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.

1.The sign or "target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Paga(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 it 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 comer 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 Zoob Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 49109 .cn.- ^'i ■»

74-24,361 LONDON, Manuel, 1949- THE EFFECTS OF PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATIC N ON GROUP PROCESS AND OUTCOME. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1974 Psychology, Industrial

I University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan '

© Copyright by Manuel London 197^

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. THE EPPECTS OP PARTICIPATION AND INFORMATION ON GROUP PROCESS AND OUTCOME

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate Sohool of The Ohio State University

by Manuel London, A .B ., M.A. *#**•*■

The Ohio State University 197^

Reading Committeei Approved by ♦ Dr. Milton D. Hakel Dr. Riehard J. Klimoski Dr. George L. Smith Dr. W. Bruce Walsh Dr. Robert J. Wherry, Sr Adviser Department of Psychology CKNOWLEDGKENTS In the summer o f 1973 , a team of two engineers and seven social sclenti sts at Ohio State University began work on a project ai med at developing an interface between engineering and the social sciences. This project was sponsored by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, I was hired as a res earch associate to aid in the evaluation of the project team. The need for the assess­ ment of interdisciplinary group process served as the impetus for the present study. It must be acknowledged that all nine faculty members, while herteogeneou3 In discipline, were horn ogeneous in the help and encouragement I received. Several members of the Sloan team deserve special thanks, I owe deep appreciation to Professors Richard J. Klimoski, George L. Smith, and W. Bruce Walsh. Their interest in my ideas and willingness to see them to fruition enhanced my enthusiasm for the scientific endeavor and the search for tfruth. I am endebted to Drs. Milton D. Hakel and Robert J. W herry, S r. f o r much of the substance of ray graduate training. Dr, Michae T. Wood provided the inspiration for «this study. I shall hlways value their acquaintance as friends and colleagues. Thanks also go to my research assistants, William E, Byrley, Jack Green, Donna Gutentag, and Terry Huyck. The completion of this study is due in great part to their commitment. M.L. ii VITA

August 10, 19^9,...... Born - Boston, Massachusetts I 9 7 I ...... A.B., Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 1971-197 2 ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1972* ...... M.A., Industrial/Organizational Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1972. ..Research Assistant, Nationwide Research Center, Nationwide Insurance Company, Columbus, Ohio 1972-1973* • * * ...... Teaching Associate, Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1973-197^* * Research Associate, Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PAPERS The development and application of a model of long-term group process for the study of interdisciplinary teams. Unpublished manuscript. The Ohio State University, 197^* (W ith W.B. W alsh) The effects of ideal and expected stereotypes on interviewers and type, order, and favorability of information in the selection interview. Unpublished Masters Thesis. The Ohio State University, 1972. The effects of perceived job complexity on performance and satisfaction. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management. Boston, Massachusetts, August, 1973. The nature of job complexity. Personnel Psychology. 197**, in press. (V/ith R.J. Klimoski) The role of the rater in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology. 197*1-» in press. (V/ith R.J. Klimoski)

iii S e lf - e s teem and job complexity as moderators of attitudes towa: 'd work and effectiveness as seen by self, supe ^visors, and peers. Proceedings of the 81st Annu; til Convention- of the American Psychological Associationtion, Montreal. Canada, 1973# Vol71, 599-600.

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field* Industrial/Organizational Psychology Studies in Individual Effectiveness, Organizational Effectiveness , Human M o tiv a tio n , T h e o re tic a l Developments and Issues, Research Mehtods, and Socio- Technical Systems, Professors Milton D. Hakel, Michael T. Wood, and Richard J. Klimoski. Studies in Essentials of Psychological Testing, Laboratory in the Measurement of Individual Effective­ ness;, Merit Rating, Laboratory in Attitude and Morale Scales. Professors Fred Damarin, Milton D. Hakel, Robert J. Wherry, S r., and Thomas M. Ostrora. Studies in Univariate and M ultivariate Statistics, Professors Paul Isaac, Robert J. Wherry, S r., and Georgp Briggs, Studies in Manpower and Industrial Relations, Formal Organizational Theory, Analysis of Organizational Theory. Professors Paul Andrisani, Charles Hicks, and Ralph M. Stogdill. Studies in History and Systems of Psychology, Decision Processes, and Group Dynamics, Professors David Hothersall, James A, Wise, and Richard J. Klimoski.

