Upload
others
View
6
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Louisiana State UniversityLSU Digital Commons
LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School
1973
The Use of Kinesics in Establishing andDetermining Meaning in Superior-SubordinateCommunications.Mary Bordelon BlalockLouisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion inLSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected].
Recommended CitationBlalock, Mary Bordelon, "The Use of Kinesics in Establishing and Determining Meaning in Superior-Subordinate Communications."(1973). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 2517.https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/2517
INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
I.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.
Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
74-18,313
BLALOCK, Mary Bordelon, 1942-THE USE OF KINESICS IN ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING MEANING IN SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATIONS.
The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, Ph.D., 1973 Business Administration
University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan
© 1974
MARY BORDELON BLALOCK
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
THE USE OF KINESICS
IN ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING MEANING
IN SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATIONS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and
Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
The Department of Management
by Mary Bordelon Blalock
B.S., University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1963 B.S., Louisiana State University, 1967 M.S., Louisiana State University, 1967
December, 1973
THE USE OF KINESICS
IN ESTABLISHING AND DETERMINING MEANING
IN SUPERIOR-SUBORDINATE COMMUNICATIONS
For my parents;
for TNB who was there,
and
for PJB, who should have been.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
More individuals have assisted me in arriving at this state in
life than I can possibly cite here. To all of them, I extend sincere
appreciation, and I give an especial expression of gratitude where it
is exceedingly due:
to my major professor, Dr. Raymond V. Lesikar, who not only was
a tremendous chairman, but who patiently guided me through just about
every crisis a graduate student can have;
to Drs. Edmund R. Gray, Eugene C. McCann, Frank D. Ferguson, and
S. Lee Richardson, for their advice and helpful recommendations of
tremendous value that aided in giving this dissertation life;
to W. L. McDermott and Dow Chemical Company who so generously
offered their valuable time and personnel for the original data, and
without whose cooperation this study could not have been completed/
to Dr. T. Win Welford for his valuable assistance in not only
locating the right kinesic variables to use, but who also condescended
to act in the video-tape;
to Messrs. Ralph M. Newell and Frank Majers who provided
technical assistance for, and who filmed the experiment;
to Drs. Joseph G. Dawson and Caesar B. Moody for assistance in
selecting and interpreting the psychology test administered in this
study;
to Dr. Kenneth L. Koonce, who struggled with me from designing
the questionnaire all the way through interpreting what seemed a maze
of data;
V.
to Mr. Phillip Hart, who lent me his expensive equipment with
which to conduct the experiment;
to Dean and Mrs. Herbert A. Hamilton, Miss Hulda O. Erath, and
all of my teachers, who from the very beginning gave me confidence
and convinced me I could succeed;
to Thomas N. Brandon III, a very dear friend, who gave me a
stupendous amount of his personal time in tutelage and encouragement;
to my parents, whose advice and understanding from my earliest
recognition nurtured in me a respect for a good education, and whose
untimely deaths prevented them from witnessing my terminal degree;
to my husband, Paul, to whom I am indebted most of all, whose
personal sacrifices and affectionate nagging induced the culmination
of this study;
to my Creator, who gave me health, and a reasonable amount of
intelligence—and a country in which I am free to exercise it.
These acknowledgments are not intended as alibis. The responsi
bility for all shortcomings and heresies rests squarely upon the
shoulders of the author—and are probably due to good advice unheeded.
M.B.B.
Louisiana State University October 25, 1973
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENT iv
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
ABSTRACT xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY 1
Statement of the Problem and Hypotheses 6
Purpose, Scope, and Limitations of the Study 8
Method of Analysis 10
The Video-tape 10
The Pre-test 13
The Questionnaire 13
Experimental Groups 13
The Experiment 17
Data Preparation 19
Preview 19
CHAPTER II. ANALYSIS OF MESSAGE PERCEIVED BY DEMOGRAPHICS,
PERSONALITY FACTORS, AND MESSAGE TYPES 21
Background of the Study 22
Method of Analysis 27
The "Source of Variation" Column 27
The "F Value" Column , 31
The "Probability of F" Column 31
vii.
Demographics and Personality Compared to Message Perceived . . . 32
Perception of Message "Favorability" 32
Perception of Message "Truthfulness" 34
Perception of Message "Believability" 34
Perception of Message "Reputability" 37
Perception of Message "Reliability" 37
Perception of Message "Pleasantness" 40
Perception of Message "Informability" 40
Summary of bindings 40
CHAPTER III. ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF MESSAGE PERCEIVED BY
TYPE OF MESSAGE EXPERIENCED 44
Method of Analysis 44
Kinesics and Vocalization Compared to Message Perceived 46
Perception of Message "Favorability" 47
Perception of Message "Truthfulness" 50
Perception of Message "Believability" 53
Perception of Message "Reputability" 57
Perception of Message "Reliability" 60
Perception of Message "Pleasantness" . . . . . 63
Perception of Message "Informability" 66
Summary of Findings 69
CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 71
Summary 71
Conclusions 75
viii.
Recommendations for Further Study .78
BIBLIOGRAPHY 79
APPENDIX A. Text of Message Experiment 99
APPENDIX B. Experiment Packet 103
APPENDIX C. Video-tape 109
APPENDIX D. Sample-size Requirements Calculations 110
APPENDIX E. Cumputer Print-out Reduction 112
VITA 119
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I. Statistical Breakdown of Employees by Demographics and
Personality 26
II. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Favorability by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 33
III. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Truthfulness by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 35
IV. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Believability by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 36
V. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Reputability by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 38
VI. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Reliability by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 39
VII. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Pleasantness by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 41
VIII. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Informability by
Demographics, Personality Factors and Message Type . . . . 42
IX. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Favorability by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 48
X. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Truthfulness by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 51
XI. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Believability by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 54
X.
XII. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Reputability by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors, . . . 58
XIII. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Reliability by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 61
XIV. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Pleasantness by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 64
XV. Analysis of Variance Table of Message Informability by
Message Type, Demographics, and Personality Factors. . . . 67
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Body Language by Voice for Message Favorability 49
2. Body Language by Voice for Message Truthfulness 5 2
3. Age by Voice for Message Truthfulness 55
4. Voice by Marital Status for Message Believability 56
5. Body Language by Voice for Message Reputability 5 9
6. Body Language by Voice for Message Reliability 6 2
7. Body Language by Voice for Message Pleasantness 6 5
8. Body Language by Voice for Message Informability 6 8
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to identify and
analyze positive and negative kinesics (body movements), and
to determine what, if any, effect they lent to message per
ception, in the hope of answering specifically these
questions:
1. What, if any, are the benefits of management
concentrating on positive kinesics to coincide
with positive verbal communication?
2. How can management develop, from the use of data
gathered in the experimental process of the study,
an awareness of the necessity of communication—
both verbal and non-verbal—and a means for
determining kinesic effectiveness?
The hypotheses under consideration in this study were:
there is no difference to response to messages whether nega
tive or positive body language is used; there is no differ
ence in response to messages whether kinesics are congruent
with verbal message content; and the effect of body language
on message perception is constant regardless of personality
type or demographic characteristics.
A random sample of 292 employees, consisting of nine
groups, from eight different companies was selected with the
assistance of Dow Chemical Company.
xiii.
A demographic questionnaire and personality inventory
was administered to these employees. Each group was sub
jected to a different message form, and then the employees
were asked to fill out a semantic differential questionnaire
giving their perception of seven message concepts.
Data coding and analysis was performed, and some
groups were "collapsed" where needed. Analysis of the data
revealed that there were differences in message perception,
but that these differences could not be attributed to demo
graphic characteristics or personality type except in very
limited instances.
Subsequent analysis indicated that different types
of communication (oral, visual, or written) did not influ
ence how a message was perceived. First, the effect of
body language on message perception is not very great when
using positive vocalization. Secondly, positive kinesics
does increase credibility of messages, and therefore,
negative verbalization can be overcome to a degree. Thirdly,
when using negative body language, message perception is
adversely affected. Finally, any body language (positive or
negative) enhances message acceptance.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
During the l a s t few y e a r s , a s c i e n t i f i c study of
k i n e s i c s (body language) has been pursued from many a n g l e s .
Doctors of Medicine have i n v e s t i g a t e d k i n e s i c s i n
r e l a t i o n t o phys io logy , such as F i n l e y ' s K i n e s i o l o g i c a l
Ana lys i s of Human Locomotion, and Jensen ' s Applied
Kines io logy: The S c i e n t i f i c Study of Human Performance.2
In these manuels of structural kinesiology, much attention
i s paid to applied anatomy,3 w i l l and unwilled movement,4
and motor s k i l l s in a medical context . 5
xRay F. Finley, Kinesiological Analysis of Human Locomotion (Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1961).
2Clayne R. Jensen, Applied Kinesiology: The Sc ient i f i c Study of Human Performance (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc . , 1970).
^Phil l ip J . Rasch and Roger K. Burke, Kinesics and Applied Anatomy: The Science of Human Movement (third edit ion; Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger, 1971).
4A. J. Buller, 0. C. J. Lippold, and A. Taylor, "Discussion on Normal and Abnormal Willed Movement," Procedures of the Royal Society of Medicine, 54:199-203, 1961.
H. W. Brosin, "Studies in Human Communication in Clinical Settings Using Sound Film and Tape," Wisconsin Medical Journal, 63: 503-506, 1964; and Albert E. Scheflen, "Non-Language Behavior in Communications," (Address to the New York Chapter of American Academy of Pediatr ics ) , September 2, 1969.
2
P s y c h o l o g i s t s and p s y c h i a t r i s t s have s tud ied body
language for mental i l l n e s s c l u e s (as i n Berger ' s "Nonverbal
Communication i n Group Psychotherapy"); and as paralangu-
age , i . e . , a means of g i v i n g depth to verbal communication.
Some of t h e s e s t u d i e s dea l pr imari ly with emot ions , such as
"The Kines ic Level i n the I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the Emotions"8
whi l e o t h e r s concentrate on p a t h o l o g i c a l i l l n e s s e s . 9 Much
of t h e i r informat ion, whi le h e l p f u l , i s of l i m i t e d va lue t o
b u s i n e s s m e n . 1 0
°Gordon W. Allport and P. E. Vernon, Studies in Expressive Movement (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1933); and Jurgen Ruesch, Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry (New York: Norton Press, 1951); and M. M. Berger, "Nonverbal Communications in Group Psychotherapy," International Journal of Group Psychotherapists, 8:161-178, 1958.
7M. C. Bateson, "Kinesics and Paralanguage," Science, 139:200, 1963; D. A. Barbara, "The Value of Nonverbal Communication in Persona l i t y Understanding," Journal of Nervous Disorders, 123:286:291, 1956; William Austin, "Some Social Aspects of Paralanguage," CJL/RCL 11, 1:31-39, 1965; and G. L. Trager, "Paralanguage: A F ir s t Approximation," Studies of Linguist ics , 13:1-12, 1958.
8Ray L. Birdwhistell , "The Kinesic Level in the Investigation of the Emotions" in Expression of the Emotions in Man (P. H. Knapp, ed . , ) (New York: International Universit ies Press, 1963), pp. 123-139; and Rudulf Arnheim, "The Gestalt Theory of Expression," Psychological Review, 56:156-171, 1949.
9 S , E, J e l l i f f e , "The Parkinsonian Body Posture: Some Considerat ions in Unconscious Host i l i ty ," Psychoanalysts Review, 27:467-479, 1940; and Authur Steindler, Kinesiology of the Human Body Under Normal and Pathological Conditions (Springfield, I l l i n o i s : C. C. Thomas, 1955).
1 0 P . L. Wachtel, "An Approach to the Study of Body Language in Psychotherapy," Psychotherapy, 4:3 , 1967.
3
Physical therapists and physical educationalists have
explored and choreographed body movement11 for health and/or
aesthetic reasons12 with still less significance for the
business practitioner.
Sociologists and anthropologists have expounded on the
differences and similarities13 of gestures in communica
tion in various societies and environments.14 This material
has valuable potential for businessmen once it can be
dredged through and gleaned as to what is significant.
John Barclay, Muscular Motions of the Human Body (Edinburgh: W. Laing & A. Constable & Company, 1808); Ellen Neall Duvall, Kinesiology: The Anatomy of Motion (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, inc., 1959); Michael Aloysius MacConaill, Muscles and Movements: A Basis for Human Kinesiology (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1969); Congresses International Seminar on Biomechanics, Technique of Drawings of Movement and Movement Analysis.
l^susanne Hirt, "What is Kinesiology?," Physical Therapists Review, 35:419-426, 1955; L. F. Locke, "Kinesiology and the Profession," Johper, 36:69, 1965; and Physical Education Division, Council on Kinesiology, Kinesiology Review (Washington, D. C , 1968).
13Ray L. Birdwhistell, "Some Body Motion Elements Accompanying Spoken American English," in Communication: Concepts and Perspectives (London: Macmillan; Washington, D. C : Spartan Books, 1967), Chapter II, p. 53-76; M. Benesh, E. Kramer, and H. Lane, "Recognition of Portrayed Emotion in a Foreign Language," in Experimental Analysis of the Control of Speech Production and Perception: III (Ann Arbor, Michigan: university of Michigan Office of Research Administration, 1963); and Ray L. Birdwhistell, "Some Relationships Between Kinesics and Spoken American English," (Presented before Section H., A.A.A.S., Cleveland, 1963), pp. 27-28.
l4David Efron, Gesture and Environment (New York: Kings Crown Press, 1942); and J. P. Foley, "Gestural Behavior and Social Setting", in Readings in Social Psychology (T. L. Newcombe and E. L.
4
A c t o r s " and speech-makers X b have pondered t h e b e s t
way t o use n o n - v e r b a l communication though much of t h e i r
work i n v o l v e s mimic s t e r e o t y p i n g .
Most of t h e s e s t u d i e s have been ex t r eme ly l i m i t e d i n
s cope , however, and of a lmos t no wor th t o a businessman
because of t h e sometimes ve ry t e c h n i c a l n a t u r e of t h e
t r e a t i s e . 1 7
Hart ley, e d s . ) , (New York: Ronald P ress , 1947); Thomas Alber t Sebeok, Approaches t o Semiotics (Alfred S. Hayes and Mary Catherine Bateson, e d s . ) , (The Hague: Mouton, 1964); and L. D. B a t t l e , "New Dimensions in Cul tura l Communications," Publ ica t ions of ttie_ Modern Language Associat i o n , 78(2):15-19, 1963.
15Ray L. Bi rdwhis te l l , Communication Without Words in L'Aventure Humaine, Encyclopedic des Sciences de 1'Homme (Kister S. A. P a r i s : De La Grange Ba te l i e r e S. A . ) , Volume 4, 1968; 0 . P. Gately, "If You Don't Speak the Language, Play Charades," Harvest Years, 8:16-17, 1968; and Macdonald Cr i t che ly , Kinesics: Gestural and Mimic Language—An Aspect of Non-Verbal Communication i n Problems of Dynamic Neurology: An In t e r n a t i o n a l Volume (Lipman Halpern, e d . ) , (Jerusalem, I s r a e l : Hebrew Univers i ty , 1963), pp. 181-200.
16Ray L. Bi rdwhis te l l , Kinesics and Communication in Explorat i o n s in Communications (E. Carpenter and M. McLuhan, e d s . ) , (Boston: Beacon P res s , 1960), pp. 56-64; H. Campbell, e t . a l . Voice, Speech, and Gesture: Elocutionary Art (Edinburgh, England: John Grant, 1912); and Ray L. Bi rdwhis te l l , The Kinesic Level in the Inves t iga t ion of the *ft""tions in Expression of the Emotions in Man (P. H. Knapp, e d . ) , (New York: In t e rna t iona l Univers i t i e s Press , 1963), pp. 123-139.
1 7 E. I . Corbin, "Muscle Action as Nonverbal and Preverbal Communication," Psychoanalysts Quar ter ly , 31:351-353, 1962; S. G. Es t e s , "Judging Personal i ty from Expressive Behavior," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 3:217-236, 1938; and Jud i th I . Laszio and P. J . Bainstow, "Journal of Motor Behavior, Accuracy of Movement, Per ipheral Feedback and Efference Copy," Journal Publishing A f f i l i a t e s , 3(3) :241-252, 1970.
5
More recently, most magazines—both scholarly18 and
otherwise19—have some article suggesting how much we can
learn20 (or tell about ourselves21) through the use of kin
esics. These articles often are of an extremely "slick
cover" nature, and usually do little more than give the
reader an amused sixty seconds of reading pleasure.22
Writers of business literature—and most especially
those concerned with management and communication—have
seemingly ignored and neglected this new body of knowledge.
18Ray L. Birdwhistell, "Background to Kinesics," ETC., Review General Semantics, 13:10-18, 1955; and , "Communication Without Words," loc. cit.
19Julius Fast, "Body Language," Newsweek, 75-87, 1970; and B. Ford, "Body Language: What It Reveals About You," Science Digest, 68:16-21, August, 1970.
20Ray L. Birdwhistell, Kinesics and Context (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970); "Parting Shots: What Our Politicians Are Really Saying," Life, 82-84, 1970; Physical Education Division, Council on Kinesiology, Kinesiology Review (Washington, D. C , 1968); and Gerald I. Nierenberg and Henry H. Calero, How to Read a Person Like a Book (New York: Pocket Books, 1973).
21Julius Fast, loc. cit.; Gerald I. Nierenberg and Henry H. Calero, "Watch Your Body Language," Sales Management, 40, 1971; and David Gunston, "Our Eyes Reveal Our True Feelings," Modern Secretary, July, 1973.
22R. W. Brunson, "Perceptual Skills in Corporate Jungle," Personnel Journal, J51:50-53, January, 1972; F. Davis, "Way We Speak Body Language," New York Times Magazine, 65:89+, March 31, 1970; M. L. Fiel, "What His Hands Tell That He's Not Saying," Mademoiselle, 158-9, 1970; F. Hughes, "So You Think You're a Good Judge of Character," The Director, 24:202+. 1972; Lloyd Shearer (ed.), "Body Language," Parade Magazine, Spril 8, 1973; and "Gestures Reveal Your Thoughts," National Enquirer, 12, April 23, 1972.
6
As managers spend t h e l a r g e s t amount of t h e i r t ime invo lved
i n communica t ion , 2 3 i t a p p e a r s k i n e s i c s canno t be d i s r e
g a r d e d .
I . STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM AND HYPOTHESES
Body language i s based upon t h e b e h a v i o r a l p a t t e r n s of
nonve rba l communicat ions . C l i n i c a l s t u d i e s have r e v e a l e d t h e
e x t e n t t o which body language can a c t u a l l y c o n t r a d i c t v e r b a l
communica t ions . 2 4
K i n e s i c s can i n c l u d e any n o n - r e f l e x i v e o r r e f l e x i v e
movement of a p a r t , o r a l l of t h e body, used by a pe r son t o
communicate an emot iona l message t o t h e o u t s i d e wor ld . To
u n d e r s t a n d unspoken body l anguage , one must t a k e i n t o con
s i d e r a t i o n emot iona l and env i ronmen ta l d i f f e r e n c e s . 2 5 The
a v e r a g e bus inessman, unschooled i n c u l t u r a l nuances of k i n -
e s c i s , o f t e n m i s i n t e r p r e t s o r m i s r e p r e s e n t s what he s e e s o r
communicates . T h e r e f o r e , he may n e g a t e a p o s i t i v e message
t o h i s s u b o r d i n a t e s by t h e use of n e g a t i v e body movements.
