
873 AL1081L803510 3811 590
0 53573 0815518 75 53570 0117A
150'1 '1'3 56' 998'26 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
9L0' 55388385 79L'1- 51501808
L05 1 A30 0L5 0 3008
9L1' 883 0L5 Lo7'1 8738
0L 9 5 5'2 97 2 1 0'1
59 11 9 0'2 77 9 5 5'
75 L 7 5'1 65 65 12 0
L38 L08 0388 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007 H03 007
87808 AL1081L803510 3811 590
0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
25L' '1'3 56“ 095 L01 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
695' 55388385 L12'1- 5150L808
571'1 A30 0L5 0 3008
951' 883 0L5 590'1 8738
59 9 5 5'2 19 11 9 0'1
09 11 9 0'2 05 L 7 5'
69 L 7 5'1 57 57 52 0
L38 L38 0388 3000 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007 803 007
878 ALlnNILNODSIO 3811 190

8L1

53573 DNISSIH

0
050'
005'1
L55'2
655'
670'

001 2
96 6

L3d l3d
H03 POV

1
5

0388

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

6’1
0'1

3003

8V3-A3NVHVdSNV8i

75
570°272
0

275'7

o

871'

6995
58 £9 57

L08 L38 0389
803 007

53573 0|1VA

L3d 'A'3
HOH1NIH
SlSOLUflM
300H
NV3H

53573 DNISSIH

001 9
76 7

13d l3d
H03 FOV

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

O‘Z
O'l

3003

NVHOM A3NVHVdSNVHL

76
991'L62
O

980°6

0
[91'

16 7 2
L8 L8 L7

L08 L38 0389
H03 007

53573 0|1VA

l3d 'A’3
HOHIN|H
SlSOLHflX
300H
NV3H

53573 SNISSIH

972' 0L

000'9 805
005'1 30878
621' 3387187A
050' 871038
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

205' 0L

000'6 805
000'2 30878
572 3087187A
L50“ 871038
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

925' 0L
000'01 805
005'2 30878
L92' 3387187A
570' 871038
001 2 1 5'2
96 2 1 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003

H03 POV

"70'
OOS'Z
ZSl’S
[16'
0LO°

96 2
76 9

13d l3d
H03 FOV

1
S

0388

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

6'1
O'l

3003

NVH A3NVHVdSNVUl

6L1

75
100'6L2

0
{98'6
O
581‘

69 7 2
S8 S8 97

L38 L38 0388
- 803 007

S3SV3'0l1VA

13d 'A'3
HOHINIH
31301802
300H
NV3H

om

3003

650

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
6L2'1 '1'3 56' 690'59 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
217'- 55388385 LL0'1- 5150L808

' 510'1 A30 0L5 000'2 3008
951' 883 0L5 955'1 8738

69 51 L 5'2 55 11 9 0'1

9L 55 91 0'2 72 2 1 5'

57 L 7 5'1 22 22 21 0

L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 . 3003

H03 007 803 007

87808 08107858178 570

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
502'1 '1'3 56' L9L 09 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 - 0 8081818
590'- 55388385 L27'- 5150L808
9L9' A30 0L5 005'1 3008
611' 883 0L5 777'1 8738

L9 72 51 0'2 65 22 21 0'1

59 72 51 5'1 L1 L1 6 0

L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003

803 007 803 007

259'1 0L
000'79 805
000'5 30878
520'1 .3387187A
199'1 871038
001 11 9 0'5
L38 L38 0388 3000
H03 007

789’1 0L
000'9L 80$
000'5 30878
oLL' 3087187A
197'1 871038
001 11 9 0'5
69 2 1 5'2
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

081

NVH 3N|0VHSHIVH

170

OOl

L3d
H03

L01'1
000'5
052'
150'1
071'

18 Z
08 L1
£9 ll

13d l3d
H03 FOV

53573 0815518
'1'3.56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

1 5'2
6 0'2
9 5'1

0389 3003

NVHOM NOILV3|3I1dHIS 0V3H

ZS
92
OZ

i3d
H03

75 53573 0117A

lZB'
000'
000'
9ZZ'
005'

001

L3d
H03

1 0L
'5L 805
'5 30878
1 3387187A
1 871038
61 01 0'5
L38 0388 3003
007

1 OL

29 805
5 30878
1 3387187A
1 871038
72 51 0'5
L38 0388 3003
007

912'1
000'5
190'
L01'1
151'

9L 9
0L L1
75 L

13d 13d
H03 FOV

53573 SNISSIH

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
5 5'2
6 0'2
7 5'1
0388 3003

NVH NOILV3|3l3dHIS 0V3H

[81

97
SE
51
L38
800

052'7L L38 'A'3
0 8081818
650'1- 5150L808
000'1 3008
695'1 -8738
92 71 0'1
9 5 5'
02 11 0
L38 0388 3003
007

L70
75 53573 0117A
916'2L L38 'A'3
0 8081818
197 1- 5150L808
000'5 3008
615'1 8738
11 9 0'1
02 11 5'
51 9 0
L38 0389 3003
007

570

0

517'
005'
689'
659'
610'

53570 DNISSIH

92 '1'3 66'
19 8081878
1 55388385
71 A30 0L5
2 883 0L5

75 53570 0|1VA

0

787'
005'
656'
676'
750'

53573 SNISSIH

05 '1'3 56'
501 8081878
1 55388385
71 A30 0L5
2 883 0L5

o
708'
005'
025'
095'
967'

53573 SNISSIH

55 '1'3 56'
111 8081878
1 55388385
91 A30 0L5
2 883 0L5

0

590'
000'
59L'
869‘
506'

53573 SNISSIH

1L '1'3 56'
291 8081878

55388385
92 A30 0L5
5 883 0L5

O

0l8'
000'
666‘
068'
87L°

53573 SNISSIH

9L '1'3 56'
591 8081878

55388385
75 A30 0L5
7 883 0L5

515 55 0L

000'1651 805
000'2L 30878
902'022 3387187A
052'52 871038
579 95 0L

005'9991 805
000 99 30878
297'522 3387187A
052'25 871038
928 57 0L

000'7022 805
005'56 30878
990'L55 3387187A
000°07 871038
15L 99 0L

005 0927 805
005'521 30878
0L5'529 3387187A
052'0L 871038
L59 56 0L

000'2997 805
005'751 30878
055 L121 3387187A
05L'59 871038
591'76 0L

005'2957 805
000'751 30878
525'9911 3387187A
05L'LL 871038

0

075'
000'
605'

