LIBRARY lillclliiitlll Sitnltan This is to certify that the dissertation entitled EXPERIMENTER PERSONAL POWER AND MONITORING EFFECTS ON FIGURE DRAWING TASKS presented by KATHLEEN JANE HAMERNIK has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for \ Psychoiogy ARL— degree in 2/2/ 87 12/4/86 "(II-'1.- Lfi—afi.‘ A ' F, In - n 1 , 0-1277‘ I! 1293 MIMI/7W Mill/WWW, MSU LIBRARIES .—:—- RETURNING MATERIALS: PIace in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book 15 returned after the date stamped be10w. EXPERIMENTER PERSONAL POWER AND MONITORING EFFECTS ON FIGURE DRAWING TASKS By Kathleen Jane Hanernik A DISSERTATION Sublitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1987 ABSTRACT EXPERIMENTER PERSONAL POWER AND MONITORING EFFECTS ON FIGURE DRAWING TASKS By Kathleen Jane Hamernik The effects of experimenter personal power on three figure drawing tasks (.818, female, automobile), and on subjects’ perceptions of the experimenter were investigated with a sample of 64 female subjects. Further, the emergence of these effects were studied under two distinct levels of subject monitoring by the experimenter (close: experimenter present plus recording of electrodermal activity; inplicit: experimenter present only). Four female experinenters represented two levels of personal power. Dependent measures included drawing task time, scores on four graphic indices of anxiety, and interpersonal and personal power ratings. Finally, subjects ratings of drawing difficulty for the three stimulus objects were obtained. High experimenter personal power was found to have both an enhancing and deleterious effect on drawing performance. Most strikingly, it sharply reduced drawing tile on the female figure. Close monitoring by the experimenter reduced overall drawing time and the amount of detail on the female figure. The female figure was also rated as more difficult to draw than the male figure. Subjects’ perceptions of the experimenters’ of personal ."II Zilf. .1: I.. I. a 1v s ! ‘TUI‘. I I I 3 i I i H '1 .‘ I: -a:‘ i ‘ '1, : u~. J ; 1. ' I .2.1, . . 1”. .l.. . : 4,11 II'H I‘ o. .‘c ‘. |()r‘I . .1; -' '3" ‘ I "‘1 l 1.. I uncut: .11 I.“ i' ‘ 1 I . ,') . H l I H .I I .’l.' I (I .1 f" . 1 I “» Hf. Iii ‘ . . z" “. .(.1 I I I INT. '3 .-;|1' l I Y... '1! . : '1 . II . . l. d ‘Ili power corresponded with the intended manipulation and was not affected by monitoring condition. No differences emerged in interpersonal ratings between the subject groups. The cluster of results pertaining to the female figure seem to support the premise that figure drawings elicit self-projection. Possible implications of this study’s results for clinical assessnent are discussed. II)“ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this document represents the culmination of a long journey. Along the way, my person and my work have benefited immeasurably fro. the assistance, encouragement, example, care and direction of many significant people. Dr. Joseph Reyher, the chairman of both my thesis and dissertation committees, was most influential in the development of my identity as a researcher. How often he restored clarity to my mind and enthusiasm to ny efforts. By his example he taught me dedication, flexibility, and pride. Perhaps most typically, though, he taught me to welcome the challenge of unexpected results. The other dissertation committee members also contributed importantly to my progress. Dr. Norman Abeles’ keen awareness of ethical issues, and Dr. Robert Caldwell’s regard for quality workmanship and the application of research, greatly enriched my research training. In addition, I appreciate the generous encouragment and suggestions by which they facilitated the completion of this project. Although Dr. Charles Hanley joined the committee during the later stages of the project, he nonetheless brought considerable interest and energy to the task, and this document improved as a result. if ()3 I," I - I .3. ' ac’ 511.»!- ) b ) A ' v I I If 'iH" ‘9 l '{ it'lu I i‘ L' it HI; It I "i‘I j) 1 '1'. 311‘ 4' i.A'I A I I .1 1 I I 1' 2". I0 I I ) l r u') L;’ .‘ l ttlHH v'II' 'il. III I I h‘ ‘f I} ”5’“ .1“ 11' I i J , . «I H. f'. a I I 1 :- II' "It ) “HI J .1 |;' I I I'll I" A ‘ ..". H II t' With affection and sadness, I remember Dr. Terry Allen who taught me most everything I know about statistics, and who died before this project was completed. I carry the memory of the last day of the three courses he taught our class; he was strumming a guitar, grinning broadly, and chuckling in that inimitable raspy voice. I owe the literal existence of this document to the generousity of two colleagues. Dr. Harold Bush granted me the use of his personal computer, and William Bradley taught me the art of wordprocessing. It has been the enduring love, care and support of my parents, Don and Charlotte Ramernik, that made a journey such as this one even conceivable. Long before I set foot in an academic hall, they were nurturing interest and curiosity in the world around me, fostering creativity, promoting sensitivity, and encouraging achievement. As my first two teachers, they were outstanding. As beloved friends, they are invaluable. There is one last person to acknowledge, Dan O’Grady, the one who participated in each anguish and victory along the way. His comfort and exhortations never failed to revitalize me; his confidence was stronger than my doubts; and his humor sustained me through even the most trying moments. How well loved I have been by him. To each of these important people, I offer my heartfelt gratitude. iii :" F I l‘ ' ‘l v - _ , i . A ‘ ’ I! ' ' H J ‘ lot I4 ' V ‘ i 1 I .l i. V t .,"1.1.1~a Ml".' .1: “Hilfi‘lln1' i It} rl‘ a} I. ‘ I ’ ’I ) 3"! 'r .> 1‘...'I.. 1, no . .1' .' b ‘ ‘ IIII,II " r . V; v’ :t I: :‘Il‘i‘ I. 'l . i ‘ .WI ‘0. LI i ci ’II) - '1‘ ‘.H I: .i "9" - ' ail ‘L: 1'- I. In -'b" l ‘1 1. ‘I ‘1‘ $1:‘; rsll‘ 1’ ’r "' v . ' 'I"¢J 4 ‘ ' .; . . Ii ‘, Ill ' . 1 ':~. . A . . . i" ”I: L'JI. ; z. 'p , , . .v ' ‘ . . .‘ ., '1 9] -‘1"1 .H. I ,' I ' ‘ '11! l ,1 ":I tl . ' I'T‘Hi: . ' s ". g} ‘ .' i‘ n‘ i4 .‘H . . .3 11-62:»: m ‘ . 2‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS LISTOF TABLES000000000000000 ...... 0000000000000 LIST OF FIGURES............... INTRODUCTION00000000000000000000 Hypothesea0000000000000000 Hypothesis I......... Hypothesis II........ Hypothesis III....... HypothOSi‘ Iv000000000 Hypothesis V.......... Hypothesis VI........ METHOD00000000 ......... 0000000 subJeCt'00000000000000000 Experimenters.... ..... .... Apparatus................ ...... ................ Instruments..................................... The Personal Power Functions Profile (PPFP). Handler Draw-A-Person Rating Scale.......... Roach Draw-An-Automobile Rating Scale...... Experimental Design..................... Procedure........................ ....... Preliminary Procedures monitoring condition..................... 0000000000000 00 00000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 .0 0 00000000000 for the close 00000000 00000000 Preliminary Procedures for the implicit monitoring condition................ ...... Common Procedures for all conditions... ..... RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.. ............................. Manipulation Check... ...... ...... ....... Hypothesis I......... .......................... Hypothesis II............. o.i.sion.0000000000000000 Line Discontinuity.... .......... ...... 0000000000000 0000000 000000. Vertical Imbalance... ............ .. ........ . Loss of Detail........ Hypotheses III and IV... ....... . ............. ... Hypothesis V......... .......................... 00000000000000 Hypothesis VI .................... ....... iv Page I l 0 s e u s 0 o s . f I .E It I; I . . v o I Q o o A 0 n . C - 0| .. I 1 I H! O ‘l. ,. ‘Q 00 ‘9 s u . 0 o a 0 V 0 a 0 u 0 . u m l a‘. ‘I ! .1! ‘I I 00 0. I \J '1 0 .‘I‘ 'II 'N I Ii ~53 I (II; . i ', '1 I I .. . AL I I, . h . . . . 0 e . |'|‘s I 1.! . ‘5 I.' 0 I I! .,I ‘ .«3 t‘ ' I,([.PI: .I‘.Ij I , ‘ u 0 s A I’ 4 I o r ’1}! I ,‘ .I v ’ IIOII‘ '1 {salt-" ‘ _I ll.\)H . \ )t 1 'I!’ .lll ls ti l‘l”I ‘l '1 To! GENERAL DISCUSSION ..... .. ......... . Monitoring00000000000000000 0000000 Experimenter Personal Power ...... . Sti-ulus Objects. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX A. ............. . APPENDIX 3.... APPENDIX C.... APPENDIX 0.... APPENDIX E.... APPENDIX F........ LIST OF REFERENCES. 46 46 47 53 56 59 68 69 71 88 89 Table 10 ll 12 LIST OF TABLES Pearson Correlations Between Raters on Graphic Indices of Anxiety for Each Drawing Sti-ulus ObjeCt000000000000000.000000000000000 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedom and Error Terms for the Dependent Variables: Time, Omissions, Line Discontinuity, and Vertical I-balance 00000 0000 000000 00.0000000000000000000 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedom and Error Terms for the Dependent Variable: Loss of Detail00000000.0000000000000000000000000000000 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedom and Error Terms for the Dependent Variables: Experi- menter and Subject Interpersonal Ratings and Experimenter PPFP Score....................... Analysis of Variance for Drawing Time (second8)sssssssssss eeeee sssssssss ssssssssssss Analysis of Variance for Omission Scores ...... Analysis of Variance for Line Discontinuity Score (original scale)....................... Analysis of Variance for Line Discontinuity Score (expanded scale)....................... Analysis of Variance for Vertical Imbalance Score (original scale)....................... Analysis of Variance for Vertical Imbalance Score (expanded scale)....................... Analysis of Variance for Loss of Detail Score. Analysis of Variance for Experimenter Consideration Score.................. ......... vi Page 24 30 32 33 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 "ll l; / I.J . II. 2‘. ) C s 1‘» o l l :. I t I‘) ‘1' '. - 3., "J . i II‘ I" " a 1" I s. . g \u- l-{l l(vg;l ' I I‘M. 3 . . . . ‘ l ’ II’ I . I . U" I I . J I - J 1" l I“ o ') I c.‘ , I I ')aI, 4 r .I V: II 0.. 0 'III - ‘ I. 0‘ or ' I ¢ "1 R' ‘Y ! ".\I 7 I, _ -:' 'i 7‘ I. II II : I 1 I: . g 3..I "I II I I .. .I 2 .I‘ I: H1: .‘ .1' I. I 1' l l- l .I'" IHI Dq‘Is“; ’0 ‘ I I,‘ , 1 (3 ‘ I h '.. . I . I A I. i'-iL HI I .~ .I ,. ‘I' 'l . I! I‘I‘l'. I . 'VI. , . I'I J I . ;I ‘V .- I I I J . 1): o ’t’ E . I“ ‘4! 3.1., 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Analysis of Variance for Experimenter Respectfulness Score.................. ........ Analysis of Variance for Experimenter Friendliness Score....................... ..... Analysis of Variance for Experimenter Likableness Scores................. ....... .... Analysis of Variance for Subject Respectfulness Scores.................. ....... Analysis of Variance for Subject Cooperation Scores..................... ....... Analysis of Variance for Subject Friendliness Scores........... ........ ... ..... Analyis of Variance for Subject Likableness Scores................ ............ Analysis of Variance for Subject Consideration Scores.......................... Analysis of Variance for Personal Power Function Profile Scores....................... vii 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 U 311:] o s ) - s ; ) A I I I r. 4 u' . 1' : "I j 7 1 Mi 1 £2 1 J ., as a LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Experimenter Personal Power by Monitoring Condition by Stimulus Object Interaction for Drawing Time ......... ............... ...... 36 2 Monitoring Condition by Stimulus Object Interaction for Loss of Detail Scores......... 44 viii . <.l'. l 4 MIL. \ I ll‘ ‘ l r' INTRODUCTION In the field of diagnostic assessment, projective tests have long been used to elicit important information about a client’s psychological functioning. While clinical wisdom plays a large role in the interpretation of projective material, it is research with projectives that affords the scientific foundation on which clinical interpretation rests. Research into the relationship of anxiety to projective tasks is an example of how laboratory study enhances clinical understanding. Nork by Reyher and his associates, described below, has indicated that the anxiety manifested by a subject completing a projective task may have three sources: intrapsychic, interpersonal, and task demand. Efforts to clarify these different sources of anxiety are valuable in that they help correct a tendency many clinicians have to overlook the effect of the interpersonal situation and the task demands on projective test results. In 1959 Reyher initiated this line of research with a focus on figure drawing tasks. He proposed that drawings of human figures could be compared to a relatively neutral and common figure of equal difficulty. The anxiety manifested in the human drawing could then be separated and attributed to two sources: (a) the testing situation which would 1 I1. I yuan; ,iII»va:I..I-..z.r;. ){‘.I'IHHILIIL I.» IIVHI “Ml? . . MIMI” IIII.I'II)IIIHI ll 3:} r I)! L‘I-‘II II'I'hi (MI (I I.) .. III 3") 'Il [Ii-‘1' ."Ii’lliil .:Ia3 It. 11_I(Dlt)[l"1V(7\j 2' :1 ., “I” an IIIII 14.! 'I‘III'I I‘lll nz- III win: "Ignaz I; .*l>1(lll JmH .u'JIta-II In; IHwI Ill'Ih‘H-t‘! w: z I: H". Hi» If] . IiIII II. IIHIII If ).IIN I.:‘- HUI f1.iII.::«I! )IlI .. I. .13, In IIIIIa'IIII lb: II . II‘ - HI (ll'lh'fiF’WI :. . k. .I. in! and in “Fry's; III. 'I 9.3%.} IIVI I: .m: . yr 5. a: sun” .Shlli‘filiikt'1fIlIlllV z I: :V) I)" .lll II Ii! II'I' ‘)I II-I mull ,vlh’wJ I :w‘I 1 7c! ”I r‘ til- ..‘I dun! .1 IIAIIJI‘II; I. an: lymph“: -(I{l» I ‘JU Univ. :‘I'... ,Iaznn III: 6' I:' I, Riemann .' JIIIIHL‘ I'llll Ina! i: Imigh .24“: '11‘1::. .II r-Imiii I «i 7! , 1";(1 ~Ii -:l V‘IIII Ind, III "’1 II‘IJIIIV :zu “ it I... a "I we]? :iIsIII‘In.) vi -2 .-, [ILI'IIIII‘ quid (H) .‘Iime‘nuw; .:.-:I LIH hn. nnI I..:III, Inunntw- .ath‘w-I' .-: 1 .'I 'II ‘In "HI: .HIIJ h'IlIil Illli Inn/’3'” “I"‘i : HI 3nd] h-gnmwguIII NH ..;)I¢.RJ Quint-:1!) «I'qull I'H) III'IH {‘TJJI ltii'li I3 I21 :l‘llt. ":U) in] lllljdl') H'I'lllqll ... .lf-‘fl v 'II/III. ‘al't VHIMIHH: Inmn "In 01::in ..gy .. ll‘llniln. '.(1 null LIIHI'I gun-H311: ”Inuit” II. .I :5 IIIIM H’. I ILIIIH: "In: 2‘9] Inf? II; 1.1-I'IIIunt .... I!" .v '16) II! 1 i-.‘f.': It’l‘Ill) E:-/I.I~I 5:“ ‘IIII- . Lll'tl'éf‘. mmiw» ‘I It)? 'IIIJI! ! -Iv:.;° ”Hum-IL 3') I , HI . {iHJlI (i'l'lII I 1H“! :17 run”: mum!!! llUmH‘JV) will in UN? l)l 2 effect the human and neutral equally, and (b) intrapsychic conflict which would affect only the huaan figures. Reyher selected an automobile as the neutral figure. Thus. if an automobile drawing has fewer graphic indices of anxiety than the human figure drawings, the clinician has an objective basis for formulating psychodynamic hypotheses to account for these differences. Handler and Reyher (1964) investigated the possibility that the level of difficulty of a drawing might be an influencing variable. They found. using the method of paired comparisons, that the automobile was judged to be as difficult to draw as the human figure. They also found evidence for the two sources of anxiety. Hale. female, and automobile drawings were obtained from the same male subjects under closely monitored (high anxiety) and unmonitored (low anxiety) conditions. Seventeen indices of anxiety for the drawings from the two conditions were compared. Individual drawing style and ability variables were eliminated by using the subject as his own control. As hypothesised, there was a differential increase in the number of indices of anxiety for the closely monitored condition which significantly distinguished the closely monitored and unmonitored drawings. For the automobile drawings, 6 indices significantly differentiated the closely monitored from unmonitored condition; for the human drawings, 15 indices for the male and 11 for the female significantly differentiated conditions. Handler and Reyher I ’,| 3‘ 1‘ v.’ at I’ll ,I III. \lli (1‘) o) I I l a "1‘,‘ o It ‘i“ II) 1 ‘I1- .‘I 1“ . I III.” DUI. I 11‘11 3| ‘ )‘N' «'5’. : w..Iu; 1 1.1 I '1') It! 3 II I I‘ l I. l I I 1 In" ,I I uh ifiu IIh I)II3;IIII( O D ' I (I: - - \I" M n Jr R” l u ”I; I , 1' :I‘ II I U. Inuwh Ii! ,_ISL; ) (I‘d! '0 ll I l.' I i .JM»IIIL f ".3I"' Ii]: {1 .?:' th til. III I. I N’) 1 ud‘ mud 'II r"|.)'1‘1(7) “ :I'I I e“, ~. I.4v. IiI ‘IHI lllld and . a ( Q’) -(3 11:5}. .;2 ()1wa ‘ .w.Ii'(Il Q‘I. uh“) ‘11 “32111.1(? '_) H 1‘) W” 133-; I? i‘ ‘U iIIHunJH b . 3U - v ... .... -s .. q s .11 I!" O I Hi I! .11 $1 Inu- I Hi “11 "11.1 )' '1'} '1 3&111 ') 101 H) QII ‘IlIHH $1 10 bu “i l1 '2 I) . i :I‘s Ig~ IIIznn) .1 .'-w \:h,. I ..U.1 I 5 I :4 I. I;ti '1'! 3 ‘III I...I1 Ii? IIUJ (2H011H5 valiHU ’11‘1111 dumnl flux 3 :‘1( llIHHflHH vioIwav ’ ‘0 .i|"~) la HI‘Ln IflJHq/i 'j (a «I'm u I: l I .'II!" ’ “Ilinnm waIbei) WuiiIhJu 3 concluded that the increase in graphic indicators for the automobile reflected anxiety stemming from the testing situation itself, whereas the increase for the human figure drawings, beyond the increase for the automobile, reflected intrapsychic conflict which was exacerbated by the closely monitored condition. A second study by landler and Reyher (1966) provided additional support for Reyher’s hypothesis. Human and neutral figure drawings were obtained from 96 lale subjects. Again. 13 of 18 graphic indices significantly differentiated both the male and female drawings from the automobile. In addition. Handler and Reyher demonstrated that human figure drawings were characterised by more spontaneous skin response activity (electrodermal activity - RDA) than the automobile drawing. A continuous EDA record was obtained while subjects completed their drawings. Analysis of both the IDA frequency and mean conductance revealed significant differences between all three drawings. The female drawing yielded the highest level of physiologically defined anxiety while the automobile drawing yielded the lowest. Then in 1981, Roach successfully replicated the 1964 study using both male and female subjects. Only 2 graphic indices significantly discriminated between the high anxiety (experimenter present) and low anxiety (experimenter absent) conditions for the automobile; six indices significantly discriminated conditions for the same sex person, however, and 7 did so for the opposite sex person. Thus, Roach ,; 'm.’ 1!";1 ‘I...‘..'-‘ .2 . A in. w - . '1 'a-id-u'uniun '.' quri a! la. r!H£ H.‘ #0 1'1.” . " at! u”: J. till.’ "...; '.,'.I '91!) In! ouaw‘ in! I“ 11.”, a; , :I'f..‘.'h I .n ': '.'.;f:xiy . ..p.- .2er {1 him: 1'): Hunt) JI'?.iI-'U." 1 an: .giu: JILHU'> .I'D :.:!I!1=_wm 3 an. <:z‘ . bu; aw'wc-H .‘(i {hula 0'“)an fi mzni ..»'.._'.s§§.'-H;IH «2' Imiv'ni 101 Ilnqm'a {LHUJ’jubI MAI? " .w. '1'» ruinluu ‘3i"uw «f‘tlliflt-il) 'sznwm‘ [Hutu-u! Hz. 19.11”: s 'Hrflmm ’31 14> H ol‘lttv v - H ca 'fi 'C m .J a b. i . v Q ‘ e- .e ‘ *; ; $.11. 5... .o':. ..3 E'r. -' t 17‘ alumni [.43. 0i...“ wall :1 3mm nil II-fl} ls’~3'.'t '- .M -24 ‘o'}‘~J"'Tl !'T')'~ 'c'aiisnl.;1 ..Hal fjlli‘f‘ A? ;~i'_':wiu|.euiu in l" Jal ’t"t"g'l‘ 'Irtl 'sdilws/ ..‘:«'~.~'ni ~41} i.wu:"sl RHIWhli) "-i:«.inu:niin~; ,.H “USU-r4 z-tz'. » I')|).'2' A'I ash Inul‘b: Qi‘.}‘!fl|]i"/'i‘ iiH'll-J .1. :-!m: r [J ‘ x, 1'.l’.1~:..‘:; 41!! w)? F!.‘I(?|'altf1.;'\ ‘ .wua .I'--' ' '. ‘wl ..n -;...n piitalunll‘u’a.) {Thy-t 1.1.‘I q ' A? "9’:? 'any :w! H.) has \ lit. 4 concurred with Handler and Reyher that the increase on the graphic indices produced by the autonobile drawing task reflected the anxiety provoked by the testing situation, and the increase produced by the huaan figure drawing task reflected psychic anxiety exacerbated by experiaenter presence. Roach also aonitored subjects’ RDA aean conductance. Although this variable did not produce a significant aain effect for the experiaenter present/absent factor, it did produce an intriguing pattern of interactions. Roach interpreted these results in terns of the nature of the testing situation anxiety experienced by the subject. He proposed that subjects’ anxiety was interpersonally-oriented in the experiaenter present condition, and perforaance- oriented in the experiaenter absent condition. Results froa a study by Haaernik (1985) also suggest that a lajor coaponent of subjects’ testing situation anxiety (when the experiaenter is present) is interpersonal in nature. Forty-eight sales and forty-eight feaales produced aale, feaale, aniaal, and autoaobile drawings in the presence of either a aale or feaale experiaenter. Subjects also produced TAT-type stories and wishes for each of their drawings. One of the sore intriguing findings was that subjects with the feaale experiaenter spent significantly less tile coapleting all three tasks -— drawings, stories, and wishes. Further. one of the graphic indices, line discontinuity, significantly discriainated ‘ '1.j Al"..a"'~ ll- I‘ - ;.l 4‘ A)'t. ' o u ‘4 q ~ ’61} ”4‘1? ‘3‘! Dunn‘yuts ‘2’ .. J: '31? M. ..;:':u' Hymn“ “Lil 1d 1.) n.:u’..z :zt‘.‘-)‘1')nl “ r.- ‘s 31],") '6. }\u)r;»*s JPN/{Ht ‘iifi‘JVd‘l 3:01)” myru. ; .aw nu :wi . Int {.11 2:2; ‘01 I I'm" u: a I. si )hhll li‘ ’ ‘l Iv 1 n )i' | . 