23Raymond V. Lesikar, Business Communication: Theory and Application (Homewood, I l l i no i s : Richard D. Irwin, Inc . , 1968), pp. 3-4.
24Helen Flanders Dunbar, Emotions and Bodily Changes (fourth edition; New York: Columbia University Press, 1954); David Efron, loc. c i t . ; and David Efron and J . P. Foley, loc. c i t .
25Ray L. Birdwhistell, Kinesics and Context, loc. c i t . : And C. Wolff, Psychology of Gesture (translated from the French by A. Tennant; London: Methuen, 1945).
7
In reviewing the literature, the author could find no
study that has been done relating to the use of kinesics in
establishing and determining meaning in superior-subordinate
communication, although there is a growing wealth of publica
tions relative to the introduction of the use of kinesics in
all fields. Extensive search of the traditional media of
dissertation listings was made: Research Studies in Educa
tion, Dissertation Abstracts, the Phi Delta Kappan, as well
as Business Periodical's Index and the Reader's Guide to
Periodical Literature. Such research brought nothing to
light which would indicate that the study undertaken has been
previously attempted, either in private or public education.
Considering the amount of time managers expose them
selves in non-verbal communication daily (you cannot "not
communicate" even though you do not speak), it would seem
proper to attempt to ascertain if, in fact, kinesics does
affect message perception.
The objective of this study, therefore, was to
identify and analyze positive and negative body movements and
to determine what, if any, effect they lent to message per
ception. Specifically, some questions under consideration
were:
1. What, if any, are the benefits of management con-
trating on positive kinesics to coincide with
positive verbal communication?
8
2. How can management develop, from the use of data
gathered in the experimental process of this
study, an awareness of the necessity of communica
tion—both verbal and non-verbal—and a means for
determining kinesic effectiveness?
The null hypotheses under consideration in this study
were:
1. There is no difference in response to messages
whether negative or positive body language is
used;
2. There is no difference in response to messages
whether or not kinesics are congruent with verbal
message content;
3. The effect of body language on message perception
is constant regardless of personality type or
demographic characteristics.
If any or all of these null hypotheses are rejected;
by default, the working hypothesis must be accepted, which is:
at least to some degree, kinesics does affect response to
messages.
II. PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to obtain information
which would contribute to the body of knowledge already
9
accumulated in the fields of management and communications.
In addition, the dissertation was intended to furnish
management—both practitioners and academicians—with infor
mation for evaluating and orienting themselves toward
successful communication of ideas.
The scope of this study was restricted to a sample
of industrial employees. This restriction was imposed by
the desire to analyze one group well rather than to incom
pletely cover a broader area.
Notwithstanding the customary limitations of time
and money, another possible cause of discrepancy lies in
the reaction of the individual subject towards the questions
asked in the experiment. The respondents may have had
difficulty in answering questions thoughtfully and honestly,
no matter how careful the examiner may have been to put them
at ease and explain the purpose of the study. There is no
way to avoid receiving answers which the respondent feels
ought to be given rather than those which are first hit upon.
It is a partial answer to say that similar questionnaires
have been successful with other occupational groups when
used by researchers in psychology and sociology.
One limitation may have been not restricting the
scope of the experiment to the study of employees on a single
management level on the hierarchy rather than a plethora of
10
management l e v e l s . Or t h e s tudy might have been l i m i t e d i n
e x p e c t i n g t h o u g h t f u l and h o n e s t answers from h u r r i e d and
sometimes s u s p i c i o u s s u b j e c t s . Perhaps r e s t r i c t i n g t h e
s tudy f u r t h e r would have g iven more u n i f i e d answer s . S ince
t h e r e a r e no m a t e r i a l s a t hand w i t h which t h e hypo these s can
be t e s t e d , t hey must be l e f t fo r subsequen t i n v e s t i g a t o r s .
I I I . METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The m a j o r i t y of i n f o r m a t i o n p r e s e n t e d i n t h e s t udy
was o b t a i n e d through an exper iment u s i n g employees ( the
s e l e c t i o n of which w i l l be more f u l l y d e t a i l e d i n Chapter I I ) .
The V i d e o - t a p e . With t h e c o o p e r a t i o n of Dr. T. Win
W e l f o r d , 2 6 a v i d e o - t a p e was produced t o p r o j e c t p o s i t i v e and
n e g a t i v e body mot ions a long w i t h p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e
v o c a l i z a t i o n . To p r o j e c t t h e s e d i f f e r e n t meanings (v ia body
l a n g u a g e ) , t h e o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of g e s t i c u l a t i o n was
employed ; 2 7 i . e . , use of eye c o n t a c t , 2 8 head and hand
2 6Dr. Welford teaches k ines ics in Speech and Drama a t Southeas te rn Louisiana Univers i ty , Hammond, Louisiana.
2 7 Alber t Mehrabian, In t roduct ion: A Semantic Space for Nonverbal Behavior in Advances in Communication Research (C. David Morten-sen and Kenneth K. Sereno, e d s . ) , (New York: Harper & Row, 1973), pp. 277-287.
2 8R. W. Exline and L. C. Winters, Affective Relat ions and Mutual Glances i n Dyads in Affect , Cognition, and Personal i ty ( s . S. Tomkins and
11
mot ions , 2 9 p o s t u r e , 3 0 and prox imi ty 3 1 were var ied to change
k ines i c meanings. For purposes of d i f f e r e n t verbal messages,
r e p e t i t i o n , h e s i t a t i o n , and mispronounciat ion 3 2 were used.
Dr. Welford, who i s cu r r en t ly preparing a t e x t on the use of
kinesiology in speech, not only suggested the above as the
bes t va r i ab l e s to employ to p ro j ec t des i red meaning, but a l so
indulgent ly acted as the "employer" in the v ideo- tape .
C. E. Izard, eds.), (New York: Springer Press, 1965), p. 319; and A. Kendon and M. Cook, "The Consistency of Gaze Patterns in Social Interaction," British Journal of PsjrchologY., 60:481-494, 1969.
29 Albert Mehrabian, Silent Messages (Belmont, California: Wads-
worth Publishing Company, 1971), p. 67; Allen T. Dittman and L. G. Llewellyn, "Body Movements and Speech Rhythm in Social Conversation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11:98-106, 1969; and Paul Ekman, "Differential Communication of Affect by Head and Body Cues," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2:726-735, 1965.
30Albert Mehrabian, "Influence of Attitudes From the Posture, Orientation and Distance of a Communicator," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32:292-308, 1968; Albert E. Scheflen, "Significance of Posture in Communications Systems," Psychiatry, 27(4):316-331, 1964; B. Christiansen, Thus Speaks the Body: Attempts Toward a Person-ology From the Point of View of Respiration and Postures (Oslo: Institute for Social Research, 1963); and F. Deutsch, "Analysis of Postural Behavior," Psychoanalysts Quarterly, 16:195-213, 1947.
3lEdward T. Hall, The Silent Language (New York: Fawcett Premier, 1959), pp. 146-164; and Mehrabian, Silent Messages, op. cit., pp. 76-86.
32G. R. Miller and M. A. Hewgill, "The Effect of Variations in Nonfluency on Audience Ratings of Source Credibility," Quarterly Journal of Speech, L:36-44, February, 1964; Kenneth K. Sereno and G. J. Hawkins, The Effects of Variations in Speaker's Nonfluency Upon Audience Ratings of Attitude Toward the Speech Topic and Speakers' Credibility in Speech Monograph (n.p.), 1967:3_4, pp. 58-64; and F. H. Silverman and D. E. Williams, "Loci of Disfluences in the Speech of Non-Stutterers During Oral Reading," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10:790-794, 1967.
12
A test was prepared (Appendix A) and the following
four video-tape sequences were shot (Appendix C) which were:
Take 1: Positive kinesics, positive vocalization
Take 2: Negative kinesics, positive vocalization
Take 3: Negative kinesics, negative vocalization
Take 4: Positive kinesics, negative vocalization
Mr. Ralph M. Newell33 and Mr. Frank Majers 34 both pro
vided the technical advice as well as the filming for the
experiment.
The camera was located 18 feet away from Dr. Welford
with a telephoto reading of 30. An F=15-64 mm lens was used
at "wide away". For negative proximity, the lens was zoomed
completely back so as to get the whole.body and give the
audience (employees) a feeling of separation. Positive prox-
emics zoomed in to 30 wide to show only a "bust" of Dr.
Welford. Each take lasted approximately three minutes.
To ensure the exact wording would always be used, it
was arranged so that Dr. Welford could read the message (out
of the range of the camera eye.)
33Director of Recording Services at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
^information Representative for Recording Services at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
13
The Pre-Test. A pre-test was conducted using a few
sympathetic friends and colleagues of the author, showing the
experiment exactly as it would be conducted. This pre-test
resulted in the researcher adding a "canned" speech to pre
sent to the employee groups to initiate the experiment.
The Questionnaire. Using the assistance of Dr. Kenneth
L. Koonce35 the questionnaire design and sample were deter
mined. It was decided to use as many demographic variables
as feasible to determine if they were relevant. The reasons
for this decision were:
1. This information is not presently available in
literature in the area;
2. One can only speculate as to whether or not there
are differences in kinesic perception between
sexes, ages, marital status, religions, education,
and personality types.
Further employing Dr. Koonce's advice, there was no
attempt to balance demographically the different participat
ing groups, as is explained in the section on "Experimental
Groups" below. Instead, a sufficiently large number of parti
cipants was obtained for each group to obtain a well-rounded
35oepartment of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
14
sample. (The minimum was set a t twenty-five par t ic ipants
per group for nine groups.) Also, no subject was allowed
to par t ic ipa te in more than one group so as to eliminate re in
forcement or bias for the second message by repeated expres
sions, e t c .
Dr. Joseph G. Dawson36 provided assistance in se lec t
ing the psychological t e s t used in the experiment—Cattell 's
Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Appendix B). This
t e s t i s not designed to measure neurotic or psychotic condi
t ions , but attempts to assess the ent i re personali ty. As
described by Cat te l l and Eber: The 16 P.F. i s the psychologists' answer, in the
questionnaire realm, to the demand for a t e s t giving ful les t information in the shortest time about most personality t r a i t s . I t i s not merely concerned with some narrow concept of neuroticism or "adjustment," or spec ia l kind of ab i l i ty , but sets out to cover planfully and precisely a l l the main dimensions along which people can differ, according to basic factor analytic research.37
Cat te l ' s P.F. has been used in many cross-cul tural
surveys, and has been translated into French, I t a l i an , Ger
man, and Japanese among other languages; and therefore,
seemed especially appropriate, since one factor the author
was attempting to measure was the ethnic background effect .
3%ead, Clinical Psychology Department, Louisiana State Univers i ty , Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
37Raymond B. Cattel l and Herbert W. Eber, Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Champaign, I l l i n o i s : Ins t i tu te for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957), p. 1.
15
For measurement of message perception, seven concepts
of the message relating to message content were placed upon a
five-point, equal-interval ordinal scale. Specifically, the
scales are five-step, bipolar, adjectival scales representing
linear functions and passing through a common origin. Pre
pared as advised by Smith,38 adverb modifiers qualify each
step on the scale; the greater the intensity of the associa
tion, the more extreme the displacement towards one or the
other polar terms. With several of these various dimensions
measured, it is assumed that the meaning of the message will
be accurately located.
Experimental Groups. Through the cooperation of W. L.
McDermott,39 the employees participating in this study were
chosen to get a wide cross-section of companies. Represented
were: Dow Chemical Company; H. E. Wiese, Inc.; Nichols Con
struction Corporation; National Maintenance Corporation;
Industrial Electrical Constructors; The McCarty Corporation;
Sline Industrial Painters Company; and Barnard and Burk, Inc.
38Raymond G. Smith, Development of a Semantic Differential for Use with Speech Related Concepts in Speech Monographs, 4_, (n.p.), 1959, p. 263.
39Manager, Choralkali Production, Engineering Maintenance, Construction and Plant Technical Services; Dow Chemical Company, U.S.A., Plaquemine Division.
16
The eight companies represented encompassed the func
tions of engineering, production, maintenance, technical,
and staff, through all levels of management. Illustrative of
these functions were such job categories as operators (both
technical and non-technical Shift Supervisors through Junior
Operators and Technicians); union and non-union craftsmen of
all trades (such as boilermakers, electricians, millwrights,
painters, pipefitters, etc.); engineers of all disciplines
(such as electrical, chemical, mechanical, instrument, and
civil); both instrument and electrical technicians; computer
experts; economic evaluators; and secretaries.
Utilizing the advice of Dr. Koonce, the author re
quested that Dow personnel get as random an assignment of
subjects to groups as possible so that, as nearly as possible,
bias would be eliminated.
On the morning of the study, the author arrived early
to complete final preparations in the conference room which
had been provided at the Dow Louisiana site. Chairs were
already arranged in rows facing the front of the room, where
a large table was standing. Upon this table, the Ebcor
Recorder-Monitor (which resembles almost exactly a black-and-
white television set with tape recorder attached) was placed.
Employees had been previously notified of their time of
experiment, and arrived at thirty minute intervals, beginning
at 9:00.
17
There were nine separate groups employed in the
experiment, which were divided as follows:
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
Group
A -
B -
C -
D -
E -
F -
G -
H -
I -
Saw positive kinesics; heard
Saw negative kinesics; heard
Saw negative kinesics; heard
Saw positive kinesics; heard
Heard positive vocalization;
Heard negative vocalization;
Saw positive kinesics; heard
Saw negative kinesics; heard
positive vocalization
positive vocalization
negative vocalization
negative vocalization
saw nothing
saw nothing
nothing
nothing
Read the message (neither saw nor heard the message)
The situation (message) for each group was the same;
i.e., a neutral one so as to focus on the message interpreta
tions. Group I only read the message, and as such, served as
a control group in case the message itself was biased.
The Experiment. Five minutes were allowed to elapse
for any late-comers. As each group was assembled, the author
gave a "canned" speech about the purpose of the experiment.
The employees were told that the author was in the process of
a dissertation and was endeavoring to discover more meaning
ful ways to clarify communications between management and
employees. The employees were informed that, although there
was no real "personal" information requested, that all mate
rial would be held confidential.
18
Next, the groups were told that the message was quite
short, so to please give full attention from the beginning.
Finally, they were requested not to discuss the experiment
with other participants who had not yet been interviewed.
Using the advice of Dr. Koonce, no mention was made at any
time concerning body language as this might bias the parti
cipants .
Feeling some participants might have trouble with
Cattell's Sixteen P.F. Questionnaire, a brief explanation and
illustration on the chalk board of how to check off the
desired answer on the scale was given.
Experiment packets (Appendix B) were then distributed,
and pencils were made available if necessary. Each partici
pant was instructed to read the letter, check off the demo
graphic information on page 2, and the personality evalua
tion on page 3. Employees were requested to stop, and not
turn the page, when the blank sheet was reached.
Using the Sony 3600 recorder and monitor, with a half-
inch tape,40 the groups saw, heard, and/or read their portion
of the experiment as described above. Participants were then
requested to turn to the last page and check off their
40 Scotch video-tape Cat. No. 361-1/2-1200-R148B; 1/2 in. x 1200 ft. (12.7 mm x 365 m.
19
appropriate message perception for each of the seven concepts
listed.
Each group was then thanked and told a copy of the
completed dissertation would be made available through both
Dow and L.S.U. libraries.
Data Preparation. Coding of the questionnaires was
performed on an IBM code sheet, according to program format
used by the L.S.U. computer center, under the direction of
Dr. Koonce. Data was coded in order to facilitate the
analytical methods as discussed in the "Preview" section
below.
IV. PREVIEW
Chapter II is devoted to the presentation of the find
ings from the questionnaire to the employees. Included in
this section is the discussion of the employees' sex, marital
status, ethnic background, age, religion, education and per
sonality evaluation in relation to their message perception.
These factors are analyzed in Phase I first by frequency
distribution within each group. After that, the groups are
"collapsed" with attendant explanation. Means, standard devia
tions, and analysis of variance follow in Phase II of the
analysis.
!
20
In Chapter III (following the procedures outlined
above) personality and demographic factors are correlated.
This analysis compares the variables given by the employees
concerning themselves; stressing not only the similarities,
but the differences as well. This system of analysis pro
vides a sort of "checks and balances" concerning any mean
ingful variables affecting message perception such as age,
marital status, personality type, etc.
Chapter IV is a brief summary of the study, a check
of the hypotheses, and some conclusions and recommendations
for further study.
CHAPTER II
ANALYSIS OF MESSAGE PERCEIVED BY
DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS, AND MESSAGE TYPES
In seeking to isolate what factors contribute to an
awareness of message nuances, the employees studied were
analyzed by demographic characteristics and personality fac
tors, and subjected to varying forms of the same message to
ascertain the discrimination between messages these subjects
could discern. Chapter II is an analysis of the effects on
message perception of personality factors as well as the
demographic factors of age, marital status, ethnic back
ground, religion, and education; consistent with testing
and/or developing the third hypothesis, which is:
The effect of body language on message
perception is constant regardless of person
ality type or demographics.
In order to test the hypothesis, several steps were
necessary. Demographic characteristics such as age, educa
tion, marital status, sex, religion, and ethnic background,
were compared with message discrimination to discover any
possible relationships. Then, personality characteristics
such as whether a person is an introvert, ambivert, or extro
vert were contrasted with message perception to gain insight
into possible recurring patterns.
22
This chapter will attempt to draw a profile, based
upon the findings of the above-mentioned data, so that a
guide might be given toward employing kinesics as an aid in
fostering better communications between employers and their
workers.
I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Through the cooperation of Dow Chemical Company U.S.A.,
the employees participating in this study were chosen to get
a wide cross-section of companies. The experiment was
carried out as described in the preceding chapter.
To obtain a perfectly balanced, random striated sample
would mean all people would have to be identified first, and
then assigned to each group. This method was impractical
for several reasons. First of all, it would have been
nearly impossible to obtain access to personnel files of
eight companies. Secondly, employees would not have had the
anonymity promised them. Also, with a random assignment of
a large enough number of employees to different groups (such
as was made by Dow), theoretically, a random assignment is
the final result anyway. Therefore, an initial group of 292
employees was tested. Due to faulty or incomplete informa
tion, the group was reduced to 227 persons to be coded.
23
The sample sizes required to be 99 percent certain
that the standard error of the mean values of the messages
was no greater than .1 are shown in Appendix D. The table
in Appendix D indicates the sample size need be no greater
than 222 employees for the largest standard deviation which
was obtained, and on some questions the responses required
dropped to 148. As a result, the mean interpretation of the
messages resulting from this experiment are considered very
reliable representations of the employee's message percep
tion.
After receiving Phase I from the computer and tabulat
ing the results, the author found that the data, in some
instances, needed to be "collapsed". Collapsing means that
data is combined into smaller categories, or in some
instances, eliminated altogether. The rationale behind, and
justification for, this statistical procedure is that, when
inaugurating a study, certain categories are artifically
established by the author during the preparation and writing
of the questionnaire (such as this author established six
possible age intervals), but author establishment does not
make these categories exist per se. Phase I data indicated
that some artificial cells had been created in initiating
the study, hence the following collapsing was performed:
1. Marital Status was collapsed from four groups to
two groups due to insufficient numbers of people
24
in the "widow" and "divorced" categories. The
new categories were established as "currently
married or widowed" and "single or divorced".