151'

[79'

53573 SNISSIH

5L '1'3 56'
991 8081878

55388385
75 A30 0L5
7 883 0L5

995'05 L38 'A'3
005'6 8081818
727'5 5150L808
000'12 3008
597'62 8738
873 HL018 L18
75 53573 0117A
052'57 L38 'A'3
005'51 8081818
652'L 5150L808
000'91 3008
595'75 8738
87808 8L018 518
75 53573 0117A
786'77 L38 'A'3
000'91 8081818
276'2 5150L808
000'92 3008
519'07 8738
878 HL018 518
75 53573 0117A
5L5'95 L38 'A'3
005'95 8081818
155' 5150L808
000'59 3008
868'8L 8738
870 8L0831 118
75 53573 0117A
517'07 L38 'A'3
005'92 8081818
627'- 5150L808
000'0L .3008
555 99 8738
87808 8L0831 68
75 53573 0117A
772'07 L38 'A'3
000'25 8081818
079'- 5150L808
000'27 3008
199'79 8738
878 8L0831 L8

7888877888878888888¥¥¥¥¥8787788788888887888887778777¥87¥¥
AWNO 53570 LN3S38d 'SflOflNllNO3 38V S338VIBVA

3NI001103 3H1 350V330 ‘03LLIHO N330 3AVH S310Vl A3N300333

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Z8l

091'092
000'91511
000'2L6
997'59627
000'991

H05
39NVU
33NVIHVA
NVI03H

S

595'
000'
107'
9L2'
720'

051°592
000'9L011
000'059
922'61L92
05L'551

H05
39NVH
33NVIHVA
NVI03H

900'5L2
000'15011
000'956
256'5L557
052'971

H05
39NVH
33NV|HVA
NV103H

.--------------------‘------‘------

H05
39NVU
33NV|HVA
NV|03H

712'91
296'11L
968'99
022'521
096'01

H05
33NV8
33NVIHVA
NVI03H

805
30878
3387187A
871038

681

53570 0815518 15 53573 0117A
591 '1'3 56' L17'56 L38 'A'3
7101 8081878 000'27 8081818
2 55388385 22L'9 5150L808
L02 A30 0L5 000'75 3008
62 883 0L5 299'122 8738

873 381L 5010

53573 0815518 15 53573 0117A

'1L1 '1'3 56' 992'5L L38 'A'3
'599 8081878 000'55 8081818
'1 55388385 760'1 5150L808
'591 A30 0L5 000'551 3008
'22 883 0L5 9L1'L12 8738

87808 381L 7010

53573 0815518 15 53573 0117A

'L51 '1'0 56' 115 96 L08 'A'3
'796 8081878 000'97 8081818
'2 55388385 960'9 5150L808
'902 A30 0L5 000'L5 3008
'62 883 0L5 762'912 8738

878 381L 5010

53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A

L '1'3 56' L59'59 L38 'A'3
'77 8081878 017 1 8081818
'2 55388385 905'5 5150L808
9 A30 0L5 017'1 3008

1 883 0L5 922'01 8738

0818780 873 38L 809 7387 8737387

53573 0815518 75 53570 0117A
'01 '1'3 56' 561 79 L38 'A'3
'59 8081878 700 2 8081818
'2 55388385 789 8 5150L808
'11 A30 0L5 192'5 3008
'1 883 0L5 791'51 8738

0818780 87808 38L 809 7387 8087387

53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
'11 '1'3 56' 260'29 L38 'A'3
'59 8081878 590'2 8081818
'1 55388385 591'7 5150L808
'21 A30 0L5 590'2 3008
'1 883 0L5 952'51 8738

0818780 878 38L 809 7387 8787387

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A

956'1 0L 125'1 '1'0 56' 962'69 L38 'A'3
000'99 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 121'- 55388385 557°1- 5150L808
5L2'1 3387187A 621'1 A30 0L5 000'5 3008
L09'1 871038 751' 883 0L5 059'1 8738
2L 6 5 5'2 17 51 9 0'1
59 6 5 0'2 92 L 7 5'
001 92 51 0'5 _ 75 51 L 5'1 61 61 01 0
L38 L38 0388 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
800 007 803 007 803 007
870 0810785 550
0 53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
0L9'1 0L 550'1 '1'3 56' 070'59 L38 'A'3
005'5L 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 9L2' 55388385 5L5'1- 5150L808
9L2'1 3387187A 051'1 A30 0L5 o 3008
711'1 871038 751' 883 0L5 195'1 8738
9L 7 2 5'2 95 02 11 0'1
7L 51 L 0'2 55 11 9 5'
001 22 21 0'5 19 9 5 5'1 72 72 51 0
L38 L38 0388 3000 L38 L38 0389 3003 L08 L38 0388 3003
H03 007 803 007 H03 007
87808 0810785 150
0 53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
57L'1 0L 901'1 '1'3 56' 1L5'19 L38 'A'3
000'LL 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 071' 55388385 567'1- 5150L808
555'1 3387187A 591'1 A30 0L5 0 3008
002'1 871038 951' 883 0L5 927'1 8738
9L 9 5 5'2 25 61 01 0'1
0 0L 51 L 0'2 55 L 7 5'
001 72 51 0'5 L5 9 5 5'1 92 92 71 0
L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003 L08 L38 0389 3003
803 007 803 007 803 007
878 0810785 620

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
53107187A 381L 809 L83383 583L78 L83839910 08L Aa
0301A088 5081L78 310815 90 30783A7 38L 5L83538838 3197187A
8373'8180 53573 L83507 809 387 53138300388 80 L35 080335 3H1
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

581

 

 

75 53573 0117A

H05
39NV8
33NV|8VA
NVI03H

H05
39NV8
33NVIUVA
NV103H

H05
33NVU
33NVIUVA
NV|03H

H05
33NV8
33NV|HVA
NV|03H

H05
33NV8
33NV|UVA
NV|03H

'76
'2957
'751
'9911

LL

H05
39NVH
33NVIHVA
NVI03H

0 53573 0815518
517'52 '1'3 56'
005'19 8081878
699'1 55388385
659'71 A30 0L5
610'2 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
787'05 '1'3 56'
005'501 8081878
656'1 55388385
676'71 A30 0L5
750'2 883 0L5
0 53570 0815518
709'55 '1'3 56'
005'111 8081878
025'1 55388385
095 91 A30 0L5
967'2 883 0L5
0 53570 0815518
590'1L '1'3 56'
000'291 8081878
59L 55388385
969'92 A30 0L5
506'5 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
019'9L '1'3 56'
000'591 8081878
555 55388385
069'75 A30 0L5
87L'7 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
075'5L '1'3 56'
000'991 8081878
505 55388385
151'75 A30 0L5
L79'7 883 0L5