1'; ' {.iiil 1‘. 'dhn‘ 1 1.1;. 3.. fin—MK“ L' l) "Ix". , -." ‘ I» ":")Z i :1 .'"*-'.','I l’! '1“‘ "A; WHIUW* 5il'l I”: '3'”) ..<:-u;'1')lnl 0w.» JI‘D.’,.:HB 'ai'rux‘wza i=4}! trt: «I LHL .Hnl f.lalluz .1; sein‘xl 1 .""-}iln'1"'..jf‘j I”; .1/.11.ia:ru: Innnz'; 1'11: ttmi 5 0'” HI . s‘w .- 5“,. «I»! '.-1~ ...;.‘1 3a. l~;'a[§')\;ullt)‘) ‘.)!'.II n a! K .53‘17.'v"'~‘ V3 s’-“!:‘\"i”1' ." :._v-” I""‘Nv ’1‘} In- a 11m: la'. "..n ».:'(1"_) vtuw: went. “km W M: iv”. . it ‘2th. .‘110-3-1- j ,:;i:.ru 1:: min) i 1 " 'lal'l ‘ ’ w. .1 I I‘iiW! it )ll‘]."o{t[ v ' u '=I1.t:11311 ;-.«\au! ”:3 In .' .mz-H'uutb "2 mi “II" .1"!!! Hz'! .. ' f”. ‘3: {NH .f-"w! In ‘.: ,(‘421l VJI‘ H" ,1“ viinz'rmi. L‘«“ ,IJ unthln-AH: ‘illtl ,.-«. 5 between experimenters; subjects with the female experimenter produced significantly more discontinuous lines than did subjects with the male experimenter. Discontinuous lines seem to suggest a hurried performance, and as such are consistent with the time results. Roach (1981) had also obtained significant results related to time. In his study, it was the subjects in the experinenter present condition who spent significantly less time on their drawings. These were the same subjects that Roach described as interpersonally anxious. Handler and Reyher (1964) had originally contended that a hurried performance reflected task or testing situation anxiety: "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” (p. 262). Thus it could be proposed that since the subjects with the female experimenter in lamernik’s study hurried to complete their tasks, they were more interpersonally anxious than the subjects who did not hurry with the male experimenter. To complicate matters further, lamernik also found significant differences in experimenter-subject interpersonal ratings. At the end of the experimental session, each subject rated his/her experimenter on four qualities: consideration, respectfulness, friendliness, and likableness. The experimenter likewise rated the subject on the same four qualities plus cooperation. Subjects rated l .‘l .::21 '2 n . . q ; :. . .f . mu IA -!t.r‘l '. .*1.(:1'hilglu'z.a;r A |).o:. . 1. .t. 3:. I .awtsu IN . ‘. . olll‘alll 2°‘u -) «Hm '1!) Him: .:1‘ u. ,; n: ~ '1; luv. ,u'HtLIItani'l'»: h-HIHHI I; ll: H;_~:1..J ul .::jlh;qa. 431:1] -ni| li_i{¢l ...wna :1 .s 0!. 1:.xfl' ¢'»aj|.l.|n ”921:. a i. I .::n ‘1. *th} 3:1! man: it ..zaula 9:}! ul .wuaI: ..u 1w. w 13-1.“! It! H13: (Hid Hui filzzzar> Lina-311 ‘t'uln'amo a: ‘wizw untrue: :wl *nww 981M? ..«yulm :h 'er'n:tl m: 1:. w. H .:%llu>l‘/.I.. vlnu.n;'1.q'1-t.a. t”; hunt a 131i) ' italii l in”! §.-.I;:1w?|1t)') Ili!zn|9|':u 1.5.! .tuzi . .. .s .meza «w: law! we: ii". I lolly»; I»! mus. 34...! “Hi! In a;»1..;al'.s‘?.»nn;-'3u artmpum vf-slrm, .2 ’4'}!!‘. ‘ .‘5 shun 1,] <3} “"Ha'nh 1. ”'39'1') Venn .i'hii’l’ (.1; nnihzuilfe ~.!i gnu-2i U] Irma; fsr‘oll'a H) .i I! n'mnguj'; "1‘ bald") ’l d1‘lir ,;§,.i‘, u; .fllii Hurlmml n: 'i'iHl"mi PHI/.9 «Mum-s] ml! l'il.d 'rtl:-;1_.HI ';.¢~..v w: we V-‘uil Ian-Lu.) 112).!) uj-quu‘) u) b.51‘ltlui Hm hth ori‘d ai'vuiflua 'nit nmii ..uuimus {Human w . u'» )nmnd Imzwu 931m: wn'i inhul drill; 'A'nt-ufladi .I‘Hll'lul .'-:‘.-.1Hm ‘DII.)15IU0\)‘) u '41: Jun. ‘i‘Jlla'wIa a Iqr'l u I. ’oll'll Hill» inr. Hi « * -m. lamb: 1m! ‘1.) MM wait Jix .c"t,lll 3151 lmnwzs-zq 1‘) t‘I-‘uim: 1 . :.:. Hi I .1: . iwuqmm tings-3 .nu :")l|1il!ll'll H .‘."atlldl1‘»'ng.-!-:'I .(lul i::'1‘ INCH”) .é’Qi)‘ ..o uz: :n: in: “WV: ”is. 5-: IH’JIII rug/w nil ..-a.¢~.1'yl v; 3- I‘m.’ ..1:).:v;1'u1n<)'1 Rub; anytzzlnp 'xnnl HRH, '-‘n I'r! 'Al I‘)V“’ I r'll‘V' 'jc,'/a’ wmii Hutu.“ I'sui'l'vH 'i HI» M 1H '1‘“! 'in ) " HUI hm D n u mum; fl l W I :‘l’\' .2. HI“ VIM. l.‘ I") in! “My! t lil'(‘:’. l‘bll’ll 4 l.'.";. Hum- .at-lil‘ ‘Jlll (‘ 6 the female experimenter significantly more likable than the male experiaenter. In turn, the female experimenter gave her subjects significantly higher ratings on four of the five qualities. The one exception was the quality of cooperation for which the two experimenters’ ratings did not differ. Summarizing these experimenter related findings, then, it appears that the subjects with the female experimenter hurried to complete their tasks. yet also rated their experimenter as more likable. and she rated them more considerate, respectful, friendly, and likable. An explanation for these results does not readily emerge from previous figure drawing research. Reviewing studies that have used two or more experimenters for a figure drawing task produces few significant findings related to the experimenter or sex of experimenter variables. Star and Harcuse (1959) compared three groups to determine if different experimenters or the length of time between testing sessions would affect performance. No differences between the groups were found. It should be noted. however, that the figure drawing tasks were administered in a group setting which could attenuate any experimenter induced stress or anxiety. Holtsman (1962) tested the impact of different experimenters. sex of experimenter, and sex of subject on five graphic indices of anxiety. Again, none of the variables produced significant differences. In contrast to .. .zd. arm)“: wuuu 2% H."i maze 'I'Ii.3"illl.H-x' Hwy; w ;.'..u l'ltl'lm. r -.'."l ‘II-fll‘): -.2 ,II In] In- . 3w”: n11. I u»: "'i.-1J m.‘ in new! nu «'Eidinl 'ImHgial VIl'H’I'.)ll.lH-fiji‘ (”rim-.- "5% In {illulap {Hi1 and uuiju 14/1) 41“.) ”(IT ,. ‘ulilnuu ull'l a. 131' .:{c11Ir.1 r‘l‘vzuwslli'lt'uzx') (WM 'HH 1! :Hid In? H“! l:-I° «..H-o . Ill 1'!) ,.:w;i9 ,;w.ru:l,uli 1 ernl H "Him-m. lJ".r.l 2.3 mil ”utw trumm. '1"lH‘JIlIJ'ifl-DQE’") “-15:24!le :wiJ NH» (:1 ”(data uni 1rd} anwumt; H ii‘Jll.) h-Hul U-"iiB I'w: marl“)! '11 ml. H“! l' a} iwlluui WM)!!! m'Hit twill?! an»; L41) ...5IQLJH' ~‘H‘AI r7 :-1.'! marina/0 .‘H hill inn. ,Vihn-H'J Itziiicu. ‘! .'):|.!'ri1|:-;Hh> '4- ,6: "{iJiHu-a) jun #907: PI‘.i. '1'. . 41. 1h] m-s 1hr}: iq!‘ n1. ”Lynda ,qniwwi'v'i'ri .c{ H “at guiwn'fl. n all dllt)ll’)!'| mun; wtuuii b‘ 'Jui pram-an 'vmxa 3mm "an 0.41 b-wu uvmi 31:;51 u! 17-9'l;l’*l nynairni'i .‘uz. ”lunch? as) :«ts.;|iu~1q Aunt unlun'lh .:. NJ. .."“-i¢)t.i'1bv "."Jnt‘rmi'i‘nhn In I v M ! Inwuaa 1‘»un 1:0} L 'Junu'twi-H) «r! .I-quntu sun.) }.H...;mu» ‘1‘r4- I ”dun” n'a-idl'fid ‘Hl'll it; Iiigu'al ‘Ht' )0 8“!"JII‘MHI'I‘HJIN HI :1 MIN «‘Hlo’l'fliii; ()7- .'.a:I;|..I‘.1¢)§lu~j },;H*. 2 .na. ’Hzl. ' quil't? wwwwzci .iwiuu ‘ul hiumia H iuxmt w. 41 mun-'1. " .w'wfl'u: :uuix I; H! I.*v1"zi.>11§lls%;5:u ‘}1'!'-N .2413: I ‘naauwn P'H'ili 'Hii Hzril l"*>lli‘-lll mun-ma!'I'Hz'x-a Ive. witsms‘ss: 1. instead dude: 54111119.: 43':|,<.1.. I! (1.". ’11.” knotrilvn In inimzu 'Hil hm; ~ a M!“ {II-.mxfiinh z.» 1““‘11LJr: in if"?! i-HI. . *win-m: 1w: . in , r’ .r'! aizl'utl't'h; ~ Hi In "yt‘uzl .Hllu't/t .inl H0 in ;::)lh{:l ’séi-1ndft "J * '31 i171)" Hi .-".'I"H', {'11 i :l’ Innzn I 1:: . ts r ”53“.. M1 vain“: H; 2 7 the Hamernik study, however, the graphic index of line discontinuity was not included in Boltzman’s evaluation. Roach (1981), however, tested the effects of different experimenters (3 males and 3 females); he uncovered several significant differences attributable to individual experimenters, but was unable to identify the source of these differences. Although the Roach and Hamernik studies are among the first in figure drawing research to uncover experimenter effects, the effect the experimenter can have on results has long been a research concern in psychology. More than 20 years of work have made Rosenthal an authority on the phenomenon of experimenter effects. In an early review, Rosenthal (1964) organized reported experimenter effects into three catagories: experimenter attributes, experimenter modeling effects, and experimenter expectancy effects. The experimenter attributes included such characteristics as sex, race, religion, status, likability, warmth, hostility, authoritarianism, and intelligence. Rosenthal later (1966, 1976) subdivided the attributes category, distinguishing between bisocial attributes (e.g., sex, age, race) and psychosocial attributes (e.g., warmth, hostility, likability). Applying this perspective to the Hamernik study, one could question whether the male and female experimenters differed substantially in some important attribute(s). The most obvious attribute is sex; but the earlier figure u: M "Li IN '(‘ 5..$|I.’ 'HII -’ )iati ! 914‘“ ’- ' ,o . . 13!.” 'JH \ lz~l!irl‘IIl-¢I‘ (" l ,, f '?fi 3 J i 2 '11 ‘ ILHH. “ii“. ilhl‘lif Wynn! 1‘ v ' 'I‘ ”U r" :1 M .‘II I rt :i} In” .1. :3 H; ;l (1.3 M’w uh“. ‘: I ,1 ‘Ji'Hz'a (31‘. u: . ' t-Mn'nnl’zmuu , W "'1!" i if .. 1,-1.3 n... :1, i I iv' i'~' : ‘.l 1 . Ill i. L»:..-' Hm ' Hz'=:;ilwf:l: Mt: mil'llv'a “NH 2. ‘3» ;--; 3.3:: 1‘; 2 r u. i (z; )(I 1 , w x, unipdl‘! . .2 I fly”! 1": :i lumii't-‘r: w wizmni .2 . 'lH'l A 4 't- n ' 1:. “H u: 424 . {hzzi n. 3-.” 'l 4 x ‘21’ I" 1.":l ,‘1'x on”? , 6“” ll‘ o'l . ly-xz; .‘~,il.m L- .1 «90! 1m '! .- ”.f'tH‘B'H‘J'I‘i .5". a; runny: am» 111'! ..v' .59‘1 \n') )inuwwnfii I4... nouns; ’aii oi (1')?!“341 «Muir‘s-9v - ‘LI [allt'|':}; run. )wwla Hum Di "'1'! ...n) :!"“'::wwz'1 H1. 2. 511' ""0?! “.2 4 :1! "‘1: H I! '~.g-,.,'l";., l' in“ 11-1 . W I lm)1m. .. Im :Hhfl‘rlu (I éi‘ "wwtnnzn’i 1,. w ;.t“']1«.’wr.l}. '1 Int , :~‘>ii'1 H'In‘wwa. ~Iihil'1iti“. I‘Jil'etlliil ti 4. * 1'31' 3‘: ,‘k'HLI ,-‘-».‘ ’1’. . ~: ,uzwzzt.v'Ir.Ii‘10!Hw: ..zzli Illir(:;.r' ..‘x‘z ,.!.‘\.3' '1')! 52m n-a-wfi-d H«zn-2.=jwnlii.f if. 4.: usnn ”A“; fun 'aw . .iaaliil..il “d: ()9 ~. 11’)-n;.’1u: lyll (JIM. ”its; 9:13 ']"’~‘{!‘.lifl I!" ’M‘H't‘ H-a'm HI M 1:.i inn!» : : ori , 'w ' r?! .3 : éi~‘: '1 i 1 vi /,i{IH., 'p’ltlili 117‘ “-tu'mux l 1 NH.) ‘iflll W t'.’ (.0! I. Ilw-‘ti Qnt: saw '4 :19; 1 3 Hun-‘m'fi-ll‘ Ii i; ‘hfli 'i'WflJ) ’1 "um! (’11! 1"” MIN 14.] H“ 0'2, 1W1] .2:1--i_>|.“u,.1i H’nd ,ti.:.'o h! ' urn. 320‘ it! .V'l(),‘4’15l‘ It .w'n'. , «v 1 (llli H’ll Hunk i. 3| ’tup $3.3M! I‘M) 4‘ he. i w .4 8 drawing studies produced no differences on the sex of experimenter variable. Therefore, consideration of other attributes may be more fruitful. A helpful framework for examining psychosocial attributes is provided by the concept of personal power. Personal power, as reviewed by Gavrilides (1980), refers to the constellation of resources, properties, attributes or characteristics of an individual which are external in nature (discoverable either through observation or biographical infornation), and which create positive conceptions in others. The theoretical and experimental work on personal power is imbedded in the massive behavioral science literature on power. Reider (1958) defined an individual’s power as the ability to influence the social and physical environment of another person. Such power may derive from personal characteristics or a person’s worldly possessions. Iilkins and deCharmes (1962) gave experimental credibility to the existence of the two sources of power, designating them ”internal” and "external." They described internal power as "accruing to the individual qua individual. This type of power is perceived by others through the individual’s personal mannerisms, traits, and expressed values” (p. 440). External power they defined as ”accruing to the individual in accordance with the positions the individual holds and his possession of societally valued material objects or experiences” (p. 440). Hinton’s (1967) discussion of power as a personality M) H) Iii); . .. li.‘ M5 ()1‘ LI :3 ”HR!” I 00 , 1H,} .‘ '114. 2 9 It; , w. i..;‘t! 33- I u(: ‘9: :4: U‘ ~ .... I 14,-» i .» ”VI - I .;: I: 'Hlit'ii; w: ' r11: "‘ . 1 aLlri . I )d V: Ht): I 11 l 3'] I ‘1 ll. 3 mm] in .2. r)’1H 0' it a! H“. ' ‘.»‘~'\'. {<11 .' r14.” ‘Jul [Hr 1.11 ,.'II no : ti' ‘1 I‘ ' 'l ' t: ‘Il 3 11 i i Ii 1:14.1' 130.: g-u {L ’1’ {2‘ q n" 1 r'.“§ 17°: '11” ‘-;'-'n1{. » {. I'Iht) an N 31”.. | 1 at? I: v .1 .’ v" ‘ . «'3'1'1'111116‘ Ii ‘1 l (“-1 ""1”!" ‘4’ Hrd'ulzg. Imhi 50' 13-!“ r! in Hus Hzl l ”U l '1 ~‘ )i! 1') unit: Win. (:1 ? .ut‘l.‘ Ht i r 91.1.1! [:1 Mal-lug Lu“).- q m: ' .u H 1“ '1 .. z-mw; .". H) nit-1,: VH ' 1 ~liJ {Btu} on. v: «inn7 7‘“ . .fl "1 'ni (2* twin?" Ir .i: l 1):." u. an. 'i'l‘v’l (1.1: ‘3' .hnv Ln: ‘ -J V n r' !lf! t. ..’1' tr! "H; a! HM .2!» Hi ltd..- «5. ’3 In 5)" 21:) , '1. I a? '11:. tinny») ls.(l§»l 3’th 'V'i .‘(IU n-‘gzsntlli ‘z-vnt 14 u': ‘ 3 (L: m 5 , I 9H,. :1.‘ w .-> Hi} 'Hi 1? (' IDSHI' a m ; ($1.! -’:')|§n g‘x'nh ruin. i'l;ilnd.: a. flnaiflJ 'l‘sizunfi '1’) z .) . , '1 . .fi. - UNI ' a 1:'1=.H.)"'U Du (n: UN! «1H *1) ,>.]'1 * intil'il‘n',‘ i' 1:. ,Itdi ‘)i‘fl?lt mil u} 'tili' ,l 1.; 4" I't . J" It) azi : :zlunm lt.lll)r'l v3 .' wan-‘1 1;..1’1‘3il 1 . ~ 1‘: H; . )1.) \ :1. (i4 . I:' to :1 ; New»; (II t. s; ‘1 . ’ - ..z )‘ ‘: Hi; twiuq H) in“ . :1) .’:"¢ HUI it“? Jt-ITR lault .UhIV .,,|I g'i-Hz v l)~)cI-“’ I 342“: invumt .;‘. :LII {IntH1:-’~ lil'l' NH ‘40! ‘)Hu; 1' "3 [1‘11 q ‘tilit sins" u I!“ “if. r)..- 0H: m 'I II. 9 construct further delineated the sources of power an invididual may tap. "Interpersonal" power, according to Hinton, stems from an individual’s interaction with others; "organismic power" derives from intrinsic characteristics and abilities of the individual; and "institutional power" is based on sources that are extrinsic to the individual and reside in the individual’s social environment. An important aspect of any personal attribute is its stability. Hinton (1972) addressed this issue in terms of personal power: An individual’s placement along a continuum of power represents a personal attribute which is relatively consistent across situations" (p. 105). A study by Goldberg (1978) confirned that persons tend to view the behavior of others as caused by underlying dispositions and therefore as relatively consistent. Much research has been done on various attributes and characteristics that could be subsumed under Minton’s three sources of power. For example, eye contact and speech occur during an individual’s interaction with others and therefore qualify as sources of interpersonal power. High eye contact has been associated with greater sincerity (Kleinke, Bustos, Meeker, I Staneski, 1973), friendliness, self-confidence, naturalness, maturity (Kleck & Nuessle, 1968), and social skill (Cherulnik, Neely, Flanagan & Zachau, 1978). Low eye contact, however, has been associated with increased self- abasement (Libby & Yaklevich, 1973), as well as defensiveness and indifference (Kleck & Nuessle, 1978). (H ’1 I l <7 1 l I II) J :‘v” )1 v D ' I1 Q ",1 O I O " - I 1"! I {:3'1 *1 Ib‘ 1 : )al. I 't I ‘1 H ~ . . In 4 ll! 7.1.!1'. ;) -I ! IIII.’ u. ”if u . :l‘HiHI 111.}! .ll', 'I'.'-’: t ‘ 1' ... '1 (inch: =i will NH In”; :eczt‘. . :llh .‘.H IltM z~ Lu , u. i .. r, “Milo (ill 1 I IL!" '1? J ) i .- l ' ’." 0 ‘..1.l ,Ul. . I .‘5i (>1! .1?!) t I]: H i u I V oft (3-1! I . H "a?” ) rl‘l.'."il! nah; 11111H. I .Ui U] iHIHi O \\‘§"‘i) k 1‘) “1, HI Wait) ”61):! ‘)/‘0 , , Jr! HUI - ) 1" " ’l‘it'l 'lHfio'". I 3. v I! .4') H). “L: ‘l‘. 5" II-loi..~vli)u. ,;:: inn: mow]; a'qu‘v’ in”: .. IIvI‘JJli-Hi “I1 u‘lzi ind.) g: a: I“! but anuz‘l'h; H k " “1.); 3...; lb ‘(z-luuiwq 31.1; -'.I 11'] man J . :lg'c ah ((903 {5"} '11] !;;Uu') it; iqdlqi/I ln'i r-a s ‘prU‘I‘l'Wl l 1 [NH ' "Y. iii 3 ('--: . II [mm I 2.: I WW)~ «raw-1.: ,slnauzi~ , u r'm~‘lHI;}( t 1' i I(‘ H‘iillildt. lillf. 1,1, ..a nu: Luau] .'-w um: ”I” [H ”NH-0'1 a. in“: H3111” Hi. uvbaai’ ./r’l‘13l‘e‘"..lr ‘ zwuwl mustn't H; .Hi'n'31l‘3'ni 's'adtiq 3:: “an”. ':I'*l~!lid|'“'l ! Lass; 1_i in“ ) mix-U5; :i |!";tlsl.') .z'v, sew-nth. 1...}.21.“ *zieaviitzl-H .i r if; a.‘-“ol {3 HH’ . "l 'J W‘ 1 " ~ ¢ itl‘ltili ;{“')’li:)r.. ...! it; I ‘Ha o“;",t; I riM‘JIH; id 3 I.) tum . Aim! :1) .ll' ‘3 v' (1:; I NH; .19.; an Lu. ”'1‘!” H I MY)? 1141') ..‘l(,e" And; .i WW!”j . even: l 6 In H.” I'PII" ,1">t~i.tnt ’(i-tll’l‘i:’.lii}.. ézwtsmv j rn'rtwb 10 Powerful speech has been shown to result in higher ratings of attractiveness and credibility (Erickson, Lind, Johnson, & O’Harr, 1978), competence, (Bredac, Hemphill, & Tandy, 1981), and sociointellectual status (Hradac & Hulac, 1984). High eye contact and fluent speech together produced perceptions of high competence, dynamism, and trustworthiness (Techell, Vendenberg, & Lerman, 1983). Some of the qualities that Hinton (1967) included in the organismic power category are skill, intelligence, enlightenment, education, and physical power. Physical attractiveness would also seem to belong in this category, and the voluminous body of research on attractiveness clearly indicates it is a powerful attribute. It has been demonstrated that attractive people are expected to possess more socially desirable traits and be more successful (Dion, Berscheid, & lalster, 1972; Haruyana & Hiller, 1981). Their work is also rated more favorably (Landy & Sigell, 1974), and they are considered to have greater savoir fhjre and be more likable than less attractive people (Goldman & Lewis, 1977). Among the attributes Hinton listed under institutional power are status, moral standing, and wealth. Regarding status, Heider (1958) wrote, ”social and legal status often affects what a person can and cannot do by determining the strength of the environmental forces” (p. 95). Eagly (1983), reviewing gender and social influence, comments on the interpersonal consequences of status: "Within ,:» It: .-> " ‘3 .‘I - 'v . ."I' . " I I- II I - .IIIII MI , I Itv I.‘; ,u .; I ».I , . . " ..i I' .. )I ' i In I” 'I:- It". ihlllv I.I I l ' 5-12!) ,' ‘n' I mu. m mu .‘ .I II I-Iznm ‘.I-.III I itil‘i III. Hm I 'nvw 1214‘. ;.:‘:. .m:.n:;II/:. ,J.I"~' 1mm) I:L‘ltl In Iv-IIJIIqIII-n; .Iéit'. IIMUI .4 ':!u‘I~"-~!r'.¢ ,I'i ”'11.; «23"‘I1If1’1'54'.'.l!3 Nu} m; .92“ . _I..,I!1 l'-, .I Ii F'fll,"-l{..1,‘ 'inI II» 'IIIIur’ .‘S‘III'J-‘IIJ' ii=I ..'-13I'd 'I'II. i“ (ten) "“dfhl ”mature“; .-’/:_.‘I . 14-431; I'.\I ‘(.5(, I116 ,:[«.III-'II~I ,':‘2~:.II}I1'II1III i.) .{IIfI III ‘iani'ui I-i III‘--n.-: .. v. 1.131).] if—‘III'I'II.IIE")1I. .I. ..«I 5 ..~; I i h. Ian n-,"I.I .:.---I'-I 'i'I vi. .II T’IIUIIIIIIU i «>1 ‘)*3 I IIIII. ‘:1 II .wZI'IIE'IJIe: Ill'Irlv’L.iI I. ."i .31 Halt-311“}! Vi'If-“‘I «II [l’il'l'fll/‘I -I II. ‘1 I -. '1.) '_;J1 I'M-'11 I'. hull ’3'! If. I IvIIHIIll’IiI 3.“P!-'II'I'..;I ‘I'IUIII Hal IIIII. allfl'lj "I1\“[;'lj;":11 «Iibi Ina -:'1II.'I . I); I IV. A I"- .IIi =:.I"" "lIlf. , I t|I-!:I.'N A .111011‘135 I-IH ,Ilhfild fl YHIIIIII 'J‘Zti'.:UJI-1 -I'IUIII 11"}f3l IIé’ll‘. <41 'Ii'Iu'H in.) ‘\\u1\'.'.', 'IeIluII": ‘n'...i HI IIII-IIIIuIIuI I'II: ‘{'IIIJ in“. J4 III.II;III(>I')I ~IIIIIqu .../I inguiiih as». HIJII mined” (Hum II 9.».1. 'Iuhsm i..I'r;i: ImrvIIV‘: .IIIIIIII'IIII‘. 'IIH ,quuII' )"i'I'l .Iliii.’Iw hm}; ,’.I,]ZIIH(.IR III'IHm ,HUIIIié‘ ‘Ill‘. ‘l'IdIMI . « > e! 21.... s ‘ . ., :. :.;.-‘.l ;,,,._ II‘I and ,‘ilti'fl .}.lt.l' I .... III ..{uluzz Hiiil'l‘Il‘Ii) ‘1‘! (H) «mm.» mm my.» IIna'IsIvI r. Mum .9149! lb Un'I . ..." .‘I' "rt-v Hut 1.5 III HIHIO‘I I van m) In I! Lew-‘11.: wwm. .‘~‘III'I1.|iiH| It's me: I'm. lawn». :JIIIwniva , I IMF-:1 I .IIIII I ‘ ;.';.?;.I.-~’. '1.) .-‘.III‘I‘IH!I'3.-§|H.L iIEIIII.{)"x11')iHI In?! ll appropriate limits, people of higher status are believed to have the right to make demands of those of lower status, and people of lower status are expected to comply with these demands" (p. 971). Attire often reflects one’s social standing, and Schneider (1974) demonstrated that the well- dressed person uses more positive self-presentations. Further, Solomon and Schopler (1982) found that clothing decisions strongly correlate with the trait of public self- consciousness. Finally, in a study by Barnes and Rosenthal (1985), well-dressed experimenters were more positively perceived by their subjects than poorly dressed experimenters. Returning to the experimenter effects produced by the Hamernik study, it becomes important to ask whether the two experimenters differed in personal power attributes. Post— hoc reflection suggests that on the dimensions of speech, attire, physical attractiveness, and socioeconomic status, there existed clear differences; the female experimenter spoke more fluently, was more attractive and consistently better dressed, and came from a higher 888 family. Based on this post-hoc assessment, it appears that the female experimenter possessed greater personal power, and as such, could have represented a more stressful interpersonal situation for her subjects. They had to interact with someone who seemed especially important and poised —- a situation which could well have heighted any of their interpersonal insecurities. Thus they might have 04‘;‘ I.‘ I 'ISWHI u J~ I;I . i I I )(l I III. .III) II. \|’ gulii I ) l ; 2 ‘Il " ’;()I :i'd :1! #“<1 5"! 0‘. up»! I o 3\' I!" 1 l ."‘ I. I I. .mf: i.» j- ' I"‘“I ”:nz't I. --:nl.! (v «1 IH-m'd) mi m'. n? 3:2}: .9‘!‘ (.1 1.. I“. I .. . 1.,J“ I, , 1.“. \I'I'II it), '3 ’r' .xl. . L'!iI:':i*;];I: 9:[‘1.[;.§'$1!n’ ..J th:ll-)I‘.