2. Under the heading of "Religion", there was one
person of the Jewish faith, and three persons
specifying "none". Statistically, one person
should not comprise a cell. Therefore, these four
individuals were dropped from the sample as it did
not disturb the sample size to do so. Also, one
Church of Christ member, one Mormon, seven Bap
tists, and one Presbyterian did not classify them
selves as Protestants, but chose to write in their
religious preference. Using the definition of a
protestant found in Webster ("any Christian not
belonging to the Roman Catholic or Orthodox
Eastern Church"),41 the author coded these indi
viduals as protestants.
3. The original eight categories for ethnic background
were collapsed to four categories: (a) Afro-
American (which includes those persons who speci
fied "black" under the "other" category; (b)
- -Joseph H. Friend and David B. Guralnik (eds.), Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language (New York; The World Publishing Company, 1957), p. 1171.
25
Northern European, which is defined as Anglo-Saxon,
German, Scandinavian, and Slavic; (c) Southern
European, which is defined as French, Italian, and
Spanish; and Other, which includes persons of
greatly mixed ancestry. (There were no Orientals
participating in the study.)
4. As there were no participants under eighteen years
of age, this category was dropped. Also, due to
the small number of participants in the "18 to 21"
and "22 to 25" years of age categories, these two
classifications were combined to read, "18 to 25".
5. There were only three people with post-graduate
degrees (two with Ph.D.'s); so the last two cate
gories of "some post-graduate work" and "post
graduate degree" were combined.
These above-mentioned manipulations left 223 employees
for the study, and are broken down in Table I.
After these data were ready, Phase II of the computer
was run. First, raw means were calculated for each category.
It was felt that perhaps this data was insufficient alone,
because when classifications are not equal (example 22 females
and 201 males) a true (raw) mean may not tell the whole story.
An adjustment made because of unequal numbers is called an
Table I
STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF EMPLOYEES BY DEMOGRAPHICS AND PERSONALITY
Sex Marital Status Ethnic Background Female Male Single or Divorced Married or Widowed Afro-Am. N'n Europ. S'n Europ. Other
22 201 19 204 16 120 59 28
Age Religion Personality 18 to 25 26 to 30 31 to 35 36 or older Catholic Protestant Introvert Ambivert Extrovert
25 40 57 101 98 125 47 123 53
Education less than high school
high school diploma some college college degree post-graduage work
9 73 77 40 24
Source: Appendices B and E ^ to
27
adjusted mean. Adjusted means were computed, and in this
instance, there was no real difference. Therefore, raw means
were used, as they may be more significant.
II. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
In interpreting the tables in this chapter, a few
explanatory remarks should be made to facilitate understand
ing of the analysis. This commentary is sub-divided into
what the columnar headings mean.
The "Source of Variation" Column. The Source of
Variation Column lists the factors under consideration (sex,
marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education,
and personality). The demographic variables are very
straightforward, and are, after collapsing:
A. Sex
1. Female
2. Male
B. Marital Status
1. Never Married or Divorced
2. Currently Married or Widowed
C. Ethnic Background
1. Afro-American
2. Northern European
28
3. Southern European
4. Other
D. Age
1. 18 to 25 years of age
2. 26 to 30 years of age
3. 31 to 35 years of age
4. 36 years or older
E. Religion
1. Catholic
2. Protestant
F. Education Completed
1. Less than high school
2. High school diploma
3. Some college
4. College degree
5. Post graduate work
The pe r sona l i t y fac to r s from the 16 P .F . t e s t were
scored and i n t e r p r e t e d with the advise of Dr. Dawson and Dr.
Caesar B. Moody.42 Rather than undertake a complete person
a l i t y inventory (which was not the i n t e n t of t h i s d i s s e r t a
t ion) , a s impl i f ied eva lua t ion was made as described below:
4lHead, Psychology Department, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana.
29
The closer to "1" checked for the following vari
ables, the more introverted the personality;
A. Reserved, detached, critical, aloof
B. Less intelligent, concrete-thinking
C. Affected by feelings, emotionally less stable, easily upset
D. Humble, mild, accommodating, conforming
E. Sober, prudent, serious, taciturn
G. Shy, restrained, timid, threat-sensitive
I. Trusting, adaptable, free of jealousy, easy to get along with
J. Practical, careful, conventional, regulated by external realities, proper
M. Conservative, respecting established ideas, tolerant of traditional difficulties
P. Relaxed, tranquil, unfrustrated
The closer to "10" checked for the following
variables, the more introverted the personality;
F . Conscientious, perservering, s ta id , moralistic
H. Tender-minded, clinging, over-protected, sensitive
K. Shrewd, calculating, worldly, penetrating
L. Apprehensive, self-reproaching, worrying, troubled
N. Self-sufficient, prefers own decisions, resourceful
O. Controlled, socially precise, following self-image
The closer to " 1 " checked for the following
variables, the more extroverted the personality;
30
F . conscientious, persevering, s ta id , moralistic
H. Tender-minded, clinging, over-protected, sensitive
K. Shrewd, calculating, worldly, penetrating
L. Apprehensive, self-reproaching, worrying, troubled
N. Self-sufficient, prefers own decisions, resourceful
0 . Controlled, socially precise, following self-image
4. The c lose r to "10" checked for the following
v a r i a b l e s , the more ex t rover ted the pe r sona l i t y ;
A. Reserved, detached, c r i t i c a l , aloof
B. Less in te l l igent , concrete-thinking
C. Affected by feelings, emotionally less s table, easily upset
D. Humble, mild, accommodating, conforming
E. Sober, prudent, serious, taciturn
G. Shy, restrained, timid, threat-sensi t ive
1. Trusting, adaptable, free of jealousy, easy to get along with
J . Pract ical , careful, conventional, regulated by external r e a l i t i e s , proper
M. Conservative, respecting of established ideas, tolerant of t radi t ional d i f f icul t ies
P . Relaxed, tranquil , unfrustrated
After mathematically coding the columns, a mean score
was computed for each p a r t i c i p a n t . Based upon the score
they received, an employee was designated as fol lows:
31
1 - 5 Introvert
5 - 6 Ambivert
6 - 10 Extrovert
A complete listing of all answers for every employee
used in this study can be seen in Appendix E.
The "F Value" Column. The "F Value" is a value calcu
lated which is derived from statistical distribution if the
null hypothesis is true. (This is the most important
statistic calculated in the entire study.) If a null hypoth
esis is rejected, by default, the working hypothesis must be
used.
The "Probability of F" Column. The "Probability of F"
column is added for those less mathematically inclined indi
viduals. It is significant only at certain confidence
levels, as indicated:
1. One can be 90% confident a statement is true if
the probability is less than .10;
2. One can be 95% confident a statement is true if
the probability is less than .05;
3. One can be 99% confident a statement is true if
the probability is less than .01.
32
III. DEMOGRAPHICS AND PERSONALITY
COMPARED TO MESSAGE PERCEIVED
In seeking to determine what, if any, effect body
language has on communications, it was necessary to isolate
and examine demographics and personality to insure that any
differences in message perception found were, in fact, due to
kinesics and not something else. Therefore, seven measures
of message perception were evaluated using demographics and
personality factors as the sources of variation. These
factors were favorability, truthfulness, believability,
reputability, reliability, pleasantness, and informability;
and Tables II through VIII examine each of these elements in
turn.
Perception of Message "Favorability". As can be seen
in Table II, the probability that differences observed in
message favorability were due to chance was .99, or in other
words, there was no significant difference in message per
ception due to sex. Going down the list of factors, favor
ability of message perceived was likewise not affected
significantly by marital status, ethnic background, age,
religion, education, or personality. This table illustrates
the point that apparently, whether or not a person perceives
a message as favorable has little to do with demographics or
personality.
33
TABLE II
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE FAVORABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Variation
Degrees of Freedom F Value Probability of F
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERROR#
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
0.01
2,87
0.01
0.64
0.01
1.71
0.88
0.99
0.09
1.00
0.59
0.97
0.15
0.59
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
34
Perception of Message "Truthfulness". Table III,
which concerns message truthfulness, likewise indicates
similar findings; i.e., whether or not a message is con
sidered truthful has no apparent bearing on whether or not
a person is female or male; married or not; Catholic or
Protestant; well-educated or barely literate; or comes from
any especial ethnic origin. Likewise, it made little
difference in gleaning this perception whether or not a per
son's personality was outgoing, withdrawn, or somewhere in
between. Most significant of the factors under considera
tion was age, although not much conclusive can be said
about this finding either. Persons under 25 and over 35
tended to be more favorably disposed to perceive a message
as concerns truthfulness, regardless of what medium was
used. Perhaps this is the age where youthful naivete has
vanished and a philosophic viewpoint has not yet been
established.
Perception of Message "Believability". Message believ
ability is dealt with in Table IV, and marital status is the
main factor studied which seemed to affect a person's message
perception (5% level). It would appear that being in close
union with another individual may make a person more attuned
to pursuit of what is, or is not, believable. Personality
35
TABLE III
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE TRUTHFULNESS BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Variation
Degrees of Freedom F Value Probability of F
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERROR#
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
0.30
2.89
0.51
2.42
0.06
0.74
1.95
0.59
0.09
0.68
0.07
0.80
0.57
0.14
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
36
TABLE IV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE BELIEVABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Variation
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERROR#
Degrees of Freedom
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
F Value
1.22
3.34
0.23
2.05
0.11
0.38
4.42
Probability of F
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
*Five percent level
0.27
0.07 *
0.87
0.11
0.74
0.82
0.01 *
37
also seemed to have a small bearing (5% level) on whether
or not a message is believed, with introverts tending to
disbelieve more than ambiverts or extroverts. A person's
gender, lineage, generation, or formal instruction seemed not
to influence his degree of perceived believability.
Perception of Message "Reputability". Table V, treat
ing whether or not the message was reputable, offered no
measurably significant message perception differences on any
of the demographics: sex, marital status, ethnic background,
age, religion, or education. In examining personality type,
persons designated as ambiverts were slightly more predis
posed to perceive a message as reputable, but not enough so
to be statistically conclusive.
Perception of Message "Reliability". Whether or not a
message was perceived by the employees studied as reliable
was independent of the demographic characteristics and per
sonality factors under consideration. As Table VI demon
strates, the reliability content these people evidenced was
not guided by their lifespan, place of worship, degree of
literacy, nationality, conjugal state, or sex. Their type of
personality did not affect their judgment of whether or not a
message could be classified as reputable, either.
38
TABLE V
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE REPUTABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Degrees of
Variation Freedom F Value Probability of F
0.14
0.54
0.68
0.09
0.61
0.68
0.06
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERROR#
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
2.14
0.57
0.51
2.24
0.75
0.58
2.79
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
39
TABLE VI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE RELIABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Degrees of
Variation Freedom F Value Probability of F
0.06 0.81
2.14 0.14
0.26 0.85
1.03 0.38
0.01 0.96
0.20 0.93
1.84 0.16
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERROR#
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
i
40
Perception of Message "Pleasantness". The message
variable of "pleasantness" was unaffected by any of the fac
tors studied. It can be stated (Table VII) that ambiverts,
introverts, and extroverts were all equally likely to find
a message pleasant. Similarly, whether or not a message was
deemed pleasant could not be attributed to an employee's
gender, connubial condition, lineage, age, religious beliefs,
or schooling.
Perception of Message "Informability". In deciding
whether or not a message source was informed, the marital
status of a person did affect message acumen a little (5%
level) as is evidenced in Table VIII. Once more, it can be
speculated that perhaps living with another person in close
communion might tend to make an individual more attuned to
whether or not a message source is indeed informed. As with
the preceding six message meanings tested, whether an employee
perceived a message source as being informed seemed inde
pendent of his personality type. Furthermore, the subject's
education, age, religion, ethnic background, and sex did not
affect how he judged a message on informability.
IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Chapter II, dealing with how an employee's demographic
characteristics and personality affects message perception
41
TABLE VII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE PLEASANTNESS BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Degrees of Variation Freedom F Value Probability of F
0.06 0.80
1.67 0.20
0.74 0.54
0.71 0.55
0.16 0.69
0.31 0.87
0.77 0.53
Sex
Marital Status
Ethnic Background
Age
Religion
Education
Personality
ERRORff
1
1
3
3
1
4
2
139
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
42
TABLE VIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE INFORMABILITY BY DEMOGRAPHICS, PERSONALITY FACTORS AND MESSAGE TYPE
Source of Degrees of
Variation Freedom F Value Probability of F
Sex 1 0.40 0.53
Marital Status 1 5.29 0.02 *
Ethnic Background 3 0,55 0.66
Age 3 1.15 0.33
Religion 1 1.50 0.22
Education 4 0.30 0.88
Personality 2 1.62 0.20
ERROR* 139
Source: Appendix B
#There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom
43
indicates conclusively that for at least these 223 employees,
demographic characteristics such as age, religion, sex,
ethnic background, and education do not materially affect
how a message is perceived. Marital status alone affects
message perception, and then, only to a slight degree, and
only on certain message aspects. Additionally, type of
personality, i.e., whether a person is an introvert, ambi
vert, or extrovert, does not affect message perception.
As Chapter II was the discussion of how demographic
characteristics and personality factors affected message
discrimination (Hypothesis three), the next step in this
study was the analysis of if, and how, kinesics qualifies
message perception. This, then, is the topic of Chapter III.
CHAPTER III
ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON OF MESSAGE PERCEIVED
BY TYPE OF MESSAGE EXPERIENCED
Chapter III is a parallel analysis of Chapter II.
How demographic characteristics, personality factors, and
type of message related to message perception was analyzed
in Chapter II to test the third hypothesis, which stated:
the effect of body language on message perception is con
stant regardless of personality type or demographics. It
was determined that the effects due to these characteristics
are negligible. As these characteristics are, for the most
part, inconsequential as message affectors, the focus of the
entire study rests on how different types of communication—
written, oral, and visual—affect message perception. There
fore, it is the objective of this chapter to measure and
evaluate hypotheses one and two concerning how different types
of communication affect message perception.
I. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The two hypotheses treated in this chapter are:
1. There is no difference in response to messages
whether negative or positive body language is
used.
45
2. There is no difference in response to messages
whether or not kinesics are congruent with verbal
message content.
In order to test these hypotheses, five steps were
necessary, as follows:
1. Body language used alone as a variable was
measured as an affector of message perception.
2. Vocalization used alone as a variable was measured
as an affector of message perception.
3. Voice and kinesics used together were measured
as affectors of message perception as a main
effect, and for interaction.
4. Demographic characteristics and personality fac
tors were compared with use of body language to
discover any possible relationships as a main
effect and for interaction.
5. Demographic characteristics and personality fac
tors were compared with the use of vocalization
to discover any possible relationships as a main
effect and for interaction.
In interpreting the tables in this chapter, the
reader is invited to return to the preceding chapter for a
description and statistical explanation of these columnar
headings: "Source of Variation", "F Value", and "Probability
of F".
46
The most important sources of variation (5?. or less
chance of the variation being due to chance) for each table
is graphed for the purpose of allowing closer scrutiny of
possible variation causation. These graphs use as their
axes the two elements which were the sources of variation
and make it pictorially easy to see how the mean of one
variable changed for each shift in the other variable.
Because of unequal number of participants falling into each
classification, means are adjusted for sex, marital status,
ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality,
personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by
body language, marital status by body language, ethnic
background by body language, age by body language, religion
by body language, education by body language, sex by voice,
marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by
voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
II. KINESICS AND VOCALIZATION
COMPARED TO MESSAGE PERCEIVED
Chapter II showed that the differences in message
perception were not attributable to personality or demo
graphics. In endeavoring to discover what, if any, effect
kinesics has on communications, it was indispensable that
written, oral, and visual characteristics be separated and
47
scrutinized to make certain what discrepancies in message
perception were, in actuality, due to body language and not
anything else. Accordingly, seven gauges of message per
ception were assessed using the written word, speech, and
body language as the sources of variation. These gauges were
favorability, truthfulness, believability, reputability,
reliability, pleasantness, and informability; and Tables IX
through XV investigate each of these elements in turn.
Perception of Message "Favorability". The most
important variable for message favorability appears to be
due primarily to a combination of body language and voice,
as is seen in Table IX. Voice or body language analyzed
alone, or voice and body language in combination with any
demographic characteristic or personality factor, did not
produce any discernible fluctuation in message perception.
Figure 1 (which is a graphic picture of the asterisked
column) shows that when no vocalization or body language at
all is used (written medium), the lowest message favorability
of all results. Body language alone or voice alone
apparently did not affect how favorably a message was per
ceived (probability of F scores of .2 and .6 respectively),
but when kinesics and voice were employed together, a great
deal of significance (.0013) is found. Or, in other words,
48
TABLE IX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE FAVORABILITY BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
1.43 0.86 4.92 1.07 1.33 2.29 1.65 1.01 0.80 0.04 0.52 0.98 0.51 1.42 1.81 0.45 0.30
Probability of F
0.24 0.57 0.01 ** 0.37 0.26 0.10 0.19 0.42 0.58 0.96 0.84 0.62 0.61 0.21 0.10 0.64 0.97
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
49
FIGURE 1
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE FAVORABILITY
H
H m
« o >
W
w to
W
S
3.5
3.O..
2.5.,
2.a.
1.5.
1.0-
.5.
No Vocalization
Positive Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
•4- 4- 4 -P o s i t i v e N e u t r a l N e g a t i v e
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
50
there are only 13 times in 10,000 that this combination can
be attributed to chance alone.
Perception of Message "Truthfulness". Table X,
which concerns message truthfulness, likewise indicates
similar findings. Again, the one most significant factor
affecting perceived truthfulness was a combination of
vocalization and kinesics. In this instance, there were
only 4 cases out of 10,000 in which the difference could be
attributed to chance! This finding is visually depicted in
Figure 2.
From the data presented in Figure 2, it is evident
that positive vocalization overcomes negative body language
or no body language as the probability figures never fell
below 2.5. Furthermore, neither positive nor negative body
language affects negative voice to much extent. When no
verbalizing is heard, however, body language becomes more
critical as concerns truthfulness. Both positive and
negative body language were found to evidence truthfulness
better than the written word alone. From these findings the
practical conclusion appears to be clear: if employers wish
to get a favorable or unfavorable message to appear truthful,
they should confront their employees on a face-to-face
basis.
51
TABLE X
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE TRUTHFULNESS BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
F Value
0.02 2.60 5.83 0.28 1.49 0.24 1.75 0.20 1.17 0.05 0.53 0.81 0.59 1.48 2.62 0.33 0.58
Probability of F
0.98 0.08 0.01 ** 0.89 0.21 0.79 0.18 0.97 0.33 0.95 0.83 0.55 0.56 0.19 0.02 * 0.72 0.79
ERROR # 139
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
** There is a 99% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
52
FIGURE 2
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE TRUTHFULNESS
3.5
w 3 .0 w 2 * 2 . S D fa a 2.0
D « 1.5
w 1.0-o < w . 5 -en w
0 P o s i t i v e N e u t r a l Nega t ive
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body Inaguage, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
Positive Vocalization
No Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
53
In attempting to account for the reason why seeing
equates with truthfulness, it appeared that kinesics or
vocalization by themselves or in conjunction with any other
demographic or personality factor did not influence an
employee's degree of perceived truthfulness as the prob
ability of F did not rise above .2 on most variables.