995'05 L38 'A'3
005'6 8081818
727'5 5150L808
000'12 3008
597‘62 8738
873 8L018 L18
75 53573 0117A
052'57 L38 'A'0
005'51 HOHIN|H
652'L 5150L808
000'91 3008
595'75 8738
87808 8L018 518
75 53570 0117A
786'77 L38 'A'3
000'91 8081818
276'2 5150L808
000'92 3008
519'07 8738
878 8L018 518
75 53573 0117A
5L5 95 L38 'A'3
005'95 8081818
155' 5150L808
000'59 3008
969'9L 8738
873 8L0831 118
75 53573 0117A
517'07 L38 'A'3
005'92 8081818
627'- 5150L808
000'0L .3008
555 99 8738
87808 8L0831 68
75 53573 0117A
772'07 L38 'A'3
000'25 8081818
079'- 5150L808
000'27 3008
l98‘78 8738
878 8L0831 L8

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
A1NO 53570 L835388 'SflOflNILNO3 387 53197187A

081801109 38L 3507339 '03LL180 8330 3A78 53197L 838300388
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

Z8l

081'
000'
000'
997'
000'

092
91511
2L6
59627
891

H05
39NVH
33NVIHVA
NV|03H

H05
33NVH
33NVIHVA
NV103H

900'
000‘
000'
256'
052‘

H05
39NVH
33NVIHVA
NVI03H

H05
33NV8
33NVIHVA
NV103H

712'
296'
968‘
'521
096'

OZZ

91
11L

01

H05
33NVH
33NV|HVA
NV103H

’81
'229
ogg
'951
'01

H05
33NVH
33NVIUVA
NV|03H

53573 0815518 15
'591 '1'3 56' L17
'7101 8081878 000
'2 55388385 22L
'L02 A30 0L5 000
'62 883 0L5 299

873

53573 0815518 15
'1L1 '1'3 56' 992
'599 8081878 000
'1 55388385 760
'591 A30 0L5 000
'22 883 0L5 9L1

87808

53573 0815518 15
'L51 '1'3 56' 115
'796 8081878 000
'2 55388385 960
'902 A30 0L5 000
'62 883 0L5 762

878

53573 0815518 75

L '1'3 56' L59

'77 8081878 017
'2 55388385 905
'9 A30 0L5 017
1 883 0L5 822

0818780 873 38L 809

53573 0815518 75
'01 '1'3 56' 561
'59 8081878 700
'2 55388385 789
'11 A30 0L5 192
'1 883 0L5 781

0818780 87808 38L 809

53573 0815518 75
'11 '1'3 56' 260
'59 8081878 590
'1 55388385 591
'21 A30 0L5 590'
'1 883 0L5 952'

ONIMVUO NVH 3H1 803

681

53570 0117A
'56 L38 'A'3
'27 8081818
'9 5150L808
‘75 3008
'122 8738
381L 5010

53573 0117A
'5L L38 'A'3
'55 8081818
'1 5150L808
'551 3008
'L12 8738
381L 7010

53573 0117A
‘96 L38 'A'3
'97 8081818
'9 5150L808
'L5 3008
912 8738
381L 5010

53573 0117A
'59 L38 'A'3
'1 8081818
'5 5150L808
'1 3008
'01 8738
7387 8737387

53570 0117A
'79 L38 'A'3
'2 8081818
'9 5150L808
'5 3008
'51 8738
7387 8087387

53573 0117A
'29 L38 'A'3
'2 8081818
'7 5150L808
2 3008
51 8738
7387 8787387

088'
000’
000‘
178'
052'

ZWW'
006'
000'
528'
05L“

H05
33NVH
33NV|8VA
'NVI03H

H05
39NVH
33NV|8VA
NV|03H

H05
39NVH
33NV18VA
NV103H

H05
39NVU
33NVI8VA
NVI03H

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
927'1 '1'3 56' 677 25 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
620'- 55388385 959'- 5150L808
7L9' A30 0L5 000'2 3008
611' 883 0L5 L99'1 8738
87808-01L78 1000 0738 8808

0 53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
6L5'1 '1'3 56' L92'95 L08 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
551' 55388385 796'— 5150L808
L16' A30 0L5 000'1 3008
521' 883 0L5 059'1 8738
878-01L78 A000 0738 8808

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
229'51 '1'3 56' 960'77 L38 ‘A'3
005'L5 8081878 005'9 8081818
119' 55388385 650'- 5150L808
159'L A30 0L5 000'21 3008
990'1 883 0L5 65L'L1 8738
87808 3215 0738 128

0 53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
L76'71 '1'0 56' L69'L7 L38 'A'3
000'57 8081878 000'9 8081818
696' 55388385 965 5150L808
952'9 A30 0L5 000'9 3008
121'1 883 0L5 761'L1 8738
878 3215 0738 618

78l

75 53573 0117A

l3d L3d
H03 FOV

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

5 5'2
5 0':
L 5'1

3003

L3d L3d
H03 POV

535V3 3N155|H

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
2 5'2
L 0'2
5 5'1
0389 3003

956'1 0L
000'99 805
000'5 30878
5L2'1 3387187A
L09'1 871038
001 92 51 0'5
L08 L38 0389 3000
803 007

0L9'1 0L
005'5L 805
000'5 30878
9L2'1 3387187A
711'1 871038
001 22 21 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

57L'1 0L
000'LL H05
000'5 30878
555'1 3387187A
002'1 871038
001 72 51 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3000

H03 POV

901'1
000'5
071'
591'1
951'
9L 9
OL 51
L5 9

13d l3d

3H03 FOV

535V3 3N|55|H

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
5 5'2
L 0'2
5 5'1
0389 3003

962'69 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
557'1- 5150L808
000'5 300H
059'1 8738

17 51 9 0'1

92 L 7 5'

61 61 01 0

L38 L38 0389 3003

800 007

873 0810785 550

75 53573 0117A
070'59 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
5L5'1- 5150L808
o 3008
195 1 8738

95 02 11 0'1

55 11 9 5'