iv TABLE OP CONTENTS Pago

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... i l VITA...... i l l LIST OF...... TABLES...... ix LIST OF...... FIGURES...... x iv C h ap ter I . INTRODUCTION...... 1 I I . BACKGROUND...... 5 Group Decision Making and the Power Equalization Hypothesis 5 The relationship between management and the worker* Factors leading to participative decision making 8 Empirical tests of the power equalization hypothesis 14- Conditions for the success of participative decision making 20 The Nature of Small Groups 27 Defining a group 2? A systems model of group process 29 Determinants of group productivity 32 Effects of task demands on group process and outcome 34- Stages of group decision making 39 Elements of group composition* Information and role 4-6 The Personal Environment $6 Least preferred coworker 57 Interpersonal risk 63

v Page

Self-esteem and Internal-external c o n tr o l 6? Summary 70 I I I . FOCUS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH...... 72 Input Parameter It Level of Participation 72 Input Parameter II* Information Homogeneity 78 Interaction of Information Homogeneity and Level of Participation 80 Input Parameter IIIi Personal Characteristics 83 IV. METHOD...... 86 Subjects 86 Group Task 88 P ro ced u re 89 Individual Difference Measures 92 Dependent Measures 9^ Data Analysis 100 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...... 10** Characteristics of the Sample 105 Biographical data 105 Attitudes toward the three reference groups 105 Treatment Effectiveness 110 Effects of Participation and Information on Group Outcome 119 Effectiveness 119 Influence 131

vi Page

Satisfaction 141 Commitment 146 Shift in risk taking tendency 149 Effects of Participation and Information on Group Process 155 Interaction process analysis 155 Group cohesiveness 164 Group atmosphere 168 Effects of Type of Information on Group Process and Outcome 174 Relationship between Personality Characteristics and Group Process and Outcome 136 Group atmosphere as a moderator of the relationship between LPC and peroeived effectiveness 186 Internal-external control as a moderator of the relationship between self-esteem and effectiveness 191 Problems with personality traits as predictors of group process and outcome 194 Canonical Analyses of Predictors and Criteria 197

V I. SUMMARY jIND IMPLICATIONS, 208 Implications for Interdisciplinary Task Forces 216 Suggestions for Future Research 218 APPENDIX A. TEXT OF TAPED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS AND LECTURE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 225 B. INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION, 228

vii Page C. POST INDIVIDUAL DECISION FEEDBACK FORKS...... 260 D. POST DISCUSSION FEEDBACK FORMS...... 26? E. BIODATA FORM AND PERSONALITY MEASURES...... 290 F . DISTRIBUTION OF BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN TREATMENT GROUPS...... 303 G. MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES WITHIN PREDICTOR AND CRITERION SETS 33^ REFERENCES...... 363

Viii LIST OP TABLES TABLE Page 1. Majors represented In the sample ...... 87 2 . Experimental design...... 102 3. Means and standard deviations of attitude > toward the reference groups for information and participation c ' ‘‘. conditions ...... 107 4. Analysis of variance for the relation­ ship between attitudes toward the reference groups and the experimental variables ...... 108

5. Attitudes of subjects within the heterogeneous-incomplete information grodpiI*..*...... 109 6 . Treatment effectiveness! Means and standard deviations of perceived participation in the generation s ta g e ...... 111

7* Treatment effectiveness! Means and standard deviations of perceived participation in the evaluation s t a g e ...... 112 8. Treatment effectiveness! Means and standard deviations of perceived participation in the final choice s t a g e ...... 112 9. Treatment effectiveness! Means and standard deviations of perceived "overall*1 participation ...... 113 10. Treatment effectiveness! Means and standard deviations of perceived degree to which information possessed supported one side of the problem... 113 11. Treatment effectiveness! Means and Btandard deviations of perceived difference in information among g roup members ...... 114

ix TABLE Page 12. Treatment effectiveness* Means and standard deviations of degree to which a group member fe lt he knew as much in fo rm a tio n a s everyone e l s e ...... 1W 13. Treatment effectiveness* Means and standard deviations of perceived equality of the importance of infor­ mation possessed by group members... 115 14. Treatment effectiveness* Means and standard deviations of perceived degree to which group was stymied for lack of information ...... 120 15* Means and standard deviations for the number of sites generated by each g ro u p ...... 120 16. Analysis of variance for the effects of information and participation on the number of sites chosen by each g ro u p ...... 120 17. Mean quality 6f individual decisions.•• 121 18. Quality of sites generated ...... 122 19. Quality of sites chosen ...... 123 20. Uniqueness of sites generated ...... 124 21. Effectiveness of item key ...... 125 22. Hierarchical factor analysis of effectiveness items ...... 126 2 3 . Intercorrelations of effectiveness m e asu res...... 127 24. Means and standard deviations for measures of effectiveness 129 25. Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on measures of effectiveness...... 130 26. Correlations of self and peer ratings of influence with total scores 132