Table X does indicate, though somewhat less emphat
ically, that age plays a meaningful relation if vocalization
alone is used. Respondent age affected message perception
little whether voice and/or body language were employed
except in the group aged 26 to 30. Then, the absence of
body language appeared to cause somewhat deviate replies,
in that this age group tended to believe as truthful,
messages which were written only. (Figure 3). Perhaps it
is at this age that employees realize superiors cannot be
taken strictly at "face value" but have not yet acquired the
sophistication to come up with a workable model which denotes
truthfulness by voice or actions alone.
Perception of Message "Believability". In Table XI,
which treats message believability, vocalization and marital
status were important factors as is indicated by the statis
tically significant figures of .0558 and .0431 respectively.
A pictorial display of this fact, shown in Figure 4, indicates
54
TABLE XI
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE BELIEVABILITY BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degree of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
0,94 2,92 1.76 0.31 1.39 0.20 1.36 0.53 0.62 1.31 0.80 1.15 3.18 1.18 1.29 0.84 0.82
Probability of F
0.60 0.06 * 0.14 0.87 0.24 0.82 0.26 0.79 0.71 0.27 0.60 0.32 0.04 * 0.32 0.26 0.56 0.59
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
55
FIGURE 3
AGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE TRUTHFULNESS
CO
w W Z
fa
EH
D
«
fa O
«fl 1 0
CO
H
3.5..
3.0.-
2.5..
2.0..
1 .5 . -
1.0._
. 5 . -
No V o c a l i z a t i o n Pos i t i ve Vocal izat ion
Negative Vocal izat ion
rf: -h 18-25 26-30 31-35
A G E
35 up
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, ago by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
I
56
FIGURE 4
VOICE BY MARITAL STATUS FOR MESSAGE BELIEVABILITY
En
n < > w H
i4
H
m
w V)
< CO
CO
fa S
3.5..
3.a.
2.S-
2.a.
l.S-
l.a.
.a.
No Vocalization
Positive Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
-4- -4-Never Married Currently Married or Divorced or Widowed
M A R I T A L S T A T U S
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
57
that when no, or negative vocalization, is used, people never
married or divorced have a low believability score as com
pared to those married or widowed. These unmarried people
tend to put full credibility in a message when positive
vocalization is applied, however. Perhaps this fact may be
attributed to the fact that in a close relationship, like
marriage, one discovers that voice alone does not do all of
the communicating, and a person learns to seek other commu
nication clues for complete message believability. Other
demographic factors such as gender, religious beliefs, age,
learning, lineage, and personality did not affect the per
ception of believability in this experiment.
These findings noted above suggest to employers that
employees tend to believe with their ears rather than their
eyes, as what was audile in this experiment was most signifi
cant for the factor of believability.
Perception of Message "Reputability". Table XII,
dealing with whether the message was reputable, shows most
differences appear when both kinesics and voice are employed
as is indicated by a probability of F figure of .0247.
Expanded in Figure 5, this finding indicates that with nega
tive vocalization, neither positive nor negative body
language improves how reputable an employee perceives his
58
TABLE XII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE REPUTABILITY BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
0.11 2.79 2.88 '0.34 0.32 0.09 0.80 0.31 0.34 0.09 0.87 0.45 0.01 1.19 1.36 0.37 0.60
Probability of F
0.90 0.06 0.02 * 0.85 0.87 0.92 0.55 0.93 0.91 0.91 0.54 0.64 0.99 0.32 0.23 0.70 0.78
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
59
FIGURE 5
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE REPUTABILITY
En
m < EH
D
ft fa Pi
fa 0 < CO
CO
fa s
3 . 5
3 . 0
2 . 5
2 . 0 . _
1-5 . _
l - 0 . _
• 5 . _
* Positive Vocalization
No Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
4 - 4- 4-Positive Neutral Negative
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
60
superior's message. In fact, the best way to exude message
reputability is apparently through written messages alone.
The fact that a message is in print apparently makes it
reputable to many employees.
Employers should bear in mind, therefore, that for
making employees judge a message as reputable, the best way
to penetrate with this factor is to use a written medium,
although positive body language can enhance reputability
in an employee's mind. Whether or not a message is con
sidered reputable has no apparent bearing on whether or not
a person is married, male or female, well-educated or
functionally literate, Protestant or Catholic, or comes from
any particular racial background. Furthermore, it makes
little difference in perceived reputability whether an
employee's personality is introspective, extrospective, or
anywhere in between.
Perception of Message "Reliability". In Table XIII,
which pertains to message reliability, the important factors
once again were either voice alone (probability of F figure
of .0378) or a kinesic-vocal combination arrangement (.0219).
An expansion of this finding on message reliability (Figure
6) indicates that negative vocalization seriously hampers
message reliability regardless of the type of body language
61
TABLE XIII
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE RELIABILITY BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
0.39 3.32 3.30 0.12 0.84 0.72 1.75 0.57 0.28 0.30 0.72 0.54 0.31 1.02 1.22 0.12 1.04
Probabili of F
0.68 0.04 * 0.01 * 0.97 0.51 0.51 0.18 0.76 0.94 0.74 0.68 0.59 0.74 0.41 0.30 0.89 0.41
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
62
FIGURE 6
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE RELIABILITY
E H
H
• J
H
n < H
fa «
fa o
CO
CO
fa s
3.5-.
3.0-
2.5..
2.O..
1.5.
1.0..
.5
Pos i t ive Vocalization
"^ No Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
4 -Posit ive Neutral Negative
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
63
which is employed, when communicating reliability. In fact,
using negative vocalization with positive body language
received the lowest possible reliability rating. Perhaps the
incongruency in body language and voice was sufficient in
itself to place a severe strain on perception of reliability.
Kinesics combined with positive verbalization garnered
high reliability ratings. The reliability content these
employees evidenced was not guided by their lifespan, degree
of literacy, conjugal state, gender, nationality, or place of
worship. The type of personality these people had did not
affect their discrimination of whether or not a message could
be called reputable, either.
Perception of Message "Pleasantness". Whether or
not the message was perceived as pleasant is shown in Table
XIV. As might well be expected by now, both kinesics and
voice are very significant when measuring this variable.
There were but 31 cases in 10,000 that this finding could
be due to chance alone. Apparently, body language really
makes a significant contribution to whether or not an
employees think a message is pleasant. (Figure 7).
If management is so inclined, unpleasant messages
can be given a "sugar coating" by use of positive gesticu
lation. More than any other gauge of message perception,
body language had an absolutely positive correlation with how
64
TABLE XIV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE PLEASANTNESS BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
2,08 1.12 4.28 0.60 0.11 0.28 1.23 0.41 0.71 0.04 1.73 0.98 0.75 1.27 1.05 0.06 1.91
Probability of F
0.13 0.33 0.01 ** 0.66 0.97 0.76 0.30 0.87 0.64 0.97 0.10 0.62 0.52 0.27 0.40 0.94 0.06
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
** There is a 99% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
I
65
FIGURE 7
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE PLEASANTNESS
CO
to fa Z
EH
Z
< CO
< fa
cu
fa o < co
CO
fa S
3.5..
3 . a .
2 .5 , -
2.a .
1.5..
1.0-.
.5 . .
Positive Vocalization No Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
4- 4-Positive Neutral Negative
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
66
a message was perceived as concerns pleasantness. This
fact seemed to hold true in all cases, Ambiverts, introverts,
and extroverts were all equally likely to determine a message
was pleasant. Moreover, whether or not a message was thought
pleasant could not be attributed to a person's sex, age,
marital status, ethnic background, religion, or education.
Perception of Message "Informability". In deciding
whether or not a message source was informed (Table XV), the
employment of vocalization alone (probability of F figure
of .0404) or more significantly a combination of voice and
body language (.0055) affected perception, as the latter
finding shows only 55 in 10,000 chances of error. Moreover,
Figure 8 indicates positive kinesics absolutely cannot over
come negative vocalization as far as whether or not inform
ability is concerned, as is indicated by a negative inform
ability perception of -.0803 (the only negative figure in
the entire study). But employees are still inclined to feel
that a source, for the most part, is more informed when body
language is used in addition to voice. Hence, employers
should be aware that to appear informed to their subordinates,
their voice must exude confidence.
As with the previous six message gauges tested,
whether an employee perceived a message source as being
67
TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE TABLE OF MESSAGE INFORMABILITY BY MESSAGE TYPE, DEMOGRAPHICS, AND PERSONALITY FACTORS
Source of Variation
Body Language Voice Body Language by Voice Personality by Body Language Personality by Voice Sex by Body Language Marital Status by Body Language Ethnic Background by Body Language Age by Body Language Religion by Body Language Education by Body Language Sex by Voice Marital Status by Voice Ethnic Background by Voice Age by Voice Religion by Voice Education by Voice
ERROR #
Degrees of Freedom
2 2 4 4 4 2 2 6 6 2 8 2 2 6 6 2 8
139
F Value
0.67 3.25 3.87 0.20 0.61 0.10 1.90 1.45 0.55 1.19 0.76 0.05 0.42 1.05 1.23 0.33 0.55
Probabilit; of F
0.52 0.04 * 0.01 ** 0.94 0.66 0.90 0.15 0.20 0.77 0.31 0.64 0.95 0.66 0.40 0.30 0.73 0.82
Source: Appendix B
# There is a total of 139 degrees of freedom.
* There is a 95% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
* There is a 99% confidence level that there was a causation variation associated with the variable.
68
FIGURE 8
BODY LANGUAGE BY VOICE FOR MESSAGE INFORMABILITY
EH
H
H
m < S « o fa z
H
CO
CO
fa
3.5..
3.0,.
2.5,.
2.O..
1.5..
1.0,.
• 5,_
Positive Vocalization
No Vocalization
Negative Vocalization
Positive Neutral Negative
B O D Y L A N G U A G E
Source: Appendix B
Note: Means are adjusted for sex, marital status, ethnic background, age, religion, education, personality, personality by body language, personality by voice, sex by body language, marital status by body language, ethnic background by body language, age by body language, religion by body language, education by body language, sex by voice, marital status by voice, ethnic background by voice, age by voice, religion by voice, and education by voice.
69
informed seemed independent of personality type. Addition
ally, the subject's age, education, ethnic background,
religion, and sex did not influence how he regarded a
message on reliability,
III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Chapter III, dealing with how different types of
communication affect message perception, decisively evi
dences that the communication medium chosen "(whether written,
oral, or visual) does substantially influence how a
message is perceived. In comparing the results of the
experiment answers, the overall findings indicated that there
is a high degree of similarity in how messages are perceived
by employees regardless of demographic characteristics or
personality factors. The variability seems to be found
primarily in message medium chosen. Specifically:
1. When using positive vocalization, the effect
of body language does not have very much effect
on message perception;
2. When using negative vocalization, positive
kinesics will increase message positiveness as
concerns believability, reliability, reputability,
informability, pleasantness, truthfulness, and
favorability;
70
3. When using positive kinesics, a negative vocali
zation can be somewhat overcome;
4. When using negative body language, message per
ception is adversely affected;
5. Any body language--negative or positive—
increases message acceptability, whether used
with positive or negative vocalization. When no
vocalization is used at all, messages are often
perceived unfavorably.
Therefore, it might be stated that the effect of
vocalization or body language is dependant on the presence
of the other variable.
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary. Communications of all types are of paramount
importance for one to achieve one's goals and purposes.
While kinesics (a form of intended or unintended communica
tion) has been studied from the viewpoints of physiology,
anatomy, medicine, psychology, therapy, health, sociology,
anthropology, and speech, surprisingly, no studies could be
located which related body language to a field that is con
stantly involved in communications—business administration.
As managers spend the greatest portion of their day engaged
in communications, it appears kinesics cannot be ignored
lest a distorted message be received.
This study has concentrated on whether, and how,
body language modifies message perception in a superior-
subordinate context. Specifically, the null hypotheses
considered were:
1. There is no difference in response to messages
whether negative or positive body language is
used;
2. There is no difference in response to messages
whether or not kinesics is congruent with
verbal message content;
72
3. The e f fec t of body language on message percep
t i on i s constant r ega rd less of pe r sona l i t y type
or demographic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .
The method employed in developing t h i s study was to
use a v ideo- tape experiment to t e s t whether, and t o what
degree , d i f f e r e n t forms of messages would a f fec t an
employee's message percept ion . This experiment cons is ted
of f i r s t , adminis ter ing a demographic ques t ionna i re , person
a l i t y f ac to r t e s t , and experimental message t o a la rge number
of employees p a r t i t i o n e d i n t o nine random groups from e igh t
d i f f e r e n t companies, chosen with the cooperat ion of Dow
Chemical Company. The employee groups were divided as
fol lows:
Group A - Saw p o s i t i v e k i n e s i c s ; heard p o s i t i v e voca l i za t ion
Group B - Saw negat ive k ines i c s ; heard p o s i t i v e voca l i za t ion
Group C - Saw negative k i n e s i c s ; heard negat ive voca l i za t ion
Group D - Saw p o s i t i v e k ines i c s ; heard negative voca l iza t ion
Group E - Heard p o s i t i v e voca l i za t ion ; saw nothing
Group F - Heard negative voca l i za t ion ; saw nothing
Group G - Saw p o s i t i v e k ines i c s ; heard nothing
Group H - Saw negative k i n e s i c s ; heard nothing
Group I - Read the message (nei ther saw nor heard the message)
A n e u t r a l message content was used for every group
in order t o reduce b i a s as much as pos s ib l e .
73
The purpose of the demographic characteristic
questionnaire used in the experiment was to determine
whether or not the effect of body language on message
perception was affected by a person's age, sex, education,
ethnic background, religion, or marital status. The intent
of employing the personality test was to discover if there
is any difference in response to messages according to
whether an employee is an extrovert, ambivert, or introvert
type of personality. The above factors had to be isolated -
and analyzed before it could be stated whether any variances
in message perception discovered were due to demographic
characteristics, personality factors, or a combination of
both; or in fact, if these variations were due to the
different kinesic messages used in the experiment.
Message perceptions were tested on the factors of
favorability, truthfulness, believability, reputability,
reliability, pleasantness, and informability. It was
assumed that with several of these message dimensions
measured on an ordinal scale the meaning of the message
would be accurately located.
Data coding and analysis were performed under the
auspices of the L.S.U, Computer Center. Phase I rendered
frequency distributions within each group and revealed where
74
data collapsing was required. Phase II yielded adjusted
means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance.
The analysis of the data (Chapter II) indicated
that there were differences in message perception for the
seven message factors, but that these differences could not
be attributed to demographic characteristics or type of
personality except in rare instances, and with trivial
degrees of probability. Therefore, it could be assumed
that any differences exposed were, in fact, due to something
else.
Further investigation (Chapter II) revealed that
different communication media (written, oral, or visual)
did influence how a message was perceived. To allow for
closer scrutiny of these sources of variation, graphs were
used to magnify the areas of message discrepancy. These
analyses yielded several important facts:
1. The effect of kinesics on message perception is
not very great when using positive verbaliza
tion.
2. Positive body language does increase message
believability, favorability, informability,
pleasantness, reliability, reputability, and
truthfulness if negative vocalization is used;
i.e., when employing positive kinesics, negative
verbalization can be overcome to a degree.
75
3. When employing negative kinesics, message per
ception is adversely affected,
4. Any body language (negative or positive)
increases message acceptance. Messages are
often interpreted unfavorably when only vocali
zation is used, whether that vocalization is
positive or negative.
Conclusions. The starting point in reaching any
conclusions in primary research is the statement of one or
more hypotheses. The type hypothesis used is called a null
hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is a statement of no differ
ence, and is stated as such so that it can be tested.
It is customary for the researcher to state the
level at which the hypotheses will be tested. For this
study, .05 (the alpha level) was chosen as the level of
significance. When a null hypothesis is rejected at the
five percent level, there are five chances in one hundred
that there is a chance the null hypothesis will be rejected
when it is actually true.
Using the .05 level of significance, all three
hypotheses had to be rejected. Hence, by default, (as
stated in Chapter I) the working hypothesis had to be
accepted, which was:
76
At least to some degree, kinesics does
affect response to messages.
More specifically, it can be stated that although
body language does not overcome the more powerful medium
of vocalization, kinesics can enhance or distort verbal
meaning. The effect of verbalization on kinesics is
dependant upon the presence of the other variable. Also,
employees feel more inclined to give weight and validity
to messages when seeing something in addition to just
hearing a message.
Management should bear in mind the following
specifics to enhance their effectiveness in getting across
desired communications:
1. Almost all people react more favorably to
messages when they can employ both vision and
sound.
2. Truthfulness is enhanced when a face-to-face
method is utilized.
3. For perception of believability, employees tend
to give most credence to what they hear rather
than what they see.
4. For purposes of reputability, written messages
appear to be most effective.
77
5. Employees tend not to accept as reliable messages
which use negative body language. But even more
important, when incongruent kinesics and vocal-
zation are employed, message perception as con
cerns reliability drops drastically.
6. Although other message perceptions may be dis
torted by the use of body language, the percep
tion of pleasantness has a direct correlation
with the use of positive kinesics.
7. While body language alone does not ensure a
subordinate will accept a message as informed,
it does enhance verbalization.
These findings are not conducive to simple reading
by employers. For effective use of these findings, they
should be read, discussed, elaborated on, and practiced—
perhaps first in role-playing sequences. In larger
companies, it may be expedient to hire an expert to teach
employers how to overcome negative body language and
replace it with positive kinesic habits. Considering the
amount of time managers expose themselves in non-verbal
communications daily and the misconceptions which result,
it would appear that no company is immune to heeding a
kinesic audit of its employees.
78
Recommendations for Further Study. The author makes
these recommendations for further study:
1. A similar experiment of other occupational groups
(teachers, physicians, attorneys, etc.) would
help to determine the validity of this industrial
study. Many such studies will be necessary if
parsimony is to be practiced in learning to use
kinesics effectively both in a superior-subordinate
context and for effective communications in general.
2. A similar study, isolating each of the body langu
age differences employed in the experiment,
would help to determine which are the most
important kinesic factors in message perception.
Such a study would be invaluable to management
academicians and practitioners endeavoring to
project their intended message to employees.
3. A "before-and-after" study of employee message
perception should be executed to ascertain if
measurable results can be obtained when manage
ment is taught to use favorable body language.
4. Finally, the same study done with similar indus
trial institutions would be most helpful in
establishing the validity of this study.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
80
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS
Adler, Sol, The Non-Verbal Child. Springfield, 111.: C. C. Thomas Pub., 196#.
Allport, Gordon W. and B. E. Vernon. Studies in Expressive Movement. New York: Hafner, 1967.
Aubert, Charles. The Art of Pantomine. New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1970.
Austin, Gilbert. Chironomia. Carbondale, 111.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1966.
Baldwin, Gordon Cortis. Talking Drums to Written Words; How Early Man Learned to Communicate. New York: Norton & Co., Inc., 1970.
Barclay, John. Muscular Motions of the Human Body. Edinburgh: W. Laing & A. Constable & Company, 1808.
Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. New York: Hill & Wang, Inc., (n.d.)
Bastian, J. Primate Signaling Systems and Human Languages in Primate Behavior: Field Studies of Monkeys and Apes. L Devore (Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. Communication Without Words in L'Aven-ture Humaine, Encyclopedic des Sciences de 1'Homme. Geneva! Kister S.A. Paris; De La Grange Batelidre S. A. Volume 4, 1968.
. Introduction to Kinesics. Louisville: University of Louisville Press, 1952.