72 72 51 0

L38 L38 0389 3003

803 007

87808 0810785 150
75 53573 0117A
1L5 19 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
567'1- 5150L808
0 3008
927'1 8738

25 61 01 0'1

55 L 7 5'

92 92 71 0

L38 L08 0388 3003

803 007

878 0810785 620

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

5310V|8VA 3H|L 803 ld33X3 583LVH LN38333|0 OML 80

0301A08d SDNILVH 313N15 30 33VH3AV 3Hi SLN3538d38 318VIHVA
H3V3'83N0 535V3 LN358V 803 38V 53|3N300383 30 135 0N0335 3H1
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

581

709'1 0L
005'09 805
000'5 30878
915'1 33871878
057'1 871038
001 22 21 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

256'1 0L
005'L9 805
000'5 30878
105 1 3387187A
519'1 871038
001 72 51 0'5
L38 L08 0389 3000
803 007

27L'1 0L
005'6L 805
000'5 30878
9L6' 3087187A
595'1 871038
001 11 9 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

0 53573 0815518
9L1'1 '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
700' 55388385
L71'1 A30 0L5
951' 883 0L5

8L ll 9 5'2

L9 11 9 0'2

95 6 5 5'1

L38 L38 0388 3003

803 007
0 53573 0815518
605'1 '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
622'- 55388385
171'1 A30 0L5
551' 883 0L5

9L 51 L 5'2

£9 51 8 0'2

87 6 5 5'1

L38 L38 0389 3000

803 007
0 53573 0815518
502'1 '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
911'— 55388385
996' A30 0L5
751' 883 0L5

69 51 L 5'2

9L 02 11 0'2

95 51 8 5'1

L38 L38 0388 3003

H03 POV

981

535V3 0|1VA

75
256'9L L38 'A'3
0 8081818
105'1- 5150L808
o 3008
167'1 8738

97 51 9 0'1

15 L 7 5'

72 72 51 0

L38 L38 0388 3003

803 007

873 3805783 LLO

75 53570 0117A
007'0L L38 'A'3
0 8081818
557'1- 5150L808
000'5 3008
029'1 8738

65 11 9 0'1

82 9 5 5'

22 22 21 0

L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 007

87808 3805783 5L0
75 53573 0117A
260'L9 L08 'A'3
0 8081818
621'1- 5150L808
000'2 300H
2L7'1 8738

17 51 9 0'1

92 L 7 5'

61 61 01 0

L38 L08 0389 3003

803 007

878 3805783 5L0

0 53573 0815518
025' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
L27'1 55388385
L2L' A30 0L5
660' 883 0L5

16 9 5 5'1

59 L1 6 0'1

138 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

8V3 33N350V 3N11 NOILV3N1130

7S

151'071
0
0L5'1
0
615'
69 51 L
95 95 05

L38 L38 0388
'803 007

535V3 011VA

L3d 'A'3
HOHINIH
5|SOLHflX
300H
NV3H

0 53573 0815518
619' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
588' 55388385
696' A30 0L5
551' 883 0L5

16 2 1 5'2

69 11 9 0'2

8L 7 2 5'1

L08 L38 0388 3003
800 007

NVHOM 33N350V 3N|3 NOILV3N|330

75
552'111
0

905'-
0

600'

7L 92 71
87 9 5
57 57 52

L38 L38 0388

H03 POV

0.
s.
O

535V3 GIWVA
13d 'A'3

HOH|NIH
5|50l80M
300H
NV3H

1

3003

L1L' 0L
000'92 H05
000'5 30878
925' 3387187A
002' 871038
001 2 1 0'5
86 L 7 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

651'1 0L
000'97 805
000'5 30878
9L6' 3387187A
99L' 871038
001 6 5 0'5
L08 L08 0388 3003
803 007

996' 0L
005'65 805
000'5 30878
799' 3387187A
252' 871038
001 L 7 0'5
56 6 5 0'2
L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 FOV

0 53573 0815518

5L7' '1'3 56'

000'5 8081878

621'1 55388385

076' A30 0L5

921' 883 0L5
E8 L 7 5'1

9L 61 01 0'1

L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007

NVH 33N350V 3N|1 N0|LV3N|330

L81

75
275'821
0

262'

0

15L'

L5 9 6
Z5 Z5 8Z

L38 L38 0389

H03 POV

535V3 0|1VA

L3d 'A'3
HOH|NIH
SlSOiHflM
300H
NV3H

om

3003

670

L66‘1 0L
000'Z9 H05
000'5 39NV8
8LW° 33NVIHVA
881'1 NV103H
001 Z 1 0'9

L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

803 007 803 007

873 801L7319118815 8000 560

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

L60'2 0L 019'1 '1'3 56' 969'92 L38 'A'3
005'501 805 000'5 8081878 005' 8081818
005'2 30878 915'- 55388385 575'1 5150L808
9L2' 3387187A 525' A30 0L5 000'2 3008
796 1 871038 _ 2L0' 883 0L5 756 1 8738
001 L 7 0'5 19 65 25 0'2 6 9 5 0'1
56 11 9 5'2 22 51 L 5'1 7 7 2 5'

L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

o _ 53573 0815518
096' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
610' 55388385
169' A30 0L5
760' 883 0L5

96 2 1 5'2

96 51 L 0'2

58 05 91 5‘1

L38 L38 0389 3003

L38 L38 0389 3003

75 53573 0117A

761'09 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
570'- 5150L808
000'1 3008
971'1 8738

75 05 91 0'1

72 6 5 5'

51 51 9 0

L38 L38 0388 3003

L08 L08 0389 3003

803 007 803 007

87808 801L7319118815 8000 560

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

020'2 0L 07L'1 '1'3 56' 215'L2 L38 'A'3
005'101 805 000'5 8081878 005' 8081818
005'2 30878 697'- 55388385 557'1 5150L808
792' 3387187A 515' A30 0L5 000'2 3008
956'1 871038 0L0' 883 0L5 099'1 8738
001 9 5 0'5 L9 65 25 0'2 11 L 7 0 1
76 L 7 5'2 92 L1 6 5'1 7 7 2 5

L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

878 801L7019118815 8000 160

881

13d L3d
H03 FOV

535V3 SNISSIH

75 53573 0117A

LL6'1 01
005'96 805
005'2 30878
515' 3387187A
0L9'1 871038
001 L 7 0'5
56 L 7 5'2
L08 L38 0389 3003
803 007

061'2 0L

005 901 805
000'5 30878
959' 3387187A
L10'2 871038
001 22 21 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