|~)Iv;1 .anui lillnufi) zua ') :(s'tq 'nII iz.:I: f. ; 'rl iJ'I‘rHHIJIq Ie‘IIl (I'nsufl wuwumv; 11")(1 I"I.lI)HI a] I, ”III um 14:1I‘101inum [:03 of . .; iii a- !.II.:‘I()‘1 'JIIiiII".Ii/" «UH! Jud! 1:"!1I;')Ihlti (bf-ill} muni'wfl Inn: mum Iw ,i'rnp--~I:H,II “II n!n_i Haw 'r‘II') Ila?! Jun” .5 viii III—‘1 ww-m'nrzm. 31w: In; l')-:I,dn 'ln um sum. ,JIHHIIJ a i‘lei/I)1I"I huts II-‘Jllfl 0.1 SULIlu'lufi'JA . 2(le Hing-«r; (2w! minim h'slwazl: -n‘. In . HUIHI'HIH ~31 :: L'III'I‘J". “II x: .'.i [In h1;.wui ‘Iu 11'“). “III {VIIIWLJI 13 environment. Symbols of the self, such as a mirror or a tape recording of the participant’s voice, will focus a person’s attention inward on the self, thereby creating objective self-awareness. The self-focused attention will gravitate toward whatever dimension of the self is most salient at the time. A person will then engage in a process of self-evaluation to determine the degree of discrepancy between attainment and aspiration on that dimension. If the discrepancy is positive, a person will experience positive affect and will seek out situations that stimulate objective self-awareness. If the discrepancy is negative, however, an individual will experience negative affect and will actively attempt to avoid stimuli which result in objective self- awareness. In situations where the discrepancy is negative and objective self-awareness is inescapable, the person will attempt discrepancy reduction. This usually means making special efforts to bring one’s present condition into line with the aspiration. Up to this point, the evaluation of one’s performance has been based on internal standards. Reyher (1986) has argued, however, that when such an evaluation occurs in a social context, it quickly incorporates interpersonal data. So, a person in a state of objective self-awareness makes an evaluation of performance and then projects that evaluation into the interpersonal relationship. The now projected evaluation intensifies or diminishes (in the performer’s mind) according to the status or power held by the other .I III. . .I . ' HI I :I‘IIYIIIHIlaI I II . I4 ,‘IIII .,I )',".~.I II’I: qul-.-II'III Q “.I‘ w. ”:1. I .lI-I.» III} I I I 1I..~IIII IIIIIIII'I'I. ... I‘m; a V; I 'zI-III. Ill.‘Ii ..II II')£~Z ..I. .('f.-’.'}!I;513,rl.‘. 'I 1'. IIII‘)IIII. II. .. II‘Ir‘ 1:11] In fI«sa.:rI':IIIIII ’1‘iy'fll'hlid Irtuwnj ’IIIIIIaI Ir I II. ‘, .‘(I‘I II'IIII IIIw “may”; I . HIIII II,‘ Ir. 'III‘III’ -I.'I"I‘sl Irilh II) ta . 'II-III III --II.III')-II-III III IIIII iI.IIIr.v*-I II'I(- I. I I .IIHI .; '. ... .2. I .II nu uni Ill'll'I. . II..:'. III mulls.) 1:. II I In} In .3ILI'I‘I ~I'III'II'I-Iqx-I IIIH IIIIé' 'anx I; , )‘JI Itauq w, v IIII;-.I:I'I,Iajt. I! «In .I ..I .1I . ;;;III nun I II I I a um; .I‘ . a». I I In! IIIIII IfIrI'I‘II. 'Ih'aII ,H‘Jl IIJI‘HI ai ’7)“th I'I'IHIII °IIII II .r‘.":il'9|l.‘NI. 11%. ~ -. IIIII I-II. I'IIIII u‘iII. {’II IIH'III‘II‘I III» lI-'.\$II|)III|I| II . IIIJIIIIIII ni IIIII't‘I’I IIIII‘IVJ III'IIIIII-i III MI. (I) .IqxII-Hw; I I.“ III el '{JlllJ‘U'I'IthYz IIII II‘IIIN HIIIII Ian I I «'3 III .;~".r‘. III I'IIIu‘I. unmm, :I.II ..II \1!Hlli',)é~i‘_1.'1l a: é:.~:“l1"1'1Hi~'h ji'w '3JII)‘I{(1(I IIIIH will I34 .{IIIL‘IIII vi |:,I;.-II :—:IIiI .IIHI 2 JIIII‘i’I '(‘3Il1ifl'i'1).«'. I iIIIII I) II ’It, III)!§'§-IIU.) III'JLW'II 9’."III() “I!!! III HI I’I :III I‘I IUI )‘I'lc’ .IHII.I"'I II‘QI II:I.»J I I~1III'I-I $9.15!.) Iv.) IIuIIIHII;.‘: H‘I .IIIIIII, PIII) (LI I43 ,‘I ,I 11'! .' .‘:.I{~ wh’ILIIIIVJP. lisll'I‘IIIEI I!" Il‘sé’IHl (I‘I‘IIJ E"lva‘I . HI . IU '11) IV). IIZIIIIL .I. III‘. II'HI.’ I". ivIw IIHII .‘I'I‘J'lHHII ,II'HI.‘I Ih‘ I z ' 'I‘I: ‘.1I ItIH:'II.H|'JII>II‘I VIA LIN.) 'I .J/.-IIII0) III] «we: 4m III ;'.r;rIIII1.;.I.~, ’13-'95: ‘III I I'JLIII) 'II) ’III.II I. III I.:..‘1‘Iq I; ,0". I: Is I I:=/‘:I '- I? . f . I. (0111 I! III: In”, .})'IIII-lfl]-’¥I I'M] II) HUI ILUIth: I . I I ‘-I II. ‘II '~I.iI‘ .tlII1v .IIII IIzi-I‘I IIIIIIH‘. I I I'I‘ IIIII {MEI Ujui ' .. n I I m :I *II: ..z-III iiIIImIb II) :I ’1 IldJ‘IJIII n.” .ILUIL‘J‘I I , “.1; ..-II I: II. III I’I'I'I'I‘I :» .-II 3:55,; wa' I.I ~-;.,III"I(. I n, I‘ll!!!“ 14 person(s). This interpersonal dilension of self—evaluation has been aost thoroughly developed in the theory of self-presentation (Baumeister, 1982). Self-presentation, according to Bau- aeister, is ”aiaed at establishing. aaintaining, or refining an inage of the individual in the minds of others” (p. 3). One of the Iain aotives for engaging in self-presentation is to cause an audience to react favorably to oneself. When atteapting to please an audience, one’s behavior is guided by the standards of the particular audience one faces. Thus, a person can act differently with different audiences. yet in each case be seeking a positive evaluation. An integration of the objective self-awareness intra— personal evaluation and the self-presentation interpersonal evaluation suggests the following explanation for the lanernik experinenter effects: RDA nonitoring induced a state of objective self-awareness in subjects. The dinension which subjects found particularly salient was most likely figure drawing perforaance. They then engaged in a process of self-evaluation to detersine how well they were perforaing coapared to their aspirations. For most people, figure drawing is a difficult task, and one that rarely aeets aspired levels. Thus, IOIt subjects probably experienced a negative discrepancy between perforaance and aspiration. Because this evaluation occurred in a social setting. subjects then projected their negative assessaent into the experiaenter-subject relationship and engaged in 1 , O 1 'Ilil I4: }“)': I.' “I 41") N JWHI I! ..L‘(: }.,.,’“' vi fl'l‘: . ;:.i‘I I .‘ i I I ..1 II'II II‘II1 * 'I’Ill l 'Ivz vltlIl 'JII IIH'I" 1H1 .unuii .t" ‘I I- 1‘} I :~; I-°Il I it; i It ”Idua HI III) [IIII. I-' e l. ‘a r” .L’t’s‘uilri Il-I'IVJ 1’: i {U'lfl‘tl H!) II. Ilk!{l(1‘ M. II :I.II I, .I' I i I " I-I I I‘I '(\ 'I'I" 1.1 «J I: .I . J . ., :: III I ,III) I ‘83 z ' 'w ,uuinIRIHIBm ,yni ' 'I II.iII in rtlIIlIifl ’JIi I‘-?HH.IIQ jinn HI LUI~1 .I n , I 5 I ‘!I() () i J lfisi'l€)'lt; ..II’R (I (II 'lrll'I-i 'd'WIlU‘," . I ... I IIIII .. I'l J I iIIIII II ‘ nIIhuh quI..iIn n IN VI] .HUIJHHIHII WiilIdU 1.1.‘II: i:.J."-IHI'III‘¢-’II ll‘Irl ‘IJI 1 ::I I=I III I III» I II: ill‘!$!'!“(l '] 1“ ‘u‘ I'IIII JIIIIIIIIIs'H :{II a .Inqu quIIu1Inum iui ...,AII. 15"-.III ~IIl'iI I': III-1‘6 S'Iull 11 I I1 I I. It, I I . III?I ‘. I ..jIJ IIIII } 3.;IIIH -.:- VIII - I I'I54 . .t 4. I .‘l‘w 3.2 I I:n..: .I flaildsiaw It bnmcn" a: .IuIaI~m .I II ; l I.IIII Ivl III-I I 'IIE I III 'I u I ”II ll:- vdfi wed awVIiom nILm NH) 10 'HW : i"L")'l (IJ> 'D’III‘t'III-i- III. 'I.'.II.) Hi qurbun HL w.hwlq n! aniqumIID II rI I I NIH '0 i‘II'IIIQIltrpla ‘Ill’ («I anuIIIh lIh nnI HURIHQ b .cudT q n quAn-¢ wj .unv HI“) HI I4! )WLJM wnt In unIIhIgwInI nr I'I,» III? I iIIII: III. I IIIII II. 1 I !?.I!()é’ I'III InuIinI nnl wvawxgua ”UlibUiLIW n9nuI|w IniuImewqxw fiInmenw WH’Vluat~ II n- HJI.lIwI HI it) fiiiijd LHHII ¢1IIInua dIIdu HUIdHJMID IIIIIH III 1'] rIII IIIII boII‘III ‘I'Illf{ II! ‘( l‘I A I I I: (I I IIII I IIIII is; I-I i ['Iza lit) 52>9r. .II'III ért. II ‘II; ' I; I II I 1|.II'uI: I :.II ..u'1I; t']«;r) I ilfl‘IIIIH m a; unlnnwb nquii Drum .wnni .aIuvnl hnwiqmfl aiwum III III}- 1': I;‘ I II 'I~J I ) I.§(‘ III .2 ’I’) III‘) I I ‘III r"; ILJ1LIH nIfiI waanwd .nuIInIIqau II'I i )‘Il II‘III [I'lll I .z i )ffil‘.ilivf ,‘III I I I‘I.4 *wI iI~IdH~ IWIHImiWWQKW ”HI “Int 15 self-presentational behavior. Baumeister (1982) has noted that the experimenter consititutes a real and important public to the subject. Attempts to ”please” the experimenter-audience would require sensitivity on the subject’s part to the ”standards" of the experimenter. Such standards could best be deduced, it would seem, from those experimenter attributes that contribute to personal power. The higher the personal power of the experimenter, the more the subject might expect the experimenter’s standards to be difficult to attain; this would then intensify the projected negative evaluation. Given a negative discrepancy, Duval and Nicklund (1972) have shown that a person will attempt to avoid the situation, often by hurrying away. This is certainly what the subjects with the assumed high personal power experimenter did, as evidenced by their lower time scores and higher line discontinuity scores. Furthermore, having a more demanding ”audience,” subjects with the higher power experimenter might well utilize more respectful, considerate and friendly behaviors to elicit a favorable evaluation. The experimenter. as the recipient of these extra efforts would, in turn, give the subject a higher rating on these same interpersonal qualities. Returning to the studies by Star and Harcuse (1959) and Holtsman (1952), neither included procedures that would induce high objective self-awareness. So subjects would not be especially sensitized to the experimenter/subject v .‘I ,ir ..H, i?! niuv“ u. ‘vfl I P b t" ‘I ‘HUlIlll t w .:;s :.i -!U f l . :vtu‘lh 0| 1. Hi ‘1 ”H U] HM “ll ‘- I,.‘.‘.I I,.‘E.HI.’ ' 10“; l . 4! ‘Hit '1. in .iu' c). 1‘Iii‘1‘m; .. 1 ' O :11h] . a li ’ul‘l .3' :11” EH'HH p ' .s\‘ 3| 1‘29”.“ ‘) 110"? "iui H1 3.1. ‘ (.l n '3“ ..‘ l . .Ji’q 'r '6: , i' .421). 3 #:zmwlln l .- (H) .~..r.;; ‘1!!l‘li" n1 .1 (in n :uurnt. UH! / ‘ l: I nl’thi J 3 3:411qu w‘ ’Hiiflr’ " ., x «1.3... . rum i ;.'l H I. n 9') (.l 1 3 in Hui )w'! Hi! In ,, 1);.” (a. .v n“ . H: '.i . J). Yd f”)th['} Will :0! 'uu m a It dot 1"“! :‘I(i u' ) 'IH wrun‘w: u! atqmvHI. :iha “I“ m» viiviiipuwa h-r H ,t s g. s; aur‘. . m in-nui'l'wxw .mnii ;flu'l| .m-‘ ... i‘iunw l.'1(3.'".’1'i-J n) ': huii'l inn» . :-:' E‘;.I!11"'l."'} mil in t O r: 'I tlra‘tml rid/’9 Q! ennui.) a’ '1:« "Hui n'ngi lilllnw ..- 'Jtll»‘{‘lll t. (l'a‘zli) '3‘”; p; :mH flw’tnld HVM‘ 5: MI n'séla .untiuuha wk.) a!!!» alw-Jteiua m!) .iiiu 'I'Dllz'HHi‘I'rIr’") .w-mcb ‘mri t-adyid but”: ninth." unllmlnuw‘) ‘i'l Mn w Icigém ‘quu-untiwqx-i IHilldl't-i (”MPH/£1 Inn: at: .l‘illlfiltli‘l‘aLQ’<1i mil w W; .uzuj nt ,&.quw :vn l..cn>:rls-aq1w!ui muse >n? .i ‘z'llfl'llllwn uvmx‘ I i u}? “MI! E r); :in Lag” f)‘)|;i2(]l .Mauue v: iiii’)"1(iu‘| 'Mi 16 interpersonal situation and experimenter effects would not be expected to emerge. Roach (1981), however, used the same RDA monitoring equipment that was employed in the Hamernik study; his subjects can thus be considered to have been in a comparable state of objective self-awareness. Indeed, his subjects demonstrated sensitization to the experimenter, not only on the dimension of present/absent. but to individual experimenters. It is proposed here, therefore, that the dimension of personal power may account for experimenter differences in both the Roach and Hamernik studies. In proposing that objective self-awareness leads to self-presentational behavior and results in greater sensitivity to experimenter personal power. one consideration remains: the issue of degree. Objective self-awareness theory does not address the issue of degree; either objective self-awareness occurs, or it does not (flichlund, 1975). There are no provisions for variations in the intensity of experienced objective self-awareness. Beach’s experimenter present/absent results suggest, however, that objective self-awareness can be experienced in degrees. All of his subjects were closely monitored by the IDA equipment; the paper tape recording of electrodermanl activity was assumed to function as the symbol of the self, provoking objective self-awareness. At the same time, subjects were completing various task assignments while being monitored to some extent by their experimenter. When the experimenter was present in the room 'AAu NH! 2‘: Mn v(.\‘ i f «3. 1w; bu: 0,! 1‘5';/ til-H ‘1')!!,’ 5': .‘HI ')'v‘ 5W) 0 "Hr! .9 H.'J ,1!,~J 1 s.:1lt.z! .1 a ‘30-: 1' u ['Hl a": W “.t’: I H in I 6" ~.- ..smnt ...... ml- 11.). IUU'J' when. a'q'vwnu l -. «,1! , z '7‘ .‘ '3 '- J - ‘~ 1 ..;. ‘ ‘. :"’§ "n.7, “ 'iii 2;. Ir .uldmfl (1.9. “A," -t. “was: 4-: mu. 1:: t I mm: [Hi mi i:~»u')i»1zztln') M. awn? nu-) :z! )un une :' i Ii :vinx !. .ayuu-jnrun 11'“: u i'vnip'do In «Mada -31=i!.'tl.';u:m-a r", a!!! ()1 no. H..\‘I Item-1;: lrzlfilinunm'li) piqut 4,“: HM ..izI-uesin‘.jurmq'tu in f1nl.«‘HwIlllb 91H no vino '1ui‘0‘lwz‘if ,'.n-n| irymmum at H .zz'ratn'omt 1 “1,7. I: '10? ’HIH)1'_:|. nun 1-iwuq Jmlua'x-‘aq in runauwuui) 1.: “/IIH‘IMIH'.” Inn: li'nzud inlt dicni u. .tnruian'illi .e'mwuwm ’H'sa ‘F‘Ii1'¥"(()«) 1nd} Quietwn'w] HI 1 ... .ttHuw'uI in“; n):‘/u.adwvi lunlnnJuaa'suq Mac 0 .‘vmml ‘!.IIH«"10¢] weIn-umfl'ysqun n} viiulimma .u-a‘lq m ‘in «”322; an I‘ .wnagzmw'! HUI iu'x'alnzszn') z»: ‘HH arn'vhim jun «uni, tuned! zzaetm'nmn line :i‘) m (759‘)(I'.-)'II'.:4I; 'I I'm w x1 I muio 'I'Hlil‘) \- I—v ~. I‘ v v w . 'vu'Itl (m 0115 ”In!” . ”(Pl .LNIUIA'HW‘ ‘ ' ~ \ .‘t * — on. w 5. a b ‘ I: )v: 'IJi 3 m; zit» I) )‘)H‘il"t pg; 1 ’10 ‘l i ; r-gusilni 'adi r: a i E Lian; éri"..th;‘-. hinge: 1:; '1" hmm i 'i-aqx') a ' (Inna)! 'Hi (Hr) :‘.-:';:I".“H.ru. Hm». win 1 .wlflu Hui! ,1./'nu)|1 um 'Ii-wuf': n'znw «Ll a‘altilla ezlsi in HA a'vuursb .; lo uninsurn “39:1 'I'ern} NH :ltl‘nl:'s.-:.;-9 [xii] v umuva mi! N; (Itill‘3JUi 0| h-udlirivétj ?l6'd {ijviitm .:-‘.'»:'ul')‘1!wu: ‘1 Ian»: W)! a v-:( «in ynifluxu 1:; ~; i'iiwmu :uiaiua gum? ”1mm; EMU H" so 2} l ‘ ' N {I 7") mm,» ()3 t»-Hni|:...m :{Jz‘n‘ (”Him Hill'lmilaiMa’H Winn! 2:»: '1‘;§{.‘HI':§‘.'M]"‘J writ (in-"f ..uin‘nniwqqxw 17 with the subject, the monitoring was implicit; the experimenter could observe the subject during the process of task completion. When the experimenter was absent, the monitoring was remote; the experimenter could only observe the subject’s final products. In both conditions, however, the subject knew the experimenter could identify dthe drawing products as his or her own; there was no anonymity. The drawings themselves could therefore also function as symbols of the self, provoking objective self-awareness. Implicit experimenter monitoring could be expected, however, to provoke greater objective self-awareness than remote monitoring. In fact, Roach found that the addition of implicit or remote experimenter nonitoring to subjects already in a state of objective self-awareness affected both time and graphic indicator results. This strongly suggests that objective self-awareness can occur in degrees, and, furthermore, is subject to experimental manipulation. The purposes of this present study are (l) to test the effects of experimenter personal power on figure drawing tasks and subjects’ perceptions of the experimenter; and (2) to determine whether these effects emerge differentially at distinct levels of subject objective self-awareness. In addition, Handler and Reyher’s original (1964) paired comparisons test of drawing difficulty will be repeated. Using male subjects, they found that the male and automobile figures were considered to be equally difficult to draw. In this study, female subjects’ evaluation of drawing )Ir ,; I? I. I ' .. . II: 'I I I-: I ‘In lifl‘. I.., z.» .m I ,(.."HI|II»I1U') {1' ' 3 . I. .1. I ' ’v» -II :I.‘.III. nu r; u ’3'; -IZ .I ‘1)‘l‘|l ‘IIIa ". ."I .‘ i..a.:. I: ‘r’ ' J Law! ,II,Ii )‘.h;. ' 4-] E) .. m'ol Hm!) HM. II'-I I 1.1 5J1 M" i "I .15.. .i ‘(Ill ‘0 I, r ., in . sin-Ilium. nun». Vlamu' . pIIiT . .M'i'} Iq-Ih III III .HI I! ill'll'lhm lt- I I. il ()1 " I ' UH; ‘( ,- :. ’11’:IL;‘{|t II, ' . I P .'.:. . 5'], I I , .I..I|:w'1-II'1III In,“ 1!; ,_- [1. i “I 21‘ “I! If. I i I o .lfw' wI- :.Ii. ‘flll‘m "11} ‘11 .,§ ?I,I I1 .'.I I 3": b I-) JII'IMI I ‘H {I} I"! It I 31" III) I“ I I :g' - I Yin"! ” iSIHHfl )‘HI I ill‘Hfll In; .z-i :iV'Uq 314111 ‘io. H, '1 I .1” I‘IHZ‘Ii‘ {Rut ’ I} II III 1‘} I~ .I :. I I I“ .I; I- H» ' "« I'I‘II‘JII‘I "‘I'l ! ~a.I II If-IIq-‘Iu. A.II “I I I. , I IIII II . 0'” "I: ‘ II. ., 4 -I .‘l'nIrsliq Ipnrl a "Imltilié? an: II IIII'I qya an} a » ..I I‘w‘I and 'In' : ' In u .I' «:2. ;--.I-s,.tmI=I HIEI'«JI£IH I I; I Inn» .' '2 "12!:I'ni I r.’ .1 I 2w. If) NIH ”u: .AH’.’\'J'I‘.I ,waa an) it) azlmhuu’. III I'; I I IIHIE' ':).1qu.II.:s./~j Ji'II' {first} u»: n-JI I-Iwuin 19!!» H4 wquuraq o! ....I I= ~.'<>H ,1 NJ ‘! [yr-I Lulu“... 1‘s id'wii I‘Hl/ ., Inna-1'1 '10 .l I'M i-IIIII .IIlIII'w u. quiz; I. III wmtwlat; ...: I is. I‘-:.I .i I .194 bill. ”It“, I .eému'rlnvdt. I I l»! ‘rJI I I’ll Iju IMII’ ‘1'! I n] I an; v-IIJ-f w: , I'lum'Iw I 1 H51 “'1. I II .‘J. I It} in H'DHIHI [HI 'Ha-i I :,I'H:é I"!!! ’1‘;=JI"'MI1"L{'*I if) $41)".le :epntqu')‘; I Knighwd.) nun 2A2”; 11".' ”MI I'Hil'unw “IIIIN'I‘Ii‘iD 03 hr... ‘M'I: i.'—- r-zivJ'Ii II:III.:.III a‘I-h‘é-fl? I'LI- 'qumm'fl .n: Hjblm 'ID “.1 I .H I.) it) je )i atltui'I IltrpuII’I :u-ml . III .avi "I!!!“ alum «we ‘I u; u} I ’* HA 'HU') '; Ina: n 3'13. I .114 .— I )L? III,» 1 _. III-I1 , {Izmir :-*II€I 18 difficulty will be assessed. HYPOTHESBS Hypothesis I. When in a state of objective self— awareness, subjects with a high personal power experimenter spend less time on their drawings than subjects with a low personal power experimenter. Hypothesis II. When in a state of objective self- awareness, subjects with a high personal power experimenter demonstrate greater anxiety than subjects with a low personal power experimenter. Anxiety is operationally defined here in terms of graphic indices of anxiety. Hypothesis III. When in a state of objective self- awareness, subjects rate a high personal power experimenter higher on interpersonal qualities than a low personal power experimenter. Hypothesis IV. A high personal power experimenter rates subjects in a state of objective self-awareness higher on interpersonal qualities than a low personal power experimenter rates such subjects. Hypothesis V. Experimenter personal power effects become more apparent the greater the subject’s objective self-awareness. Hypothesis VI. Female subjects consider an automobile as difficult to draw as a human figure. (‘|' x .2 . II I z ., I. , m .‘I .l {I .I . ' 1' ‘4: I ' I’ f ‘1 H I ~‘.“Oi% Ij'iilj l~ hi N it DWI qiflr’ .r'. 133117.; . . ,; .'., r‘,v‘ H I . ”Juli: II‘Iz‘.‘ I‘. I ‘Ntli "r H III'|'I'r' .‘li‘l'illil'1’"I/"" I-«mm insnwlw-I In; .’I I 9“; WI) iv "-i , I .5 I- III 'I'HIW 3 I kit-'1 {‘4 E;,.; ’.| .a 1410-. '1‘ mm i1.r1a,)¢'Imi nflcid I: 1111.1 «'3 MIMI”: .é’A'HI‘iII-flu‘l. ....I i. IiII/J .’I')-aI-I>< III.:IE '(I'qut. II.‘.‘i!‘.{ Gitaiivunmuh : fI'II)j, H. I‘)1I‘> .‘I v In I /III . I‘J IIIHIII; WWII/91 I'INIHI ll_;I'()r"1'|q 11H! 'HIIIIIHII; in ..III‘I-w III “:"IwI fwailwh \ - , - - x a m g d a. s - A v m e u ‘l .— ...: a v .- \ e - .4. o x — ’ .— .'o.’ ”'1'“. ; Pugh! In ‘Ilnlé’. l- I}! Iii-13:33 ..I VII/I" 'I'ldhfi; VII-III-HI'J'I I._‘(|Il I. “Jr-i I ‘i’i‘ii'r! ,K?‘ill‘.'ll-Ni. summer-II «m! I: II:.:II almijizuup it.IIt‘-‘-"I"¢II‘III3I II» MIAMI e .0 . I iioj'Hlll i'I‘I/‘i .:III‘:'HI..') Inn-«I luau-"“4 IITHH Ix .13 MI“ 'Ui”‘IV“ mun: (--.«.'.-w(v-‘H.».'r. 11“..» wxl I' J‘IL‘SH In marl: b III a." w-IIIIIH: I § \- “"1. I0 III! .0 'Itniuvg ‘:.‘;szc:I.uI «Jul I: and} uni iiiuup “In. 1 I mm)? :1 m. an I! I '1'IJI'Iucni'1'I‘1I *"i .I >: i-a than.) II.IIH.: I’M] 'Y'!’”’!13:!'I‘I(:.-f i ,‘I :{13'I515HJIII 'I If” '. i':"I_,:III«J. 'III} "I‘IJH'I‘I‘I ”Iii fir-Huh“. alum “IIIU'IHII .‘¢?.-v.'.aII'.1II‘..ko. I193! 3:.) IIII. III; ‘I 1;)iJ'HI) ) .ii mg 011.; whnuui .1/ :1 : ‘4 "i 5:);1 iv. unmet? Mnmn". I. {'n '.!.313 «II HIIMI'IIIz an. METHOD Subjects Sixty-four feaale undergraduate students fro. sun-er session introductory psychology courses participated in this experinent. These subjects were volunteers who signed up on sheets posted in their c1assroons for an experinent entitled, ”Figure Drawings.” Their reward for participating was two credit points which could be applied toward their final course grade. The characteristics of sunaer session students soaetiaes differ fro. those of students in the regular acadenic terns. Deaographic inforaation was therefore obtained fron each subject to deternine the nature of the subject sanple. Their ages ranged from 18 years to 30 years; the nodal age was 21.0 years. and the seen was 21.5 years. Eighty-eight percent of the subjects were single, 9% were aarried, as were divorced. and 18 werw widowed. Subjects who had children coaprised as of the saaple. Their racial coaposition was 84* Caucasian, 13: Black, and 38 Chinese. Only one person in the saaple had earned an advanced degree; all the rest were working towards their bachelor’s degree. Finally, in respect to occupation, 56% were students only, 17X held part—tine jobs on caapus. 19X worked part-tile in sales or food service, and 8% held lore 19 2,.u:::~ mutl .‘fi‘15:ut;.‘ ”Hutu”: -H n: Mahdi MPHKI Wannl.» ins-41.9. (Hid .’l"!."!!llit)v 'Jl-HJ a? 11:":ni'lfilh9‘v In: '10] P'uuu'lamj Minn; 'Ini human-1 '1. aaii' ;mq itgut: nzl bluo') n" 1) HM“) :ztnwxmla (Nunez-H». in I‘H'Hulid ‘ILHIWU'! {Hi} {1! .- a .- ‘wni'n'nit an)! Hu; 2:. .1 in 'Huiun :m'i nunn'lsiui) 01 J 1' "1'3 hm; hm. .;-1uwv 0.11? (11:9. (run: :it:.-: tuii tn wwmuw Wm» (M has .bo-vu, ."il'ILSHBH w.~ii to .512 hu'w'iqmn'» 0.. i'zln: .rl‘JhUi oal .nasa.:a.:)ba...) o~ 12.: Hwn'n.') but! Hi .4 nu.) u] ‘xlzj ‘“::3"\'l“.t H‘,[h: .2. .Hwi 3 H511 rm n5 l'ruuasl , [I l ...‘IMHEHlI nu knfnl 'xmli film; him .1 ’14»: Unn'i In nui'vuia to can“) may: “14' II'D'1biz nor/Hm Q I.!“l {Lu-r". i}!