. Kinesics and Communication in Explorations in Communications". E. Carpenter and M. McLuhan Eds.). Boston: Beacon Press, 1960.
. Kinesics and Context. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1970.
81
. The Kinesic Level in the Investigation of the Emotions in Expression of the Emotions in Man. P. H. Knapp (Ed.). New York: International Universities Press, 1963.
. Some Body Motion Elements Accompanying Spoken American English in Communication: Concepts and Perspectives . Lee Thayer (Ed.) London: Macmillan; and Washington, D.C.: Spartan Books, 1967.
. Kinesics in International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. David L. Sills (Ed.). New York: Macmillan and the Free Press, 1968.
. Communication: A Continuous Multichannel Process in Conceptual Bases and Applications of the Communica-tional Sciences. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1968.
Bosmajian, Haig A. The Rhetoric of Non-Verbal Communication. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1971.
Broer, Marion Ruth. Human Mechanics. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968.
. An Introduction to Kinesiology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall,"T9681
Broodbent, R. A History of Pantomine. New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1964.
Bruford, Rose. Teaching Mime. London: Methuen, 1964.
Campbell, H., et al. Voice, Speech, and Gesture: Elocutionary Art. Edinburgh, England: John Grant, 1912.
Cataldo, John W. Graphic Design and Visual Communication. Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Co., 1966.
Cattell, Raymond 3., and Herbert W. Eber. Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Champaign, 111.: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing, 1957.
Christiansen, B. Thus Speaks the Body: Attempts Toward a Personology From the Point of View of Respiration and Postures. Oslo: Institute for Social Research, 1963.
Condon, J. C. Semantics and Communication. New York: Macmillan, 1966.
i
82
Conference on Paralinguistics and Kinesics (Ed.). Indiana University Approaches to Semiotics. The Hague: Mouton, 1954.
Cooper, John M., and Ruth B. Glassaw. Kinesiology. Third edition, revised. St. Louis, Missouri: C. V. Mosby Company, 1972.
Critchley, Macdonald. Kinesics: Gestural and Mimic Language—An Aspect of Non-Verbal Communication in Problems of Dynamic Neurology: An International Volume. lEd. Lipman Halpern). Jerusalem, Israel: Hebrew University, 1963.
. The Language of Gesture. London: E. Arnold & Company, 1939.
Cundiff, Merlyn. Kinesics: The Power of Silent Command. New York: Parker Publishing Company, 1972.
Davitz, Joel Robert. The Communication of Emotional Meaning. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1964.
. The Language of Emotion. New York: Academic Press, Inc., 1969.
Disher, Maurice Willson. Clowns and Pantomines. New York: Benjamin Blom, Inc., 1968.
Dunbar, Helen Flanders. Emotions and Bodily Changes. Fourth edition. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954.
Duvall, Ellen Neall. Kinesiology: The Anatomy of Motion. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1963.
Efron, David. Gesture and Environment. New York; King's Crown PressT 1941.
, and J. P. Foley. Gestural Behavior and Social Setting in Readings in Social Psychology. (Eds, T. L. Newcombe and E, L. Hartley), New York; Ronald Press, 1947.
Eisenberg, Aline M., and Ralph R. Smith. Nonverbal Communications. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merill Company, 1971.
83
Ekman, Paul. Communication Through Nonverbal Behavior: h Source of Information About an Interpersonal Relationship in Affect, Cognition and Personality. (Eds. S. S. Tomkins and C. E. Izard. New York: Springer Press, 1965.
, Wallace Friesen, and Phoebe Ellsworth. Emotion in the Human Face. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1971F7
Enters, Agna. On Mime. Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1965.
Exline, R. W., and L. C. Winters. Affective Relations and Mutual Glances in Dyads in Affect, Cognition, and~ Personality. (Eds. S. S. Tomkins and C. E. Izard). New York: Springer Press, 1965.
Fast, Julius. Body Language. New York: M. Evans and Company and Pocket Books, 1970.
Feldman, S. S. Mannerisms of Speech and Gestures in Everyday Life. New York: International Universities Press,
Finley, Ray F. Kinesiological Analysis of Human Locomotion. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon Press, 1961.
Fisher, Seymour and Sidney Cleveland. Body Image and Personality. Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand Press, 1958.
Foster, G. Allen. Communication: From Primitive Tom-Toms to Telstar. New York: Criterion Books, Inc.,1965.
Friend, Joseph H. and David B. Guralnik (Eds.). Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language. New York: The World Publishing Company, Inc., 1957.
Gaeth, John H. Verbal and Nonverbal Learning in Children, Including Those with Hearing Losses. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1964.
Gorehouse, L. E. and J. M. Cooper. Kinesiology. St Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1950.
Hackett, Herbert. Understanding and Being Understood. New York: Longmans, Green & Company, Inc., 1957.
84
Hall, Edward T. The Silent Language. New York: Fawcett Premier, 1959.
Hangen, Eva Catherine. Symbols: Our Universal Language. Wichita, Kansas: Mccormick-Armstrong Publishing Company, Inc., 1962.
Hinde, Robert A. (Ed.). Papers by Members of the Royal Society Study Group on Nonverbal Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972.
Hjortsjo, Cark-Herman. Man's Face and Mimic Language. Lund: Studentlifteratur, 1969.
Hoggart, Richard. On Culture and Non-Verbal Communication. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Hunt, Douglas. Pantomine: The Silent Theater. New York: Atheneum Publishers, 1964.
Hutchison, John Alexander. Language and Faith: Studies in Sign, Symbol, and Meaning. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963.
Jensen, Clayne R. and Gordon W. Schultz. Applied Kinesiology: The Scientific Study of Human Performance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1970.
Jurgen, Ruesch. Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Visual Perception of Human RelationsT Berkeley: University of California Press, 1956.
Kantner, Claude E. and Robert William West. Phonetics: An Introduction to the Principles of Phoentic Science from the• Point~~of View of English Speech. Third edition. Madison, Wisconsin: College Typing Company, 1936.
Kelley, David L. Kinesiology: Fundamentals of Motion Description. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971.
Kelly, Ellen Davis. Teaching Posture and Body Mechanics. New York: A. S. Barnes, 1949.
Kranz, Leon George. Kranz Manual of Kinesiology. Sixth edition. St. Louis: C. V. Mosby Company, 1969.
85
Kurnow, Ernest, Gerald J. Glasser, and Frederick R. ottman. Statistics for Business Decisions. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1959.
Lander, Herbert Jay. Language and Culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 1966.
Lawson, Joan. The Theory and Practice of Expression Gesture With a Description of its Historical Development. London: Pittman, 1957.
Lesikar, Raymond V. Business Communication: Theory and Application. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1968.
Linsky, L. (Ed.). Semantics and the Philosophy of Language . Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1970.
Liu, Herman Chan-En. Non-Verbal Intelligence Test for Use in China. New York! Teachers College, Columbia University Press, 1922.
Logan, Gene Adams and Wayne C. McKinney. Kinesiology. Dubuque, Iowa: W. C. Brown Company, 1970.
MacConaill, Michael Aloysius and J. V. Basmajean. Muscles and Movements: A Basis for Human Kinesiology. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1969.
Mackworth, Jane F. Vigilance and Attention: A Signal Detection Approach. Baltimore: Penguin Books, Inc., 1970.
Maurer, Edward Rose. Kinematics. Fifth edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons., Inc., 1925.
McLuhan, Herbert M. The Medium is the Message. New York: Random House, 1967.
Mehrabian, Albert. Introduction: A Semantic Space for Nonverbal Behavior in Advances in Communication Research. (Eds. C. David Mortensen and Kenneth K. Sereno). New York: Harper & Row, 1973.
. Non-Verbal Communications. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.
. Silent Messages. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1971.
86
Middleman, Ruth R. The Non-Verbal Method in Working with Groups. New York: Association Press, 1968.
Mitchell, M. E. How to Read Language of the Face. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968.
Montagu, Ashley. Touching: The Human Significance of the Skin. New York: Columbia University Press, 197T7
Morehouse, Lawrence Englemohi, and John M. Cooper. Kinesiology. St. Louis, Missouri: C. V. Mosby Com-pany, 1950.
Morris, Desmond. Intimate Behavior. New York: Random House, 1971.
Naess, Arne. Elements of Applied Semantics. Totowa, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1956.
Nierenberg, Gerald I. and Henry H. Calero. How to Read a Person Like a Book. New York: Pocket Books, 1973.
Petersen, Hans. Banderkinematik. Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1918.
Pickersgill, Mary Gertrude. Practical Miming. New York: Sir I. Pitman & Sons, Ltd., 1947.
Poiret, Maude. Body Talk. New York: Award Books, 1970.
Rasch, Phillip J. and Roger K. Burke. Kinesics and Applied Anatomy: The Science of Human Movement. Lea & Febiger, 1971.
Ruesh, Jurgen. Communication: The Social Matrix of Psychiatry. New York: Norton Press, 1951.
. Semiotic Approaches to Human Relations. New York: Humanities Press, Inc., 1972.
and Weldon Kees. Nonverbal Communication: Notes on the Perception of Human Relations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.
Saloman, Louis Bernard. Semantics and Common Sense. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1966.
87
Scheflen, Albert E. Body Language and the Social Order: Communications as Behavorial Control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972.
Scott, M. G. Analysis of Human Movement: A Textbook in Kinesiology. Second edition. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1963.
Sebeok, Thomas Albert. Approaches to Semiotics. (Eds. Thomas Albert Sebeok, Alfred S. Hayes and Mary Catherine Bateson). The Hague: Mouton, 1964.
and Alfred S. Hayes. Conference on Paralinguistics and Kinesics. BloomingtonT Indiana: Indiana State University Press, 1962.
Sereno, Kenneth K. and G. J. Hawkins. The Effects of Variations in Speaker's Nonfluency Upon Audience Ratings of Attitude Toward the Speech Topic and Speakers' Credibility Tn Speech Monograph (n.p.), 1967.
Shands, Harley C. Semiotic Approaches to Psychiatry. New York: Humanities Press, Inc., 1970.
Smith, Raymond G. Development of a Semantic Differential for Use with Speech Related Concepts in Speech Monographs , XXVI, (n.p.), 1959.
Steindler, Authur. Kinesiology of the Human Body Under Normal and Pathological Conditions. Springfield, Illinois: C. C. Thomas, 1955.
Stokoe, William C. Semiotics and Human Sign Language. New York: Humanities Press, Inc., 1972.
Thayer, Lee 0. Communication: General Semantics Perspectives . New York: Spartan, 1970.
Todd, Mabel Elsworth. The Thinking Body: A Study of the Balancing Forces of Dynamic Man. New York: Paul B. Holber, Inc., 1937.
Warman, Edward Barrett. How to be an Absolutely Smashing Public Speaker Without Saying Anything. New York: American Heritage Press, 1970.
88
Washington Council on Kinesiology. Kinesiology Review, 1968. Washington, D. C.: Physical Education Division, Council on Kinesiology: American Association for Health and Physical Education, 1968.
Wells, Katharine. Kinesiology: The Automatic and Mechanical Fundamentals of Human Motion. Fourth edition. Philadelphia: wT B. Saunders, 1963.
. Kinesiology: The Scientific Basis of Human Motion" Fifth Edition. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders, 1971.
West, Robert William. Kinesiologic Phoenetics. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1941.
Wilson, Albert Edward. King Panto: The Story of Pantomine. New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, Inc., 1935.
Wolff, C. Psychology of Gesture. (Translated from the French by A. Tennant). London: Methuen, 1945.
Worman, Edward Bonet. Gestures and Attitudes. (n.p.) Lee & Shepard, 1892.
B. PERIODICALS
Anderson, J. D. "The Language of Gesture," Folklore, 31:70, 1920.
Andrew, R. J. "Evolution of Facial Expression," Science, 142:103401041, 1963.
Angell, M. "Nonverbal Communication: Play it Straight With Your Children," Parents Magazine, 46:49-51+, October, 1970.
Argyle, M. and J. Dean. "Eye Contact, Distance and Affiliation," Sociometry, 28:289-304, 1965.
Arnheim, Rudulf. "The Gestalt Theory of Expression," Psychological Review, 56:156-171, 1949.
"Art of Not Listening: A. Kaplan's Idea of Duologues," Time, 93:52-53, January 25, 1969.
89
Austin, William. "Some Social Aspects of Paralanguage," CJL/RCL, 11, 1:31039, 1965.
Barbara, D. A. "The Value of Nonverbal Communication Personality Understanding," Journal of Nervous Disorders , 123:286-291, 1956.
Bateson, M. C. "Kinesics and Paralanguage," Science, 139:200, January 18, 1963.
Battle, L. D. "New Dimensions in Cultural Communications," Publications of the Modern Language Association, 78(2): 15-19, 1963.
Beegle, B. B. "Message That is Sent Without Words," Supervisory Management, 16:12-14, February, 1971.
Berger, M. M. "Nonverbal Communications in Group Psychotherapy ," International Journal of Group Psychotherapists, 8:161-178, 1958.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. "Background to Kinesics," ETC., Review General Semantics * 13:10-18, 1955.
"Birth of a New Science: Non-Verbal Communication, or Comingling," America, 120:236-7, March 1, 1969.
"Bodyspeak: The Way You Move," Vogue, 156:389-390, 1970.
Boomer, D. S. "Hesitation and Grammatical Encoding," Language and Speech, 8:148-158, 1965.
and Allen T. Dittman. "Speech Rate, Filled Pause, and Bodily Movement in Interviews," Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 139:324-327, 1964.
Brosin, H. W. "Studies in Human Communication in Clinical Settings Using Sound Film and Tape," Wisconsin Medical Journal, 63:503-506, 1964.
Brown, Raymond Lamont. "Are You a Good Judge of Character," Modern Secretary, May, 1973.
Brunson, R. W. "Perceptual Skills in Corporate Jungle," Personnel Journal, J51:50-53, January, 1972.
Buller, A. J., O. C. J. Lippold, and A. Taylor. "Discussion on Normal and Abnormal Willed Movement," Procedures of the Royal Society of Medicine, 54:199-203, 196.1.
90
Chernus, Jack. "How Your Posture Can Reveal Your Personality," National Enquirer, 47:35, 14, April 29, 1973.
Corbin, E. I. "Muscle Action as Nonverbal and Preverbal Communication," Psychoanalysts Quarterly, 31:351-353, 1962.
Cutner, M. "On the Inclusion of Certain 'Body Experiments' in Analysis," British Journal of Medical Psychologists, 26:263-277, 1953.
Daniel, J. "Novsie Metbdy Analyzy Pr§covnych Pohybov," (New Method of Motion Analysis), Ceskoslovenska Psychologie, 3:256-264, 1964.
Davis, F. "How to Read Body Language," Reader's Digest, 95:127-30, December, 1969.
. "Way We Speak Body Language," New York Times Magazine, 65:89+, March 31, 1970.
Delahunty, D. "Three Aspects of Non-verbal Communication in an Interview," Personnel, J49:757-9, September, 1970.
Deutsch, F. "Analysis of Postural Behavior, (Thus Speaks the Body, I)," Psychoanalysts Quarterly, 16:195-213, 1947.
Dittman, Allen T. "The Relationship Between Body Movements and Moods in Interviews," Journal of Consulting Psychologists, 26:480, 1962.
and L. G. Llewellyn. "Body Movements and Speech Rhythm in Social Conversation," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11:98-106, 1969.
, M. B. Parloff, and D. S. Boomer. "Facial and Bodily Expression: A Study of Receptivity of Emotional Cues," Psychiatry, 28:239-244, 1965.
Duel, H. S. "Pitfalls of Non-verbal Communication," Supervision, 21:10-12, November, 1959.
Duncan, Jr., Starkey. "Nonverbal Communication," Psychological Bulletin, 72:118-137, 1969.
91
Ekman, Paul. "Differential Communication of Affect by Head and Body Cues," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2:726-735, 1965.
. "A Methodological Discussion of Nonverbal Behav-lor," Journal of Psychology, 43:141-149, 1957.
and V. Wallace. "Hand Movements," Journal of Communications, 22:4, 353-374, December, 1972.
. "Nonverbal Leakage and Clues to Deception," Psychiatry, 32:88-106(a), 1969.
Ellsworth, Phoebe C. and Linda M. Ludwig. "Visual Behavior in Social Interaction," Journal of Communication, 22:4, 375-402, December, 1972.
Engen, T., N. Levy, and Harold Schlosberg. "A New Series of Facial Expressions," American Psychology, 12:264-266, 1957.
Estes, S. G. "Judging Personality from Expressive Behavior," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 3:217-236, 1938.
Farr, N. N. "How to Communicate With Silence," Nations Business, 50:96-97, June, 1962.
Fast, Julius. "Body Language," Newsweek, 75-87, 1970.
. "How Well Do You Read Body Language?," Sales Management, 105:27-29, December 15, 1970.
Feinberg, M. R. "Getting Personal: Sabotage by Body Language," Business Management, 39:6, 1971.
Fenner, M. S. "Editor's Notebook: Gestural Language," National Education Association Journal, 57:72, March, 1968.
Fiel, M. L. "What His Hands Tell That He's Not Saying," Mademoiselle, 158-9, 1970.
Flick, F. "Visual Aids Can Tell a Complicated Pay Story," American Business, 27:21-22, December, 1957.
Ford, B. "Body Language: What It Reveals About You," Science Digest, 68:16-21, August, 1970.
92
Frijda, N. H. "The Understanding of Facial Expression of Emotion," Acta. Psychologia, 9:294-362, 1953.
Galloway, Charles M. "Teaching is Communicating: Nonverbal Language in the Class Room," Association for Student Teaching Bulletin, No. 29, 1970.
et. al. "Body Language," Today's Education, 61:45-46+, December, 1972.
Garner, C. W. "Non-verbal Communication and the Teacher," Biology School & Society, 98:363, 1970.
Gately, O. P. "If You Don't Speak the Language, Play Charades," Harvest Years, 8:16-17, 1968.
Geldard, F. A. "Some Neglected Possibilities of Communication: Messages the Skin Offers," Science, 131:1583-1588, May 27, 1960.
"Gestures Reveal Your Thoughts," National Enquirer, 12, April 23, 1972.
Gittleson, N. "Whatever Happened to Words?," Harper's Bazaar, 101:27, January, 1968.
Gombrick, E. H. "Visual Image," Scientific American, 227: 82-86, September, 1972.
Gunston, David. "Our Eyes Reveal Our True Feelings," Modern Secretary, July, 1973.
Haley, J. "Our Silent Language," Americas, 14(2):5-8, 1962.
Hall, Edward T. "Proxemics," Current Anthropology, 9:83-108, 1968.
Harrison, Randall P. and Mark L. Knapp. "Toward an Understanding of Nonverbal Communication Systems," Journal of Communication, 22:4, 339-353, December, 1972.
Hirt, Susanne. "What is Kinesiology?," Physical Therapists Review, 35:419-426, 1955.
Hughes, F. "So You Think You're a Good Judge of Character," The Director, 24:202+, 1972.
93
"Human Potential: The Revolution in Feeling," Time, 96:L>4-58, November 9, 1970.
Irvins, W. M. "Prints and Visual Communications," Art in America, 57:29, September, 1969.
James, W. T. "A Study of the Expression of Bodily Posture," Journal of Genetic Psychologists, 7:405-437, 1932.
Jelliffe, S. E. "The Parkinsonian Body Posture: Some Considerations in Unconscious Hostility," Psychoanalysts Review, 27:467-479, 1940.