291'2 0L
005'701 805
000'5 30878
699' 3387187A
7L0'2 871038
001 L1 6 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 FOV

601'

8L 51
69 82
S6 91

i3d 13d
H03 60V

L3d 13d
H03 FOV

'1'3 56' 299'05 L38 'A'3
8081878 005' 8081818
55388385 671' 5150L808
A30 0L5 000'2 3008
883 0L5 729'1 8738
52 0'2 L1 51 9 0'1
21 5'1 2 2 1 5'
0389 3003 L08 L38 0389 3003
803 007
870 801L80L510 690
53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
'1'0 56' L57'07 L38 'A'3
8081878 0 8081818
55388385 2L5'- 5150L808
A30 0L5 000'2 3008
883 0L5 2L6'1 8738
9 5'2 02 51 L 0'1
51 0'2 L 9 5 5'
9 5'1 2 2 1 o
0388 3003 L38 L38 0388 3000
803 007
87808 801L80L510 L90
53573 0815518 75 53573 0117A
'1'3 56' L69'27 L38 'A'3
8081878 0 8081818
55388385 295'- 51501808
A30 0L5 000'2 3008
883 0L5 556'1 8738
21 5'2 72 51 L 0'1
L1 0'2 11 L 7 5'
5 5'1 7 7 2 o
0388 3003 L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007
590

691

NVH NOILHOLSIG

535V3 SNISSIH

0
L7L'
000'5
7LL'
991'1
651'

08 7
9L 7
2L 2

L3d L3d
H03 FOV

75 53573 0117A

559'
000'5
855'
5L9'
260'

96 7
76 L
L9 11

L3d L3d
H03 60V

595'1 0L
005'L5 H05
000'5 30878
655'1 3387187A
059' 871038
001 02 11 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007

202'1 0L
000'55 . 805
000'5 30878
257' 3387187A
000'1 871038
001 2 1 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

26L' 0L
000'05 805
000'5 30878
25L' 3387187A
651' 871038
001 7 2 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3000

H03 60V

£8 9

L3d L3d
H03 FOV

0388

'1'3 56' LL7'601 L38 'A'3
8081878 0 8081818
55388385 900'1- 5150L808
A30 0L5 0 3008
883 0L5 590'1 8738
5'2 0L L1 6 0'1
0'2 75 61 01 5'
5'1 55 55 61 o
3000 L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007
873 3811 51578883 1L0
53573 0815518 75 53570 0117A
'1'3 56' 770'99 L38 'A'3
8081878 0 8081818
55388385 559' 5150L808
A30 0L5 000'1 3008
883 0L5 610'1 8738
5'2 9L 25 92 0'1
0'2 72 L 7 5'
5'1 L1 L1 6 0
3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007
87808—3811 51578883 690
53570 0815518 75 53573 0117A
'1'3 56' 970'951 L38 'A'3
8081878 0 8081818
55388385 L92'1 5150L808
A30 0L5 0 3008
883 0L5 955' 8738
5'2 19 11 9 0'1
0'2 0L 6 5 5'
5'1 19 19 55 0
3000 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007
878 3811 51578883 L90

061

535V3 DNISSIH

0L1'1 0L
000'67 H05
000'5 30878
526' 3387187A
769' 871038
001 6 5 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

501 1 0L
000'57 H05
000'5 30878
166' 3387187A
L17' 871038
001 L 7 0'5
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

290'1 0L
000'27 805
000'5 30878
290'1 3387187A
052' 871038
001 11 9 0'5
L38 L08 0389 3003
803 007

000'5
756'
296'
151'

16 Z
68 6
08 L

l3d l3d
H03 FOV

Z95“
000'5
6Z6'
566‘
561'

56 7
69 11
8L 6

L3d L3d
H03 FOV

767'
000'5
651'1
070'1
271'

68 Z
L8 L
08 9

L3d L3d
H03 FOV

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

S
0.
5

F‘NN

3003

535V3 3N|551H

0389

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

So
0.
So

PNN

3003

53573 0815518

0388

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5

6’2
0'2
9’1

3003

75 53573 0117A
700'901 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
071'- 5150L808
o 3008
L06' 8738

2L 02 11' 0'1

25 L1 6 5'

55 55 61 0

L38 L38 0388 3003

803 007

L838338098138 590
75 53573 0117A
557 611 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
557°~ 5150L808
o 3008
559' 8738

69 L 7 0'1

19 L1 6 5'

77 77 72 0

L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 007

L838338088138 190
75 53573 0117A
72L'551 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
120'- 5150L808
0 3008
9LL' 8738

7L 6 5 0'1'

59 51 9 5'

05 05 L2 0

L38 L38 0388 3003

803 007

878 L838338098138 6L0

161

001

l3d
H03

76 L1
8L ZZ

77 51

l3d
H03

535V3 3N|55|H

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

6 5'5

21 0'5

9 5'7

8 0'7

0389 3003

HV3-3N13 AAV3H-LH3I1

75

065'
000°
919'
000'
L07'
06 L1
61 6
7 Z
Z Z
L3d L3d
H03 FOV

001
76

L3d
H03

L3d l3d
H03 FOV

535V3 3N|55|H

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

9 0'5

8 5'7

8 0'7

9 5'5

0389

3003

NVHOM-3Nl1 AAV3H-LH311

75

025'
005'
05L'
000'
556'

16 61
61 51
9 2
7 7

L3d 13d
H03 POV

..1—moo:

7 CL
952 805
'7 30878
' 33871878
'7 871038
2 1 5'9
7 Z 0‘9
L38 0388 3003
007
7 0L
212 805
'7 30878
1 3387187A
7 871038
9 6 0'9
L 7 5'5
L38 0389 3003
007
0L
' 22 805
30878
33871878
871038
7 2 5'9
L 7 0'9
6 5 5'5
22 21 0'5
L38 0388 3003
007

L5 11

97 11
S6 11
7Z 11

13d
H03

53570 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

\D\D\D\O
omom
FAN-1‘4

0383 3003

NVH-3N11 AAV3H-1H911

Z61

79

026'
000'
706'
000'
ZZZ'

NORM
NJNQ

13d L3d
H03 FOV

53573 01178
22 L38 'A'3
2 8081818
- 5150L808
5 3008
7 8738
6 5'5
5 0'5
1 5'2
1 0'2
0389 3003
01010
53573 01178
62 L38 'A'3
1 8081818
- 5150L808
7 3008
5 8738
L 0'5
L 5'2
1 0'2
2 5 1
0389 3003
0660
53573 01178
05 L38 'A'3
1 8081818
- 5150L808
5 3008
7 8738
5 5'2
1 0'2
2 5'1
1 0'1
0389 3003
0L60