‘1'1§!£?ll *!.::tul ‘Hlul 11/144 ') I‘U)ihl1‘l\’8q Y’Itli‘biliub11fll 'ru.....' ..,x(,. .i:l‘ilfl1’l')1].-"b i") It‘bfii n; liwlaUI'l evanda ,‘1111‘Nt.11l H‘prli' ,lmlllinn Hiw rHan jib.” » ”at :45»: ’. 1:103: inull (')i3Hl'1‘i’1t-It-l.) "M: '1911111 (prim! t-m: e: wwm‘ad ”ain't! ')l‘l|“1|f§18 'JuiJua r? ‘ti-9 moat imminhio .w i 1mm i'jraytltl.” El-IHHfl mil :a'us-tv )'\'osl .641“)! ‘Jih nun» a"; ,i.-2.I‘I'H;m ‘a'luw u”) bud min ai'J'aLtiui". Hi «we uuivliamunu’) 11-3! )13'1 ‘JI'IU ‘(an .‘H’Hllllli HI} ;“o‘-}'13')1) it‘liH‘lIiVbt’. hmwi umtu'm a"lul~ni-n;d d .5?! .‘Ilrm ammhula S'I'W awn»). (H mm? Hm: h‘nimu 20 skilled part-tine positions as secretaries or lab technicians. fixperigenterg Four female advanced psychology majors with an interest in psychological research served as experimenters. These four were chosen from among several women who interviewed for the position. Selection was made with the goal of obtaining the two highest personal power and the two lowest personal power women for experimenters. The experimenters were told that one purpose of the research was to determine the effect of interpersonal style. The two designated "high power” experimenters were therefore instructed to dress well and behave formally; the two designated ”low power” experimenters were instructed to dress and behave casually. These instructions. in fact. merely gave the experimenters permission to dress and act as they had in their own interview. Once the experimenters had been trained in the experimental procedures. they were each video-taped conducting the experiment with the same pseudo-subject. A group of 10 undergraduate women than viewed the tapes and rated each experimenter using the Personal Power Functions Profile (described below). Apparatus A Grass (model 5) six channel polygraph and Beckman electrodes (Ag/AgCl; 177cm?) were used to record electro- dermal responses. The electrodes were filled with Beckman 11 . . '13") " .1 s ‘1 . ‘ b:.‘11 n ' ‘ I. w}: ":1 .. 4311‘ J”? .wmi Inqx‘» m: 'H: n; 'u 1.4.1.;11125'1) . 1":- «51 it"! 9'.a4()\l 11.73, I 'i lai’l ‘a‘u'f! 1'H’]."t new) it"?! 'v's’ Hi ;, "IV‘ (D J l . I;' H. ..118- I' I‘.il'1 ":15 g): 71.. ! 1v‘n~ !. .t' I “I“. . ; vv‘ 1 m ' .‘ . l/J :« ‘ p i of "1.)? '. J‘f‘).\ .i) «.m’z-sq, n .-'.s; ix-V if») u my ml 13:14.1 , 9 {Hun Wm . 9‘»; (NH. IINUO 0!.HH- lMil ..' 1'3III‘HIY". .N '3 1 1;. 1.4.91 UNI "4w! '9‘1T ll' in.ll.'l.:2x flan")! wall ' In. 3:411:2-‘0 l Inn. .auofl) u 0111 ‘>‘Jt.:'.( vl'ti'un I :1: a? Int! 9. w Milt-,1] 01‘; it} in 1H J 1118.. u'tww .‘n. 1 ms... 'Hli n 1"-W‘viv' nueli w. :' '...2()?’,‘t )‘i 'Hii ‘1'3114'. {H n 1"“.lll'. 1 r: ll'irffl ')I'HJ v to . l'w} .7 u {2 O W , I I. i "V‘Hi in!) Ill!) v: HUI . H') I .‘ ("i .. , H“, M, ..r.1'31.1«.,‘;1 . t‘ . ‘WL‘I' ' ’ .r" Hit/a 1 >1:;'.( l “I. n n "nae" 't ‘ .LIn-1nr-n. w: w m . vi :3"th ; [WM '11:”: 1' ‘ “w: .11”: 1%?an Hill 101 . M I' '. UM! 'wl ‘UIHHa. 6‘:' H uni llz-mnw "towuq {runwawq '1; 4.1.”. I") 1.1' {.101 u tun L1... 7-«3;:-)_|.| '1«) two In W1! ‘il‘vfl ."V’mfutzgu. aux: 1.)!‘l'bk‘ i 9.:1 :‘Jilawuzi ”winded but. )U'1 i”HI ‘1 I‘M" 21'?) I'l' ulj‘l'ng, ’I ml :1: ,mm; e m I 9-Jr1i urn.” H. In”; :J;: : 3.: Hi lié:i.'4.'.‘.;ul'1 st; .d-vtkujnu 1:..(‘v.u1‘.'-*i-") 'Hil “Jill! I . ”luh't‘vutq 1LJH‘1MII‘H'X , :aI-mll‘t’iqx'! ”Hi, all: i‘n'huna {Hutu-n11I‘rtmu 1i 1n 1416014 «2.1 mm nan I Mr». Hun: I: -I;'x ..Nn!~tr1 bani ! z. 'n'r ‘Ii i'i<)'!i i?:.‘1::n'$‘ «1.4 .. 1 luzm 1*.“ i.) I. :5. H}: . ”'2’. ,l- ."J1=(..li')‘al'w 'l I ‘.'r .‘ 0.-f‘!\l‘.gr:‘)l 5hfl 1"“ 21 electrolyte and attached to the medial phalanx of the second and third fingers of the nonpreferred hand. Skin resistance was continuously recorded on paper tape by the polygraph. This recorded data was not analysed in the present study, however, as the purpose of monitoring subjects’ EDA was only to induce strong objective self awareness. Ingtruments lie Personal Power Functions Profile (PTTP). This instrument was developed by Joseph Reyher and copyrighted in 1979. It is used to determine the degree or level and presence of 16 separate personal power functions related to: physical characterigtic; (attractiveness, height, stature, carriage), ipterperponal skills (social savior faire, eye contact, speech, knowledge/ability/talent germane to interaction), personal-social attributes (socioeconomic status, personal fame, family fame, authority/occupation, education, attire), and personpl characterigticg (voice, expression of ideas). An individual can be rated on each item, on a one-to-five range of low-to-high power in terms of that item. Thus, the higher a person is rated, the more personally powerful he/she is considered to be. Ten of these functions were utilized in the present study: attractivess, height, stature, savior faire, socio- economic status, attire, speech, eye contact, voice, and carriage. These ten were chosen on the basis of their applicability to the laboratory situation (see Appendix A). Handler Draw-A-Person Rating Scales. Handler (1967) ~~ mi in 1 thy. : .u ... :~ In-: v . fic’l'3'1“i¢‘ .-.ol.n .'~ 11-11IX. «Haul! :- I tII'I..uI lulu: Ju :‘.{i'tg ‘1‘.. u 1-1'1: ' s< I .‘ I 110” ..‘gillni .'...a .1 .)'.'14 '1' an év-v t m .. ..sw Emma.-. 2’...» n ~ In? 79‘311t' ‘1izi"il)iii}():ll in Haw; HI“! Uli’ Ht. .‘1'1J owcni "Hl'!'la :2. l '1 u‘ Hui 7 HM «in gun ! I! n'ruhun ml )wvmu 1 (2n! ‘1. . .'\ ‘. \ ‘\ '. 'H . \H‘\\ RHU\\ nusi \ “an“. \\.&',k)'-’, \‘s'\ 'H\\ unwiqi 3(qn) iand: Duh/"aid liq'wfhl. ‘Jtl lquuiH-l-Ii) wtw jumnu'Ilanl 1| t-‘y; oi It) ’-t‘¢goi) mi 'Hllul‘i‘Df'Ih (If .‘r-dll 85 H .t-H‘iil - min: 81!t)l1'n|lil “rum-1 {14105:qu 9:31.:n'-]"a vi "In wm‘ae'rn 1 .. , 1.15;. w: ,.- ' 1:: . ")e -) J“. .' I :w:'i.1n;v.1.» its'zlte‘vfliq ,«x,x\\ ",‘JXJLP, Irsiondi iii/F- Inw- anutfinl , '»,w:.i‘!Il.‘) ml ‘HIISIHIWQ in .:. «lllld’:‘ a‘hwlund :1),:I}.‘. ,I,.:;tna)» ...:t) v‘)(1i')t;a2 0’ 1! £11.}b_!hf__:u.'. ,‘l‘l' "u; ..Ilhi l‘Ih'l‘ljlli Humps: ‘5“ . H) V I 1'1““ 15:}. ,uawu V1 suns! . 23.11:"; Eb'lgkf'lJQ ..w'u lulu. . ~ H» w ‘13.):‘1‘EJ Itflllli') immd I-nl Mn; . ”:1:th .no. Jumbo n ; , nu pain: 'Hi (It?) |:.:I:)i um” :11" .-.».n.':hl 'iu uniurr Dill/2‘! -: man-4w; MM 1" nl uni "Po 1.:'Hi‘l must 0) mm L; 1m ..ImJi 1: .st. ,‘zv-vh:: .~!| anal-n; t; ‘u -!gi-1 '11:} .aanH' .mnii itnii in .‘ui U1 huiublanu') P1 'Hléfi’flfi Infil't'wlnu ‘(llblluei-u; If.'9:~1"! It: ad] [11 iv). I f s in "I've :«ului i'HIIPI ena'nii It) H’al' ;. " {nun ‘\u\~lh'«i .‘JIHIL'P ‘nqimi ,aanvi i'u_.'1.1j:_; :vzzuv'r: ,0);va ,fruhln» um .!i):b'5.’ .to'lijit. ,wunfla ’_)i;l:()[]())'i '!*-.-J In an)”: an} nu u‘ :E'UH) 919”) uni 'szgsniT .wgbj'ruif) I .. a "1 m m. uni izzulla ‘I'init.‘lt)lii.l 'HH n1 :1 iiitlci’)i qun 3 c. :m.H .ff',3s‘~ .2. 1m: H‘W nua'vv’fl L m4“ 'Vfllwu ti 22 delineated twenty graphic indices of anxiety for rating huaan figure drawings. Four of these indices were used in this study: omissions, line discontinuity, vertical imbalance, and loss of detail. These particular indices were chosen because past work (Roach, 1984; Handler & Reyher, 1966) has shown them to be direct and uncomplicated indicators of anxiety. An additional reason for including the index line discontinuity is that it significantly distinguished experimenters in the Hamernik study. Roach Draw-An-Autonobile Rating Scale. Roach (1981) devised scales for rating automobile drawings on twelve graphic indices of anxiety. These scales were constructed so as to approximate Handler’s (1967) scoring procedures for human figures. For the present study, three indices were chosen from the Roach manual: omissions, line discontinuity, and vertical imbalance. Roach did not define a loss of detail index for autoaobiles; because of congruence concerns this index was not applied to the automobile drawings. Hamernik (1985) made some modifications in the scoring procedures in both the Handler and Roach scales. The intent was to increase the correspondence between the two scales. These same modifications were used in the present study. Further, Roach (1984) recommended changing the scoring scales for the line discontinuity and vertical imbalance indices. He believed that these indices could be made more sensitive by expanding the original zero-to-three scoring H ‘.‘1:; 'l s i U: l I'W ll. )1 - :-z 4-) )0! ;;l 1'-l .‘l '."'|; 12‘ :: «lulu NH! l'Ul Ho! 'Hsl x! llllz'Hl fill)! I¢.v i l 1! PM!” Hun} 1:0 1 lT'iEQ'Il'll -~ il’.. l'léa'lll in: u I'llhlll n s: . u' I'll) If '1;' :l’ ()l ll L pm «nil H! n: ‘lli :“ = l .' uvli '1 vi. lzl «.-: "f ; ‘n. t ‘l all..z.,l;li- 3 ..l lj'l, 'o-l l :4. ,, l: . l l‘» . l < ' I; l » l I ll" ’ ~ ‘.l '.‘ l: - ' oi . . ('llLllil Hquill) was. :l'vl .Il'l l.l-l. ll' .;. {In} 9. .. 1.4 a ** I\' it lull. , lul . ' .111! H lsw'l ,[l ”gull.- ,l"lvw4 ;.-'.~.q “art-t J u» ir‘JDJF ‘1‘1‘l.o' hull; l')‘)llll m ... mu]: :1 .'.ll‘ .'l.l; ~ll l'ully'lll HUc'L'J' Hall”: *llnll: lu .«iwlvlll. In «lull aiiunl ; w:.: :; H.4l xi.l:J.i:h:unnlv aHI' »ul. .4 a Ai!?1‘m'” 'Hll n. . ‘7 l'lnlu {plat H: " Iti(‘”l(‘é;iil . .un 31.": ) Mn N 1.. .' .. . ‘ :i If l ll: ml: ll .r.»« ik‘Cu)! bun-'1u'ihitfi 'luJ Illno Ill awe~u1r::nl‘l ‘1' H l lw' I'lll '3 )H'DLQJ‘U-"g‘ I.' l t i '0,—" ’l' H.| (ii J-‘l.'l‘ J‘Q 'nlJ lll I“: :l: “14;; (4“,. ll ‘u'...rll nu. '. all ill “if.“flli‘) h)'HVlMflufHIl ”I'm 6 ll;uwn -dl “.l I.-.li‘,.7 ... ‘alllllliille-w. . i": ' 1 n . 1: . Iii ' ll 1 : Hf“, ill" irl'l'ain " ..'—'.a ll: 2 l1. cl‘l')» 36.: (“ll u,l “1:51“. My". .ml ”11- ll‘ ' 23 scale to a zero-to-nine scale. Subjects’ drawings in this study were therefore scored twice for both line discontinuity and vertical inbalance; once according to the original Handler scale, and once according to the expanded scale suggested by Roach (see Appendix B). For each graphic index of anxiety, one pair out of four potential raters were trained using the modified scoring procedures. Before rating the experimental drawings, each pair of raters had to achieve an 803 agreeaent level on a set of 20 practice drawings. Once the pair met this criterion, they rated the entire set of experimental drawings on that index. The dependent variables used in the analysis were computed by averaging the two ratings on each drawing for each index; decimals were avoided by rounding down to the next whole number. Interrater reliability was estimated for each of the four graphic indices of anxiety, including both the original scale and expanded scale versions of line discontinuity and vertical imbalance. The intarrater reliability estiaates were obtained by computing, from the entire data set, the Pearson product-moment correlations between raters on each graphic index for each drawing stimulus object (see Table 1). All of the correlations were above .80 and were therefore considered acceptable for research purposes. Bx eriment Desi n Subjects were randomly assigned first to either a high or low personal power experimenter. Following this, leaA, .‘ I l ‘vrvii' H" ' ..l, . 1': w l.;'. t . 0' a. o.;1 :i (.3 1:1: 'v‘l ll'rlu ulnl l.ll1 l'.» ...' qugil-z r « : ,‘9..'l' .- :12 ll. ’ 'v/ ivl‘f. u'llullllthlfiiil ~... (‘1 ”ulnar”. ,..l:, Inn. . lllz.‘ ‘l'lllllll.il Inlll‘llll . J. x'.llll‘nl~4 ' “ ll .l. 31 Ill iwlsqu'uur, ”I: we lull ll.;-l Han ,1.“ 'Ii. .; rulul' .loiil l'l 51”.: lH‘l .. :u-nléliwm vlll ”Niall i-"llil'..! nlnu a: ‘ul lult-ltlllul ".‘II I 'Hl:"l. it. 'I' llll'1 1’!) n hill :0“! :f‘.l .) H l‘ a; . by lul: : u: l'.‘ I gull ’al'.m"4‘l'l'-{l- ..‘Ui‘. “6 °l"":;d‘l -. hull 8'1‘Illl'1 in lint] . .41 I'll" law; all; '1 ma) . \u .;.‘:'2l. ., )l I ”1'14! {3 . In In ' . i"'}fill 3";(1Ifi‘) It: PM»? U l “4 :Hi] il‘l'ht V‘Hi, ."ll'l 5i 1' ‘ i. ~..ull,l lll Hall-p. .I: lT 'llll Hui} lIn éfifilllfllih: :ullllr: our 4: . {l-‘iguuuw. 11 L-l‘uqnw-‘l u'luw nléwlmlr: Un‘l '(i I‘lwlUJl‘. :‘p‘ld .zlisml'rlll ;/ .nni lill. I ll)! ll lldl.l;: :ulvzml ulualw i‘r"nl uni ()1 than:- (. l‘j ,..'l ...} i_‘l)l'.lll; .“- ‘..N V..)';I3Y|Iil"' '1").Ult"1!ll Hi “In: EUll'lnll-ull .xlwi'xm. :n P-llmll ’lll'l‘.l.iHIVn1‘i Hf: ; 'r’.’ )')i'du ‘I i :2 l 23:“; imullng-z'1 ‘2. Ht; 101 llolzu‘uygé :Hll IIUB ’1‘:in EU 0 tw'lni ‘3 . “l i Mi) .li (lull: ‘7)1‘41'1 I _)"*_I_E°l i ..lil'ihi R‘Jioq (m.- ai'ud L? r) lJ‘ai‘ (jun ' l 'EIUHI will I ‘Mjilfi‘! I’ll 26 Preliminary,Procedure§ for the close monitoring condition. Once the subject was seated, the experinenter explained, ”For this experinent I will be attaching two electrodes to your fingers. They will not hurt you at all. They will simply aeasure certain aspects of your physiology which interest us. I will also be asking you to draw some pictures and fill-out some questionnaires." The experimenter then answered any questions pertaining to the procedures; questions about the nature or purpose of the study were deferred until the completion of all experinental tasks. The subject then was asked to read and sign an informed consent form. The electrodes were then attached, the polygraph calibrated, and the subject’s resistance level allowed to stabilize. Prelininary Proceduppg for the igplicit gonitoring condition. Once the subject was seated, the experinenter explained, ”For this experinent, I will be asking you to draw some pictures and to fill-out some questionnaires.” The experinenter then answered any questions pertaining to the procedures; questions about the nature or purpose of the study were deferred until completion of all experiaental tasks. The subject was then asked to read and sign an inforaed consent form. gpppon Procedppgg for 211 conditiong. After the preliminaries were conpleted, the subject was given a clean sheet of paper and a sharpened #2 pencil and told, "On this first sheet of paper I will ask you to draw a series of six ~: : l" l: l 1‘ 1' "* ’ . . . l . . ' . 1 ,1 l l ." .. 1 ll] -: , M ‘ :1 ‘31:) I ‘1‘»1‘001 l‘vll“: .2;~ll l. ,* 1;.lto'. .l' ..;3',1l:1,.;\.v‘ {ln'llll '11”; n} . t..ll l (1.. . . "(l .4? . -..'.l H ' ---. M l.l:”8‘-:.li Jl‘llfllé: lilr! i J'l‘: H! .m: ';.l.,:;--.. 1; .‘l’o!' lilac l ....l l-‘lllnl llll‘id il' "...wznllllni [8‘ UV (Ml-n: ' . .11 bar: rulul Hal ‘, l ll:.f l'v. Ila-z; ':1.1 ‘-l‘.z. l~)l"~‘- ‘-' l3 " 1"Ill"lll‘ "H; ~ ‘ a , nut“; ll-l; .r, 0".“ hm null ‘I.(?l"c. .' 1": faul'l: jaw lllh‘l'H) l ’ "’lv'.‘ 112' l!) lln: .... . ~l$ll.: > '\.:I ill": I ll‘i‘ l l "r; M! 32-1: ‘ 7* .H II"? l .-'. mu: llh'il at [when :2 a»: lit) 5‘ i: ml: '21! i‘ .. eh! . w. I 3:. ll'lli} '9'1':'! ~_'.~:.‘.:) l ,‘lflifl‘. 9L”) .'.' 'l .‘zHlJ' l (0-)1‘1'.) ul 1‘ Hi. I‘. ll 19’ .J.‘ l- M... '33'1 ill .f‘s"; E-Ji.‘ . Ow" ll .-‘..,,1 {1‘35 1- ..4: 1-:.. r‘: " .l! i >I fill 'U .. w x i7. ”MW. v . ;. :13“. 3 1' g... . ., .1! I ..: "3| ;., mn'mn '1 w. a.» I .‘l ‘1» 1' ' j'u} "v! ..n l I: U“ ' . ! "i“ 't » Z ‘ .‘ n .‘ 1‘ 1H .4 .-I luv: -‘.i= .wmlt-I ' I‘Jl’ w i wllit I' «'11:.11‘ H u: "."llnh'lli Hie. I- ‘1 ..a} th: ‘ ""‘U'L' v‘vl'. .1 'o‘lr l‘: l‘ I'M .'5 '1’ .J-s::l«_:m.. or” u Vlat '... min! . !£‘ Pi , 111.”: -::3 in 4 ii. ; €39. . l: :1.)- I. ; .1 tl-u” i.’w;..1‘~.z. 'u M3; vi! ‘l‘ld' 3 '! use .‘ J (“nit “fr? ‘1 :‘. .7 ‘ s-mx- » 1 l1: lu‘fl'lL‘l n "‘ ... mm"; «1:; a; :.M~: .3-‘314’ . (5 ‘I "n [m Ib male I )H I U}, '1 (1 ti .- ' I i ' with o' ‘. 1:z.’:l"i’ I; \ '-’ f 1 ’g‘ 1“ }-..j .:=.u', L. 'iiil Mu .- - n a- -. -- . .. an) fin“: M w owl 'ni Hi"! I Inwnuni it; x:' mm» 310,412,415”) -H!.-"b 1:1: I hm. mtui "a. ’all'. ‘0" Vile-“111”” 28 experimenter handed the subject a copy of the PPFP and another envelope. The experimenter explained, ”This scale asks for your impressions of me. Again, please answer it honestly. I will not see this one either. When you have finished, seal it in the envelope and place it in that same box." The PPFP was used here to determine whether subjects really experienced their experimenters as having high or low personal power. After the subject had deposited the envelope in the box, the experimenter in the close monitoring condition turned off the polygraph and removed the electrodes from the subject’s fingers. All subjects were then offered a short instructional session on the experiment; this included an information sheet on figure drawings and the opportunity for the subject to ask any questions she might have about the experiment. Lastly, each subject was thanked for her participation. ' - I' (' l “I! ‘ l 'u ‘ ' ’ ' O .1.. , .. , , , U, ,: w 1'.1'}o.¢f . y '- f .- : . ‘ "-1 u. . 1H1 2.” H :o!‘ ',’: '1‘ " ) M43 In!" . i la) 1 ‘11. n I‘ .1: . .., 1.; in“. . 1H.:)Jll‘) 1i: :1: :I H n» ivaflann! “inn” ‘Ot'II'J'f .i‘nh J. mu; L'IJU -'.r..~1 ‘ii't'i n'li" " I'm-j mi! ““1 r"! FINAL: wii! 1“. -. tl‘nl5 .‘- 'l'3l'l‘;:‘../'9 ‘(llh‘VI twinq It. :n; 1m" ‘50. 1/ ’J 3.; 93‘: . . win; 4) 331,4 )1‘i;ti3!.vf 'vli’ '1'1j 3A :x'nun'lnqx-- ‘HH ./<.:: i _ mm. HH' 6“ 5 s sun-n wt. '11}? :1: ‘.1)1:..:i') ‘Ilii 1 wamo'l 1);?“ ”quixxtwq {Hi} I“) hMI’IU.’ wwwiln .wy-j ’,~..4 n: "IUJJ?! {3/ .uuuwrli'l 8'.i')‘ollili;‘ )9}; .' .‘l .iafuhv 1..i/'s :15} NH ”“167“,? li-th 1 2|"! rfiilll owitlz ~>Hl tun: .‘vt"{,l:¢.’l.1’a 51:.1'ui1 u-I i".w|’..‘ Hui “4811(3)”: 11-1». --..~.A w s::> .'-u:. in. (2! qudnu ulil '«ai Kwduhtll .mu imil-zn- 51-h”) .Iiléfilzl .in'flfl! hunk.) .nns has i ’H i‘Hul RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In order to verify the existence of two levels for the independent variable of experimenter personal power, the PPFP scores for the four experimenters, given by the 10 video-tape raters, were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance. A significant effect eserged, F(3, 36) = 100.2, p < .001. Tukey’s method for testing the experimenter means revealed that the scores for the two designated high power experimenters were significantly higher than the scores for the two designated low power experimenters. Further, there were no differences between the two score means for the high power experimenters (37.7 and 38.6) nor between the two score means for the low power experimenters (30.5 and 31.2). The use of experimenter personal power as an independent variable with two levels was therefore justified., A three factor design with repeated measures was used to evaluate the influence of the independent variables and their interactions on the following dependent measures: drawing time, omissions, line discontinuity, and vertical inbalance. Experimenter personal power (P) and monitoring (M) were the between-subjects factors, and drawing stimulus object (O) was the within subjects factor (see Table 2). These factors were completely crossed; the within-groups factor, subjects (S), was nested with the combination of 29 '1 u 'wt; 0 I {0" ,1 ‘l l. t "a"!!! '1. ’1 " 1., ..w-: r; ILHJ.‘ .~} "l11' :J', H'I‘II'.’ .-1 ynumi ...N .1 w' “w? , I '3‘H‘I 7 H./: 1.“! 'H; I' .’. . '.::'.~ mi 1 H-til ' .!".611 if ’i I ’Hilili1‘~!’ 1;. it” till " ' .. . g;,' .l :u‘ .1,.“.' . "lz' v.14 lg‘y. : 1.. ... luau-.1 . , b i ’1‘; JUiH' n 'Ill‘ ‘1‘. ‘ E‘ ‘ 11143.. ~~ ")‘i in 4:1‘ -"- $3.1 ya i. I F. 'I . It, :11 !'. 1"q if”; : s ':H .11')! . L -: H} .‘T " IN N; ha. ’,(;l.3 » w? :w'w i. Mi! ’ lid-3 ”1 vV'(n.' \ \l) ’|.'.,. Hui ' ti: 1' t" ,t I“ H 3!” Jim." ,‘ «Hi t; "M2 ,"1! ,1 :21"; d-rl 's'lj 1' " rm; . ’0' I; U . 0 .' ,. .I'ESH it)! . «I? Nd? (1': an .‘3? . .d." .).' 'IH "Jvl I.“! I a! ); .iu' " ' , .u'r’ a! nf: a . .«l'fil‘amwnw; 0' I ,3; . .u' . 1-3 #11:)“; HI 1 Ln.) 21:: i N {I . iWi I [u ‘31 it (ii kw)! “J 't' 2.; m- J;.Il' ..v“9. (‘h’ :1' s flail (HI '1; :ml Hug/"s "1e ) :r"'.l.'Hll "1:1" {H "I" .1: :21»: WI” .1 «whit 1‘ 1:, vi..u;l'. n:1u.1..n.’ .u . l -x; Hi, 1 Hit; "’0 Hi3 Ill .5 ...w 1" l w: :th' v...) a? . li~315r ‘ siti n Ji‘l‘.’ L! If ' H. 1.4.")! : ‘11 I uni ‘D'l ’N 'I'HHHS 'o’IUHC’ U “H. 30 Table 2 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedoa and Error Terms For the Dependent Variables: Time, Omissions, Line Discontinuity, and Vertical Imbalance Between Subjects by Subjects Exp. Personal Power P l S/PM Monitoring M l S/PM Exp. Personal Power PM 1 S/PM by Monitoring Subjects S/PM 60 none Within Subjects Drawing Stimulus Object O 2 O/S/PM Exp. Personal Power PO 2 O/S/PM by Stimulus Object Monitoring M0 2 O/S/PM by Stimulus Object Exp. Personal Power PMO 2 O/S/PM by Monitoring by Stimulus Object Stimulus Object O/S/PM 120 none ».I\‘.H I v . p l t ‘i, I! :1 ‘ ' ’ SIH‘ ‘Wl' l-w. )'I_3()( .{ ' ‘«. o 1‘ [l.’, 11‘ r‘I v! 1 ~,.1 t ‘tt ill 1 ; ’1‘. 5: s . I‘v‘v‘ Y. ‘.‘1 ‘i' (" ' I h )1 ii I: . .thla’ :I.,tnfi . x,|9..¢.i 3.. figuljrlhltl n. 1 1111:).'a'sz I ’i \‘ : " .I'lgI103. ’(1. l ,I.: U!|.. j it‘, Iii) inn: .. . 1 4H , mm 1.4 w! - - . ..- — l a .. thy -. .