x TABLE Page 27. Intercorrelations among Influence m easu res...... 134 28. Means and standard deviations of Likert scale measures of influence•• 136 29. Analyses of variance for effects of information and participation on Likert scale measures of influence.. 137 30..' Satisfaction item key ...... 142 31. Hierarchical factor analysis of satisfaction items ...... 143 32. Intercorrelations of satisfaction m e asu res ...... 144 33. Means and standard deviations of overall satisfaction*...... 14-5 34. Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on overall satisfaction ...... 145 35. Intercorrelations among commitment m e asu re s...... 14? 3 6 . Means and standard deviations of commitment measures ...... 148 37• Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on commitment measures ...... 149 38. Frequency of those willing to have their names given to the power commissions as proponents of the outcome of the group discussion 150 39* Means and s ta n d a rd d e v ia tio n s o f th e maximum p r o b a b ili ty o f a n u c le a r disaster...... 153 40. Bales^interaction process analysis categories ...... 156 41. Intercorrelations among IPA response percentages ...... * ...... 158

xi TABLE Page 42. Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on average IPA response percentages.... 160 43. Correlations of items with total score for how the group compardd with other teams ...... 165 44. Intercorrelations among cohesiveness m e a s u r e s 165 45. Means and standard deviations for cohesiveness measures ...... 166 46. Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on cohesiveness measures ...... I 67 47. Fiedler*s group atmosphere item key.... 169 48. Hierarchical factor analysis of group atmosphere items ...... 169 49. IntercorrelationB among group atmosphere m e a su re s...... 170 50. Means and standard deviations for group atmosphere measures ...... 172 51. Analyses of variance for the effects of information and participation on group atmosphere measures ...... 173 32. Frequency of selecting different types of information as among the ten most important to the individual decision and group discussion...... 177 53• Frequency of items chosen as first and tenth among the pieces of information judged to be most important to the individual decision ...... 179 54. Frequency of items chosen as first and tenth among the pieces of information judged to be most important to the group discussion. • * ...... 180

xii TABLE Page 55. Means, standard deviations, and F values for the effects of type of information possessed by members of groups within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition on variables of treatment effectiveness ...... 182 5 6 . Means, standard deviations, and P values for the effects of type of information possessed by members of groups w ithin the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition for .th 6 ..dependent variables 183 57. Frequency of willingness to have one*s name g iv e n to th e power com m issions as a proponent of the outcome of the group discussion for type of infor­ mation possessed by those in the heterogeneous-incomplete information c o n d itio n ...... 185 58. Fiedler's least preferred coworker item k e y ...... 188 59. Hierarchical factor analysis of LPC s c a l e ...... I 89 60. Intercorrelations among LPC measures... 190 61. Relationships between LPC scores and dimensions of effectiveness for high, medium, and low group atmosphere factors ...... 192 62. Internal-external control as a moderator of the relationship between self­ esteem and effectiveness ...... 193 6 3 . Schema for coding independent variables for canonical analyses.... 201 6*t. Summary of canonical analyses ...... 202 65. Canonical coefficients for the first variate set composed of all p r e d i c t o r s ...... 205

xiii LIST OP FIGURES FIGURE Page 1. Systems model of group process ...... 31 2. Graph of the mean levels of total Influence for information and participation conditions ...... 138 3. Average IPA response percentages (expressed in arcsin scores) for information and participation conditions ...... * ...... 163

xiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Two branches of theory dealing with individuals in organizations have made the study of group decision making pertinent to industrial/organizational psychologists. One branch represents the humanistic perspective of man in the work setting. Epitomized in the writings of Argyris (196*0, Likert (I 96 I), McGregor (i 960 ), and Maslow (196*0, this approach posits that man seeks self-actualization, a sense of meaning and accomplishment in his life . When an employee is granted a certain amount of autonomy in performing his job, his commitment to organizational goals and effort in pursuit of these goals should be enhanced (Schein, 1970). An organization operating under this assumption w ill tend toward "power equalization* (Leavitt, 1962). Group decision making should facilitate the accomplishment of organizational objectives by allowing Individuals at lower levels of the organizational hierarchy to meaningfully participate in the process of goal attainment. The second influence bringing group decision making to the forefront stems from the organizational theories of Burns and Stalker (I 96 I), Lawrence and Lorsch ( 1967 )* Perrow (1970), and Thompson (I 9 6 7 ). According to these authors, the organization must become organic and adaptive 2 In the face of an increasingly turbulent environment. As a result, organizations may one day be characterized as temporary, constantly changing, problem-centered systems (Bennis, 1970). Problems will be solved by groups of strangers representing a diverse set of professional skills. Thus, group decision making w ill be necessitated by the complexity of the organization functioning in a rapidly changing environment. Furthermore, many of the groups in organizations w ill be heterogeneous w ith respect to the expertise of the members. The prescription that the responsibility for decision making should be delegated to groups of experts a t lower levels of the organization raises several questions. First, how w ill the heterogeneity of information possessed by different members within a group affect the ab ility of the group to solve problems efficiently? The group must not be hampered by difficulties in communication9 lack of cooperation, minimizing interpersonal conflict at the expense of high quality decisions, and other such process losses. Second, w ill the extent to which a group is allowed to participate in the decision making process determine member influence, satisfaction, commitment to * decisions, the quality of the decisions, and the interaction among the group members in arriving at an outcome? Finally, how does an individual's ability to function effectively in a social setting affect the extent to which participative decision making will accomplish the goal of integrating individual and .organizational goals? Certain personality characteristics may predispose a person to he effective in interacting with others. Individuals who do not believe themselves to be able to adequately meet their own needs or believe all their actions are controlled by others may hinder the group decision making process. The present study is concerned with group decision making under various conditions of participation and information possessed by group members. The literature review which follows examines the roots of the power equalization hypothesis. Studies of groups participating to different degrees in the decision making process w ill be discussed. This w ill lead to hypotheses related to three degrees of group participation! (1) generation of alternative solutions, (2) generation and evaluation of the alternatives, and (3) generation, evaluation, and making the final choice. Literature dealing with the effects of member resources on group process and outcome w ill be examined. The negotiation literature will be drawn upon - to place the present study in the perspective of studies dealing with the effects of member knowledge and goals. Hypotheses related to two information conditions w ill be set forth. In one condition, each member possesses different and incomplete information about a problem. In the second, each member possesses the same and complete information. In the incomplete, heterogeneous information condition, group members have the potential of combining the disparate information held by the members to arrive at a decision. The homogeneous group can use a ll the information to arrive at a sim ilar decision without the necessity of the communication of information. This study allows a comparison of the differential effectiveness of the two typeB of information conditions at different levels of participative decision making. In addition to the variables of information homogeneity and extent of participation the potential effects of individual differences on group decision making must be recognized. It is possible that an experimental differential analysis w ill explain more variance in group behavior than either component alone (HUnt, 1965l Vroom & Yetton, 1973I

W e in ste in & Hoizbach, 1973)* Four variables w ill be reviewed as to their relevance to the group decision making processt least preferred coworker (Fiedler, 1967) $ interpersonal risk (Lundstedt, 1966), self-esteem (Korman, 1970), and internal-external locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Reasons for the selection of these variables w ill be given and hypotheses will be Bet forth detailing their relationships to the behavior of group members and resulting group outcome. CHAPTER I I BACKGROUND