Kendon, A. and M. Cook. "The Consistency of Gaze Patterns in Social Interaction," British Journal of Psychology, 60:481-494, 1969.
Khalchadourian, H. "Gestures as Self-Expression and Communication," International Philosophical Quarterly, 11:153-164, 1971.
King, A. S. "Pupil Size, Eye Direction and Message Appeal: Some Preliminary Findings," Journal of Marketing, 36: 55-58, July, 1972.
King, Jane. "Expert Says Women Are Superior to Men at Using 'Body Language'," National Enquirer, 47(52):24, August 26, 1973.
Krim, A. "A Study in Non-verbal Communication: Expressive Movements During Interviews," Smith College Studies Social Works, 24:41-80, 1953.
"Language of Signs,: Science Digest, 72:32-33, 1972.
Laszio, Judith I. and P. J. Bainstow. "Journal of Motor Behavior, Accuracy of Movement, Peripheral Feedback and Efference Copy," Journal Publishing Affiliates, 3(3): 241-252, 1970.
Laurie, Doug. "How Unconscious Habits Reveal Your Personality," National Enquirer, 47(43):16, July 24, 1973.
Locke, L. F. "Kinesiology and the Profession," Johper, 36:69, 1965.
94
Lorenz, M. "Language as Expressive Behavior," American Medical Association Arch. Neurological Psychiatrists, 70:277-285, 1953.
Maranon, G. "The Psychology of Gesture," Journal of Nervous Mental Disorders, 112:469-497, 1950.
Marty, M. E. "Body Language: The Uptight WASP," Christian Century, 10:111, January 24, 1973.
Mehrabian, Albert. "Communication Without Words," Psychology Today, 2:52-55(d), 1968.
. "Influence of Attitudes From the Posture, Orienta-tion and Distance of a Communicator," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32:292-308, 1968.
Miller, G. R. and M. A. Hewgill. "The Effect of Variations in Nonfluency on Audience Ratings of Source Credibility," Quarterly Journal of Speech, L:36-44, February, 1964.
Morris, Desmond. "Intimate Behavior," McCalls, 99:75-77+, March, 1972.
Needles, W. "Gesticulation and Speech," International Journal of Psycho-Analysts, 40:291-294, 1959.
Nierenberg, Gerald I. and Henry H. Calero. "Watch Your Body Language," Sales Management, 40, 1971.
"Non-Verbal Communication and the Teacher," School and Society, 98:363-364, 1970.
Paget, R. A. S. "Gesture Language," Nature (London), 139: 198, 1937.
"Parting Shots: What Our Politicians are Really Saying," Life, 69:82-84, September, 1970.
Price, W. E. "Visual Communications Gap," Office, 69:100-101, January, 1969.
Ralston, R. M. "Quest for Silence," Vital Speeches, 32:726-731, August 17, 1966.
Rosenfeld, Howard M. "Instrumental Affiliative Functions of Facial and Gestural Expressions," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4:65-72, 1966.
95
Savage, W. G. "Sure, Listen: But Watch Their Gestures, Too," Administrative Management, 33:33-34, August, 1972.
Scheflen, Albert E. "Significance of Posture in Communications Systems," Psychiatry, 27(4)316-331, 1964.
Shearer, Lloyd (Ed.), "Body Language," Parade Magazine, April 8, 1973.
Silverman, F. H. and D. E. Williams. "Loci of Disfluences in the Speech of Non-Stutterers During Oral Reading," Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 10:790-794, 1967.
Singer, Jane Sherrod. "What Your Posture Tells," Modern Secretary, March, 1973.
Skinner, J. Ross. "Those Telltale Executive Gestures," Duns, 95:66-67, March, 1970.
Sklarewitz, N. "When They Talk With Their Hands, What Are They Saying?," Popular Mechanics, 135:72-73, May, 1971.
Sombrich, E. H. "Visual Image," Scientific American. 227: 82-96, September 19, 1972.
Steiner, G. "Language and Silence," Time, 89:112, April 28, 1967.
Sugarman, D. A. and R. Hochstein. "Getting Your Message Across," Seventeen, 28:467-571, September, 1969.
Trager, G. L. "Paralanguage: A First Approximation," Studies of Linguistics, 13:1-12, 1958.
Trost, C. H. "Color—A Way to Emphasize a Message," Bests, N69:74-76, July, 1968.
"Your Eye Movements Reveal Your Nature," National Enquirer, August 12, 1973.
Wachtel, P. L. "An Approach to the Study of Body Language in Psychotherapy," Psychotherapy, 4(3), 1967.
Watson, O. Michael. "Conflicts and Directions in Proxemic Research," Journal of Communication, 22 (4):443-459, December, 1972.
96
Weiss, P. "The Social Character of Gestures," Philosophy Review, 52:182-186, 1943.
"Why Best Managers are Best Communicators," Nation'3 Business, 57:82-83+, March, 1969.
Wiener, Morton et. al. "Nonverbal Behavior and Nonverbal Communication," Psychological Review, 79:185-214, 1972.
Winick, C. and H. Holt. "Seating Position as Nonverbal Communication in Group Analysis," Psychiatry, 24:171-182, 1961.
Zaidel, S. F. and Albert Mehrabian. "The Ability to Communicate and Infer Positive and Negative Attitudes Facially and Vocally," Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 3:233-241, 1969.
C. THESES
Adams, Arthur. "A Test Construction Study of Sport-Type Motor Educability for College Men." Unpublished thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1954.
Birdwhistell, Ray L. "Introduction to Kinesics: An Annotation System for Analysis of Body Motion and Gesture." Unpublished thesis, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1952.
Clapper, Dorothy Jean. "Measurement of Selected Kinesthetic Responses." Unpublished thesis, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1954.
Dial, Betty Ann. "The Effect of Arm Fatigue on Kinesthetic Performance." Unpublished thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1955.
Hollingsworth, Luthur Travis. "A Complete Study of Growth and General Motor Capacities." Unpublished thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1947.
Horton, Doris Ann. "The Effect of Gravity, Resistance, and Knowledge on the Results of Performance of a Kinesthetic Arm Positioning Task." Unpublished thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 19G6.
97
Johnson, Judith Royce. "Measure of Kinesthesis in Space Orientation." Unpublished thesis, University of Towa, Iowa City, Iowa, 1968.
Lancey, Barbara. "Kinesiological Analysis of Selected Fitness Tests." Unpublished thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1966.
Lyon, Muriel Joan. "Effect of Practice on Three Dynamic Components of Kinesthetic Perception." Unpublished thesis, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, 1966.
Magruder, Mary Alice. "An Analytical Study of Testing for Kinesthetics." Unpublished thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 1963.
Phillips, Bernath Eugene. "Relationship Between Certain Phases of Kinesthesis and Performance During the Early Stages of Acquiring Two Perceptuo-Motor Skills." Unpublished thesis, Pennsylvania State College, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1941.
Pinholster, Garland Folsom. "Analysis of Generality and Specificity of Kinesthetic Performance in Gross Motor Skills." Unpublished thesis, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 1968.
Renshaw, Morton J. "The Effects of Varied Arrangements of Practice and Rest on Proficiency in the Acquisition of Motor Skills." Unpublished thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, California, 1947.
D. UNPUBLISHED ARTICLES, PAPERS, AND SPEECHES
Argyle, M., F. Alkema, and R. Gilmour. "The Communication of Hostile Attitudes by Verbal and Nonverbal Signals." Institute of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, 1971.
Benesh, M., E. Kramer, and H. Lane. "Recognition of Portrayed Emotion in a Foreign Language." Office of Research Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1963.
98
Birdwhistell, Ray L. "Some Relationships Between American Kinesics and Spoken American English." Paper presented before Section H., A. A. A. S., Cleveland, 1963.
Exline, R. V. and C. Eldridge. "Effects of Two Patterns of a Speaker's Visual Behavior Upon the Perception of the Authenticity of His Verbal Message." Paper presented at the meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, Massachusetts, April, 1967.
Scheflen, Albert E. "Non-Language Behavior in Communication." Address to the New York Chapter of American Academy of Pediatrics, September 2, 1969.
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
Appendix A is the text of the experiment which was
used for all of the groups participating in the study. It
was read by Dr. welford (out of view of camera eye) for the
video-tape. Group I, the control group, also read the
message for their part in the experiment.
101
The following is the text of a speech tecently delivered to a group of employees. Please read it one, time and then turn it over. Thank you.
I'm certainly happy that you employees could meet with
me today to discuss a matter of interest to all of us.
As you know, for the last two years, both management
and employees have expressed concern and dissatisfaction re
lating to our current group insurance program.
The committee, which has investigated various group
programs during the last six months, has recommended that we
switch as of June 1 of this year to the Mutual Insurance
Company located in Dallas.
You are aware that our present health insurance policy
permits a maximum of $14.00 a day to be paid for hospital
ization. With the new policy that we have adopted, the
amount will be extended to $32.00 a day with no additional
premium. No major benefits have been eliminated from the
new policy. In addition, should you desire coverage for
dread diseases, such as cancer, it will cost only an addi
tional $1.00 per month for family coverage.
Another interesting feature of this new program is
that it can cover any family member living under your roof
(including married children and elderly parents) and also is
convertible to a private policy upon retirement.
102
A brochure explaining the new policy will be dis
tributed at the end of the meeting today. Should there be
any questions concerning this change, please see me, or Mr.
Smith in Personnel.
Thank you for your time.
APPENDIX B
Appendix B is a copy of the experiment packet which
each participant was given. The results obtained from the
analysis of these packets formed the basis for the tables,
text, and illustrations of this dissertation.
104
College of Business; Administration Department of Management Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana May/June, 1973
Dear Participant:
For many years now, communication of messages has been pursued from the perspective of many different areas. As managers spend the largest amount of their time involved in communications, we are constantly striving to find better ways to "get our messages across."
What impression do you have of the message you will get as concerns meaning and believability? Please be as honest as you can in checking off all answers.
Who knows, perhaps a workable model will be discovered. If this is so, a significant contribution to the fields of management and communications will have been made, and you will be partially responsible.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
Mary B. Blalock
105
PLEASE CHECK CHECK THE ONE BLANK IN EACH CATEGORY THAT MOST ACCURATELY DESCRIBES YOU:
SEX
Female
Male
OCCUPATION
Employee
Student
MARITAL STATUS
never married
currently married
divorced
widowed
ETHNIC BACKGROUND
Afro-American
Anglo-Saxon
French
_German
Italian
Oriental
Spanish
AGE
JUnder 18 years
18 years to 21 years
_22 years to 25 years
_26 years to 30 years
_31 years to 35 years
_36 years or older
RELIGION
Catholic
Jewish
Protestant
other (specify)
EDUCATION COMPLETED
less than high school
high school diploma
some college
college degree
some post-graduate
sst-graduate degree
other (specify)
PERSONALITY EVALUATION
DIRECTIONS: The purpose of this test is to measure your impression of your own personality. Please mark every scale for every concept—NO NOT OMIT ANX. Never put more than one mark on a single scale.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A. RESERVED, detached, critical OUTGOING, warmhearted, easy going
B. LESS INTELLIGENT, concrete thinker MORE INTELLIGENT, abstract thinker
C. AFFECTED BY FEELINGS, easily upset EMOTIONALLY STABLE, faces reality
D. HUMBLE, mild, conforming ASSERTIVE, aggressive, stubborn
E. SOBER, prudent, serious, taciturn HAPPY-GO-LUCKY, gay, enthusiastic
F. EXPEDIENT, disregards rules CONSCIENTIOUS, perservering, moralistic
G. SHY, restrained, timid VENTURESOME, uninhibited, spontaneous
H. TOUGH-MINDED, realistic, no-nonsence TENDER-MINDED, over-protective, sensitive
I. TRUSTING, adaptive, no jealousy SUSPICIOUS, hard to fool, opinionated
J. PRACTICAL, careful, conventional IMAGINATIVE, careless of practicalities
K. FORTHRIGHT, natural, unpretentious SHREWD, calculating, worldly
L. SELF-ASSURED, confident, serene APPREHENSIVE, worrying, troubled
M. CONSERVATIVE, respects old ideas EXPERIMENTING, liberal, free-thinking
N. GROUP-DEPENDENT, a "joiner" SELF-SUFFICIENT, prefers own decisions
0. UNDISCIPLINED, follows own urges CONTROLLED, follows self-image
P. RELAXED, tranquil, unfrustrated TENSE, frustrated, overwrought
O
107
(In the original questionnaire
packet, this page was blank.)
106
PLEASE FILL IN THE FOl.T .OWING BIANKS CONCERNING TIIK MKKSAGK.
The message appeared to be favorable
It appears the message was truthful
>
•p .c tn
•H 03
0)
(0 U 0)
s +J
.c •H rH >
unfavorable
untruthful
I felt the message was believable unbelievable
The message seemed to be reputable disreputable
After experiencing the message, I would rate it reliable unreliable
The message apparently was pleasant unpleasant
The source of the message seemed informed uninformed
109
APPENDIX C
Appendix C, the video-tape, could not be bound with
the text. Therefore, this material is put in the pocket
inside the cover boards.
The brand name and type of equipment needed to show
this video-tape is listed in Chapter I, pages 16 and 18, and
is available to qualified personnel through the library at
Louisiana State University. The video-tape may also be
obtained by writing to the author at 12991 Highland Road,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. 70810.
110
APPENDIX D
Appendix D calculates the sample sizes required to be
99S certain that the standard error of the mean values of
the messages was no greater than .1.
i
Ill
Sample-size Requirements
s = Standard deviation „ sx = Standard error of the mean
n = (?_!_§) ̂ Where: ' (= .103) E
Z = 2.58 = 99£ confidence level E = .265 = 2.56 • s~
n = participants needed
Messages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
s
1.34 1.36 1.43 1.25 1.39 1.35 1.53
n
170 175 197 148 183 173 222
This table indicates the sample size need be no greater
than 222 employees for the largest standard deviation obtained
and on some questions, the response requirement dropped to
148 participants needed.
As a result of these calculations, the mean inter
pretation of the messages resulting from this experiment are
considered very reliable representations of the employee's
message perception; i.e., of all possible samples, there is
a 99% confidence level that the point estimate of the mean
is within .1 of the true mean.42
42Ernust Kurnow, Ceroid .J. (ilassor, .nuJ Fn.-dor i ck K. oLlm.iri, Statistics Cor Husinesu Deris, ions (Homewood, Illinois: l:i<:h.inl I). I twin. The. , "T757),"")>.~2TT."
112
APPEND]X E
Appendix E is a reduction of the computer prinL-oul
listing all answers for all remaining participants after
collapsing was performed. These are included in the event
a future researcher desires to calculate any additional data
from this study.
The coding at the top of the columns can be read as
follows:
OBS - observation number (for computer coding purposes only)
ID - original number of participant after collapsing
TYPE - whether student or employee (Note: all were employees)
GROUP - refers to message in which they participated (see
Chapter II)
SEX - (1) female, (2) male
MS - marital status (see Chapter II)
ETH - ethnic background (see Chapter II)
AGE - (see Chapter II)
RELIGION - (see Chapter II)
ED - refers to educational level (see Chapter II)
A through P - refers to how they scored themselves on 16 PF
(Appendix B)
MSG 1 through MSG 7 - refers to answer they gave concerning
message variables (Appendix B)
MEAN - participants mean score.1 on 16 PF
113
PRSN - refers to type of personality, i.e., introvert, extro
vert or ambivert; derived from MEAN above. (Chapter
ID.
BL and VC - Refers to what the participant saw, heard, and/or
read as part of the experiment. GROUP above can be
found in Chapter II to give complete explanation of
each group.
S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S S Y S T E M
J« H S S G C
1 2
3
* 5 6
T a 9
! ><• l i 1 2
13 1 *
IS 1 6
17 1 8
14 2 3
2 1
2 2
23 2 *
as 2 6
2 7
2 8
2 9
3 C
31 3 2
3 3
3 4
35 3 6
it 3 8
3 9
4 *
41 4 2
4 3
4 4
4 5
4 b
4 7
4 3
4 9
5 r
5 1
1 2
3
4
5 6
7
a 9
1 2
13 14 1
15 1 6
1 7
1 8
19 2 0
21 2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
2 6
2 ?
2 8
2 9
3 0
31 3 2
33 3 4
3 5
3 6
37 3 8
3 9
4
4 1
4 £
»3 4 4
4 5
4 b 4 7 4 8
4 9
5 J
5 1
5 2
i l
9
9
9
9
9 9
4 9
9
9
9 9
4 9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
4 a a
1 8
a a a 8
8
a a a a
i a
a L a
8 L a
o
1 d 8
1 -1 i a l a
a
» 7
1 7 I 7
2 ?
2
1
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 1
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1 2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2 2
~2 2 2 2
2 1
1
1 "2
2
2
2 2 2
?
1 1
i l
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2
?
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
2
2 2
2 2
2
2
2 2
—"5~ 2 5
1
2 1
1
2 2 2
2
2
2
2
3 2
3
2
2 1
1 6
3 3
2 3
2
2
6
2
2
2
3
2
2
J 3
a
2
3
3
2
3
2 2
2
2
2 2
~ 2 ~ 2 o
3
J 2
3
p
3
3
3 3 6
1
5
6
5
2
5 5
4
2
4
6
5 2
6
6
4
5
6
6
4
4
5
6
b
2
6
S
4
o
6
5
6
$ 3
5 6
~ 6 5 4 6
b
6
b
n 2
a
5 4 6
5
1
3
3
3
3 3
J
1
1
1
3 1
3 3
3
3
3
3
3 1
3
1
1 1
1 3
1
3
1 1
3
1
3
3
3 3 3 3
3
I 3
1
1
1
1
3 1 1
1
2
2
1
2
3 2
2
3
3 2
3 3
S 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
4
5
b
3
2
3
3 3
3
2
2
4
3 5
2
2
? 3
2 2
~ 4~
2
2
2
1
2
3
5
7
6
b
3
5
I t
5
7 a 4
1
3
3
7
3
5
a 4
7
5 s 3
l i .
7
4
s 3
7 3
4
4
1 5 4
1
b
a i
I 7 o ~
a a
D 7
1
1 ••
e 3
5
5
T a 6
7
9
9
a 7
a 3
5
3
a 6
9
5
6
6
4 7
9
!• 6
7
6
6
a D
6
5
5 5
5
6
1 • 5
5
c
a
•'. 5
5~~ a
^
a 6
5
4
a 9
4
9
1 C
a 9
4
a 6
5
3
9
7
4
a 7
5
B
a a a 9
7
a 5
11
6
9
7
4
9 4 7 4 a
1
1
a o
3
7
7 9 b
f
4
6
4
4
7
2
1
5
4
9
3 4
4
1 J
5
7
7
7
8
7
a 7
8
3
4
9
b
6
5 o
5
6
2
6
b
3
4 7 6
5 5
6
4 5 3
7
6 9
= 5
2
4
6
5
9
8
5
4
4
7
4
9
5
a 5
5
5
2
9
9
4
7
6
5
2
7
2
4
6
7
5
3
7
b
5
4 b 2
1 . 9
7 1 .
l i
6 5 5
7
4 4
1
1
5
3
4
b
3
1
9
3
2
a 2 3
3 a 6
3
2
4
2
2
6
2
2
3
2
3
t
6
6
3
4
2
1
6
b
7 5 3 1 3
7
3
1
3
4 2
o
4 6 7
b
2
3
5
6
6
9
1C
3
9
3
s 9
5
2
5
8
7
5
7
6
3
8
7 3
3
3
9
5
2 3
6
4
1
5
5 4
5 ?