- v s... . p a \ ‘ ' .s -.1 , 1:) l Iél‘ta‘ ‘lxt 9.: I mm id vd ' >~9go g.) 521] lir'H I l r. )‘I. ".f". Wt] 31 experimenter personal power and monitoring variables (a specific subject cannot have both the high and low power experimenter; nor can she be in both the close and implicit monitoring conditions). A similar three factor design was used to evaluate the dependent variable loss of detail. However, since this variable applied only to the male and female drawings, the stimulus object (0) factor had only 2 levels which reduced its degrees of freedom (see Table 3). A two factor design was used to evaluate the influence of the independent variables and their interactions on the following dependent measures: experimenter consideration, experimenter respectfulness, experimenter friendliness, experimenter likableness, subject consideration, subject respectfulness, subject friendliness, subject likableness, subject cooperation, and finally, experimenter PPFP score. Again, experimenter personal power (P) and monitoring condition (M) were the between-subjects factors; there was no within-subjects factor. These two factors were completely crossed, and the within-groups factor, subjects (S), again was nested within the combination of experimenter personal power and monitoring variables (see Table 4). A summary table of the analysis of variance for each of the seventeen dependent variables can be found in Appendix 8. Finally, to determine whether female subjects consider the automobile as difficult to draw as a human figure, the i :1”. Iglnlur 3:: n ;(.}' ...n ..3 iv .z‘.» .tz-zw'wz) "on: .le 'anl 1%.} MIN" I‘- IS" :‘ J-‘H'ni; .1..'.’ " 1!. ;~'.,«' ' ,1 }'~ 1: . III'UIH‘HI‘IIA :1 ,i..';{ ,1 2): :. '.,a¥‘ u'i ()I . .n': tank: H”. 'il 19,: |:;. .oE «w. «inn [1:41 ‘H:l \LE 5‘1. ;:.‘_Liu ”11.1101”: 1‘ 91 in! :c.‘ In E: ,w i it) 1" 1‘! :t‘: ’3; :x‘ué' 1': :1 ivy-M 1:..w nl'llr'si ...? Hal (MM A :1,‘ .I::a )r 3.|; I‘i'.'. ."'I..‘!...1..I iflw’up’: Nod! ..12 i.) 3.3.) ) '1” Ilium' s 1‘; ’7 H” sUwhwm 9,1'vi:!:‘\t';‘ it §‘:I:\;':i in} .. :1‘ ",‘nnu gulf. ,. 111:1}:u] “it .wiatuulwnz» n .irrx .‘v'2mhiflaw. I 2:12:23.A,(;.-l.::-::.I.rhi ':-»|:.-n:II‘I-u1.l_: ; L: ‘.:~.’ ,..-'v.1.‘;-.“): :i iruffl: _. :gy‘ixs'ii'wgqarm . '.~m : r. .. ,vn lf~llll ltn. ,nn; H. ”nun: fun. mu: .1 HI} I m "‘ ' ,r' 1:. It!) "1‘! :‘I: ii!!! I big“! ,tlllw'f" ! ' '1 'r! ) Mn.“ 5‘ .w ..I ‘H‘nl w! w ~5": nu! iHHIU" .11”: -:.: dd} twin} .'1(:i":t.1 Pl o'flmHH: Hill ‘ I d (:11 '1'1l WI run”. wii izw. .i.';.::-ml~ v winkHi'H' In H a . a’»'(‘» :1! :IHH: J 51" 'Hl 91.24 NH H. ,1." :‘l! ~v':{v‘. (-.;:.9 : Hm" .‘._’1"«"z.‘l‘:'l in !. ‘1'vw'vtl 5 ”Ulr'Vl‘Ml ,. ... .1 ' ".. j‘:-‘_v!..-I:. mi}? 1,, laf.""5 l.t.u:::.:n.-‘: I Lanai ‘3'] Hi 1.) :')T«i.';."'::$-‘ 'I’ bf" 1‘.“ ”UNI." 1%.“. "Hi? I .1 22'41‘11"E:.‘ ‘1 '- i w. 1"” i‘Hllflfla‘ ‘:”!“l't“‘ ~.‘, H1 ,/i I! Hf‘i :zz-v. t I. Hi. wot.‘ .‘ ’.1;'.~.zat. m. nixdem'niuu ":1- 32 Table 3 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedom and Error Terms For the Dependent Variable: Loss of Detail Between Subjects Exp. Personal Power P 1 S/PM Monitoring M l S/PM Exp. Personal Power PM 1 S/PM by Monitoring Subjects S/PM 60 none Within Subjects Drawing Stilulus Object 0 l O/S/PM Exp. Personal Power P0 1 O/S/PM by Stilulus Object Monitoring M0 1 O/S/PM by Stimulus Object Exp. Personal Power PMO l O/S/PM by Monitoring by Stinulus Object Stilulus Object O/S/PM 60 none by Subjects ll!!! \II‘ \ v‘ « ll]"§'o' cl . ‘g I 'Lxél l ‘c ‘ . | I NU! O )‘l- I! 1”. J ‘1 J ’.)f‘a|‘t f"'rf w L zl‘ ‘! .ii ‘. - ' H H! '4 U ' J. .U ‘ 4’ P ”Malia .’ l.‘.::-).“, I” HHIWU’I'HJ" . 33 Table 4 Specification of the Analysis of Variance Design Including Degrees of Freedom and Error Terns For the Dependent Variables: Experinenter and Subject Interpersonal Ratings and Experimenter PPFP Score Between Subjects Exp. Personal Power P l S/PM Monitoring M l S/PM Exp. Personal Power PM 1 S/PM by Monitoring Subjects S/PM 60 none a . .I " ’. llsl; I Y';“9"'~‘t|' "1 * I [ll - l'l e't’ . A '|Oo "’ t‘ 1“ .."fi' l" ‘(i/ l!‘{‘ 'i . i. . ) flit v 34 nethod of paired conparisons was used (see Appendix F). Manipulation Check The results fro. the analysis of the Personal Power Functions Profile indicated that the nanipulation of experinenter personal power was successful. The two high power (hereafter referred to as HP) experinenters received significantly higher PPFP sunnary scores fron subjects than the two low power (hereafter referred to as LP) experinenters, F(1, 60) = 19.3, p < .001. The scan sun score for the HP experinenters was 37.4, while the LP experinenters lean sun score was 34.0. Additional analysis of the PPIP ratings showed significant differences between HP and LP experinenters on seven of the profile’s ten itens. The HP experimenters received higher scores on attractiveness (F(1, 60) = 21.4, p < .001); ssvoir {sire (F(1, 60) = 4.8, p < .05); attire (F(1, 60) = 16.3, p < .001); speech (F(1, 60) = 17.7, p < .001); carriage (F(1, 60) = 19.6, p < .001); and eye contact (F(1, 60) = 16.8, p < .001). On only one its. did the LP experiaenters receive higher scores: stature, F(1, 60) = 8.8, p < .01. The other three power functions, height, socioeconosic status, and voice, produced no experinenter differences. Hypothesis I The results provided some support for the prediction that subjects with the HP experinenter would spend less time on their drawings than subjects with the LP experimenter. "to wrut'f ‘ 4., ' t l “"1 A l [I .'3. x 1 1i ".1 'l '11] ) (1.; ‘ttihtilll a. ’11 t ll v. rzn'-m| 1‘1 n ’ H ‘1’: 3. 3 Rs. H z,;. i-fi Nil .'1 ' :24 . 33‘141'”? ;--:,,.; I ' l ' {H i "I‘o ' ' " l “'.H!'1d: hi i ,l 't' . t: r\ , . » w”: .3. sun. :-. H30 . Vii) 11‘)‘. 'H. ,; 3‘ ,‘;|illf;l . “gun! 1' f: .d.. ‘ 3' I: 11!] ld‘: : '. 1 t 2; 'I2 I t(. 2 x ;l‘ " H‘l‘Hn' ,;:;;1‘:«I * , “’ (1 1 ' 1 2.1“” .x;- (I 3;) .3 . ' k 1 '1‘ 2': viii ‘ll .31.“! IL“: 'h' MIR. fiLN 1w 1|} :1; 5'0; .; ; l.') 1 ' Hum-Ix) ’ i‘t 11‘1”; *4} H.'))'H§ x F U! - he; . 1 ‘H! Ih‘ i . 92:] :.() ; 'iy'i Ii '.1. 1:1 L “1' ' . "Ir-1:1 [1’91 ’¢ln."i’.. [J (.1 3., 3 1i)::.¢,‘.: , qu. ‘. ' 1. l - 1')“ AM at} 3i» .. x ~a rum"; arlnu n“ .I‘T 1". 9!! ,wdifl'l lHHi I";n(;-’}H.; L. n; . [My '1‘) 131““! N 1 t .35 0.,- z‘a: :iL‘n'r: .‘ . . .1171: f. ; i w a '15 «I‘ZI’I ‘1! I) :11 31:1 1' r.‘ ,0 “.1 in .;i¢vlcursl I.” "I“! in Hill 1‘") uni MN! “I I‘J() 1" in Illil'1'fl'.’ 191;] Luz: w: J i Mats lulfilzlllélfii )1‘ UV» ; it"fl. .2; (1:5 , 35111;.) p '11) imam: km at). 1.x ,1 3| ailfl'l'Mhl‘ / t')H‘)!-\I . (I! ‘H‘!’(.t Jr — 35 Analysis of time scores produced two main effects: one for monitoring condition (F(1, 60) = 6.2, p < .02), and another for stimulus object (F(2, 120) = 8.9, p ( .001). Closely monitored subjects spent significantly less time on their drawings (155 secs) than implicitly monitored subjects (231 secs). Testing the stimulus object leans by Tukey’s method revealed that the average time spent on the female drawings (227 secs) was significantly greater than the time spent on either the male drawing (193 secs) or the auto drawing (159 secs). These findings are qualified, however, by a three-way interaction between the three independent variables: experimenter personal power, monitoring condition, and stimulus object, F(2, 120) = 3.4, p < .05. Figure 1 presents this complicated interaction. In terms of Hypothesis 1, high experimenter personal power most clearly reduces drawing time for the female figure. The male and auto stimulus objects apparently did not provoke the objective self-awareness/self-presentation evaluation process in the same way that the fenale stimulus object did. This result is especially interesting given that the female stimulus is the same gender object for the subjects in this study, and represents the sane gender as the experimenter. Drawing time is understood to have an inverse relationship to testing situation anxiety; decreasing time reflects increasing anxiety. This result suggests, therefore, that the presence of a high power experimenter changes the '1i!. 1!:.' V 'l.‘ k: )1, .1 :1 v Ul‘ '3‘”. r a “t". I ' t 'l‘ . . l 1.8 0‘” I ‘it wt " :1 ' )‘l‘ , . l! f! ' :c :1 ‘ HM ' . 5'., « (1% ' 51H J I I:u.: ’H ‘1 t;I'l‘!l 1hr“) l a ' ' l I ' ‘ 'l ’3 I ' ‘ a (in; ,a‘ I ”i. ;( “I'll ' )3 In:"é1-'. H,‘ ‘ ' " ' v: H 2 I‘m": 'YHH .---\.- .'l .. .)V; :10 ' r. ., 1.1:]; .1 ..1 -\:n;‘ 9“,} ., 1,: . . vu Ila“); i .uy1a IfH‘I J": .' 2' .' .. '1. . l.‘ .1' mph“: , w“ i 5. .:;: ' - H ’1' '1‘.) 'l' I- !I 't'x 1n: ‘1 . w H) ‘.:x1av:iH m . "u f 1‘- .-..U. ‘1 ,1’.?. kill . - I H! .unxiw. lel :x.!..:« :«u .1 Il.‘l(.‘{~ I'M, 3‘1'.l'sm l".n;.") HR , :ll ‘2'] 31 ..u»! Nil «1* mil! «; :wu: ix'i; 1.; :uuvma . ..- sIh. t|;.:l'3 ‘4 -‘: ’ ‘H‘ull .. ' ; 1min: 1:: NH» w.» ..:. “'ll‘t \:nl=."1.::.‘. 1:,. .u;' '11?! '.()l [“12 LII) ... .--. ;{.:.;'J l . : .111!” 'u.I.'. . 2 w ' ”’31! {I}. ‘ .' ' '3 ll!“ 5. : Huii ‘HII.’1 )1 4i: ." H *. H- r.’ ,r‘ I; ‘l"-Z'-‘l)/! 1133- ‘at . I. A . 1011‘591‘1'0/1 13"iH-l r 1‘11. a . 5 [(1 i. I" )5 s {11“ .3': .1» an... I v‘.‘ '7 III 1 al" D It". '11' '5 .1] IM. If! t y . I L; m «. n .I' "ll '1) ‘HR '1 l! t? .H ‘ I‘v'ft at“! I" in, 1.1 1"!)t I'Htf-f‘) «31.11:» 3.!!!” :u, ’1 .UT"' t) Ht! (wt; 9 . - V ' t I . t , 36 oEC. 0526.5 ..8 c2553.: 0830 33.55 >0 coEUcoU mctotcos. >n Lose; :88me LeuceEteaxm .N 33mm 202.5200 02.10.2202 :20 :39... :20 :2....... :20 3:9... e Oeu mane... 259.. .. mean: 9» 022 356“. co. 3:. a . . .2:oE:oxm .Scefitoaxm scion .2323 :2: III hogcfl _GCOW._0& 30..— eeeeeee (3038) SW”. SNIMVHG 37 testing situation for the same gender drawing task by enhancing subject anxiety. The graphs in Figure I also seem to indicate that close monitoring reduces drawing tile. However, the amount of tine reduction appears to vary with stimulus object and experimenter personal power. On the male drawing, the reduction seems fairly parallel for the experinenter personal power variable. 0n the feaale drawing, the reduction in time related to monitoring appears greatest for subjects with the LP experimenter. The opposite seems true for the auto drawing: close monitoring seems to have resulted in greater time reduction for subjects with the HP experimenter. The finding that closely monitored subjects spent the least aaount of time on their auto drawing replicates the 1985 Hamernik investigation that subjects (who were all closely monitored) spent significantly less time on the auto drawing than on either human drawing. This may reflect a lack of familiarity with the task, and may be particularly relevant for female subjects. It may be that most people, expecially females, have rarely "practiced" drawing automobiles when they doodle or sketch. By contrast, many people have "practiced" doodling or sketching human figures. Thus, subjects in an enhanced state of objective self- awareness may find the negative discrepancy between performance and attainment on this unfamiliar drawing task particularly large; as Duval and Micklund (1972) predict, '11'1111“ ’ ; 1‘" I I 14 I 1 i V?) E" 111 .‘1" i 1 ' 101:: ‘1‘. I 0‘ t\.‘ I 1;" ll ‘ m .,g I §‘r :1' .‘c 13:; .J’ -1 l‘.’ 1.111' '-I'Im s11 11': 131 11'! V .l'l nun 9'111. r' ’11 1 “WM! "’11“ (1‘:..\. Y '1‘ . .u'nm , .' 1 ‘vtttq u 1.1. ‘1 11111 ‘1 0’ 'I': 1.131 1121, ) t'.l'| ”3:11) 1'!“- :1. 11 11-. 1'31‘91 )‘HI,"’I wan) fun Irqu , ML. :11 4 ”Hum H2? 1 w 38 this seems to have resulted in an attempt to flee by hurrying. Perhaps the most intriguing time result is the strikingly greater amount of time implicitly monitored subjects with the LP experimenters spent on their female drawing: over 110 seconds more than subjects in any other condition. This suggests that in the most relaxed of the testing situations, females become highly absorbed in their same gender drawing. Such self-investment would be consistent with a basic premise of projective drawings -- that same gender figures facilitate self-projection. Further discussion of this finding can be found in the general discussion section. Hypothesis II The results provided some support for the prediction that subjects with the HP experimenter would demonstrate greater anxiety (as measured by graphic indexes) than subjects with the LP experimenter. Omissions. The graphic index of omissions produced a significant interaction between experimenter personal power and stimulus object, F(2, 120) = 8.2, p < .001. Subjects with the HP experimenter made significantly less omissions on both their male (t(32) = 3.1, p < .01) and female (t(32) = 2.7, p < .01) drawings than subjects with the LP experimenter; there were no differences in omissions for the auto drawing. This finding is the direct opposite of what was expected: on this index, subjects with the HP I 'I. 11 l>r1 191'. l t {'1 H) J“ “‘I51‘11 11.” 1 ’. 1 \ 1' I .‘1 I 3 1 o 11:09, '1 1‘ ‘ a 31' \ 11. 1 1 ‘. I 1 Mil 1111 a: 4 3.1:} .‘ I 11' 'I41 11;! ‘,‘Ill‘;‘ .v' . 1111‘ 'v ..‘wm’ ililu"g '5: 1H 1 1 1|” 1‘; 11. 11):, ‘J t ‘.‘ 1 1 11(1' 2- 11,1 5 ' 01.).) 1 1‘1' 111111 f‘. ‘ :1 .L‘ 3’1”: 111111 I it; 31 l ‘1 1 ‘1 «)1 -1 1 1.’ 'o’v v, ‘1 . 1 5’3 1" 1": but 'W “ ..- .H’} ‘1‘! r1; 1"} 3,11 111:! ,111 1.149. 1 1 .)_, 11 l . x 1,11; HI. m ' 1H. 1‘ 1l1w1‘ I 111 1."11 " “4113-4 rici".!l'l’ .-j ; an: :5 int} «’1 i’ 11.311 '11I-11‘1 ’ .1Izw 10:1 11:; '1 11‘: , 1‘ 01.11» . . 39 experimenter appear less anxious than subjects with the LP experimenter. An alternate explanation, however, might be that subjects with the HP experimenter were more careful about completing their drawings -- making sure all the necessary body parts were included. In this case, the HP experimenter may have spurred subjects to a higher performance level. Line Discontinuity. Analysis of the line discontinuity index scores (according to the original scale) revealed a main effect for experimenter personal power, F(1, 60) = 6.6, p < .02. Subjects with the HP experimenter drew significantly more discontinuous lines than subjects with the LP experimenter. The expanded scale scores for the line discontinuity scores demonstrated the same effect, F(1, 60) = 5.2, p ( .03. Since discontinuous lines are seen as a reflection of hurried performance, this result suggests that subjects with the HP experimenter were more anxious to complete their drawings. The line discontinuity produced a similar finding in the earlier Hamernik study; subjects with the assumed higher power experimenter drew significantly lore discontinuous lines than subjects with the assumed lower power experimenter. This replication strongly suggests that the line discontinuity index is able to distinguish between levels of experimenter personal power. In addition, the expanded scale produced a stimulus object main effect, F(2, 120) = 4.7, p < .02. Testing the three stimulus object means using Tukey’s method showed that . ‘ I. -l ., .‘ , x , i , . ‘.i -. -~- ' HI' I : 21'. It ‘.' ": ... , ‘x I Alul 1“ u‘ 1' r. l ‘n ' I .f o . H . ' -* ...: J .t‘ 1‘ H» 1111‘ 1 .n ‘ n . . n1 '1 winaktui with - *. « '.ll" .‘.‘. :.'L .'.t .:.a ‘ '/ it.:.‘1s P -cr14t‘.‘ 0 11(1))! .r", . ... ‘ I": I, ‘I - » i f; I I 'l)‘ i! ”1 :1: :‘ ‘.1' ml Mn) .; ’ t. ”.1 n l ".‘d .‘ n )- ;,(i..r . ,.u. t‘. z»:-;' . ..‘d ;;~.)!'919i:-to;-e:. 'i-(m: ¢'l?==:‘D$li'l'!!! . ‘;.c ‘w ~ .1.' ,u' .l"ijl'1'a$.‘"‘, ”3"! ‘1.3 MI" “MN «()3 1,1,.11, .f|.-..r'o‘ .' 10%.". lilniila H1.)')-'I.1 v"]i‘.{u: «.htht itt‘ wail W lust". .14). ‘1 ,L.‘ w; u: w ,. ' n.'.1.~;xw:l':1u,' gnnuzézwllm «1.11 -.:'.:w E's?17'~.a.'i'u.(' ... “A! ”"94 Hi )"fUUM . f 0 ‘ . ~. lvlt‘ ~.f,:' 4‘11! ‘90. .° Hl‘n'u..£» 'II'H'I ’1':l|!uf()) ,.;..‘ ”1.: '-1;H.i1 i ot'l:.w H»! ”I ,w’l't-ihl 153;”)..2 . ... . . 1:: nu. ‘ w; ~ ‘; 1mm“; 2»: ;!:1 l, Utillé'ffn. 'nH Wild 'r ;‘.“!u;z'rc :H-sii .'~:s-:i é-Hhilxl: lflnvézsh WU)!” 11W. . '-. ‘ g"! ‘1’}.i -.;; t “1' a Minx“; MINU} ,~.-::s ‘u‘iiwll: Mind.- i. fun! 4:9 li-ili alwap'uea 'rmnm- ' ~ I” :22»: Pl Urn-Hui M't..1»}¢nl HRZ‘ in l, 3’" x " I .' r‘,‘,'.’.'hi[1 : “ o I,' "ljjil‘nl ’. “‘.'"“.II 40 subjects had significantly more discontinuous lines in their male drawing than in their auto drawing. This suggests that subjects were more anxious to complete their male drawings than their auto drawings, even though the actual amount of time spent on each stimulus object did not differ. Vertical Iabalayce. The vertical imbalance index scores based on the original scale produced no significant results. Scores based on the expanded scale, however, did reveal a main effect for stimulus object, F(2, 120) = 7.8, p < .01. Further analysis with Tukey’s method showed that both the male and female drawings were significantly more unbalanced than the auto drawing. Again, this replicates the results of the earlier Hamernik study. The vertical imbalance index seems to reliably distinguish between the neutral stimulus object and the human stimulus objects; an argument can therefore be made that vertical imbalance reflects intrapsychic rather than interpersonal situation anxiety. Lgaaaof Detail. Finally, the loss of detail index produced a significant interaction between monitoring condition and stimulus object which will be discussed under Hypothesis V. To sum-arise the results pertaining to Hypothesis II, then, subjects with the HP experimenter made fewer omissions on their male and female drawings, and drew more discontinuous lines overall than their LP experimenter counterparts. 4"], ;t.v .,1 '5 J: 3: I} 1 I ‘1 (El, ii! 1.’ t "1‘; I,‘ ‘ I b t v. u .‘ n .' I" Q 1“,'1 1H I 1 It! . ‘ I H , i -J I t I,” .‘1. l 1):. );‘I ofl'q‘ ‘- Hltii ..3 li'.“ -: ‘ UNI” .. ’ vi-'lwsz;t m .. )' . iV-Hth'H, Obi-j” .() iii“)!!! [1a.., "’531 9; ‘ 1‘ x. g l "l as : m V (.131 'J',’1g) l -)/a, T, .0 .5 t’l‘, I1 I1“: l '.. ‘ I} l ‘ "H 23:) I ., ’ll/ ‘1‘ ' .. .I") )K ' “’ ) \‘l ' "I’ a?‘ . I 1. , tJH - ‘1'. ., i 'f\’.“ j t]: 5' v.- y H4? ‘ 1'; .fl I'y'l . "H a '11:, nun! H' U dl l O I f | f. 1 I 1 i ‘3 , I ;I i‘ 5 i »l l ‘ '1')“: | (; LI )0 . .,,; 1!. 1». . 11 ‘ . 1 r. ‘ f .. 5. NH 'r‘! u} 1 we I“ U | [‘1 . :‘.1 I up ii. 1;| .‘ l. i Ht) ’1. “3 EH J: , H...“ t 11 '} 1'; I 4’ {l 1;”? .)?{}D 1:!.43¢ 1‘ .H x! t. iltll‘l I . .:.| ‘1.)‘n .I i)" ... ..- .- —- i) 1‘4ivi 41 Hypotheaes III and IV The results provided no support for either prediction concerning interpersonal ratings; not for the expectation that in a state of objective self-awareness, subjects would rate a HP experimenter higher on interpersonal qualities than a LP experimenter; nor for the expectation that a HP experimenter would rate subjects in a state of objective self-awareness higher on interpersonal qualities than a LP experimenter. Analysis of the nine interpersonal ratings (4 ratings of experimenters by subjects and 5 ratings of subjects by experimenters) produced no significant differences for experimenter personal power. This lack of significant findings across the board was most unexpected. In reviewing the procedures for the previous Haaernik study and for the current study, one major difference emerges. Subjects in the previous study (male and female) not only produced figure drawings, they also made up stories and wishes for each of their drawings. These extra tasks increased the amount of interaction between subject and experimenter considerably. As in the current study, subjects and experimenters completed their interpersonal ratings after all the projective tasks were finished. Thus, although the rating forms were identical in the two studies, the ratings were based on quite different quantities of interpersonal interaction. Perhaps subjects and experimenters need more time than was afforded by the current study to gain . . () fr .0 1! )1 I , " 1 «f‘ J} v ' 1a.! . a . :1 -(. ' 'i M 1%.. l 5)) '4'1"'u.1’ In . . .' 5'. {it . ' t H a, . wu-:{ ' . .~' ".ni’I 1.) 2.‘ 2 ‘ .-. u . .' (..i )1: ;.'; 1! i '15 o. 1:: . .w ‘> ~H . l., (1". “I ‘9 {'1 I- Uan '1WIH‘7'II: l‘t'.. 1 .‘o; I.‘, a I! z . '3 . 3;”. x f' 'o;1:1|..'r. ‘11. .t'vjii“‘2|1'.*-.I J ,3 n ' f .() inr'pyg. 6.1,: ’ l. t /!1.:‘ 3 ..r’,::w1'.3111. SF‘.-?‘;Ic.i;;.' tn! lfl-|:-.:"' :;-".I!!"H!!i1‘lt{- 1.-":t." If) 4 ‘uz. 2:3} .‘1 “(Han itiiln‘rtIW-l ",nlnl"tfli'1!ui.-i H; .i‘..}.9-I1w!{l l.'\:'.{ ;".I’I ii 1...”) v.1} .J.~.;‘1:t, H‘cnlidai 1.31:. MIMI.» .:.,1:-s.r;;.éi "ilhgj'll‘i ‘:.:. um ;"‘,l1ui"-no'y-| m1 '.._'.5.’: ,x-wzlru. '1‘11'91..ll!: '-‘{~'1|i )H') ,J'll’iv‘ Ili'll‘ll .Hinz u! 13:3” in!) ‘. PIC-71"} lwtr- ‘15:.11 'Iiaula Hunt’J-a'fl‘i ‘tdi ,.'tg.,; : -.. m :1..i." .u: -'-.i,-:.f'l thr ; .osi .:".‘.rl1w;'.lb 01119;! Milli}! -~'..? 1H 0 . a." .«nadh'lb vx‘n'} I.) ni'r. .r .I;;1w;-'-s :s'n‘, $1.; 37w. ';,,: “xi (!x‘[]".°;lt3.'l in lulu)?” ‘:,. .{i'flsllliléf ( mush: Hintzu': Md) HI (7M .vitilfthbiezn') ..y; ;,.-, 21,1“ ~1¢,g':1n: ': ; “ll: iz')1‘!]';I!lu > _., :FHUHlI'i‘NI» ”4:1”; ,;:.1:.i‘ .ir'niuln‘l 71-»; «flan? "Milli”! 1:4 his! H «.4! , -.;’.. : u.~:i «at (H h): Ina-u: wraw a-tmtni ,‘iaffh z:- «A?! 3.. n-vstih'mw *9 :i‘-'lll[) ”1;!sz nu hr rri av". . .r .' .21' HI 1 :w I :.:‘. .’l 1:: no: .'.|..1‘| 1i .:11ll}2‘.1‘l}li 42 sufficient interpersonal data for differences to emerge in the ratings. Hypothesis V The results provided minimal support for the prediction that experimenter personal power effects would become more apparent the greater the subject’s objective self-awareness. Monitoring condition did significantly affect subject performance on the variables of time (as part of the complicated three-way interaction discussed under Hypothesis I), omissions, and loss of detail. For both graphic indices, however. monitoring condition interacted with stimulus object rather than experimenter personal power. First, on the omissions index, aonitoring condition interacted significantly with stimulus object, F(2, 120) = 4.2, p < .02. Here, closely monitored subjects made significantly more omissions on their auto drawings than implicitly monitored subjects, t(32) = 2.2, p < .05. There were no differences between monitoring conditions, however, on the male or female drawings. This finding appears consistent with the time results. Closely monitored subjects spent less time on their drawings overall, and they spent the least amount of tine on the auto. Such a hurried performance would reasonably result in more omissions. The lack of familiarity hypothesis, presented earlier, may also have contributed to this finding. Subjects may have been less attuned to what constitutes the essential body parts of an automobile; whereas they were well acquainted, by HI, I wt. : .;. ‘l}15.I,u.’