Group Decision Making and the Power Equalization Hypothesis

Two opposing views of the relation of man to society are that of the Stoics and the Epicureans. The former believe that man is basically evil and social organization is necessary for the subjugation of his aggressive, selfish, and exploitive tendencies. The latter view holds that man is basically good and that his impulses and desires deserve free expression. Whereas the Stoics believe that civiliza­ tion would be impossible without group standards, social values, laws, and other means of controlling behavior, Epicureans hold that organizations corrupt and inhibit the individual by requiring blind conformity encouraging mediocrity, generating regressive dependency, and clinging irrationally to the status quo (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Thede two viewpoints are characterized in McGregor*s ( i 960 ) Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X represents the traditional organizational theory of Scientific Management or Taylorism which assumes that man is lazy, has a distaste for work, needs to be coerced, and tries to do the least amount of work for the most money. The latter view, espoused by ArgyriB (1964), Herzberg (1966), Maslow (1964), 5 and others* holds the inverse of the above assumptions of man* Theory Y views man as a responsible individual* desirous of achievement and self-fulfillm ent through his work and wanting to control his own destiny. Work is not a necessary evil which must be endured to achieve. other ends. The power and status differential between supervisors and subordinates is not necessary and* to the extent that it is reduced* the higher level needs of organizational members become fulfilled and the effectiveness of the organization increased. Leavitt (I 9 62 ) has termed this "power equalization," a notion that has grown out of the human relations movement as.a further reaction to the emphasis of scientific management and bureaucratic principles of programmed work* £igid hierarchical control* and high degrees of specialization. Participation is viewed as a means of permitting subordinates to take part in the decision making process and thus to enlist individual creativity and enthusiasm (Strauss* 1963). Due to the nature of the organization* participation has come to manifest itself in building up the power of groups rather than individuals. The work group has been defined as "a purposeful collective effort deriving from the psychological attributes and behavioral actions of the particular ' individuals who comprise the group" (Quey* 1971* P. 1077). Work is purposeful in that it is intended to satisfy human needs through the production of economic goods and services. It involves physical and/or mental activity and ie basically an individual nongroup activity* Due to the complexity of modern technology and the necessity of large volume production and distribution of goods and services to vast numbers of a widely dispersed population, work no longer occurs in isolated Individual settings but rather in organized groups. Thus, both, psychological attributes and behavioral activities affect and are affected by work purposes and the group iraperitive—the necessity of consensus or at least.’cooperation* The conflicting views of the Stoics and Epicureans have been represented in contemporary discussions of the recent upsurge of organizational development and group

dynamics (Cartwright & Zander, 1968). Whyte (1956), for instance, has stated that the "organization man" has been encouraged by those who deify the group and that this has led to the notions that everything must be done by and in groups, that individual responsibility and man-to-man supervision is bad and only group decisions, group think, and togetherness are good. That is, individual man is imperfect but the group is omnicient and omnipotent. The j view to be taken in the current study, however, is that the group is of the utmost importance to the individual. Groups can satisfy individuals* needs for affiliation, self-esteem, achievement, and self-actualization which have oome to be recognized as basic for a happy and fulfilling life. Although both good and bad consequences may result from group processes, it is necessary to study the group in an effort to inorease our knowledge of social institutions as well as human behavior. In this way, the desirable consequences of group activity can be deliberately en h an ced •

The relationship between management and the worker t Pactors leading to participative decision making in organ!gations The philosophical positions on the nature of man prevailing at different points in history have provided the justification for the particular organizational and political system of the time. Schein (1970) presents four such positions in terms of the assumptions they hold about, the nature of man. The first set of assumptions, in order of historical appearanae is "rational-economic man." This viewpoint has been expressed in the philosophy of hedonism which comprises a "felicit calculus," to use Jeremy Bentham's term. Man calculates the actions that w ill maximize his self-interest and he behaves accordingly. More recently, studies have tried to show that man maximizes the expected v a lu e o r s u b je c tiv e ex p ected u t i l i t y (SEU) o f a l t e r n a t i v e s available to him by taking into account the probabilities and values of these alternatives (cf«, Vroom, 196*+). ’.Rational-economic man corresponds to McGfegor*s (i 960 ) 9 Theory X, Mon is motivated by economic incentives which are under the control of the organization* The organization motivates and controls the individual to neutralize his basically irrational feelings which may interfere with his rational calculation of self-interest and at the same time bring about the organization's goals* Those few individuals who are self-motivated, self-controlled, and less dominated by their feelings assume the management responsibilities for all others. In Etzioni's (1961) terms, the organization assumes the calculative involvement of the employee whose services and obedience is purchased through economic rewardB. Classical organizational theory holds that authority rests in designated positions or offices and the employee is expected to obey whoever occupies the office regardless of his expertise or personality. Technically, the power base is legitimate or rational-legal although by necessity, it must rest partially on coercion (Etzioni, 1961» French & Raven, 1968). Theorists such as Fayol (19^9), who wrote 50 years ago, emphasized a scalar chain of command as necessary to maintain sim plistic unity of command and direction. Gulick (1937) prescribed a network of subdivisions of labor connected by a hierarchical system of authority, with the chief executive vested with the primary, decision making powers* Weber's (1930) bureaucratic organizational theory aimed to minimize conflict and maximize productivity through a stric t chain of command with power centralized at the top of the organizational pyramid and with monetary rewards guaranteeing the loyalty of the employees in the various power boxes below. According to this managerial strategyt the principal functions of the manager are to