291'
005'
005'
165'
956'

001
96

L3d
H03

0 53573 0815518
79L' '1'3 56'
005'2 8081878
522' 55388385
995' A30 0L5
090' 883 0L5

56 22 21 5'1

OL 55 91 0'1

L38 L38 0389
803 007

3003

3N1003 518330NVH-8V3-3Nl3 AAV3H-LH311

0 53570 0815518
029' '1'3 56'
005'2 8081878
965' 55388385
929' A30 0L5
590' 883 0L5

69 02 11 5'1

69 15 L1 0'1

L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 60V

3N|003 5.8330NVH-NVHOM-3NIT AAV3H-LH3I3

75 53573 01178
7L2'29 L08 'A'3
0 8081818
112'- 5150L808
000'1 3008
776' 8738

L5 72 51 5'

51 51 L 0

L38 L38 0389 3003

803 007

1010

75 53570 01178
871 59 L38 'A'3
0 , 8081818
591'- 5150L808
000'1 3008
166' 8738

L5 92 71 5'
11 11 9 0

SZ6'
000'
000'
115'
660‘

001

l3d
H03

1 OL
15 H05
2 30878
30871878
871038
2 1 5'2
9 5 0'2
L38_0389 3003
007
1 0L
55 H05
2 30878
33871878
871038
7 2 5'2
L 7 0'2
L38 0388 3003
007
1 OL
19 805
5 30878
33871878
1 871038
2 1 0'5
L38 0389 3000
007

0 53573 0815518
756' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
895' 55388385
51L' A30 0L5
L60' 883 0L5

86 L 7 5'2

16 6 5 0'2

19 L1 6 5'1

L38 L08 0388
803 007

3003

9N|003 518310NVH-NVH-3Nl1 AAV3H-LH9I1

661

L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007
660
75 53573 01178
262'59 L38 'A'0
0 8081818
500'- 5150L808
000'1 3008
051'1 8738
59 55 61 0'1
05 02 11 5'
6 6 5 0
L38 L38 0389 3000
803 007
L60

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

17L' 0L 515' '1'3 56' 50L L71 L38 'A'3
005'92 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 279'1 55388385 775'2 5150L808
909' 33871878 09L' A30 0L5 0 3008
591' 871038 901' 883 0L5 925' 8738
96 L 7 0'2 L9 6 5 5'
001 7 2 0'5 69 22 21 0'1 L5 L5 15 0
L38 L38 0388 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007 803 007 803 007
873 338717081 1731L838 650
0 ' 53570 0815518 75 53573 01178
25L' 0L 917' '1'3 56' 9L9'001 L38 'A'3
000'15 805 000'2 8081878 0 8081818
000'2 30878 197' 55388385 50L'- 5150L808
755' 33871878 9L5' A30 0L5 0 3008
529' 871038 6L0'. 883 0L5 7L5' 8738
96 7 2 5'1 25 L 7 5'
001 7 2 0'2 56 17 22 0'1 77 77 72 0
L38 L38 0388 3000 L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0388 3003
H03 007 803 007 803 007
87808 338717081 1731L838 L50
0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178
199' 0L 5L5' '1'3 56' 795'901 L38 'A'3
005'92 - 805 000'2 8081878 0 HOHIN|H
000'2 30878 759' 55388385 995'- 5150L808
515' 33871878 195' 830 0L5 0 3008
L17' 871038 9L0' 883 0L5 925' 8738
96 2 1 5'1 L5 11 9 5'
001 7 2 0'2 76 L5 02 0'1 97 97 52 0
L38 L38 0388 3000 L38 L38 0389 3003 L08 L38 0389 3003
803 007 800 007 803 007
878 338717081 1731L838 550

761

6L7'
005'
000‘
680'
160'

001

l3d
H03

610'
000'
000'
655'
559'

001

13d
H03

L8 9
18 51
L9 7

13d 13d
H03 POV

119'
000‘6
188'
87L’
ZOl'

16 51
8L 55

l3d L3d
H03 60V

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

5'2
0'2
5'1

Noam

0388 3003

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

L 5'1
91 0'1

0388 3003

75 53573 01178

780'
000'
000'
6ZL'
798'

001

13d
H03

1 OL
79 805
5 30878
1 33871878
1 871038
51 L 0'5
L38 0389 3003
007
1 OL
77 805
5 30878
33871878
871038
7 2 0'5
9 5 0'2
L38 0389 3003
007
1 0L
97 805
5 30878
30871878
871038
L 7 0'5
9 5 0'2
L38 0389 3003
007

0Z9°
000'5
850'1
058‘
911'

L0 9
19 17

L38 L38
H03 007

53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5

6 6'1
ZZ 0'1

0383 3003

561

195'L9 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
L70'1- 5150L808
0 3008
761'1 8738
59 05 91 0'1
55 7 2 5'
05 05 91 0
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007
873 80155180 L20
75 53573 01178
16L'16 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
916' 5150L808
000'1 3008
519' 8738
77 51 L 5'
15 15 L1 0
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007
87808 80155180 520
75 53573 01178
219'66 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
506' 5150L808
000'1 3008
259' 8738
17 9 5 5'
55 '55 61 0
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007
878 80155180 520

16 Z
68 92
69 Z

L3d L3d
H03 FOV

535V3 DNISSIH

75 53573 01178

09 L
2L 61

13d 13d
H03 FOV

677'1 0L
000'79 805
000'5 30878
L56' 3387187A
050'1 871038
001 6 5 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
H03 007

966' 0L
005'17 805
000'5 30878
50L' 33871878
055' 871038
001 2 1 0'5
96 61 01 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003
800 007

729' 0L
000'55 805
000'5 30878
019' 33871878
912' 871038'
001 2 1 0'5
86 ll 9 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003

H03 00V

L3d l3d
H03 FOV

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5
1 5'2 19
71 0'2 55
1 5'1 92
0389 3003 L38
800
873
53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5
7 5'1 75
01 0'1 77
0389 3003 L38
H03
87808
' 53573 0815518
'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
830 0L5
883 0L5
5 5'1 65
21 0'1 75
0389 3003 L38
800
878

961

599‘18 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
796'- 5150L808
000'1 3008
591'1 8738
92 51 0'1