_I "II‘I I VJ: I I"! ...) ‘ s In}! II: II Il‘t. <. I1: -[ .. win: 'I .1 .IH I, I. 73H )8!!! 1.; ll IIHL‘ ¢(.: . i.s'.;1 1.1! Huie' )i \?.'I‘1I‘ '3 ' r will u) jut; .nIHHHII .2 - ,1... . .I zenjslm .u .‘l , ll 1:4 I. :‘IU.’ .1 H'. =3; ‘ifizt 'YI‘MI . . ....1- {$1 ':.()I 3|.»Huw 3.1.2! in «nu: HHII'IIII HIM}: u I:]()fll .! 1.01 ’ .‘loI‘l'v’U uglilWh'II) ‘,:. ,Uth- ,-;ii .I:iH "tint" H- v' “I-'9I1.'I'«'.u'v"z v! xrm .1 I'JIHLM”. z III-'12: mi, .iz Ill! {lII"Il. Ilka” : . rmt. — -, . um! v-zn in MAI-Ii Ml .Jj: ,-..:uu It~f1;z:-.'1‘)I] 1min ‘I V'” s. ‘ "I- 1"‘...‘|q '.):1;u~w.-- tilt nu: In.” I I') ». n.lH;/ an! 1 [znlj . K, 1:1? vo w- « 21'”: 11.. 1. ..‘tl I-' . Ina» F‘floltzjill'fln ,';-p/ 1-q"y mud! «M's; 1". hr): caviar-than) nu? n I"? [I‘rfl “innuf'tnz': iztwlll li'Ii'ni ‘u '9.:u1 ’ [in :31”, .Q‘Z‘Il‘() H. 3 ‘m :I ,;'I’)-W|c.zart ll‘ll-‘lifll .lul‘all l ful'ld NIHW' ..murén. II) -1‘I.;tI-nl 1 ..~*Iz.t-.t'm;1! "i. ('1. 1,‘i!ll ll'.) ‘amiI f’fl‘!‘ I H“) wan: v: Innurnr, 1* 0:"11 I (2'. w... w: Llun q; t ' Igtciktv’ol 'IYIa.sl ”It: {I (filII Hi I";' my“! run. ILl'ql u.’ ”1"er V‘u; .«onw'nsu' 2 .00 !‘|’ 4 :‘gg" 70?... I “‘I )III um but}, "I I In-gvu, w: an I '10.“ 'v s) m'mi'vu'l t I.» zen); l-J :{01!)I.'-’.-:.n:!t 3'v1f1.1 .i’"? ‘I ’2‘ (It) (5 .Id'lldt .13 Ive) H, :2- .:;:;. -k\ ,2 VI HUM)! 31:: (Hr. 'Ji YI')LI Ma! 11?: (HI U t) Hind]! "II: 1.4 Ill'slagr’ ’J I. {tun} l0 1| .LIKII'I Inn‘) "- had“ i H. :1." Hi IIIHIfl-’| ' Hf; at: I m.:' munitiw I' _. II ”(1], HUI“. '1’") mm ~"’ 1': £10 43 definition, with the essential human body parts. The loss of detail index also produced a significant interaction between monitoring condition and stimulus object, F(1, 60) = 5.6, p < .03. Closely monitored subjects included significantly less detail on their female drawings than on their male drawings, t(32) = 2.3, p < .03. There were no differences between the drawings for implicitly monitored subjects (see Figure 2). This seems to suggest that although the amount of time closely monitored subjects spent on their male and female drawings was approximately equal, they managed to include more details on the male. The question then arises whether subjects were more thoughtful in drawing their own gender figure; or perhaps they were more hesitant, struggled more in committing pencil to paper and so had less time available for detail work. These questions become even more important in relation to the surprising detail results for inplicitly monitored subjects: they spent an average of 110 seconds more on their female drawing than their sale drawing, yet no differences emerged on the detail index. How did these subjects use this time if not in elaborating their work? This issue will be discussed further in the general discussion section. To summarize the monitoring results, closely monitored subjects spent less tine on their drawings overall, made more omissions on their auto drawings, and included less detail on their female drawings cospared to their male (It I! l I (_: 2.: ‘I h' I. i s 2 . f .m-t” h». . :1, , I,- . " k.“ I }. h '.'hWI 22MH' nu Iilf_ \-{‘ ' , x 5).: ..-2' ”INT .' . ’p/H :23 H (:2 2. 2 .J. .‘2:‘. .‘. . aunt: 1mm 'a~.w.. tan: 2. pt '. ¢.’ ' I'INILlEI a »4 NW dilll'h alum ..un' 12 2'.” “’2‘ (ill' I" .3 mull 12.] u. 5. x: q. 22whn nu etum Lw‘a 2‘ 1221 Wtuiwili .I 2 n2 Invi2u«n1 s! «.; awn 2: :aIIuh'H Ni' ~ 2M 'unnawx 013 In .p n luv ,wniwuwh W: m 2 of '.2 Nu” .,-;'JIHH I“; w 2 .n! RHJJLWHCLIM ni 1H31Hi{ Hi u: tzMI2' ;. w. . . ‘I2: 2 ,nzlnww‘I ’4 .2. mun awn-mud; 2w N 2 n: tar n2n1'n' mm "nfll w: Lu: Hun) ? .‘.| I. 4 . ' lY ' . ’ I . ' 1‘ I ‘II '2. I . 22! - I 2 .' d' Iow h 22 (2 :2 l. ‘. .(i f‘ 2 I ,l ‘ , ' it. i“ 2:! V‘INanliufiIu bwbr luv 5 , .n~.-H .lum tlwdi nu "uni J} hqul'fl ?u»u‘1wilib nu u2ua 22u(:| WI" &?.-sdua hwquilnnm II '1‘) IIAUUIIH; ”I'l “Vittlllllh ltd? 2 2 2» I 2i inn; '2 2 ..." '2 2 M?) 2m Inww 2222:: .12 ()1 i. warm 2:] v-m‘ J .Jmap‘w II: . v.4 . 2»: £2; [:‘wi'l .‘(2i Ia-H'Iv 'Hil um JIUHI u1 thfi ”1 lulldauudl wai' ..tnlIHId 410m n1w~ ywdf mugi 92922-1 Mai 22;: L211: rugbq ()1 0:" :I'i'l'2 Wurn‘whl £~22122Ilé")12}.2 "1.30131 I) “HI | NL‘I H 1)|‘.2 I! ill-l"b HIIIF’i12IWIJ? “:3! iqun del :21w120Hv LHj Rleth Ulnmwl Wig“! .,:. .m: 220 l22q2«22122 >2-n'nt'2‘z-Xl'ltl) tun ‘i wmii aid! UrU ainwidua :.~ 2“)...“ m1 lllw quasai aid? .Huljwwa leyauwfilh xxuiluum wfli fiNlWmeUd HT flu wmlf afivi fauna ciwuLuun 221222. 1:22;! no sannc'anmm 412m: v '-‘::i.IIZ‘-Il '1|‘_~ull Ht) 1.1»3’ li‘i 1.1 Male IL! 3 ‘-° ' Figure 0 .9 (D .8 :4. < .7 if. a .6 z .5 :5 .4 2 .3 Female .2 Figure Implicit Close MONITORING CONDITION Figure 1. Monitoring Condition by Stimulus Object Interaction for Loss of Detail Scores 45 drawings than their implicitly monitored counterparts. Hypothesis VI Results provided definite support for the prediction that female subjects would find the automobile as difficult to draw as a human figure. The method of paired comparisons (Nunnally, 1978) produced a stimulus object ranking from most difficult to least difficult of: female, automobile, and male. In order to determine whether any differences existed in ratings of stimulus object difficulty, Cochran’s 0 statistic was applied to each paired comparison (Winer, 1971). Non- significant 0’s of .25 and .06 were obtained for the male -- automobile and female -- automobile comparisons respectively. This confirms that female subjects find the automobile figure as difficult to draw as either human figure. However, the male -- female comparison yielded a significant 0 of 4.0, indicating that subjects found the female figure more difficult to draw than the male figure. In other words, drawing the same gender figure was experienced by females as a more difficult assignment than drawing the opposite gender figure. This appears consistent with results for drawings time and the loss of detail index: more time was spent on the female figure, yet it received less elaboration. Additional comments on this finding will be made in the general discussion section. . l .'(1l :i , ‘l. 1r '2 I . '3 ll' 1 i. . I l |l 2 Ilol i 2' iJl “ .H ‘ ‘ ’i l‘ -'i~. .2..m-.. . ' if (..:.; lilitalv.‘ Hi'l‘bi'il‘n “:.u,i'l ii lifil 22.... - .5' ' n'l in 1M>lil m: '-t!l . Illi'til ii: "411‘ .'. Sail (In I.' L- li‘!",;,l',j :-.-.' in H ”mu i», c: inniillur1q ihivlii ,1] i:.....::.‘- .2... :1'2, , 21,...“ I’ ' ll.» l |~ )I'i‘..!2 ..-' H fill iiil‘tiilllli) i?‘i‘..l'l and ii ,i Milli!) Qiil'flblil 2| liqsszuz‘iill‘asha rail 0. 2H llama; ..‘!r).‘ ,.-'!H‘.i libi'H) In .L'.:u§ uni {10 L22 w. an 1:..1 M2 in IUHUNH‘. Hi ‘liil‘Jl'id‘lU i. all i Iii“. :‘H i: . .nllnnm 2(1'-;~~2ni : .vuwlrn'nih Mirrn'rl i "ll .in - 2 and! .-'"li'li.-H;lll imam ii .iii no lav.l l) mu lvi’i;1i.?ili‘.nwil alum. i' i"il(ijl.'l()lfl vill'i({qmt 1;.22l'$l¢‘2 mi .rquwu :» 2i iii (22 [1(lii')illi.:“ 47 gender drawings incurred a loss of elaboration under the closely monitored condition. Close monitoring also resulted in an abbreviation of over-all drawing time, although this must be interpreted with care in light of the three-way interaction that emerged for the time variable. On a broader level, these monitoring effects seem to suggest some implications for projective drawing admin- istration. Close scrutiny of a client or patient (that is, scrutiny of a magnitude similar to EDA monitoring) may result in a deterioration of performance. More specifically, non-human or unfamiliar drawings may be rendered less complete; same gender figure drawings may receive less elaboration, and less time may be invested in the entire task. This is an example, therefore, of an aspect of the testing situation affecting projective test results. Close scrutiny could be employed purposefully to aid assessment of a client’s anxiety management: more omissions, greater loss of detail, and shorter drawing time would suggest that the client is less effective in coping with externally induced anxiety. 0n the other hand, an assessor interested in obtaining a client’s best performance would be advised to avoid a testing procedure that closely scrutinises the client. Experimenter Personal Power Experimenter personal power had a effect on three of this study’s dependent variables: omissions, line discon- tinuity, and drawing time. .lw'l. .H 'iy‘1<:ix.iw 7 .‘ ' l ";f‘(‘.‘l v" «(H.W“ 'i 2'.l" .- m .~ «v'i-i'll 9 o I) ,1 .' 21.72 :l"-‘!'e'llil 'Il 'ni‘z .Iiil {il'ui n2 1 a .2.“, ... ~ '21. g [2 q, “21...”: I 2 ’li ) .l W :. l\"1/" "‘: a "" I‘l‘ '4 U‘ H t I" 1.4] "uli 'IiIl 'lf’l .~ it-..’,’ It“. ;. .ll'oli'J-slnl lbw 'l‘l'iii' . I I 4‘1 rfl -li1‘l *~' i ‘.(;illil‘u'. ').‘1‘_|ili I"a' 1' l"l"-‘ ‘, ID ‘i" it. ’Hl'..:. ‘(2 ".i "l ("1'1 1": (HH‘i i“1.>.l qul; ‘ mm» l5.12H.’(Li&’ 1',” v, I“ ..-.1 i ) 1| iniqa. ‘l \): .[Hll 11.!i l -I.1l“-v1.2:.lll INT-i u. wii'll.‘ ‘1‘:u1i,w‘r.2iil. in Hilluin’. \ ht ‘ iU.‘ . . ‘ail.n}i." 1' l') ;‘\:| 51.7‘.(}. I :l‘ul: I, :1. ,JL, rm :HHiIN-H) ‘f;:lli:l'.‘:iit‘ ‘2» ill-lliilil‘llt‘li ...lnlill )‘Hlf .' 2.. . .tn’ V1,! !. nu... w; ‘l‘ii... ;'_:wi.1g:u)> :f‘2-il Iriiwhu'lj Am. A... Jun muzl 9.“. I222». .m». it m .2.!» «Ix-1i" «vi‘aww in , ~.. ’5 'I In ,311‘.‘. -\ in; r1 *«n! .;l 'll :11 lll'l will b. '::.~iu1q 51111 J Hi i. Hut '1 :lil8 full Jami uiil in Vidal?) . -. r;'., 2 2,‘ .'(;j«}223- 'n‘. ::l.l"‘) ‘xr‘l twin»: haul.) ..‘l'iillv’fll l; !.l‘Llll'-iR:-Ill%lil ‘Ji‘ii it. . I lil‘1ll | ,‘2': lll‘tnv,:.A--,p;~., bib nut» i'Ii'tn;i.~* imv ,ir. . a ,.2 2 w Juan}. ..v’lliili-tvflliih “ll ‘lJi I i",il'2 ‘c’.«‘t"i ex. ’2! nll'l ‘..Ii ,!:-:ll iv'fla'RUi! biunw 3:12.2'1 'l’uflw val} Ht: :1. H2. ‘x- :.J:.sli ‘li.|ilili‘ll.°.'l I‘ilid i 7w‘"-'I . :tl-‘fii 2 *- .".i“:lif‘illi‘l {II 1225):“. 2-.lnj 'fné‘.;(l§'._"f_-‘. it." ‘22H‘2q .H -~.: i. in»)! t-ii‘ il)’[~l1. Hi Lian"; i will ibfiv {v.1 I‘llii m. . I} x ... t 3., ‘ 1... -.',,\,q .....l- .,.! lain .mi) ‘4 o . 4 u'l-m; 2"..21: ilitil‘nl 1: r" ililv . ... 48 The effect of experimenter personal power on the grapic index of omissions was surprising. Fewer omissions were found in the male and female drawings of subjects with the HP experimenter than those of subjects with the LP experimenter. This suggests that the HP experimenter stimulated their subjects to an improved performance on their human figures; there was no effect on the auto drawings. Instead of creating a disorganizing anxiety, then, HP experimenters seem to create an enabling anxiety, at least in terms of drawing completeness. This result could be interpreted in terms of social facilitation theory (Zajonc, 1965). According to social facilitation theory, the presence of others leads to an improved performance on simple tasks, or tasks for which success requires a dominant response. On complex or novel tasks, however, the presence of others causes performance to deteriorate. In this study, it has already been argued that the drawing of hunan figures is probably a familiar task for most people, and the drawing of an automobile figure is a relatively novel task. Thus, social facilitation seems to have been provided by the presence of the HP experimenter, at least on the omissions index. The fact that this same effect was not created by the presence of the LP experimenter may indicate that even social facilitation can be influenced by the attributes or personal power of the other. Both versions of the line discontinuity index (orignial ii» . i "i l"-.' ' . til i2 . . 2 i: ii : :- £:.-'~. '1» l... _'l it .’ 2‘ 2'.‘ ‘ I 2. gill 2;: .(2 III " 'l iii. ‘l .~ 2.1) l.) mu“ i 2.’ I .12'21'li2 i" l H'i'h’I '2 1 2 :z? 1.‘ ' .mui Ill.) . 5i 2 2‘ 73 ii 11.! '1‘." i.‘ '. 2. 9';:2.l .. (3.2: ii '11 l‘icll::¢s;-,,| .1 'l.illi Mil ." ‘i ii Hi1 i 1.”: l‘Hfil 2.) H: II] . l "I I ' i ii)! Hi -2¢J<:2; illitifii‘) . ill .1 ill . l 2 . in'fiii' .liwli ‘2" .' '2 ,‘3 «ill 2) lclll:.:i 'z:~li 2111'. .. i l in Ill. I ll ll lti ii iii. in (Vii) ‘ w .u‘):’. . u “l i ‘i(\ 6" 9.}. l . z r. l ‘. u«, :{l ‘2; '. (.3 '. ”i" I.) 2'11" .iii'o: iii. will ‘3 iii H'i-l in l Ii :1 i :'i;;ict...i .4. ll .f .2,M;.~-: (i ii .'l‘\22l2ami)'2l . .l- ...».32 .Isl'l'.!.ixsnif' .; rhuil :r:~.222'4il ilhfllilli 11w.“ fl. 5. ’l) ll 1. 2i ,1. . "fiij'wli, if) z . 2 ,. 'a l v m. ....‘wui/n ‘ifi ,[11Qij ‘Hll. .1'2 I. 2‘ 1 ‘li J3! i M. will! at lI.U()J IlliH‘l'l ruli'i‘ . till ‘2 M. til liiilf».liii')l' ;")".Ii ”:1? .iu-‘slii ii(,llli.ilil'>l‘.l i ,m ;-. a 1.. Mini l'i-I ii-s‘ul'lqml 1 in .. illl'oil l" ' -I.H:~r1 :w» l we: ..2‘ .- vi} mi! Y‘lJ‘)n'ilii , "lir’tll .~(’i'ui ‘ ~~zil ll? .‘2li_.12.)iI-2_luil :-: .i.22.-il Mums.” in ‘(xlldn :li ill full.” 1.; --22l i 12. .2,llqu'wi l'r")ili .‘2! 3 WWW rill“! lililihlal '1‘“; 25:12 J Lab. (liq :12 Hi ' .r... nil: ‘renwiandlifi l.l ii.) 1;? ‘fi in iii: ‘v'ti it u. :21‘ lml an»: 1')” 2 lw v-j‘. .2 . .iml lL'iil 1'; 2.12.2“;‘1-“3 . icnil'Iiiz. mil Jai i«2ill'2lJ_llfli ... . ! nil: fill 01‘: it) . "2| "l'x-/ 21....‘1 49 scale and expanded scale) showed an experimenter personal power effect. Drawings from subjects with the HP experi- menter contained more discontinuous lines than those from subjects with the LP experimenter. According to this index, then, subjects with the HP experimenter seemed pressured to hurry. The results of the two graphic indices together seem to portray a subject anxious to finish, yet carefully adhering to her HP experimenter’s instructions not to make an incomplete figure. The effect of experimenter personal power on drawing time was strikingly revealed in the three-way interaction with monitoring condition and stimulus object. First, high experimenter personal power most clearly reduced drawing time on the female figure. It may be that the same gender figure promotes greater subject sensitivity to the interpersonal situation, and a stronger reaction to the personal power of the experimenter. Or, subject sensitivity may have been enhanced by the fact that the experimenter was also female. A third possibility is that greater anxiety is generated when the subject, the experimenter, and the stimulus object all share the same gender. The second important effect demonstrated by the three— way interaction also concerns the same gender figure. Low experimenter personal power clearly facilitated implicitly monitored subjects’ ”taking their time" on the same gender figure -- nearly two minutes more than on either other drawing or any other condition. An important question here ‘2, ... . ,1 '2 ‘ D} l; i ' ' ‘ , up . law‘i . i. '. 2 n i .2 i ‘ l2 ‘0 Iii-i. ..'.2: 2'2-1‘ I .’ 2’2.‘;:L: ‘2'-2ili ll‘lil" H2222 2'slil'2f'l '.;2 2 :2 2 .; ." . .' 2 i 2‘ 22:2: 1 ”l2; ":2 “. '2 22 3 fl 3 2 xi :2 2 2 +2, 22.2;- 2 ' ‘. 2~22 2:42.322 221 '22“ n.:.. .lmw'gh .22'2221 .ini 22.2-.2:2~ 22w: '2": in 322220.22 <22i'i' .V2‘2222i . 22/ .22. .2.2 ..' 2.272'22. 2 vuw 2. “.2222”; 2.2 .’:222 i l 2.2 2 3.222 2 ;. ' 2 ~;1 . r i i'! l a 2 22i 2‘221 2) 1 ‘:li i"'2.iiii. . '2 lll~{ i l '2 3‘2 i2: nlrl'lll l 212. )"2i 2 '2iii _. v .- a H 2 2 2222 2 i 2.222 2"'2 <2-} 2 2 I .1222222 2- 1 2, :2 - .21 2 22 2 " 2i i 22 2 1.2: 2 22 2 I -:‘l '1 i 2 22 2 2i i '3 i i! é’r- v4 “222:: i 2 ':’. 2 2i:. ..2: . 2'...2 . .2 l. 222. 22: g I 2 r. 2 2. 2 2222 2 '22) i 2 21 2.2“ 2. I 2 rv .2 2.-2 2 -/ . ‘2 2.2: i ‘2 2 . . 22. ‘2 222-22: ‘; i 2. 22. (2'2 222) '2 2. 2 ,2 212" i '2 «at; ,‘2. -.:’.= i..2fi -.;2 .2.-2: i2 ..‘22.-2.2i -»!..222.l 2222: 22.2 2.222.- 2 12272 *2.~2:-..~2 .2 2- 222.22.: 22 ...... .~~.22..2'<22.; 2222:2221 : 2 2 2 .- 2 :22 , 2.22 2 - ..22 3 2 ' I 2:222:22 2 «2.2 222 l 222 2222 .ill.-: ,2-- ,22. 2. . --1 2 2 .2.-ii in 'i‘lWhll ignluujtul . -2.l I l 2i I 2 22.1 = . 2 2 2 2 22.: 2222 2 22 . - i 2 2 . .2 I . 'n 2 2 .2 l 2.21 2 . 2 . - I .i 2 .4 .22..2 2; z . 2} l A. . '2 i 2.2l2‘: i 2 2&2 i 2. 1 ‘2 i 21- 2222 2 i 22 . " . 2:5 i l 2 2 2 2 .- ,. :2 S 2: . 22 «I 12 22 l 22 2 2 2| .2 22 2- -;.222 2 v.- 2. .a 2.2: 2 2.'22, 22.2 7 2 2. i ’22: 2 2i.2 e22; i ;2n2 2 l ;: '2 3 22') 3 .<2~ 2. i. ' ' .: l ’2 ‘ .22? l 2. ... :. ~2.2 - 2;! 22., l rim-:22 222:2». U211 .22: 2 22:2. ...-W2: 222212-2rz'2s2j222 '12" ..~r.’2.‘2 .‘i '.‘ :..I-. 1...}..: £1.22..“22,'; ..Ig'enml‘juqx-i -.; 23.:2; lfl-o 222i122mu .- a a ,2i. ‘l.i 1"2siii [.4211 '{Hilil .ll 2‘~I ll. *1 '~ NH“ .1“) fifi'loii ("12; 122. Hi ‘lill'.fi .2 2 22 ‘2 222; '2 22 U :2 i‘blti'ii' e a «~2.. : ..2';2; 2 222. . 22.: 2 l 2 i22122 50 is how these subjects used their extra time. Were these subjects more hesitant in tackling the assignment; did they ponder the task at length? Perhaps they elaborated their female drawings in ways not measured by this study, by reinforcing lines, for example, or doing extensive shading. What is most intriguing about this finding is the possibility that the LP experimenter -- implicitly monitored condition provided the best circumstances for projective processes to emerge on the sane gender figure. Additional research is needed to fully exploit the meaning of this result. Studies clarifying how subjects utilize their drawing time, and replications using male subjects and experimenters would be most helpful. Even without the benefit of further research, however, the effects produced by experimenter personal power in this study indicate that the interpersonal context can affect assessment with projective drawings. A higher power assessor may well elicit greater compliance with instructions; that is, a client may be more careful to complete the task as directed. A higher power assessor may also promote social facilitation: improving client performance on simple or familiar tasks, and impairing performance on complex or novel tasks. Yet, the actual execution of the task may be more hurried. By contrast, a lower power assessor who avoids a close nonitoring procedure may elicit the greatest time investment from clients on same gender figures. Although this requires further testing, one 22 2(l R IN 2.") a. l I l 222 ..H i I “‘l '2. I : van 2222 . , 912 r ‘H' 22 2 :2 " Hi 2".)‘2 2. If 29, 2f ’l.‘)2-i 11‘ I 01“. v”! I 2 I'l ). 2:1 22 r 122‘. u. p- 2 ‘ ’)Jl 2 Q I .l 'i' 2 ' 2'1‘ ilt‘ ~2222 .1'22-22 . . ‘5 7 I 4 u: )22' 2 2.22.. ...H 21 4‘ H232 ‘H 2 ' 2 . 12 A. l 2°2’ '12 I '2') 1 .r‘ 1.!“ 2:. \‘ . 2' i2- sil A .(D 2,‘ 2»; 1 23h! 2 “‘2' ‘ ‘(J L! 2 2 23 2-,. f" 2 - 2 .I')It I i I 2; I. 0’ I If" 2}) J'Ka ll '12“! ”\v iuvh til 2 2.4! ) 1'! \,fi ‘ 2'2ll 2 2“ ‘ ‘ C I “ 2. '2 i 2 V 3 I . I " .K “ 2’. O ‘2' 0 I}; ' .2 22‘ 22 ’ 2 ‘2 ‘ -H .. 2. ..2 '2 . ,1 J In; .1221 ‘ -.'.'. ..V 94"» l "f{ .9 [2 ~ '1‘ 21:. . {222.2 , 2P2: ‘ . 1:222 r 2 2121”“! :2 . 212',-2 22 2, 22-2: ‘ .9! 2' 2 ., ° I ..2‘2. . 2 “I.” 12222: .| 2A; 12.2.: I .22 222222 I ‘ 2H,"! '..2 '23 , .2=¢'! ' I2«:-1221 I.’ l‘.1 2 )2‘! .2' H) g") “WILL“! ‘22.. 222 2:2)2 ‘ ('2 Ii '!"-‘N('q an. O. .'2 ‘ 151' ~ 1 2 12:).(22; I? 2! 2 r '2 22 f1 1 l 2“ ' ‘1 III: 320 ‘22.,"2 r' P“!- I)! ‘U"J.:2 ‘ ...22' 2:»l2; J! l 0‘} ‘22.»22} 51 would assume that a greater time investment on the part of a client would result in a drawing richer in clinical data. Returning to the hypotheses of this study, the expected interaction between monitoring condition and experimenter personal power materialized only on the time variable, and then complicated by an interaction with stimulus object. The most obvious conclusion one can draw from this lack of results is that close monitoring and high experimenter personal power do not interact in the ways proposed. Apparently, closely monitored subjects do not experience greater objective self-awareness and thus engage in more self-presentational behaviors with the higher power experimenter as described in the introduction. It has already been proposed that for most people completing a drawing task in the presence of an experimenter could by itself induce objective self-awareness. Perhaps the addition of EDA monitoring to the drawing task does not sufficiently increase objective self-awareness to distinguish it from the experience of the drawing condition alone. Thus, subjects in the two conditions would not react differently to their high or low personal power experimenters. Some support for this explanation could be gathered from the differences in procedures in the current and 1985 studies. The earlier subjects completed more projective tasks, including devising stories and wishes for each of their drawings. As has been discussed earlier, the absence of the additional interactions required by these '3 I ,s' . I a . n H. . . l-J: ii . 1“: 1 'l fllnll Hr. V -1d' '0 H. c ,t t'j "f d :i‘ « ‘)f5 ‘,. l {H'i .'i-{l \ , ‘71.}; a.,' ) s.' “.1 ‘ A i' : I I «‘ .1! ‘t :H' 1'1! ! 'l! ‘ I! r .. 1 .2 i :. 26!. 'h r‘. 