plan, organize9 motivate, and control (Koontz & O'Donnell, l 96 *t). Management's responsibility for the feelings and morale of the employees are secondary. The only precursor of employee participation concepts to come from this MclassiclstM era of organizational theory is the position h e ld by P o l l e t t (M edcalf & U rw ick, 19*f-2). She s u g g e s te d that authority stems from cooperation rather than vice versa and recognized the importance of interaction and cooperation between power bases within the organization. The results of the Hawthorne studies (Mayov 19*1-9 1 Rothllsberger & Dickson, 1939), conducted in the late 1920's and early 3 0's brought about a second set of assumptions which characterize what Schein terms "social man." In contrast to the classicist position of power centrallzation9 attention was drawn to the fact that in determining work patterns, the need to be accepted and liked by one's fellow workers is as or more important than the economic incentives offered by management. Man, in fact, w ill handle the threat which competition implies due to the possibility of failure by banding together to resist the threat. Whyte (1956), for example, found that the group pressure slowed down rate busters either through 11 ostricism or mild physical force. Triot and Bamforth (1951) found that workers resisted a new mechanised method of coal mining which disbanded pre-established work groups and eliminated contact with other workers. The view of man as a social animal, then* holds that hd is motivated basically by social needs and obtains his basic sense of identity through his relationships with others. For the employee to respond to management, supervisors must meet the social needs and needs for acceptance of the subordinates. Otherwise, the worker is more responsive to the social forces of the peer group than to the incentives and controls of management. These assumptions imply that the manager must give more attention to the needs of the employees working for him. Rather than concern for motivating and controlling employees, he must worry about the feelings of his subordinates, particularly in regard to acceptance and senBe of belonging and identity. The manager must concentrate on group incentives rather than individual incentives. Finally, the manager's primary functions are no longer planning, organizing, motivating, and controlling. Now he must listen and attempt to understand the. needs and feelings of his subordinates, showing consideration for their needs and feelings. The manager becomes the facilitator and sympathetic supporter with the initiative for work shifting from management to the worker. It was suggested by Mayo (19^5)* as an assumption of social man* that the techniques of mass production and automation of the industrial revolution have taken the meaning out of work itself* and meaning must;, therefore be sought in the social relationships on the job. This state­ ment implies that man has needs which can be satisfied by the work itself* but because this avenue is closed* the worker must revert to the social group. This idea is a forerunner of the set of assumptions which comprise Mself- actualizing man,** According to Sohein* these assumptions specify just what needs are satisfied by the group and those which are satisfied by the work itself* formulating a hierarchy of needs including'physiological* safety* Social* egoistic* and self-actualization needs. According to Maslow (196*0* man workB to satisfy these needs* the needs are hierarchically prepotent (a need becomes operative only when those below it have been satisfied)* and satisfied needs do not motivate behavior. Tests of this theory have demonstrated the importance of higher level needs and differential opportunities for their fulfillment* (Hall &* Nougaim* 1968f Lawler little *'1972 1 P o rte r* 196 *1-1 P o r te r & Lawler* 1969 ). However* these studies have supported only a two-step hierarchy of motives with physiological and safety needs at the lower end and social* esteem* and self-actualization needs at the upper end. Alderfer ( 1969 ) has suggested three broad categories of human needs 13 which parallel Maslow*s need hierarchy. A lderfer's tricho­ tomy involves the needs of existence (physiological and safety), relatedness (social and esteem), and growth (self-actualization).*

Argyris (1957# 19 W holds that self-actualization is a complex motive comprised of psychological success, self- awareness, control, independence, activity, personality growth, high aspiration levels, deep interests, and long time perspectives. The bureaucratic organization, with its task specialization, rigid chains of command, and narrow spans of control, thwarts any movement toward self- actualization. According to Schein, the applied strategy for management is as followsi The manager must try to make the work of his subordinates more challenging and meaningful and worry less about being considerate to employees. Authority, rather than being in the office or the man, is in the task itself. Motivation is no longer extrinsic in the sense that the organization does something to arouse motivation, but rather.it .is intrinsic in that the organization provides an opportunity for the employee's existing motivation to be used to bring about organizational goals. According to Argyris, this can be brought about

1 V ~~ 1 ■ p 11,1 1 11 Schneider and Alderfer (1973) suggest that the reason why Maslow's concepts have not received empirical validation in the organizational literature is because the constructs were .neither' adequately defined nor ope c ifically designed to be tested with outcomes from organizational participation The authors find more evidence of construct validity for the ERG scales than the scales measuring the needs of Maslow's h ie r a r c h y . lfc

through laboratory training in interpersonal competence, job enrichment, and reality-centered leadership as well as group decision making (QDM) or participative decision making (PDM). While an individual can be given the opportunity for achievement, responsibility, recognition for a job well done, and autonomy, these aspects of self-actualization can also be increased through group decision making involving issues relevant to the participant's work roles•