L 7 5'

92 71 0

L38 0388 3003

007

L83833718 50
75 53573 01178
272'601 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
95L'- 5150L808
o 3008
69L' 8738
6 5 5'

77 72 0

L38 0388 3003

007

L83833718 50
75 53573 01178
119'L21 L38 'A'3
0 8081818
162' 5150L808
0 3008
119' 8738
9 5 5'

75 62 0

L38 0389 3003

007

L83833718 10

L61

0 53573 0815518 75 53570 01178
6L0'1 0L 715' '1'3 56' 656'621 L38 'A'3
000'57 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 LLO'1 55388385 960'- 5150L808
1L0'1 33871878 550'1 A30 0L5 0 3008
252' 871038 171' 883 0L5 96L' 8738
69 2 1 5'2 0L 11 9 0'1
L9 7 2 0'2 65 L 7 5'
001 11 9 0'5 59 51 L 5'1 25 25 92 0
L38 L38 0388 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007 803 007 803 007
873 8L1081L803510 3811 590
0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178
679'1 0L 596' '1'3 56' 192'96 L38 'A'3
005'0L 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 902' 55388385 L69'1- 5150L808
6L5'1 33871878 L52'1 A30 0L5 0 3008
052'1 871038 1L1' 883 0L5 905'1 8738
9L 11 9 5'2 05 7 2 0'1
L9 L 7 0'2 97 L 7 5'
001 22 21 0'5 65 6 5 5'1 65 65 12 0
L38 L08 0389 3003 138 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
800 007 ' 803 007 803 007
87808 8L1081L803510 3811 590
0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178
227'1 0L 79L“ '1'3 56' 575'011 L38 'A'3
000'65 805 000'5 8081878 0 8081818
000'5 30878 975' 55388385 655'1- 5150L808
757'1 30871878 902'1 A30 0L5 0 3008
055' 871038 791' 883 0L5 560'1 8738
19 9 5 5'2 L5 7 2 0'1
9L L 7 0'2 75 6 5 5'
001 61 01 0'5 69 11 9 5'1 77 77 72 0
L38 L38 0389 3000 L38 L38 0388 3003 L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007 803 007 803 007
878 8L1081L803510 3811 190

0 53573 0815518
9L0' '1'3 56'
005'1 8081878
171'2 55388385
927' A30 0L5
950' 883 0L5

001 9 5 5'1

76 L 7 0'1

L38 L08 0388 3003
803 007

75
011'022
0

557°5

0

761'

L9 L 7
09 09 57

L38 L38 0388
803 007

8V3-A3NVUVd5NVU1

535V3 011VA

13d 'A'3
HOH1N1H
5150180!
300H
NV3H

0 53573 0815518
L11' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
295'2 55388385
069' A30 0L5
760' 883 0L5

76 2 1 5'1

56 11 9 0'1

L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

NVHOM A3NV8Vd5NVU1

7S
9OL'SZZ
0

667‘9

O

906'

18 7 Z
8L 8L Z7

L38 L38 0389
803 007

535V3 011VA

13d 'A'3
HOH1N1H
51501808
300H
NV3H

115' 0L
005'01 805
005 1 30878
591' 33871878
790' 871038
L38 L38 0388 3003
H03 007
767' 01
005'91 805
000'5 30878
9L7' 33871878
1L0' 871038
001 2 1 0'5
96 7 2 5'2
L38 L08 0388 3003
H03 007
665' 0L
000'51 805
000'5 30878
L55' 30871878
790' 871038
001 2 1 0'5
96 2 1 0'2
L38 L08 0389 3003
007

0 53570 0815518
290' '1'3 56'
000'5 8081878
110'5 55388385
195' 830 0L5
6L0' 883 0L5

96 2 1 5'1

76 6 5 0'1

L38 L08 0388 3000
H03 007

861

76
102'17Z
0
Z81'01
0

17Z°

59 9 5
09 09 57

L38 L38 0388
803 007

NVH A3NVHVd5NVH1

535V3 011VA

13d 'A'3
HOH|NIH
5150180M
300H
NV3H

om

3003

550

962'2 0L
000'511 H05
000'5 30878
L55' 33871878
151'2 871038
001 22 21 0'5
9L 61 01 5'2
L38 L38 0389 3000
H03 007

501'2 0L
005'101 805
000'5 30878
699' 33871878
196'1 871038
001 L1 6 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007

0 53573 0815518 75 53573 01178
699'1 '1'3 56' 5L9'55 L38 'A'3
000'5 HOHlXVH' 0 8081818
659'- 55388385 669’ 5150L808
L7L' 830 0L5 000'2 3008
201' 883 0L5 560'2 8738
65 65 12 0'2 L1 51 L 0'1
02 7 2 5'1 7 7 2 0
L38 L08 0389 3003 L38 L08 0388 3003
803 007 803 007
87808 08107858178 570
0 53573 0815518 75 53570 01178
959'1 '1'0 56' 225'57 L38 'A'3
000'5 8081878 0 8081818
0L9'- 55388385 L12' 5150L808
919' A30 0L5 000'2 3008
111' 883 0L5 099'1 8738
59 51 L 5'2 61 6 5 0'1
OL 55 61 0'2 6 2 1 5'
55 L1 6 5'1 L L 7 0
L38 L38 0389 3003 L38 L38 0389 3003
803 007 H03 007
878 08107858178 170

661

255'1 0L
005'95 805
000'5 30878
929' 33871878
2L6' 871038
001 6 5 0'5
16 L1 6 0'2
L38 L38 0388 3003
803 007

615'1 0L
000'95 805
000'5 30878
590'1 30871878
519' 871038
001 11 9 0'5
L38 L38 0389 3003

H03 POV

7L 9
69 55

13d 13d
H03 FOV

68 9
68 L
9L 51

13d 13d
H03 POV

535V3 9N1551H
‘1'3 56'
HOH1XVH
553NM385
A30 015
883 015

6 5‘1
81 0'1

0389 3003

NVHOM NOI1V3|3|1dH15 0V3H

535V3 9N|551H

'1'3 56'
8081878
55388385
A30 0L5
883 0L5
5 5'2
7 0'2
L 5'1
0388 3003

NVH N011V3|311dH|5 0V3H

OOZ

56
7Z

L38 L38 0388

H03

69
87
66

13d
H03

75
986'
0
525'
000'
590'
11
72

FOV

0
06L'
0
L50'
51
51
55

13d
60V

53573 01178
59 L38 'A'3
8081818
- 5150L808
1 3008
1 8738
9 5'
51 0
3003
L70
53573 01178
66 L38 'A'3
8081818
- 5150L808
3008
1 8738
9 0'1
8 9°
91 0
0389 3003
570