'H I . >1. , ' ll Hr. .I) ‘s I I ' v p . .l i! owwq 16:1 L'n»- a rig” 'Q»W 'l"’l€U> udr H1 {39%.}: ~10]: 0‘! .I ') I turn)"; a n' »-nz;w One HQlWHj ' ‘ ‘ I» 1 '1 . l 4‘ lil u. .- }!/I H -! I I!) 1'. ; . :1 l'r, ; ‘li‘L “u . I. iv.) 2 h. 3‘ ..A “if! H" c (a: 1:1 "I?" .‘v ;' :1)r -¢“I'i'] ' I. . "sf; f). 1' ti). ' i. ‘ .1) 1-. o "N, £)."|‘)~} PI() 8:“? 1n u.t10 ni Y')")( (1 U 1;! «'2 "n;aivoo 3:1 I 3‘3 '1: 1‘: i 75‘ ‘II “‘15:”! I'm; .') .l.‘)..~‘u' l‘ illiati: ; ’0 ; ' ' . I.‘ . al "( 'I .1 . t ..I i. ' I' lwuitI "a' . 0‘. )1“! l H- r; 1. I‘J:' ' I " ml 71} H. ‘a ":(1-1 : ' i." q) n} i ‘0 fifii1 J10 {Uni} eeJnudoii VH1 ‘10! I '1 .3 :3 DHJLUIJ irnwi ,‘.‘f,,‘.z=. i!' a 'u 4 . . tA' . .1 H I :\(.’1 HI . i a i :u "was; LLHui't (a ’I i 'lu..lluu:')> l"|.i| tr ) Punt 1.10 iN‘M ‘H9. 1! !:‘.{$ é-r ':;:~)1 (=1: <,', '1. J1 .Ilihew‘ug Dt'J" (It l I?.|;;{ 1 sh-: l'a‘l‘MIHl if h: 1:) ." 3‘11””!!3: 1“.qu 12:: 111. a I I: . as)” L {a}! .,, . v~~l 'ifldlz x0 -2um At“ 'lu HUI lliri'i; ”:3! “a": :1; Vi_i(l'illl!‘;!' .1t w Hasuunihmn “'1"t;" .- UH}. .'I;1()ir 91de 09 71309101110 '.£'>d .v'lfi.inhhu1’19n;xt) it adj mo1i b91wd}: i .a-Jn)...la (iflnii :un.. 11 .aéasx oxiaootowq JtiI-naz "M! '36) "*a-1'r~a1;'- 52 extra tasks could account for the lack of results for the interpersonal dependent variables. Perhaps this verbal component has an additional effect of interacting with EDA monitoring to produce objective self—awareness in a way that drawing alone does not. A second possible explanation for this study’s nonpro- duction of monitoring condition and experimenter personal power interactions may be found in the experimenter personal power variable. Although the video-tape raters and the subjects themselves clearly distinguished two levels of personal power, perhaps the high -- low contrast was not strong enough. In this case, subjects may well have differed in degree of objective self-awareness according to their monitoring condition, but the experimenter personal power manipulation was not sufficiently robust to evoke distinct responses on the variables measured. Both of these alternate explanations require much further investigation. A few comments on the Personal Power inaction Profile seem appropriate at this time. The usefulness of the profile may be enhanced by the development of separate male and female versions. For example, the attribute of stature would seem to hold different value for males and females. In this study, the stature item functioned directly opposite to the other items which distinguished experimenters. The LP experimenters were rated higher on stature than the HP experimenters. Stature may be a more complicated attribute applied to female body shape and size than applied to male 2..) i ii, 1 '1 l 9' 7)~i"' '4 v I :3 i u '2 H?» F.” l / ‘ ‘ l's , I l I . »,‘i v. ‘, 52'. ri in} I. 'wun .1]: 1m . I‘n m; a :1! . inn. x 1 . .w ‘ min. . s] I“ In. . Ll 11¢ ) ,:.r. l ‘2 'n’ ." '1' ‘u I :'[ .'r’.-r.‘. 'I .‘n'v I . '. min I W . .a; Jflnn 1.3." n .; I '1l-‘.¢.’"'.H am...” :::1|'tts* .swxu. \'th)\ ‘ . lid! 3 'H now]. ..a III').[6 .0: in )!:.:11!Ja: 4.11 a: fun; :3 31m" HM .: I')f)'lal) hwnntt 3‘1).!‘11[?]‘i“)'.,:’x "--.i :3’ 11 1“ iii . Ht) , - mi w...) " y . 459* 9) 1 i is} ,. !‘ ft.:!~) l ' Ii ‘3 H H": it.i§!,j'l ! 14‘.“ (1’01 ism H 'l .‘M‘. H! H: ,1. ‘ H} In H .1. man} wit 2! I I s-«i .‘1! U Mil in”. .H‘II . 76?:37‘ Inn - ,' ~. :-i of »..'H 'i'.:".':' Vt \\. H'.‘ \W \ 's‘l} ‘hii' wmll .,'- H) .3! v.1 «Hwy/W H» HILH‘J i.’1‘)"l-' nun! 13'1“! t I {my anlunijuiu 1; 1- 1:3.” in 1:. ID- . ; V? ‘ ' 'v ‘9: .r‘ Hull . ‘ (21‘5‘; ° ‘ I a" a v s. -o a ‘v 'HH‘! .H ’wAv .h , . ,. ‘, . . '1 ‘. inn -’a mi ' r .H II‘ ‘ztiuit. Htli 331$.) i) H ' I“. 1.3!! l() ”-11 i"UH 'le afni «mum; 2‘} l I! J ”.qu M.“ ,jp-wd. , '..~.2<,.[ Hzmm'l'w; flu.“ .1“ fillhli“ -. HI L‘il‘illiil 'I ,z I 1 Hum ' u- — u a s A 4-.- Im; 1 (It!!! I. w .1 wiu’zqqt: m'via ‘I yum 921 long wv salrmm‘i [mu 0! “we? him...» VLUT? ardi n] 'I’HI :0 Mn"! 01 In“!!! I ”am; .., "i I H 1’) 111'361‘a 1 3111-. 53 body shape and size. Some clarification of the definition of stature for females, as well as of the relationship between stature and personal power would be helpful. Another item that could benefit from revision for females is the height item. Although the experimenters differed in height, the height scale was too broad to reflect these differences. Further study may suggest additional modifications. Stimulus Objects The three stimulus objects produced a main effect or were involved in an interaction for each of the dependent variables measured in this study. A summary of these findings as they pertain to each of the stimulus objects is given below. Subjects overall spent more time on their female drawings, and closely monitored subjects included less detail on their female drawings than on their male drawings. Male drawings displayed more discontinuous lines than the auto drawings (as measured by the expanded scale). Fewer omissions were found on both the male and female drawings done by subjects with the HP experimenters than those done by subjects with the LP experimenters; and both human drawings were more vertically imbalanced than the automobile drawing (as measured by the expanded scale). Finally, more essential body parts were omitted in closely monitored subjects’ auto drawings than in implicitly monitored subjects’ auto drawings. i . I i . . .‘ 1 I ‘ ' . \ll$13},' ¢t ’ 1 .1 a i r-M ' . ' w . .: ‘ st. 1 .. . 1.1 ...... i- ) NH w... Iu‘ .1 't m. . '6 'I ' 3:1" I ‘3' \ :11 “,5. ... :.., :r’ nun“; «z; .’.',.-1 ml, ;-; Migl' :: ”:1 , Limp»; ”xiv; 'i.‘!)t£ Iwwmum fmc. 101.”: ': snktni ..<"%)(1'1I':;Iuin ‘ ‘. ..ilIH 31$ allI;-(Hll .v' ‘)".1 (:1) walnut: l. -1I 1w .“ ..m z; ()4 32,431., J‘ ) :153. £Qiilwa9lv 3;: ‘)':Hl§ HI wt wl‘n' ”5' l» .i '1.‘» H;' -n' frv'l Ylll Iii-z HI bH'Jlr-vnl 'i'IHH --. I! fit, .,1;,r-~n:;-~ :‘ n Y.) . >.".’ (1*) 1,. .-., :m .' eéulgza \i;l , Hlmuz W; h. x: :.a ..t nu: ling .".1} '2 . .11.}:HII .W‘JI‘EU H‘!J"-‘ ' wwi‘ nu a. .I ...u‘. T.. “1.", it; 1-2.; .v-jT‘J‘lltillr’ v.1 .Hi +'J')‘,n um.) italxll£:1.lll 'v'!'$('..'*| . PM!“ ,2 _{;I1'HO.1;. . . w IuIHl u n 4) out, : alhm~i :Iudi NW [tulww 'zsi .m'ri? H.111bil-Hw:;’li‘l “um!!! 3“»vr‘..ltl'rtsn .‘wtu-mwia .mm .'-- :1HI..;::;*'. Hu’ .':1 I. .:u.J:; u‘ .‘l. M.::ifl:.1§; 05:1. .vHH'I - ..~|5(‘.l L31.» (time: '4}! Hum! ,:r> {mun} 912'”: Immajaplmn i ualw a.un[AUa v0 900D \Q. 9536) unfit GIOJMam.:uJ(H w! an. nnmun din“ hnn .«rninsmjnwwxs UJ an? d;iw winnidua Vd .un an) and) bwwun‘jnmt allHOiJJQI 91wm 919w waniw81o v2! 1.? .zninwn hubanoxe 0d) vd bn;uansm as} nurwn1n UWGJlchD vieeni :11: h9s313m>sriow 33 um; 'C 'T (1 2 lsianeaa ';e-'§g)!;;.; ,'|::-.n[umi nu ”mil ,wzzanwnll. on“: .‘r’Q::s,'|s st: 4 :HH. ’njwu nun 54 Before discussing the implications of these findings, a comment should be made on the usefulness of the expanded scale for rating the graphic indices of line discontinuity and vertical imbalance. As Roach had proposed, the expanded scales proved more sensitive than the original scales. For both graphic indices, the expanded scale revealed differences between stimulus objects which the original scale did not. This strongly recommends the use of the expanded scale in future research. An important perspective on the stimulus object results seems to be afforded by the outcome of the drawing difficulty ratings. The motivation for obtaining these ratings from subjects was to justify the use of the auto as a comparison figure for the human figures. The female subjects in this study verified that the auto is no more difficult to draw than the male or female figures. However, they rated their same gender figure -- the female -- as more difficult to draw than the opposite gender figure. This female figure was also the one on which subjects spent the most time overall; and when closely monitored, detailed the least; and with the HP experimenter, were most anxious to complete. Is all this a reflection of the projection process at work with a same gender stimulus? If so, what behavioral and cognitive processes are involved in the completion of this task? Creative research may shed light on this, and also clarify what about the same gender figure drawing task subjects found difficult. - ' I ‘ ‘ .II ' I I' I.. ' '1 I 2 I I 2' t . 1 t' . I . , I .. : ‘I '. . I I I ~ ' I. ... ' ‘ ‘ - ' . ‘ l- i I . I' . .i 1'. .1 \ , I I . y . u . : .il IfI I..'IiI>.Iz-'..; ’DIIM.“ iI'IJIHIII knit...» ~.~ .-II -5; )-’ .I 'III'.-I.-..- .IH ..' Ill“!!! mntwa I- .I ,‘ n. ,1” I. .III) I. . HI! I I? II-» . I J .I - III . in! I ~ .1; '].I I...“ 41",: .IIIII II::..I‘ w I .' i an.) I I: run] .9III. h”: Mira)?! .I I: new: :III..I III II: ~a lI-Ilmms’w I I I” III” w; no IMIIIIIIP'I «I Imihur: nP I'NI.'II) (IA! In "llI')o'H'. In]? "3.: UNLIlfI‘lL. 4.1 II“! HJI-Isn-I III! ._ ‘IH 31”.: ‘Iu IIHI 'I.*/Il III ‘IIH .“I-ll'ld‘l 'I.*lij')3'i!?‘ I .. '«Iir .‘II'III I AI v .’ I-HI‘ «.I! ‘ III 'II-‘é .... -‘II.I'.II .1 2.1-. III! M): 'I'IIIIII: ......l :f).'I:”v(.x ; I .1 J‘! 1) )ll‘- ‘Itl ? II. J E It‘) i 1 I W ‘l‘/ . YIY: i.‘ a I I. 1 it I r‘ i )‘i! .‘,I ' . . .1 . I W'I E II. ':I ..a' 3.: ; ..'.;: I )II. . 1 l :l! I i I ,. ,. «I ~41 u 0']! 1) Ian “Mrs ii A: iIIII «Id; ' l I \I' I I ' I III!) I k} I I II . 'l. I l l I ‘ I . If I , I i l l‘ ., .-.II.I;I~,I :I. 4,...) III) ‘[14‘ 'H'} In“ .,.-.-.I -.II_I:.I". eimszui r ..-. ,Sn'lfIbl:UHd \.I .:."I!'- I‘: alto L... :!I ...... ~.IIIII' Inn: com OIHw .19199mtleqxe HM an) n3:~ one :Ieuwi 'd a) suntxus nu113w1011 941 10 nctrnslfen n aIdJ if» 31 .qlniqmoo Imuw .03 El naulnmzia nahn?» same 9 nit. Hiow Is 389:01a a: an? at LOVIOUUI wwn qaauunuq wviainino bum lSTOIVLHHO I . Dune .Em 33180991 vxjseufi Sues: ezdi 30 notIeicmoa ‘ lfi'. ,. I't" ’Hi! II” : ';;II".4 'J.|!..l1 I !.-II. ..,’;llf [In 55 Another important area for future investigation is, given a difference (at least for female subjects) in difficulty for the human figures, what are the differences in clinical data elicited by each of the human figure drawings? A further issue that remains unclear is what meaning the auto drawing has for female subjects. Now that the difficulty question applied to the auto stimulus has been resolved, it seems important to determine whether the auto stimulus is equally meaningful (or neutral) for subjects of both sexes. Research focused on these questions would benefit not only the enthusiastic psychological investigator, but the practicing clinician. The evaluation of a series of drawings produced by a client would be refined and enhanced by familiarity with the effect the testing situation and interpersonal context can have on performance, as well as by greater clarity about the kind of information elicited by the different drawing stimuli. I ~ . I . I I’ I: I. l- I I I .I .. .I :II 'I". . I: . . I I. . . I MI . IIIEH II II .- ti‘ . ‘ . 'I."II'«I I ..Ilw.I‘. “I; .:~:.' '-III.I!"IZ H)! a 5“ (27!;‘4'1: III I)"I,. IIII '.IIII'.I.-I- III. '6 II) . I 'II III2II'H‘J1“) I'I III ElI‘II ‘Ii‘I Hug-It I..« 1:] _ I III; {I :fll'l‘J? ‘I ,l)’-’_IJII)I”I’1 II'I'I .I-I;- ,..I Ii I Vilm'trI i?! :aLIiIIJII Ia IIIII .JJ'I.."I.: I1 Int: [.3 . I )‘l. Ii“ ”Uri .‘IHII 1.9!th uh: IL.) [HI .‘II‘IHJ Ir)? 2,“ vIa-I‘I-i ':' I If; . '.‘II;~II_I.~. : :‘yL'kl I) 'I.I.:!-Il MI'I ' :13 VIII- I. III.1III.I'.,I§I'~.'I II. ."I' 'IIII I IIIII'III’II'I 1' 3 ., .I; ;. .- xv l"f*1!sr I» I'I‘ l-‘i‘II i‘IH'IH .-'..ll'rn.fi VII: «I In: 5 .II" «IIIIiIaI‘IIIIIIiI' 3 J ‘IIIJIIIII =~II H“ -' III.. ; ' .III-I iIIIIua‘I‘III'III‘II .II2IIIIIII In IIIII o. o —- a v ‘I m o -- n .— a. . ‘ so u c. . h. ,4 N .II.-:IIIi.- .‘(IlivIHl‘IU *.=III'IIII?I 0;? on. APPENDICES APPEND IX A I‘llvi (*. 56 APPENDIX A PERSONAL POWER FUNCTIONS PROFILE Reyher (1979) originally defined 16 personal power functions. Six of these, however, could not be reasonably manipulated in this study and were therefore excluded. The excluded fuctions are: Education (all experimenters were college students), Authority-Occupation (all experimenters held the same ”occupation” of experimenter), Personal Fame and Family Fame (within this experiment’s setting, the experimenters had no cause to reveal information pertinent to these functions), Knowledge/Ability/Talent Germane to Interaction, and Expression of Ideas (it would be potentially detrimental to the quality of the research project if one experimenter were low on either of these functions). 3,. H 5-} | (l I " u ‘ . t‘ ‘ ;(', ‘ . U I “l 'i I 9 ".. ; all ‘R'Ha'. H, "I £31 .1 .l ‘1'} D .al‘ \ I ’ , O 0 H1 ‘u-:; l I' -I'.l I €H> 4' .‘ f. ‘1 1‘ 4. 13.13 (1).] 5;.1' 57 PLEASE CONSIDER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS AS THEY APPLY TO YOUR EXPERIMENTER. RATE YOUR EXPERIMENTER ON EACH DIMENSION BY CHECKING THE NUMBER WHICH CORRESPONDS TO THE MOST ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF YOUR EXPERIMENTER. BE SURE TO CHECK YOUR CHOICE FOR EACH OF THE 10 DIMENSIONS. 1. Physical Attractiveness 2. ___ l. ugly ___ 20 so. ___ 3- Plain ___ 4. ... ___ 5. beautiful/very handsome 3. Stature 4. ___ 1. frail ___ 20 cos ___ 3. medium build ___ 40 so. ___ 5. very well built 5. §ocioeconogic Status 6. lower class middle class upper class Attire 5’0" 5’5” 5’10" 6’3" 6’8" social dunce rough at the edges charmingly adroit street person discount store department store specialty store high fashion shop ,' ~n l“ 7 Speech ___ l. stutter ___ 2. stammer ___ 3. halting, hesitant ___ 4. fluid 5. eloquent 9. Eye Contact ___ 1. oz ___ 2. 25x _ 3. 50: ___ 4. 75s 5. 100x Carriage __ 1. __ 2. __ 3. __ 4. __ 5. Voice __ l __ 2 3 5. slumped, head bowed head bowed slouches some, eyes downcast erect body but head not high body erect and head high (poised) high, diminutive 0.. . moderate full, overtones, color adroit APPENDIX B 59 APPENDIX B SCORING PROCEDURES FOR GRAPHIC INDICES OF ANXIETY This appendix delineates the scoring criteria for the four graphic indices of anxiety by which the drawings were rated in this study. The foundation for these scoring pro- cedures is Handler’s (1967) scoring manual for human figures, and Roach’s (1981) scoring criteria for the automobile drawings. Handler’s manual includes twenty distinct indices of anxiety; Roach’s manual contains twelve indices. Three of the four particular indices to be used in this study were chosen because past work (Roach, 1984; Handler and Reyher, 1966) has shown them to be direct and uncomplicated indicators of anxiety. These three are: omissions, vertical imbalance, and loss of detail. The fourth index, line discontinuity, was included because it significantly distinguished experimenters in the Hamernik (1985) study. The scoring procedures used in this study differ in some respects from Handler and Roach’s manuals. The purpose of the modifications was to enhance the degree of correspondence between the scoring procedures for the human figure and the auto. 4. 1 vii Or \ ‘1‘. ." 1“ 1': ':;“’ J . , n 1 It)'! I ! t'l' '! I.!‘!L‘ ...)" l .‘J .: ‘ 1U H I" II ' ' .‘l . 'l ,. \l :i. l‘: . I ‘ ‘ l )ll ' ; 1‘! 1“.“ 6.f all ‘é'l .’ ..v 1.! ,‘- :s ‘« “IMMUH; . "‘~'1 '1). .u' «G' ‘l'1|I:i t~' 11.31" ’ L'l I » 3 .f 1'. 2%.")! km A.‘ (“4' I Ir» l:l;“iz.*" I.:‘. thI ‘2‘. 1 HUMAN BODY PARTS Handler 1. head (including facial features) 2. neck 3 one or both hands 4 one or both feet 5. one or both legs 6. one or both arms 7. trunk 60 l. 10. Present Study head (including facial features) neck one or both hands one or both feet one or both legs one or both arms chest (breasts if adult female) pelvic area buttocks shoulders As can be seen from the above comparison, the part that Handler referred to as the ”t runk” was differentiated into four separate body areas. Below is a comparison of the areas of the automobile as defined by Roach and by the present study. AUTOMOBILE BODY PARTS 1.322511 1. the area forward of a vertical line drawn tangentially to the front edge of the front tire Present Study door(s) front window back window side window(s) ’51.?!) ( I 9, I .... ..o i 'J {. IH’) c4 HWY! Q ss;l‘1 Htf‘.) 1;, 61 2. the area backward of a 5. tires vertical line draw 6. hood tangentially to the back 7. trunk edge of the back tire 8. door hand1e(s) 3. the area above a hori- 9. front bumper zontal line that is 10. back bumper drawn between the point 11. headlight(s) where the windshield meets 12. taillight(s) the hood, and the point 13. roof (except where the back window convertible) meets the trunk 4. one or both tires 5. the remainder of the car Roach’s five automobile areas are divided for this study into separate pieces of equipment. It is proposed that these separate pieces correspond more directly to the "piece by piece” breakdown of the human body. Described below are the scoring criterion for each of the four graphic indices of anxiety. Changes or additions to the original procedures as outlined by Handler or Roach are highlighted by italics. Further, a second scoring scale is presented for the indices of line discontinuity and vertical imbalance. These second scales are based on the recommendations in Roach (1984, pp. 47, 49) that an expanded scoring scale would enhance index sensitivity. ,1 “.tr ‘ U . 10.11' :1 ANN... 91‘ ., ‘. l‘ 'J‘ 1| \ | fr . 1T ) | ' ‘ v, “’1 “ .- . 1'! 1. , ll? ,. .. . 5:13“) A;:.;: 1" tn; 1‘ .1 1 l ‘ ’. '1 ll ,up‘! 911 In 1 ~::‘ < l '11 Huh”: I ... I .1 ”Hanna?“ .1‘.‘-'¢ ‘p I .111 gnuloJI‘V' (:3 :l. i” I) ”.51": 231w" “‘ ,9 )t 18' ~ , i , c a; , , 1‘ ”N ., . :mfn'i 'HHII 1'. 4'! :l l 0.x! . . ,..J H. t . .IO 1vg' ‘ ,3 ’571' 4 1 ‘ (1 "It: :1 Iu-l !."l‘lv‘11 .i V l-‘J 1!. ._,-. ~Iti .-1r1| .H .: ‘ I'il'; 1 HQ (1 5 L; 1 11'1“; _tliuli v". IA, ‘ ‘ .‘.:..' .J‘. ”,1! IIIH . . 1.11: 'l'! M’XW , I 9‘ "I \) ‘I'I’ UIf‘. v '3.» j! 1:] H1 .1.‘ .,.§ 1 '|l()l I1“ I". yiliu I (1 HP)" H . {H'l ... L'” u: an. 'fIU‘ 1hr: -:~b'3 62 I. OMISSION Score if there is an omission of any essential body part or when the figure is placed so that one or more essential body parts have been cut off by the edge of the paper (paper chopping). Fer the hunan drawings, the number of essential parts is expanded to include: 11. hair 12. each facial feature: a. eyes b. nose c. mouth d. ears, unless covered by hair e. eyebrows, unless covered by hair If arms or legs are omitted, hands and feet are also scored as omitted. If legs come to a point, feet are counted as omitted unless toes or shoes are indicated. Eyes do not have to be drawn in detail. A hand is considered omitted unless fingers are indicated. In the case of a clenched fist,lines must show that fingers are present. Depending on the perspective or angle fro. which the figure was drawn (front, side, rear) a body part is not scored as onitted if it would obviously not be seen fro. that angle. Score 0 when there are no omissions. ' I , , i‘ D ’ (I . « ~ I "’3 t) 1‘ *.. V I ‘ ’3 . , ,,.. 1 'l H IIUI ‘ ' (1‘ . {,0 ‘a‘ ,3", (‘\'\\.‘ -. ‘. 4H )Oli MI 1'. Elm. .1 l 11". t' 3 r M! I .t I ;-"',Hf,'j , s-fi’ ' (”1.) ‘s '1. . z ' b c. f. q 1,. (I '> - ',! . .11'1'11‘E)’ . Ixai‘.» , l'v .r“_..¢,3l E .l I Ri't'! Rf; I; 1‘ n 10.1, »-. . . ~" *'-"‘I' I r v'1“.ot* , win” .‘§:I.' .a "H ' '.‘-..r‘u 'a.: x Y. 13 ~~_.".x. x: "3J‘.\'i';‘.\'..\ $?\ s;\ nu '2 I '\\ . H“ 3. . v ‘v‘. ' .rn) inn...» M X: untumu mm “M 63 Score 1 when any one body part is omitted. Score 2 when any two body parts are omitted. Score 3 when any three body parts are omitted. II. LINE DISCONTINUITY Line discontinuity refers to the frequency of broken lines used in the drawing, and to the spaces left between various body parts. 0n careful inspection, these body parts appear unconnected. A line discontinuity is scored if it is possible to go from the outside of the body wall to the inside of the body wall without crossing a body line. If the drawing is done with a sketchy line, it is difficult to determine whether line discontinuity should be scored. Line discontinuity should not be scored if, despite the sketchi- ness, it is impossible to go from the outside of the body wall to the inside without crossing a body line. Score 0 when there are no more than three line discontinuities in a drawing. Score 1 when four or five line discontinuities are present. Score 2 when six, seven, or eight line discon- tinuities are present. Score 3 when nine or more line discontinuities are present. H i . .?1¢ ! l ,i I la 1.)) t f C .I! '1‘.) ’H‘ )H . I 4 , «1‘ D-l ‘ v: : ~ .1 * :53 ."t at ;u '1'?! 1‘ , 11"!” HII ..:t ,m» : - x H' H' ‘.-’ 3 ,UHI! lluN (”tlfl ‘ ..', * '1 - 1:. “1 I J; )H. ’I .‘F‘H(" ’ 11 ~ (. r I: v Ii 1." .L) i~.i 121‘ R “ a I: \ I! tl'.'ll (Ill " I," ..I £. [7' . r ‘t 1' o“ It .11 3,". "Il‘; 'Hi" ‘I'Hnfi. a" ()V s .."I‘ mt P’! i '. U " > [‘31 .9“: it. all'} :IIJ .HI '3. If: 2 w ‘1 I-. jaunt 'l. ' Hin' E ; {93¢} «if-t: 3 11:. .tul. m; ‘i'i'3r,; n') . )ni; 1' :3 '..(. NH! .Ili lid 11 4. din: ~ .'1. I. -' ‘4II‘ 2 .W I. ’ :‘ lvUH; -:!‘ N r-' ;]:|nf‘. Ii. “(1 "|!'::v" rt‘c'Itl "VIM n'..-€ H'HXN «.n’ Iniulii .111? ll MIN (1‘) it} ‘J'Ili til i .1 1 H ‘ ;-I I “I‘ll ‘I ‘1” ‘ I“: (I! 11 1 I) '1‘ ( .’ r .3 ’1 Ii, lhfl 1 's t n (3.} .I\ a 9:! I} H- W rf?’ l, . (, " «)‘l'r’; \ 3(, .m will HI f:_;.'H f Mani rillz. ‘ ~ 1“,] 'll‘. .