Empirical tests of the power equalization hypothesis There are a relatively large number of experiments In the literature which purport to show a positive relation­ ship between participative decision making, often using group methods, and productivity and job satisfaction. An early study in the area of social psychology was performed by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) to test the effects of autocratic, democratic, and laissez falre leadership on group productivity. Pour groups of 11 year old boys were observed engaging in hobby-related activities under a leader trained to play each type of leadership role. The autocratic leader determined all policy for the group, diotating techniques and actions. The democratic leader allowed the group members to determine matters of policy and work with whomever they chose. The laissez faire leader gave the group complete freedom to make its own

2See Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, & Weick, 1 9 7 0 , and Wood, 1973# for more complete reviews. decisions supplying m aterials and information when asked* The results showed no reliable difference in the number of products produced, but the products of the democratic group were judged to be qualitatively superior to those of other groups. Productivity in the autocratic groups dropped off as soon as the leader le ft the room whereas the democratic groups did not require such close Nmanagerial control* ** H ostility* aggression* and scape-goating were greater in the autocratic group than in the democratic group. Whereas 7 of the 20; boy& liked-the-laissez faire leader better*' than the autocratic leader* 19 of the boys liked the democratic leader better than the autocratic loader. Sequential effects indicated that those workers who had been members of a group led by an autocratic leader became more aggressive under later democratic leadership—perhaps due to the pent-up aggression they had not been able to express under the autocratic leader. The classic study dealing with the supervision of hourly employees on a production line was performed by Goch and French (1948). They used participative methods to introduce new production techniques to female pajama makers in the Harwood manufacturing plant. Four groups were studiedi (1) two experimental groups ini which all the members participated in working out the details of the change) (2) an experimental group in which two members were elected to confer with management and help make 16 decisions regarding the change* and (3) a control group which was given the new technique and ordered to comply. Whereas productivity in the control group remained below pre-change levels with 17 1* of the group quitting the first month after the change, the two full-participation groups showed marked increases in post change productivity compared to the other groups. Post change productivity in the "representation" group was closer to the full** participation groups than to the control group, A study by Bavelas (reported in French, 1950) in the same manufacturing plant showed sim ilar results. Replications in a Norwegian factory (French, Israel, & Xs, i 960 ) and a Japanese plant (Misumi, 1959) did not show as clear-out results. It may be that other cultures do not foster the needs for achievement, responsibility, and self-actualisation which are so much a part of the "American dream" or "Protestant ethic". Alternately, participative mechanisms may have already been a part of the system. (This seemed' to be the case in the Norwegian factory where workers were . represented on managerial boards.) Whyte (1956) reported a study by Strauss in which female operators in the painting line of a toy factory took control of the speed of the conveyor belt as part of a job enrichment program. Productivity.increased 60 . much that wage inequities were created where some managers made less than the operators receiving a piece-rate. Other departments could not supply m aterials fast enough and finished pieces piled up faster than they could be used* This study is an example of management's disregard for the organization as an open-system in which no department is a bounded entity unto itself. Obviously, participative methods require total commitment on the partiof management* Interestingly, when the speed of the line was put back under management's control, 6 of the 8 girls quit. The frustration on the part of these 6 workers indicates that they had previously been "trained" not to expect meaning in their work, but this need became activated during the course of the experiment. Those girls who remained with the company may have felt their lower level needs (e.g., those satisfied by a steady salary or a favorable social climate) to be more important (or at least no other alternatives were available to them)* In any oase, management must thoroughly understand the psychological control established between themselves and the workers when a new method such as the one described by Whyte is implemented* In the previous two studies, female, unskilled workers were allowed to set their own goals in groups on jobs that had clearly defined outcomes. According to Looke ( 1966 ) , specific goals lead to higher performance than more ambiguous goals. Also, these studies were not well controlled in terms of feedback to both control and experimental groups, random assignment of subjects to groups, and the use of large numbers of subjects* A well known field study conducted by Morse and Reimer (1956) was performed using better experimental techniques. They varied the supervision of work groups in an insurance company by placing the groups under democratic, participative leadership (autonomous program) or under a directive, highly structured type of supervision (hierarchical program)* Production.was found to bo slightly greater under the hierarchical program, although it increased under both programs. Employee satisfaction increased under the autonomous program but decreased under the hierarchical program* The study did not determine, however, whether the superiority of production would have been maintained in the long-run, and Likert (I 961 ) points out that this is doubtful* In a partial replication of Morse and Reimer*s study in a laboratory setting. Campion ( 1968) found no significant * differences in productivity between groups under the two types of programs* It must be noted that Campion and Vroom (1959* I 960 ) found that the effectiveness of the supervisory style depends upon employee characteristics. For example, they found that subjects high on authoritarianism and low on need for independence performed better and were more satisfied under nonparticipative supervision* Those who were low on authoritarianism and high on need for independence performed better and were more satisfied under participative conditions* This adds support to the notion that 19 individual differences are important to the success of participative decision making* Data from the "Michigan leadership studies" initiated in 19*t? by L ik e r t (1961* 1967) and h is c o lle g u e s ( e . g . , Katz, Maccoby, & Morse, 1950 t Katz, Maccoby, Gurin, & Floor, 1951) showed a number of leadership behavior differences which differentiated high-producing* high- satisfaction groups from low-producing, low -satisfactlon groups. High-producing units had employee centered leadership focusing more on human problems and maintaining more general supervision while low producing leaders were more job-oentered using close supervision techniques. Freedom for the group to set its own pace and goals was typically related to productivity.. Favorable attitudes toward the organization were more closely associated with turnover and absenteeism rather than productivity, but favorable attitudes toward supervision, working conditions, compensation, and the work itself were related to productivity. These findings imply that participation in setting one*s own goals is positively related to productivity and overall job satisfaction. However, Campbell, et al. (1970) point out that initiation of structure may also lead to higher productivity. An increase in initiating structure defined in such behavioral terms as specifying Well-defined procedures, advance planning, making specific work assignments, etc. on the part of supervisors or top manage­ 20 ment may result in higher producing units. Participation may not bring about higher production but may be related to satisfaction as Morse and Reimer's (1956) results indicate. If participation and the initiation of.structure ar& not orthogonal dimensions, one would expect groups participating in the decision making process to be more effective when group members are task oriented.