1 ' 7
3
1
° 7
5
6
3 6 4
b
S
4
6
6
5
5
a 6
•* 4
o
4
3
9
3
9
4
3
a 7
4
5
4
7
9
5
4
S
5
3
9
6
1
5
4
6 b 6
3
3 a b
a o a
o
7 ~ 3
a a
4
6
5
5
8
6
7
3 2 9
3 3
a 2
1 0
7
1 0
2
5
4
4
a 4
7
3
2
5
6
7 a 6 5
3
5
1 U
3 6 3 7 7
3
1
5
7 5 5
4
3 9 5
1 )
2
4
6
3
3
7
5
3 1
1 0
3
4
3
2
3
1
2
2
7
2
4
2
6
5
4
7
6
7
6
6
2
5
5
5
3 4 5 5
1 . 8
3 1
5
4 5 4
5
3 7 5
~ 5 ~
9
7
7
5
6
9 4 a a 4
9
a a 9
6
6
9
7
8
a 7
9
6
7
8
6
4
5
5
5
8
9
3
6
6
6 7 6
6
4
i : i
i
8 6 7
4
a " a "
b b
S
6
5
4
8
10 6 8 2 3
4 7 9 6
6
6
4
9
6
8
7
4
6
8
a 9
1 0
5
9
6
10 6
5
6
7 4 7 ~ 9
5
3
6 I f 1?
a 6
2
5
7 6 ' 6 6
6
4
5
6
S
a a 5 1 7
6
5 a 5
3
7
2
4
a 5
7
4
6
5
2
1 3
3
6
4
2
3
8
4
5
1 4
4
9
7
7
1C 1 5
5
4
4
4 ~ 7~~
S 5
3
4
6
7
3
2 7 2 3 2
3
9 1 3
5
3
2
3
1 0
1
3
3
5
5
3
5
6
4
6
5
4
3
2
5
1
1 4 3
3
4
6
1 4 6
5
7
b
7 2
6 o
5
4
4
S
3
9 4 2 7 7
3
5 6 9
6
6
1
6
3
3
6
3
4
6
3
6
3
5
3 5
4
3
1
6
6
6 " 4 ~
3
2
3
o
3 4 4
6
2
7
6 7 6 6
6
5
5
6
5
2 5 3 3 a 2
3 2 2
a i
6
5
7
6
5
7
4
7
2
1
5
6
3
2
2
2
1
6
5
3 4
2
1
3
a l l 7
~ 5 " 6
J
5 5 S 5
1
1
1
2
1
1 1 1 I 1
1
1 1 1
1
3
1
2
2 -
3
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
2
4 5
4 5 3
3 5 1 4
4
b
4 3
4 3
3
1
2
2
1
1 2 1 2 2
2
1 1 1
5
5
1
1
1
2
2
1
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
S
3
3
1 2
I 5 " 3
3 5 2
4
5
5 ~"2
1
b
4 2 3 1
1
5
2
2
1
1 4 1 4 2
2
3 S 5
5
4
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
2
1
3
b
5 3 4 4 1
4
4
1 5 1 ~ 1
i
4 2 3
3 "
1
4 3 " 2
1
1 3 5 3 2
2
3 3 1
3
4
1
2
1
3
2
1
1
3
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
3
1
3
5
5 2 ~ 4 4 1
3 3 1 4 4 3
i
3
1 4
5
3
5 2 2
1
1 4 2 4 2
2
2
4
5
3
4
I
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
1
3
b
5 ~ 5 ~
4 5 2
3 5 I 5 5 1
J
4 1 4 3
3
2 2 2
2
1 2 1 1 " 1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
S
4
3
4
4
S
1
b
4
1
3
b
5 " 2 ~
2 3 2
3 5 1 4
~ 5 ~ 4
b
4 2 4
1
3
1 I 2
1
1 1 1 1 " 2
1
2
5
1
1
4
1
2
1
3
1
1
1
3
4
3
5
3
1
5
» 4
1
3
b
5_̂ 2~ 2 4 2
4
1 I 5 3 5
3
3 1 4 3
4 . 7 5 C 0 4 . 5 0 C 0 5 . 1 8 7 5 5 . 1 8 7 5 5 . 7 5 C 3 6 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 7 5 0 3 4 . 7 5 0 0 4 . 8 1 2 5 6 . 4 3 7 5 S . 1 2 S 0 5 . 7 5 C 0 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 4 . 8 7 5 0 5 . 3 1 2 5 4 . 6 8 7 5 6 . 5 6 2 5 5 . 4 3 7 5 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 4 3 7 5 5 . 6 2 5 0 5 . 6 8 7 5 4 . 5 6 2 5 6 . 6 2 5 0 5 . 3 7 5 3 5 . 5 0 0 0 5 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 1 8 7 5 5 . 7 5 0 3 4 . 8 1 2 S 3 . 4 3 7 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 4 . 8 1 2 5 4 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 1 8 7 5 4 . 3 7 5 0 6 . 1 8 7 5 5 . 6 8 7 5 6 . 4 3 7 5 6 . 1 2 S C S . 9 3 7 5 6 . : c c c 5 . 6 8 7 5
. 4 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 5 . 3 1 2 5 6 . - " 1 2 5 5 . 4 3 7 5 6 . 3 1 2 5
1
1 2 2 2
3 2 1 1 3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
— 2 ~ 1 3 2
3 3 2 3 2 1
2
2 3 2 3
2
2 2 2
2
2 2 2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2 ,
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1
1
1 3 3 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 ' 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2 e 2 H 2 i t * 2
S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S S Y S T E «
2 ,3
t '
-
~
5 2
5 3
5 4
5 5
5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 3
6 1
42 6 3
6 4
6 5
6 6
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 "
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 5
7 6
7 7
7 8
7 9
8 0
8 1
8 2
d 3
8 4
8 5
8 6
8 7
8 3
8 9 9 3 9 1
4 2 9 3 9 4
9 5
9 6
9 7
9a 9 °
1 . "
I C I
1 = 2
5 4 1 5 5 1 5 6
5 7
5 8
5 9
6 0
6 1
6 2 1 6 3
6 4
6 5
6 b
6 7
6 8
6 9
7 0
7 1
7 2
7 3
7 4
7 6
77 7 8
7 9
8 0
3 1
B 2
S 3
3 4
8 5
9 6
8 7
8 8
8 9
9 C
° 1 9 2 9 3 9 4
9 S
= 6 9 7 9 3
9 9
I '
1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
b
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
b
6
6
6
6
6 I 6~
6 1 6
b
6
6 6 b
c
1 b 5
1 5 I 5 I b
b
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2 2 2 1 2
2 ? 1 7
2
2
2
? 9
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
" 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 1 2 ? 2
?
2
? 9
2
2
?
o
2 o
6
3
6
2
2
6
6
2
2
6
2
3
2
3
2
6
3
6
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1 6 2
3
6
2
2
2
2
2
1 6" 3 1 1
2
2
•* ^ * 6
3 • *
?
6
5
6
6
5
6
6
4
5
4
5
4
4
5
6
6
6
6
5
2
2
6
5
5
4
4 6 ~ 6
6
6
S
4
6
b
5
4 — b ~
3
4
2
6
6 5 6
o
6
3
5
b
o
6
3
! 3
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
I
1
1
3
3
1
3
3
3 3 1
1
1
3
3
3
I
1
1 1 1
1
3
3
3 I 3
3
3
J
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
5
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3 2 1
3
4
4
2
5
4
4
4 ~ 4 ~
2
3
2
4
2 3
^ 4
?
S
^ 1
2
2
9
a 5
4
8
4
7
4
4
6
7
7
4
7
8
4
8
6
i n 4
5
a 8
u 8
I f 9 S
4
4
l l
5
3
6
3
5 a
a l
5
4
b ~ 5 ~
e a 7
b
9
4
7
4
2
a 7
7
6
7
6
5
a 3
7
7
7
a 5
S
7
7
3
a 6
a 5
5
8
7 a 7
4
7
3
7
7
7
7 a 7
6
a a
a 4 iT
<= a 7
o
a a
• 5
e 9
6
6
9
7
5
9
S
9
5
b
7
1
8
5
8
a l . "
2
6
7
8
1 "
9
c
8 1
8
4
5
a c
7
a 3 9
1 1
a a
l
3
6
1
o
4
C
7
« 4
8
I C
6
4
3
fc 6
4
4
1 0
5
6
S
3
5
b
7
6
5
6
S
3
a 5
8
9 a a 3
6
3
5
5
7
l u
2 4 " b
3
9
5
b
b
l
c A
a £
3
4
9
a 4
4
5
4
4
2
4
7
7
4
4
5
2
4
7
7
1 }
4
4
4
6
1 0
8
11 9 1
9
5
a a 2
4
5
2 4
1 • 1><
5
1
2 5 4
7
7
J
a c
7
3
9
3
5
5
2
6
3
2
5
I C
6
3
6
2
2
S
2
4
3
5
5
9
2
2
4
5 3
3
6
4
2
*» 3
4
l r
6 3 3
1
2
i
6 ~
7
. 5 b
2
3
5
6
f-
5
9
b
4
5
4
5
7
4
2
7
7
4
5
4
5
6
3
9
2
7
5
6
5
3
9 7 8
5
a 9
5
4
5
7 7 7 6
S
b
3 b
£
9
7
7
9 •a
3
5
8
a 5
4
5
7
8
8
7
2
6
6
a 3
6
5
4
6
4
7
7
4
6
I C
4
2
5
i r a 6
7
8
4
6
3
3
6
8
B~
6
6
7
6
8
a 6
5
5
5
7
3
6
7
6
7
6
a 9
3
4
9
5
4
7
5
5
6
5
6
9
6
5
4
6
1
6
5
9
5
4
6 2
5
3
4
2
5
2
9
" 5
3
1
a 4 b
5
4
6
a 6
3
b
7
8
5
7
3
S
4
5
4
1 3
4
4
5
3
3
6
5
5
3
4
6
4
3
1
5
9 4 5
5
S
2
3
3
6
1
5 4 2 5 a 1 3 a 7
4
6
4
Q
8
3
4
3
2
8
6
a 7
5
4
6
9
7 7
4
9
a 8
9
4
8
9
5
6
5
1 3
3
8 5 6
S
7
I f
4
a 7
3
6 8 b 3 3
I f 8 9 4
4
4
5
4
3
4
8
2
9
4
6
a 6
6
9
7
3
7
6
5
7
7
7
9
6
a 8
6
5
8
I C
7
3 9
1 3
2
a 9
9
8
6
9
9 4
I t 7 3
6
a 5 7
a 7
5
4
4
e 5
8
8
6
5
5
5
7
5
4
1 3
4
5
4
8
2
S
3
6
3
a 5
7
2
5
7
9 6 5
2
4
8
7
3
7
b
8 7 a
~Tc~" 9
1 4
~ S 7
2
6
4
9
7
6
6
2
2
3
7
4
4
6
7
6
a 6
6
3
5
6
3
3
5
2
5
5
6
6
1 0
4
3 5 2
2
2
4
2
3
4
3
4 4~ 1 3 5
6
5 3 3
3
3
4
2
a 4
7
2
2
6
6
2
4
7
3
5
9
6
6
4
S
2
6
3
5
1
7
7
5
7
1
5
2 S 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
a 4 5 3 6
6
5 8 5
5
4
4
2
5
7
6
2
2
7
S
2
5
5
2
5
9
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
6
2
7
5
6
2
1
3
3 2 6
7
3
1
2
2
5
2
5 7 7
~ ~ 2 4
5
4 5 5
6
4
6
b
5
4
6
3
4
3
4
5
2
4
3
3
4
5
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
S
4
3
1
4 1 1
2
b
2
2
1
1
3
2 2 1 1 5
3
I 1 2
4
3
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
2
4
4
5
4
3
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
3
1
4 3 I
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
•> 2 1 1 5
1
3 5 3
2
4
3
3
1
1
1
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
4
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
1
5
5 S 4
1
5
1
1
2
1
2
1 2 1 4 5
1
4 5 2
4
4
2
5
1
I
2
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
4
4 4 I
3
4
2
2
2
1
4
3 2 " 1 5 4
1
3 4
2
4
4
2 3
2
3
2
3
4
3
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
5
4
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
1
4
5 4 1
2
S
4
2
3
1
4
2 2 1 3 4
1
4 5 4
3
4
J
5
2
1
2
3
5
3
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
5
4
2
3
4
3
1
1
1
1
1
5
4
3
1
4 5 1
3
4
3
2
2
1
3
2 2 1 2 " 2
J
4 4 3
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
3
3
4
2 4 5
4
3
5
3
2
I
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
5
4
4
4
5 5 1
4
5
5
2
2
1
5
2 4 1 3 5
b
5 5 4
4
5
2
3
1
1
1
5 . 6 2 5 0 6 . 4 3 7 5 S . S 6 2 5 S . 4 3 7 5 5 . 0 6 2 5 5 . 4 3 7 5 5 . 8 1 2 5 4 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 7 . 2 5 0 0 5 . S I 2 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 S . 1 2 S 0 4 . 9 3 7 5 4 . 7 5 0 0 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 7 5 0 0 5 . S 6 2 S 5 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 5 0 0 0 6 . 0 0 0 0 6 . 0 6 2 5 6 . 4 3 7 5 6 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 5 . 4 3 7 5 5 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 2 5 0 0 4 . 3 7 5 C 5 . 5 0 0 0 5 . 1 2 5 0 5 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 5 C 0 C 6 . 7 5 0 0 6 . 0 0 3 0 5 . 8 7 5 0 4 . 7 5 0 0 5 . 3 1 2 5 6 . 3 1 2 5 6 . 2 5 3 0 6 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 6 8 7 S 4 . 9 3 7 5 o . 4 3 7 S 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 3 1 2 S 5 . 1 2 S I
2
3 2 2
2
2 2 1
2
3
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
Z
2
2
2
3
3
3 3 2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2 2 3 3 2
1
2 3 3
3
2
1
3
2
2
2
3
3 3 3
3
3 3 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 " 2
" 2 2
2
2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
2
2 2 2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
-
Ul
S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S S Y S T E M
1 3 3
1 C 4
1 0 5
1 0 6
187 i c a 104 1 1 3
1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 3
1 1 4
115 1 1 6
1 1 7
1 1 3
1 1 9
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
12V 1 2 8
1 2 9
1 3 3
1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
137 1 3 3
1 3 9
1 4 :
1 4 1
1 4 2
1 4 3
1 4 4
1 4 5
1 4 6 "147
1 4 3
1 4 9
1 5 3
1 5 1
1 5 2
1 5 3
1 0 6
1 0 7
1 0 8
1 C 9
l i e 1 1 1
1 1 2
1 1 3 1 1 1 4
U S
1 1 6
1 1 7
l i s 1 1 9
1 2 0
1 2 1
1 2 2
1 2 3
1 2 4
1 2 5
1 2 6
1 2 7
1 2 8
1 2 9
13 r . 1 3 1
1 3 2
1 3 3
1 3 4
1 3 5
1 3 6
1 3 7
1 3 8
1 3 9
1 4 i ' 141 1 4 2 1 4 3
1 4 4
1 4 5
14b 1 4 7 f 4 3 —
1 4 9 1 5 1 5 1
1 1 2
1 5 >
1 5 4
I b S
I S t
5
5
5
S
5 5
5
S
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5 5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
L 4 4
4
4
4 L ~4
4 I 4
4
4
4 4~
4
3 -a
3
1 3 3
t 3
1
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
t 2
" 2
~ ? ~
2
f 1 2
2 a
2 •3
?
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
" 2 2 a~ 2
2 " ?
2
•> Z
1
2
2 2
6
3
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
2
£
2
3
6
6
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
6
2
2
6
6
2 2
« 2
2
~ 3 ~
2 2 2
1 •a
P
2
1
4
6
5
6
5 4
6
6
5
4
4
5
2
4
5
6
a 6
6
6
6
2
6
5
6
5
5
2
6
5
4
2
2
4
6
a 6 6 4 6
b
a 4 b a 4 -i
U
5
6
4
1
1
1
1
1 3
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
3
1 3
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
3
1 3
1
1
3
I ~3~
?
j
3
J
3 " 1
3
r 9
3
1
-1
1
2
3
3
3
4
2
3
4
5
3
2 3
3
4
3
5
4
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
I
3
5
4
3
3
4
2
4
5
1
2
3
o
5
4
•5
~ 2 ?
3
4
3
?
3
5
a a 7
7
1
a a 3
7
a 6
6
a l
3
a s 9
7
7
9
A
6
a l
5
5
a l
3
4
5 o
6
3
5 b 6
8
3
4
4
u
ti 7
7
1
c
2
5
3
S
6
9
4
a 7
6
7
7
6
a a 5
S
a 8
a a 6
6
6
1 '
3
5
a l
5
7
5
1 " -
a 2
5
7
7
7
a Q
7
b
9
a n E
1 '
2
6
9
6
2
3
8
S
5
9
7 1<"
9
7
8
9
9
9
I f
1 -
9
5
7
5
n 4
5
l i -
2
9
t 9
7
5
2
5 2 ~ 5
1 '
5
6
1 9 3
0
7
7
1
1 1
3
6
6
5
S
9
8
5
6
5
7 1
7
S
9
1 3
6 3
8 3
a 6
5
a e a 5
7
2
4
4
6
7
4
1
9 3 ~ 7
7
a a 7
T 3 a 7
7
^ 6
1
9
6
3
6
3
9
8
5
5
9
4
3
6
3
3
4
2
5
a 3
a 6
a a 3
5
5
b
4
5
4
5
7
4
4
5
7
3
2
b
3 4
s 7 4
a 9
3
7 b
4
6
2
5
3
1
3
4
3
4
5
1
b
6
3
9
5
4
4
3
7
7
3
S
3
4
6
1
6
4
5
3
2
6
I C
3 3 2
4
3
3 a
" 5
3
S
4
fc 3
7
3
4
4
9
5
1
5
a 3
6
7
4
3
d
4
3
9
5
a 9
5
9
4
4
8
2
3
5
9
1
4
4
4
a 3
!-• 5 3 a 4
6
7
4 7 b 5 4
7
6
5
4
9
3
5
6
6
6
4
5
7
4
3
7
5
B
5
7
6
5
a 6
4
9
6
6
4
6
4
6
6
9
8
S
6
a a i
e 6 Q
7
b
4
1
7
5
4
4
2
3
1 H
4
7
3
7
5
2
a 7
4
7
7 1
5
7
2
7
5
5
9
5
a 6
4
3
b
a 5
3
S
8
5
5
3
3
1
5 3 e 7
a 5
1 '
3
5 4 5
3
3
2
1 7
1
6
5
5
4
6
6
6 5 2
4
3
3
4
2
6
2
5
8
2
3
6
S
4
6
8
5
5
7
S
3
4
7
5
I
5 3 2
7
4
b
2
5
5 3 4
9
2
2
3 3
8
5
b
7
6
6
6
6 7 9
7
6
7
5
7
4
8
8
8
b
9
6
7
7
6
5
6
5
3
6
a 6
a 3
l i .