227'L5
000'75L1
005'011
099'L25
05L'62

H05
39NVH
33NV18VA
NV|03H

75 53573 01178

19L'75
005°8991
005'65
555'202
059'62

H05
33NVH
33NV|8VA
NV|03H

H05
33NVU
33NV18VA
NV|03H

666‘16
005'8Z67
OOS‘ZSl
Z7S'L88
052'78

H05
33NV8
33NVIHVA
NV|03H

51L'99
005'2927
005'111
296'119
005'LL

H05
33NVH
33NV|HVA
NV|03H

110'L9
000'2L27
005'111
L99‘L58
052'09

H05
33NV8
33NV|8VA
NV103H

0 53573 0815518
175'L2 '1'3 56'
005'221 8081878
556'2 55388385
101'91 830 0L5
597'2 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
510'L2 '1'3 56'
000'69 8081878
L16' 55388385
'522'71 830 0L5
956'1 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
95L'05 '1'3 56'
000'26 8081878
L62'1 55388385
900'51 A30 0L5
270'2 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
05L'5L '1'3 56'
005'591 8081878
755' 55388385
26L'62 830 0L5
750'7 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
L51'1L '1'3 56'
000'951 8081878
0L1' 55388385
567'92 A30 0L5
9L9'5 883 0L5
0 53573 0815518
112'1L '1'3 56'
000'171 8081878
590' 55388385
276'92 A30 0L5
656'5 883 0L5

92L'55 L38 'A'3
000'21 8081818
925'21 5150L808
000'21 3008
197'25 8738
873 8L018 L18
75 53573 01178
650'97 L38 'A'3
005'6 8081818
557' 5150L808
000'05 3008
969'05 8738
87808 8L018 518
75 53573 01178
L50'57 L38 'A'3
000'6 8081818
L91 5 5150L808
000'62 3008
259 75 8738
878 8L018 518
75 53573 0117A
525 55 L38 'A'3
000'15 8081818
900'1 5150L808
005 95 3008
199 59 8738
873 8L0831 118
75 53573 01178
001'95 L38 'A'3
005'72 8081818
559'- 5150L808
000'55 3008
556 9L 8738
87808 8L0831 68
75 53573 01178
595 95 L38 'A'3
005'62 8081818
99L'- 5150L808
000'77 3008
111'6L 8738
878 8L0831 L8

¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥8¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥
8180 53573 L83507 '500081L803 387 531071878

081801109 381 3507330 ‘03LL180 8330 3878 53107L 838300389
¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥¥

10Z

515'255
000'00L71
000'769
296'52025
005'952

H05
39NVH
33NVIHVA
NV103H

066'886
000'L9L91
000'0771
925'01095
OO§°08Z

H05
3SNVU
33NVIHVA
NV|03H

766'655
000'20151
000'019
710'70L15
005'052

H05
39NV8
33NV18VA
NV|03H

H05
39NVU
33NV|8VA
NV103H

H05
39NV8
33NVIHVA
NV103H

H05
35NVH
33NVIUVA
NV|03H

2 53573 0815518
2L9'252 '1'3 56'
000'506 8081878
657'1 55388385
256'9L1 A30 015
919'72 883 015
2 53573 0815518
755'952 '1'3 56'
000'6L71 8081878
919'2 55388385
599'952 A30 0L5
029'25 883 015
2 53570 0815518
259'072 '1'3 56'
000'L99 8081878
995'1 55388385
950'9L1 A30 015
269'72 883 015
0 53573 0815518
966'9 '1'3 56'
622'59 8081878
960'5 55388385
992'11 A30 015
955'1 883 015

SNIMVUG 8V3 3H1 803

0 53573 0815518
515'9 '1'3 56'
519'25 8081878
691'1 55388385
790'9 A30 015
001'1 883 015

DNIMVHG NVHOM 3H1 803

0 53573 0815518
595'6 '1'0 56'
L6L'L7 8081878
LL9'1 55388385
719'9 A30 0L5
661'1 883 015

SNIMVUO NVH 3H1 803

ZOZ

53573 01178

'59 L38 'A'3
'6 8081818
'2 51501808
'051 3008
'292 8738
3811 5010
53570 01178

'5L L38 'A'3
'65 8081818
'01 5150L808
'551 3008
'225 8738
381L 7010
53573 01178

'19 L38 'A'3
'L5 8081818
'2 51501808
'L71 3008
'062 8738
3811 5010
53573 01178

'56 138 'A'3
'1 8081818
'21 51501808
'1 3008
'21 8738
7387 8737387
53573 01178

'5L L38 'A'3
'1 8081818
51501808

'1 3008
'01 8738
7387 8087387
53573 01178

'5L L38 'A'3
'1 8081818
‘7 51501808
'05 3008
'11 8738
7387 8787387

778'1
005'99
000'5
L9L'
9LL'1

H05
39NVH
33NV|8VA
NV103H

H05
33NVU
33NV|8VA
NV|03H

859'61
005'206
005'9L
127'911
000'91

H05
33NVH
33NV|HVA
NV103H

89L'
000'
6L0‘
06L“

897'

H05
33NVH
33NVIHVA
NV103H

0

95L'
005'
91L'
51L'
LLL'

502

53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

'1 '1'3 56' L95'55 138 'A'3
'5 8081878 0 8081818
'- 55388385 879 - 51501808
830 015 000'2 3008

883 015 209'1 8738
87808-01178 8000 0738 8808

53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

'1 '1'3 56' 955'19 L38 'A'3
'5 8081878 0 8081818
' 55388385 299'- 51501808
830 015 000'1 3008

883 015 605 1 8738
878-01178 8000 0738 8808

53573 0815518 75 53570 01178

51 '1'3 56' 095'79 L38 'A'3
19 8081878 005'7 8081818
7 55388385 67L'52 51501808
01 830 015 000'21 3008
1 883 015 51L'91 8738
87808 3215 0738 128

53573 0815518 75 53573 01178

51 '1'3 56' 205'L5 L38 'A'3
55 8081878 000'5 ~ 8081818
55388385 710'2 51501808

5 A30 015 000'91 3008
883 015 515'51 8738

878 3215 0738 618