‘ (,1 91111 ”if :1) ,2; ; Rlll'w'f '1‘ ..W «,4 4;. xi Hui fi~= l .r'! l! I “Hi! ‘ I 64 Expanded Scoring Scale Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score Score 0 1 II. when there are no line discontinuities. when one line discontinuity is present. when two line discontinuities are present. when three line discontinuities are present. when four line discontinuities are present. when five line discontinuities are present. when six line discontinuities are present. when seven line discontinuities are present. when eight line discontinuities are present. when nine or more line discontinuities are present. VERTICAL IMDALANCE This index may be scored with a protractor, as the angle the midline of the drawing makes with the bottom edge of the paper. For the husan figures, an acetate sheet with a single straight line is placed over the drawing such that the line follows the vertical axis of the figure. For p l I. ‘2 I .l. ..' 5. u ‘5 [H i“ .11? I l I l a i \ 7 .1. ’ I1 I '.Is H‘> . [?\l J. 1” .J ' l mu)? 1 l: 1 HY; . v I.i| I: ".II I! Ii :2. I '314 . 1t-I! ,1 I ‘11: "l\. .‘l 1» 'zl . 51' {'19. .1." ' Iii.“ . i- .i ’ 11‘] .1" s 44“,"! 1!“?3d H | ‘. u 1': ll 'HJ W?" ‘1 H! (I «2 "‘f1 )1\)) sin) t1\ 3 It”: Vl-lu " NH]! .. I H ‘m ‘Hll 1~nH ' J t 65 the autonobile, an acetate sheet divided into four equal quadrants by a right angle cross is placed over the drawing such that the horizontal line follows the batten edge of the auto and the vertical line intersects the nidpoint between the tires. The edge of the protractor is placed along the bottom edge of the paper; the deviation of the vertical line from the 90° marking is noted. Score 0 when the deviation is less than or equal to 2 degrees. Score 1 when the deviation is greater than 2 degrees, but less than or equal to 8 degrees. Score 2 when the deviation is greater than 8 degrees, but less than or equal to 17 degrees. Score 3 when the deviation is greater than 17 degrees. Expanded Scoriggiscale Score 0 when there is no deviation. Score 1 when the deviation is greater than 0 degrees, but less than or equal to 1 degree. Score 2 when the deviation is greater than 1 degree, but less than or equal to 2 degrees. Score 3 when the deviation is greater than 2 I‘ll-‘7'. ‘ e- ~ ‘ \\ "H; {1! m I.‘ i." L ._ 1 I‘. '1 .J ‘-,1 . X ‘ . I. ‘V " \ ‘~ ‘ H Ht ?'~:'.|J L) 1‘ 1’ H ”'33! .J rally”) 1'1 ‘v ‘0 1“ S"'~| Score 4 Score 5 Score 6 Score 7 Score 8 Score 9 degrees, degrees. when the degrees, degrees. when the degrees, degrees. when the degrees, degrees. when the degrees, degrees. when the degrees, degrees. when the degrees. V. LOSS 66 but less than or equal to deviation is greater than but less than or equal to deviation is greater than but less than or equal to deviation is greater than but less than or equal to deviation is greater than but less than or equal to deviation is greater than but less than or equal to deviation is greater than 0F DETAIL Detail loss should not be confused with Omission. Detail loss is scored for presence or absence of any item not buttons, best scored when two drawing productions are being compared. fingernails, scored for Omission (e.g., collar, items such as pockets, tie, etc.). Detail loss is , ‘ . a .x. ' Ilr>.b:1 *. ,n! :1»le ~ ’Itl‘r , t" 1' p! ,. r’r l .‘rci ‘I") ll ‘ a!". pl) . ‘ 5 . 1‘( '. "0"] 11.. .’ :.‘: 'HZ. :I “1.4 It“' ,. ,tt.‘) H) :H .l' . NW: “Hi .“""'. " . t It“ ', .\ -' v .5 ..l, )1 ....,-, .. . i {'31} .( «HJJ . I t HI * HIS/f II'1;‘!MH . DJ M.“ blunt - c. :H-S‘HJ .nr ' 0):? a ' h. H: H :H )v‘ it!) {HI h‘)i::. *1 ,Jr |!- ' I' .- mg. ,3 a;- .‘m'ilf ,_':.’), HUI. .~:.:;.l; '1”: DUN-WP l’IH I. .z-. (. 2 ,H.5It‘.. , l'." 'Hi; ;:-.!:.7 ...”auv -.. ".l ‘1}: r,i"1:"‘l I) 1.} “.11"?! ,l; (,4! .;--,U -~ 1w. .. l.’ 1;" 67 If two drawings are being compared, score as follows: Score 0 for both drawings when they have about Score 1 Score 2 Score 3 the same amount of detail. when one drawing has an additional detail; score the other drawing 0. when one drawing has two additional details; score the other drawing 0. when one drawing has three or more additional details; score the other drawing 0. k) ‘}“‘ t‘H ”"1 :l APPENDIX C 68 APPENDIX C DRAWING DIFFICULTY RATING FORM FOR EACH OF THE THREE PAIRS LISTED BELOW, PLEASE CIRCLE THE OBJECT THAT YOU FOUND MOR§_DIFFICULT TO DRAW. 1. Male Female 2. Female Automobile 3. Automobile Male APPEND I X D . r1. 69 APPENDIX D INTERPERSONAL RATING FORMS EXPERIENCE IN TODAY’S SESSION Indicate your subjective, personal igpreggion of how the experimenter interacted with you today on the following scales. Circle the number which best fits your impression. THE EXPERIMENTER TREATED ME WITH CONSIDERATION TREATED ME WITH RESPECT WAS FRIENDLY WAS LIKABLE FURTHER COMMENTS: very little moderately very much 70 EXPERIENCE IN TODAY’S SESSION Indicate your subjective, personal igpreggion of how the subject interacted with you today on the following scales. Circle the number which best fits your impression. very very THE SUBJECT little moderately much - TREATED ME WITH 1 2 3 4 5 RESPECT - WAS COOPERATIVE l 2 3 4 5 - WAS FRIENDLY l 2 3 4 5 - WAS LIKABLE l 2 3 4 5 - TREATED ME WITH 1 2 3 4 5 CONSIDERATION FURTHER COMMENTS: o l'Iu u‘I . 7. l I‘ll]: APPEND IX E 71 Table 5 Analysis of Variance For Drawing Time (Seconds) —-—~-——_—~—————-——-———.--’—h-..-—-—-—-—..——_———-——————————————— Source SS MS F P 45,818 45,818 1.031 M 276,185 276,185 6.216** PM 6,792 6,792 .153 S/PM 2,665,700 44,428 0 150,774 75,387 8.87l*** P0 43,312 21,656 2.548 MO 18,000 9,000 1.059 PMO 57,076 28,538 3.358: O/S/PM 1,019,770 8,498 Total 4,283,430 3 Significant at p g . it Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g 72 Table 6 Analysis of Variance For Omission Scores Source SS MS F P 6.380 6.380 3.505 M .880 .880 .484 PM .047 .047 .026 S/PM 109.229 1.820 0 5.292 2.646 3.021 P0 14.292 7.146 8.160*** M0 7.292 3.646 4.163** PMO 5.375 2.688 3.069 O/S/PM 105.083 .876 Total 253.870 3 Significant at p 3 it Significant at p g .025 sttSignificant at p g )'\ a (1 ~' (' I l . 73 Table 7 Analysis of Variance For Line Discontinuity Score (original scale) Source SS MS F P 10.083 10.083 6.5641! M 3.000 3.000 1.953 PM 1.333 1.333 .868 S/PM 92.167 1.536 O 2.906 1.453 2.154 P0 .698 .349 .517 M0 2.531 1.266 1.876 PMO 3.573 1.786 2.648 O/S/PM 80.958 .675 Total 197.250 t Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 tttSignificant at p g .01 I l h 'u- v i' ' 1 ”H I r'. I" r’ I} ” 1‘ 74 Table 8 Analysis of Variance For Line Discontinuity Score (expanded scale) Source SS MS F P 70.083 70.083 5.185* M 25.521 25.521 1.888 PM 6.021 6.021 .445 S/PM 810.958 13.516 0 45.844 22.922 4.655#* P0 4.885 2.443 .496 M0 11.698 5.849 1.188 PMO 17.323 8.661 1.759 O/S/PM 509.917 4.924 Total 1.583.250 * Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 #ttSignificant at p g .01 ’ . l ‘ ‘ . , I , I z ' v ‘ i \ v b I t ‘ | x i V , l 1 I I , x 1 0", . -1 -.. o . d v I . s V q) 4 .l . ‘ ( n) b ' x . "\ ; l u v s l I 2 4.‘ . . ..\ ‘ :11}; i .". |‘{ , 4 (1'; i I i 75 Table 9 Analysis of Variance For Vertical Imbalance Score (original scale) Source SS MS F P .0052 .0052 .011 M .0469 .0469 .103 PM .8802 .8802 1.934 S/PM 27.3125 .4552 0 1.5312 .7656 2.816 P0 .8229 .4115 1.513 M0 .2812 .1406 .517 PMO .0729 .0365 .134 O/S/PM 32.6250 .2719 Total 63.5781 1 Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g .01 76 Table 10 Analysis of Variance For Vertical Imbalance Score (expanded scale) Source SS MS F P .1875 .1875 .029 M .5208 .5208 .079 PM 4.6875 4.6875 .714 S/PM 393.9170 6.5653 0 48.1979 24.0990 7.783*** P0 .7812 .3906 .126 MO 12.8854 6.4427 2.081 PMO 3.2186 1.6094 .520 O/S/PM 371.5830 3.0965 Total 835.9790 t Significant at p g .05 *1 Significant at p g .025 #**Significant at p g .01 h 77 Table 11 Analysis of Variance For Loss of Detail Score Source SS MS F P .0703 .0703 .138 M .0078 .0078 .015 PM .0078 .0078 .015 S/PM 30.5938 .5099 0 4.1328 4.1328 3.525 PO .0078 .0078 .007 M0 6.5703 6.5703 5.604** PMO 3.4453 3.4453 2.939 O/S/PM 70.3438 1.1724 Total 115.1800 * Significant at p g *1 Significant at p g .025 ***Significant at p g 78 Table 12 Analysis of Variance For Experimenter Consideration Score Source SS MS F P .0156 .0156 .075 M .7656 .7656 3.693 PM .1406 .1406 .678 S/PM 12.4375 .2073 Total 13.3594 3 Significant at p g 1* Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g 79 Table 13 Analysis of Variance For Experimenter Respectfulness Scores Source SS MS F P .2500 .2500 .732 M 0. 0. 0.000 PM 1.0000 1.0000 2.927 S/PM 20.5000 .3417 Total 21.7500 3 Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g .01 N): ‘1 .1: ( K '01 80 Table 14 Analysis of Variance For Experimenter Friendliness Scores Source SS MS F P .2500 .2500 .566 M 0. 0. 0.000 PM 1.0000 1.0000 2.264 S/PM 26.5000 .4417 Total 27.7500 * Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g .01 81 Table 15 Analysis of Variance For Experimenter Likableness Scores Source SS MS F P .0156 .0156 .035 M .1406 .1406 .313 PM .7656 .7656 1.705 S/PM 26.9375 .4490 Total 27.8594 3 Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 titSignificant at p g .01 82 Table 16 Analysis of Variance For Subject Respectfulness Scores Source SS MS F P .2500 .2500 1.765 M 0. 0. 0.000 PM .2500 .2500 1.765 S/PM 8.5000 .1417 Total 9.0000 —_-———---—-———--_-—-—---‘———_—_—___—_———————————————————_———_— 3 Significant at p 5 ti Significant at p g .025 *ttSignificant at p g ;. \Jl'llg; . :i ,‘H i .4. t. l i. E II' 5 ’ 83 Table 17 Analysis of Variance For Subject Cooperation Scores Source SS MS F P .2500 .2500 1.600 M .0625 .0625 .400 PM .0625 .0625 .400 S/PM '9.3750 .1562 Total 9.7500 x Significant at p g .05 it Significant at p g .025 tttSignificant at p g .01 (44! 84 Table 18 Analysis of Variance For Subject Friendliness Scores Source SS MS F P .2500 .2500 .857 M 0. 0. 0.000 PM 0. 0. 0.000 S/PM 17.5000 .2917 Total 17 7500 * Significant at p g *t Significant at p g .025 tt*Significant at p g 85 Table 19 Analysis of Variance For Subject Likableness Scores Source SS MS F P .3906 .3906 .870 M .3906 .3906 .870 PM .7656 .7656 1.705 S/PM 26.9375 .4490 Total 28.4844 * Significant at p 5 it Significant at p g .025 tttSignificant at p g 86 Table 20 Analysis of Variance For Subject Consideration Scores Source SS MS F P 0. 0. 0.000 M .0625 .0625 1.034 PM .0625 .0625 1.034 S/PM 3.625 .0604 Total 3.7500 1 Significant at p g *3 Significant at p g .025 t**Significant at p g ‘0‘} (u 1.: ..H). k) ‘._. ' g L .51 :, ‘.‘ ‘J . :1 l ' ‘y , , u ' . f; L. 87 Table 21 Analysis of Variance For Personal Power Function Profile Scores Source SS MS F P 189.063 189.063 19.300¥** M 5.0625 5.0625 .517 PM 3.0625 3.0625 .313 S/PM 587.7500 9.7958 Total 784.9380 8 Significant at p g .05 1* Significant at p g .025 *ttSignificant at p g .01 l'\‘. t?! 'I‘ 1.10.. (lgdl , ...Ii) .( . -, g - X H; '. _fnrs'u 1 Lngzr. :.:v. ~!I‘.:~.-.. Mtg; w ' 2:" ftjr’ ! Ll ‘ I ' a APPEND I X F ,-; A't'l r. WA 88 APPENDIX F THE METHOD OF PAIRED COMPARISON This procedure, as explained by Nunnally (1978). requires subjects to rank stiluli two at a tile in all possible pairs. Then, one deternines the percent of subjects that rated each stinulus as being higher on the particular response dinension than each of the other stinuli. The data are then sunnarized in a square table showing all possible percentages of the paired colparisons. These percentages are sun-ed for each stimulus, and the sums are ranked from highest to lowest. t: T ' x: 'I' ¢ 1": i) '1' U ,. 3') :1?! .- ~¢ .1 IIYL'HE ’- i I. l. l I J .0 ' . 1 1 l l ' 1":v l n ' :I {IN-H" Mll'!” .’_!'. 9.93:} l ,1 x 3‘ u ' I v-- l|‘ ' I} "1‘ " Q i“! », ; .‘H'QJ . LIST 01" REFERENCES 89 LIST OF REFERENCES Barnes, M., & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Interpersonal effects of experimenter attractiveness, attire, and gender. Journal of.Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 435~446. Bauleister, B. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26. Bradac, J., Helphill, M., & Tandy, C. (1981). Language style on trial: Effects of ”powerful” and ”powerless" speech upon judgments of victims and villians. Hestern Journal of Speech Communication, 45, 327-341. Bradac, J., & Mulac, A. (1984). Attributional consequences of powerful and powerless speech styles in a crisis intervention context. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, l-19. Cherulnik, P., Neely, W., Flanagan, M., & Zachau, M. (1978). Social skill and visual interaction. Journal of Social Psychology, 104, 263-270. Dion, K., Berscheid, 8., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of.Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285-290. Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. (1972). A theory of objective self awareness. New York: Academic Press. Eagly, A. (1983). Gender and social influence: A social psychological analysis. Alerican Psychologist, 38, 971-981. Erikson, B., Lind, 3., Johnson, 3., & O’Barr, W. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of "powerful" and "powerless" speech. Journal of.£xperinental Social Psychology, 14, 266-279. Gavrilides, G. (1980). The relationship of'personal power functions to general happiness, interpersonal risk, interpersonally induced anxiety, and security operations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. l' 4 1w?” ., Iv “i U" '.“* (.H d . : . ll I I I; ’ I: I. ‘kJ': ‘rs‘ . §.' 11“}, | 1!, w- \ "H \ /r 1* ~ :anw‘fi ‘\ .1 \\ \*.\u\ .,‘-l f. r I slur" -(' W1; ’ _. .1 f; .rw.‘ .'. -.;'\ . z .. "*4 " -“\ ‘ Mimi-s mu. -:‘ ‘« ~ . .f;. .) .‘. 4111.; n , .V ,!::'L..22'~h .1 , U \ y C 5'l (. " . 5 :(‘P ,1. l ' 1:... ‘HI: I )l . '(- 3'1'IMR‘ .,1 n! «1. Y‘ . rug." \. ‘ . ‘I\(‘..“\\s"x ) ) "\' 3 -( \k \\‘v\"3 ‘ l ‘\ \‘ 19'3“ 1,9 t. . 'l\3)01' : ' I ll'.’ ." t (V. . 11' lo il ‘ ‘ I .’ .V'v‘ IP‘WHH lo't. {11313"!(l 1‘) ‘ 'at l ‘ - ‘ ‘ .‘l ‘\ ' ‘\ y ‘ ": I"( a 'u Pl 'i!“." Dill! l l I ‘t t ‘ |AJ:.\ \ l ( ls ' ll ‘1 . W 4’ ' 0‘ " s""' II' ' I}! - 4- ' 1' ' . I '1 I l ‘ (.i" l x ' J't‘ .’\ ‘rl ‘\ . )8. \u‘) ”.5 b :r H ‘ 'Ii‘ 'r': "I , .,4 I .\\) ‘ - .‘ ~ 1 '.IIIHH.'M! " ' . ",-'._-\\H'.\‘\'1u *. i ‘ I R ‘\ “ \ l ' (l ’ I I u t 1‘ ‘ o .1"; a‘; , I" \ I "i I] )n ,; ' .1.- . v .‘.,"\y ...‘ XI) ‘ 1'l I! I ' ' ' ‘i' R: : l.il' I 1") I‘ ‘\ - ‘ '1! \II‘ I. '1. ‘ ' )‘1;()!" \ I ‘: 1.6.! u I 12.1 k A , 1 :«..’::.H(.. , .1 w -.. ,..') ,{1 ”‘1‘,““11: 1 j -. . (1“- ; 1‘ ,. (v ‘Q" :1- ..,.;., I. n A in!) .‘u .w .11'5. ....x \s.‘\ . wh'". "V. ‘-\\'.\ \. : .1.- 1‘ \‘3 1V: ‘ ‘ u . . 1‘" . " Lia» \ \\'~‘ .. ‘ . ‘ \.. ‘I . .\ \'. \, : -‘. \ '.i\‘t,. '5). /".‘.‘ ‘ l . l v n ‘ “'i "\\\,‘.‘ III 'I l(): . l .:i-’ ' ‘ . 'n“ ‘ x‘ry ' I ‘ O A, "1 l-‘ .{:A 90 Goldberg, L. (1978). Differential attribution of trait- descriptive terms to oneself as compared to well- 1iked, neutral, and disliked others: A psychometric analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 1012-1028. Goldman, W., & Lewis, P. (1977). Beautiful is good: Evidence that the physically attractive are more socially skillful. Journal of.8xperisental Social Psychology, 13, 125-130. Hanernik, E. (1985). Anxiety in figure drawings, their stories and wishes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University. Handler, L. (1967). Anxiety indexes in the Draw-A-Person Test: A scoring nanual. Journal of.Projective Techniques and Personality Assess-ant, 81, 46-57. Handler, L., & Reyher, J. (1964). The effects of stress on the Draw-A-Person Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 28, 259-264. Handler, L., & Rehyer, J. (1966). The relationship between GSR and anxiety indexes in projective drawings. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 60-67. Reider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Holtzman, W. (1952). The examiner as a variable in the Draw-A-Person Test. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 16, 145-148. Kleck, R., & Nuessle, W. (1968). Congruence between the indicative and communicative functions of eye contact in interpersonal relations. British Journal of Social Clinical Psychology, 7, 241-246. Kleinke, 0., Bustos, A., Meeker, F., & Staneski, R. (1973). Effects of self-attributed and other-attributed gaze on interpersonal evaluations between males and females. Journal of Experisental Social Psychology, 9, 154-163. Landy, D., & Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is talent: Task evaluations as a function of the perforner’s physical attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 299-304. Libby, J., & Yaklevich, D. (1973). Personality determinants of eye contact and direction of gaze aversion. Journal of.Personality and Social .1 z i t I. ; ‘i' :l" .‘- , ' , ‘J H i la .. ' ‘ S l \ . , . \\ ‘ \n‘ \ \r\ \ '\\. l / ‘r‘l \_ t . “D ', ‘I ". \’ L‘ 1‘ . . v '\ ' 'l‘lll . .[:(:¢9/.-.f -:3 .\' ~ ‘4 g) ‘ \.\\ \\“~\‘ lift . i s ' IO 0‘ '\1x .I 3‘ .\l\.‘ '3'.‘“ \x‘ ‘ l‘ I \“ \ ,1 ‘il ( , A 1 Pt 2!! l'l'3I'..'-:.'. z':'zv~.:1 h 3'. N (llr) *‘1,;r"l _o a 1 m? 11‘ «'n-s'w ..un'nl . ' \ ‘ . ‘ \ \ ’ ‘ {‘1 l . '\ 0‘ ‘\ \‘\l ..o x‘. -|" «1' o \ 1' -‘_ L., ‘s. \- ‘\ ‘ \ l“‘|“C-\‘.‘ '\ It'v‘ . «:1: cu' : t. , I -:‘. ru‘na : , ". .‘-\\.k. ”1”. :Hr’r: 1H ... 3' ‘ :. l }, ~ g" '.\ ; . ;-'.'l 151': t;-' ll 1. "-.( .n all .' ~ .>"l HI ' ’15:: ll'v -:.‘ . , \\ ,. n2 \\\\. ‘.'\k) ‘ ‘ '\ \'\ 'y ". .. I ::' ‘3 ‘il‘ 0 . “a .i .. 1' N'sf ' ‘ ' 90H HI. . .‘ 1.. \‘ \ ‘(‘l\l)\. I. I (y 71"1Io " I! l “I“: 2""--I 104 x1 ’"UII'. ) .Jl‘: ‘ ‘ “'3‘ ‘\ .‘h‘ .9 I. ' (ll ‘lr.i\ $5-. . v ‘ ':.\ I ’I, H‘ l l" «‘3 9"/: I’ r ’ , '. , )‘D 3' :1’1’ i..." l s :;‘ .‘ a : , ‘..u n - rat-.3 :4” :3".;I.z.v . .‘I: i “ ‘r' I‘\ ’ l“ ‘5 D" \ ‘55 I “1 " ‘ i 7. k. . .1" |.:."(,1 ‘ ,- ‘ ') '- 3 .x) um . : . - ‘\ll\"'..v\. ‘\ 'i . ‘\ '\.‘ ‘_' I t« l I . a' . ‘ k ,l 1‘ .. : 3’ ~ I “ ‘ I , fl , I . l -‘ 'H I I,;. it) 8. 'r "4:; "so i..§ ! y . v’J ‘ll’ Ii] J l o ‘ p h i a) f . ‘ s" . s h' I n1 43 ":1 ‘11.')\ \‘\)" ) 'sAA , . l ' :. hills *1.” D 1‘ ‘.'|‘, \ h.‘ ‘5 t I ' “I u)“.;)\.“;‘\“ 2‘! "JJ ' ' 'DB‘ 1’:=;'1 93"; I. '. ‘n \‘n \‘l\‘l ‘3 i."ll:l ' l - ! ~ x t I “)3 1». «Q-A. !; I'Kp , ("i . (..U s V n 0‘. . - II I I\ 1‘- ;’u 't‘s . \l S“:;l\) . Il§lt :I ‘ |‘t .' . 1!)! l ! . . ' \\ g 5 I ! '54” I ) 91 Psychology, 27, 197-206. Maruyama, G., & Miller, N. (1981). Physical attractiveness and personality. In B. Maher & W. Maher (Eds.), Progress in experisental personality research (Vol. 10, pp. 203-266). New York: Acadenic Press. Minton, H. (1967). Power as a personality construct. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experisental personality research (Vol. 4, pp. 229-269). New York: Academic Press. Minton, H. (1972). Power and personality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The social influence processes (pp. 100-149). Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, Inc. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychosetric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Reyher, J. (1986). An integration of the objective self awareness and the selfipresentation theories. Unpublished manuscript. Reyher, J. (1979). Personal Power Fucnctions Profile. (Available from Joseph Reyher, Ph.D., Dept. of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824. Reyher, J. (1959). use of figure drawings in differential diagnosis. Paper read at the State Diagnostician’s Conference, Michigan. Roach, J. (1981). The effect of an experinenter’s presence or absence during adiinistration of the Draw—A-Person Test. Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State Univeristy. Roach, J. (1984). The effect of an experisenter’s presence on the quality of interpretable data in husan figure drawings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Rosenthal, R. (1964). The effect of the experimenter on the results of psychological research. In B. Maher (Ed.), Progress in experisental personality research (Vol. 1, pp. 79-114). New York: Academic Press. Rosenthal, R. (1966). Esperisental effects in behavioral research. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Rosenthal, R. (1976). Esperisental effects in behavioral research (rev. ed.). New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts. 0‘" 92 Schneider, D. (1974). Effects of dress on self-present- ation. Psychological Reports, 35, 167-170. Solomon, M., & Schopler, J. (1982). Self-consciousness and clothing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 508—514. Star, A., & Marcuse, B. (1959). Reliability in the Draw-A- Person Test. Journal of Projective Techniques, 23, 83—86. Tachell, R., Van den Berg, 8., & Lerman, J. (1983). Fluency and eye contact as factors influencing observers’ perceptions of stutterers. Jounal of Language and Social Psychology, 3, 1-19. Wicklund, R. (1975). A theory of objective self awareness. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 8). New York: Academic Press. Wilkins, E., & DeCharmes, R. (1962). Authoritarianism and response to power cues. Journal of.Personality, 30, 439—457. Winer, B. (1971). Statistical principles in experisental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149, 417-435. ‘7 iill.i¢s. Jul HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRARIES WWWWWWWWWWWWWW 31293107203055