6 7 6
6
a b
8
6
6 " 6
7
6
a 5
1 7
2
6
7
5
1
6
7
3 6
1 0
4
6
8
7
9
4
8
9
9
7
9
7
7
7
6
7
6
1 0
3
4
7
6
8
6
I C
8 3
6
4
a 7
9 7 9 a s 3
1 '
9
1
a
s 6
6
4
4
7
9
5 5 4
5
3
5
6
3
5
3
9
2
6
6
5
5
1 0
6
3
5
S
3
4
5
5
7
a i
l 6 S
6
3
6
3
" 5 ~ 1 5 3
B
8
8
1 9
1
S
4
6
4
2
3
3 4 4
4
3
9
2
3
2
4
4
5
3
2
5
5
7
6
5
4
2
1
4
S
6
1
3
a 4 8 3 2 3
3
a ~ i " l 3 3
4
9
3
1 ' 5 ~
6
6
4
4
4
5
4
6 4 3
7
7
3
5
3
a 4
2
5
3
5
7
5
3
5
3
6
2
a 5
4
6
3
4
ir> 6 3 3 3 3
5
a " 7
6 5 4
3
2
3
b " a "
4
4 4 4
1 0
5
5
8 4 5
7
6
5
5
3
8
2
1
3
3
2
5
5
3
S
6
5
2
3
4
4
6
T
7
4
5 7 6
IC 5
6
1 5 4
_ 2 6
a 2
3
1 4
1
1 2 1
3
1
4
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
3
1
3
4
2
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
2 3 1 2 1
1
3 2" I 3 1
4
4
2
5 5
1
3 1 2
1
4
4
1 1 1
4
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
4
1
4
2
1
5 3
2
2
3
3
1
1 1 1 5 1
1
1 2 " 2 V 4
5
2
1
5 5
1
2 1 2
1
5
4
2 2 1
5
3
4
1
I
4
1
1
I
1
5
3
1
4
1
4
2
1
5
3
2 3
4
4
1
3 1 1 3 3
1
3 "2 4
~ 3 ~ 5
5
7
1
5 4
1
4
4
3
4
2
2 3 3
5
3
4
1
4
4
1
1
I
1
4
3
1
4
5
4
2
3
b
3
2
S
4
4
1
1 1 1 4 3
1
3 3 4
~ 2 ~ 4
4
3
4
5 5
1
3 ~ 1
2
3
4
5
1 2 1
S
2
1
2
1
4
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
4
1
3
2
2
5
3
2
4
4
2
3
3 1 1 4 3
1
3 2 4
" 3 3
5
3
S
5 5
1
1 2~ 2
3
1
3
1 2 1
1
t 2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
4
1
3
4
3
b
3 3 4
3
5
1
1 1 1 5 4
1
3 4 3 3 4
4
3
4
5 5
1
2 1 1
5
2
5
1 1 1
5
3
3
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
S
3
1
5
1
4
5
2
b
3 4 S
5
5
2
4
1
b
4
1
2 4
3 3 5
4
2
5
5 5
4 . 1 2 5 0 5 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 5 . 4 3 7 5 4 . 0 6 2 S 5 . 4 3 7 5 6 . 1 2 5 0 S . 2 5 C 0 5 . I 2 S C 5 . 9 3 7 5 S . 7 5 0 0 4 . 4 3 7 5 6 . 4 3 7 5 4 . 8 7 5 0 4 . 7 5 0 0 6 . 5 0 0 C 4 . 8 7 5 0 5 . 9 3 7 5 6 . 8 1 2 5 4 . 8 7 5 0 6 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 6 2 5 0 S . 3 7 5 C 6 . 0 0 0 0 5 . 5 6 2 5 4 . 8 1 2 5 5 . 2 S C 0 5 . 5 6 2 5 3 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 5 . 0 6 2 5 5 . 5 0 0 0 6 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 1 8 7 5 4 . 8 7 5 0 5 . 3 1 2 5 4 . 4 3 7 5 " S .SO' -O S . 9 3 7 S 5 . 0 3 0 0
S . 6 2 5 r 5 . 3 1 2 5 s i s o c o 4 . 6 3 7 5 5 . 5 8 7 5 4 . 7 5 C 0 6 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 6 2 5 1 . 5 . T " 0 C
4 . 3 1 2 5 7 . 2 C " -
1
2 2 2
1
2 3 2 2 2
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
3
2
1
2
2
1
2 2 2
3
2
1
2 I " 2
2
2
2
2 2 1 2 1
3
2
2
1 3
2
2 " 2
2
2
2 2 2 2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3
3
3
3
3 3 3
3
3
3
3 3 3 3 1
1
1
1
1 1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
H CTi
S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S S Y S T E M
S »-E M
1 5 4
1 5 5
1 5 6
1 5 7
l i s 1 5 9
1 6 3
1 6 1
1 6 2
1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 5
1 6 6
1 6 7
1 5 8
1 6 9
1 7 0
1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 a
1 7 7
1 7 8
1 7 9
1 8 9
1 8 1
1 8 2
1 8 3
1 8 4
1 S 5
1 8 6
1 8 7
lsa 1 9 9
1 9 3
1 9 1
1 9 2
1 9 3
144 1 9 5
1 9 b
1 9 7
1 9 a
1 9 9
264 2 3 1
2" 2 2 C 3
2 5 4 "
1 5 7 1 1 5 8 I 1 5 9
1 6 0 1 1 6 1 1 1 6 2
1 6 3
1 6 4
1 6 S
1 6 6
1 6 7
1 6 8
1 7 0
1 7 1
1 7 2
1 7 3
1 7 4
1 7 5
1 7 6
1 7 7
1 7 8
1 7 9
1 8 C
i a i 1 8 2
1 8 3
1 8 4
1 8 5
1 8 6
1 3 7
taa 1 B 9
I 9 C
1 9 1
1 9 2
1 ° 3
1 9 4
1 9 5
1 9 6
1 9 7
1 9 8
1 9 9
" 2 " > 2 C 1
2 '2 y 3 2' 4 2 - 5
~ 2 i a 2 7 2 3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
t 2 2
2
1 2 2
2 2
1 2 2 2
2 2 o
2
2
1 2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 " 2
?
2 2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
2
2 9
2
2
?
2
1
?
2 o
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2 2
2
2 " 2
2
2
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
2 p
2
1
2 2
2 3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
2
6
6
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2 2 2
?
2 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
?
2
1
2
2
2
1
3
2
" b
2
2
2
2
6
6
4
4
6
2
6
4
2
5
a b
b
6
6
a 5
4
6
5
4
5
4
6
b 6 5
2
5 6 6
4
6
6
4
4
•>
6
2
a" a b 3
2
b
5
2
b
5
6
3
3
1
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1 3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
J
1
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
1
3
4
5
3
3
3
4
2
4
S
3
4
3
2
1
2
4
2
2
3
5
3
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
5
4
3
3
2 •a
2
3
3 • »
2
4
a 3
2
2
3
I C
a I C
s 7
3
a a 7
7
2
6
5
4
S
I C
7
e 1 0
e 6
1"< 3
6
6
e 4
1
a 8
4
5
b
4
a 6
5
a 8
a a
I -
7
B
5 6
3 ~
S
6
7
7
1 0
8
I C
6
1 0
6
I C
6
a 7
7
S
7
6
6
5
7
a 7
a 7
7
5
7
7
7
9
1
7
8
8
5
5
5
a 7
a 6
3
7
1
a e 3
7
•5
4
6
5
S
1 0
1
5
5
3
4
a 3
I C
7
7
a a 7
9
1
I C
9
9
a 4
I C
8
6
9
9
5
4
K
a a a 3 Q
a 9
a 1 *
5 a a
1
f
1
3
8
7 a 9
5
4
8
1
9
6
7
6
q
I C
6
9
9
a 7
a 5
l ^
6
6
2
1 0
4
5
9
5
e 5
6
4
3
6
6
5
3
5
9
7
3
1
5
3
9
1
3
3
6
7
3 "
3
7
6
2
9
1 0
8
5
8
4
6
1 1 -
6
7
2
s 3
4
6
1 0
4
a 7
6
3
i r 7
7
3
5
1 0
4
5
a 5
4
5
5
Q
6
5
1
S
3
5
3
7
3
5
a a 2
a
1
3
1
3
1
7
2
5
6
3
3
2
2
5
3
2
2
1
2
6
3
4
4
2
2
I f
3
4
5
7
3
1
2
2
3
2
4
5
3
1
3
3
2
5
1
3
b 3
3
6
6
3
a s a 5
2
4
7
9
a 9
1
0
7
6
6
7
9
a 3
6
5
1 3
9
3
3
a s 4
a 7
a 5
s a 5
7
4
a a 5
4
1
9
5
7
7
2
4
7
4
6
4
8
2
7
3
7
7
S
5
8
a 6
5
5
7
a 7
4
1
s s 5
a 6
5
7
6
1
5
3
7
7
6
6
5
a 5
1
6
3
4
I C
3
3
2
7
a 5
5
7
7
9
1
2
5
7
7 a 3
6
5
7
7
5
4
7
1 0
3
9
9
9
6
1
3
3
4
8
1 3
4
4
6
7
6
1
4
" s -
7
4
3
- 1
4
3
1
4
S
5
6
7
4
1
a 3
1
1
2
4
a 5 5 6
2
6
I
6
6
2
4
4
3
6
2
6
4
3
2
3
4
6
1 0
4
2
3
3
4
a 3
6
5
3
4
S
4
2
2
a 1
a 4
7
4
i t
4
9
1 0
I C
9
s I
7 3 6
9
5
8
5
6
8
9
1 0
8
3
1
3
S
6
8
8
7
3
6
7
6
8
6
6
9
3
6
5
6
9
6
7
5
9
6
9
a 7
8
7
3
2
5
i r 6
9
6
2
4 7 4
7
5
1 3
6
4
5
6
1
a s
I C
5
5
1 :
7
7
4
2
5
1
9
a 7
9
I C
9
4
7
7
I C
3
7
5
9
2
7
3
3
9
6
7
8
5
a a 9
7
7
3 4 7
7
6
1
4
a 5
4
4
9
9
4
6
5
7
8
5
6
a 1 0
4
5
5
7
4
6
7
4
6
6
1
7
1
5
1 '
3
1
3
5
3
4
9
5
2
2
6
3
6
9
3 6 5
4
5
1
6
3
4
3
3
9
4
1
7
3
1
3
6
5
2
6
7
4
5
2
4
6
8
7
4
5
9
3
7
4
1
9
5
3
3
2
a 2
2
4
2
1 3
3
6
B
3 5 4
4
5
2
6
3
4
4
9
a 5
2
7
3
1
8
5
4
3
a 2
2
6
4
5
3
2
5
4
b
H
b
3
6
1 -7
I
3
a a 4
3
8
5
2
3
1
4 7 5 3 5
7
7
I
5
4
S
2
7
2
6
7
3
8
1
2
7
7
2
5
4
1
6
6
3
2
5
6
3
4
1
5
4
5
1
7
1
7
4
5
6
7
5
3
3
5
4
2 3 1 1 1
3
2
1
1
4
2
2
2
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
5
2
2
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
4
1
2
4
1
4
1
1
1
1
5
3
1
4
4
2 1 1 3 3
1
3
5
3
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
5 3 2
1 1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
5
2
5
4
4
3 I 2 3 4
2
2
S
3
1
2
I
1
4
4
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
I
3
4 1 2
1
3
2
3
2
2
1
1
2
I
4
3
4
? 2
2
2
4
1
1
3
4
4 5 1 3 4
3
3
5
1
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
3
1
1 1 1
1
1
2
1
3
4 2 2
1
* 3
3
3
3
2
S
2
4
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
4
2
3
5
4
4 3
3
4
3
3
S
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
I
3
1
1 1 1
1
1
3
I
2
5 1 2
I
2
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
2
4
2
b
P
1
1
1
S
2
S
5
2
4 2 2 3 3
4
4
1
1
4
1
2
1
1
3
4
2
3
1 1 1
2
1
2
1
1
4 3 3
1
1
1
3
2
1
1
4
2
I
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
5
2 1 5
S
4 4 2 2 4
1
4
5
2
4
4
1
5
1
3
1
2
1
1 1 1
1
1
2
1
1
4 1 2
1
1
3
3
1
I
1
2
3
2
4
3
2
?
1
1
1
4 . 8 7 5 0 4 . 6 2 5 0 6 . 5 0 0 0 5 . 5 6 2 5 5 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 5 6 2 5 6 . 0 0 0 0 4 . 7 5 0 0 6 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 8 7 5 0 6 . 1 8 7 5 6 . 2 5 0 0 4 . 3 1 2 5 6 . 1 8 7 5 5 . 2 5 0 3 4 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 3 1 2 5 6 . 2 5 0 0 6 . 6 8 7 5
6 . 3 7 5 0 4 . 8 7 5 0 6 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 0 0 0 0 5 . 5 6 2 5 5 . 7 S 0 0 5 . 8 7 5 0 5 . S 0 C 0 5 . 4 3 7 5 6 . S 7 S C 3 . 6 8 7 5 5 . 1 2 5 0 6 . C " 0 0 s.sooo 5 . 1 2 5 0 5 . 3 7 5 0 5 . 1 8 7 5 6 . 1 8 7 5 6 . 0 0 0 C 5 . 3 1 2 5 5 . 0 6 2 5 5 . 6 2 5 0 4 . 8 7 S C 5 . 1 2 5 ? S . 6 2 5 C 6 . 6 8 7 5 4 . 3 1 2 5 4 . 6 2 5 v 6 . C C C 3 5 . 1 8 7 S 4.5<"C ) 6 . 5 6 2 5
1
1 3 2
2
2 3
3
2
3
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
3
1
3
2
2 2 2
2
2
3
1
2
3 2 2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1 1 1
1
1 1
~-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
t 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
1 c 3 V I 3
3
S T A T I S T I C A L A N A L Y S I S S Y S T E M
6 R T W E N H M m M m M M P
TJ Y O S E A L S S S S S S S E R » I P U E W T G 1 E G G G G G G G A S B V 1 5 I f> X S M £ G D A B C 6 E F G H i J K L 5 N 5 P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N N L C
M S 2 * 6 2 # 7 M O
I I I a i t 211 2 1 2 * 1 3 2 1 4
2IS 2 1 6
217 2 1 S 2 1 9 2 2 0
221 2 2 2
223
2 0 9 2 1 0
i l l 2 1 2
213 2 1 4
21S 2 1 6 2 1 7 2 1 0
219 2 2 0
221 2 2 2
223 2 2 4
225 2 2 6
227
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1 1 1
1
2 2 2 1
2 1
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
2
2 2 2 2
2 1
2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2 2 2
3 2 2 3
2 3 6 1 2 2
3 2
2 2 2 2 3 2
2
4 6 6 6
5 5
6 4 6 6
2 5 6 6 5 6 5 5 S
3 3 3 1
3 1 1 3 3 3
1 1 3 3
3 3 1 3
3
3 4 2 2
3 3
3 3 2 4
2 2
3 5 3 4
3 4 5
6 6 6 4 6 7 S
a 7 3
9 3 8 3 6 7 6 9 7
8 7 5 6 5 7 6 9 7 7
7 5 9 7
7 8 6 9
7
1 0 1 0
7
a 5 9 4 8 3 6
S 5 3 8
a 9 6
1 0 7
7 7 S 3 5 a 6 6 7 7
a 5 7 5 6 6 8
1 0 1 6
3 3 7 8
7 9 S 7 7 3
a 4 6 3 5 7 4
1 0 4
2 4 5 2 4 1 8 2 6 4 4 6 8 3 3 2 5 7 8
1 0 8 6 3 6 9 7 a 5 4
9 4
. 4 4 8 a 6 9 8
9 8 7 4 5 5 6 3 S 6 6
• 4 4 7 6 4 7
0
2 3 7 9 5 3 S 3 5 3
4 5 4 a. 8 4 4 9 8
2 3 4
* 4 3 3 2 7 2 8 4 6 3 4 a s 3
7
9 7 7 5
7 7 7 8 4 8
4 7 3 7 S 7 5 9 4
9 8 6 6 6 5 6 9 4 4
10 4 3 4 8 4 6 8 8
S 9 4 3 4 9 4 7 7 6
1 4 8 4 3 6 5 9 2
6 2 4 6 S 7 5 5 3 3
1 7 3 4 3 7 4 3 3
5 3 6 3 6 3 6 4 6 3
id 5 9 3 S 6 5 8 3
2 3 5 3 4 7 6 3 5 7
2 7 8 5 4 4 2 3 5
1 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 3 1
1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1
4 2 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 1
2 2 1 2 2 3 1 I 2
3 2 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 1
s 1 1 3 3 4 2 4 2
3 2 1 1 2 1 2 3 3 1
2 2 3 2 2 3 1 2 2
3 2 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1
4 3 3 2 3 3 1 2 2
1 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 1
3 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 1
1 3 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
3 4 4 3 2 3 1 2 1
5 . 9 3 7 5 5 . 6 0 7 5 5 . 6 0 7 5 4 . 0 1 2 5 5 *2500 6 . 1 8 7 5 5 * 5 6 2 5 5*7500 5 . 5 0 0 0 4 . 7 5 0 0 6 * 6 2 5 0 5 * 0 6 2 5 5 * 8 1 2 5 4 * 6 8 7 5 5 *6250 6 . 1 8 7 5 5 *0625 7 . 6 0 7 5 6 . 1 0 7 5
2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
T 3
00
119
VITA
Mary Bordelon Blalock was born the fifth day of
February, 1941, in Alexandria, Louisiana, to Curtis Mark and
Gertrude Irving Bordelon. She is the second of two children.
In May of 1958, she was graduated from Providence
Central High School in Alexandria, and in the fall of 1958,
she entered the University of Southwestern Louisiana in
Lafayette, Louisiana, and began work leading toward the
degree of Bachelor of Science in Business Administration. In
August, 1959, she married Paul Joseph Blalock, Jr., and began
work at Phillips Petroleum Company in Lafayette. February,
1962, she resumed studies at the University of Southwestern
Louisiana, and in May, 1963, received her bachelor's degree
in formal exercises.
Immediately following this, she began work at Humble
Oil & Refining Company, Lafayette, and was employed there
until February, 1964, at which time she removed to the Univer
sity of Southwestern Louisiana to teach Secretarial Science
until August, 1964. She enrolled in the Graduate School of
Louisiana State University in September, 1964, and began
graduate work toward the degree of Master of Science in the
field of Marketing. She received a Master of Science in
Marketing,and a Bachelor of Science in Business Education and
120
Distributive Education in exercises in August, 1967.
She has worked full-time and part-time with Gulf
South Research Institute in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in the
field of Economics. She has taught Office Administration
at Louisiana State University first as a graduate assistant
and later as an Instructor for a total of five years.
At present, she is a candidate for a Doctor of Philos
ophy degree in Management at Louisiana State University.
Currently, she is an Assistant Professor of Business Adminis
tration at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond,
Louisiana, where she has been since 1970. She is also the
Co-president of International Business Consultants of Baton
Rouge.
EXAMINATION AND THESIS REPORT
Candidate: Mary Borde lon B l a l o c k
Major Field: Management
Title of Thesis: The Use o f K i n e s i c s i n E s t a b l i s h i n g and D e t e r m i n i n g Meaning i n S u p e r i o r - S u b o r d i n a t e Communications
Approvejj
Date of Examination:
October 2 5 , 1973
EXAMINING COMMITTEE:
£^*^ &/yi"£
M-4_^[ ^<^Wyv^^6uy>