Conditions for the success of •participative decision making Likert*s (I 96 I) systems of management may be seen on a continuum from power-centralization to power-equaliza- tion in four steps* exploitive-authoritative, benevolent- authoritative, consultative, and participative. (Heller & Y ukl, 1969, define sim ilar categories.) Employee-centered, general supervision allows the work group the freedom to set its own goals and pace In achieving those goals.

The result 1 b a "supportive relationship" which underlies effective communication and motive fulfillm ent (Wood, 1973)* Looking more closely at the power continuum, Blake and Mouton (1961) have designated a "power spectrum" ranging from complete leader power (I/O) through collaboration (*5/*5) to oomplete subordinate power (o/l). Also, one may consider the continuum of complete powerlessneBs (0/0) to complete competition (l/l) with the maximum superior- subordinate power. Blake and Mouton have found in several studies that both supervisor and subordinate feelings of responsibility change curvilinearly with both maxima 21 at .5/. 5* Subordinate satisfaction increased linearly while supervisor satisfaction decreased linearly front 1/0 to 0/1 conditions, but supervisor and subordinate satisfaction was relatively equal in the •$/.5 condition of power equalization, Horowitz (196*0 has suggested that such affective responses should be a function of differences between power expectations and the extent to which these expecta­ tions are met (Wood, 1973)* His investigation bore out the power equalization hypothesis showing that liking for the superior was greatest when 1/0 subordinate expectations were met, second highest when subordinates expected no power and exercised equal power, and lowest then they expected equal power and exercised none. According to Likert (1961), the subordinate should exercise more power than he expects but not so much so as to exceed his capabilities. The exact extent of this optimum discrepancy has not yet been de.termined, however. The assumption of this expectation model is that there is a fixed amount of power which can be allocated in varying proportions to two persons or organizational levels (Wood, 1973). Supervisors * or members of top management must make a decision whether to retain or delegate power t6 thdse at lower levels in the organization (Mechanic, 1962). An alternative view, provided by Tannenbaum ( 1968) suggests that total group or organizational power is variable and that proper management practices 22 can expand the power pie. A manager may be able to retain his power while increasing that of other members in the organisation without worrying that his power may be depleted by implementing the appropriate management practices. Likert (1961) found that when nonsupervisory personnel in 31 departments of a service organization were asked to rate the influence they, their supervisors, and their department managers exercided over departmental activities, high levels of influence were attributed to successively higher levels in the organization, as would be expected. The top one third departments in terms of productivity indicated that a greater amount* of influence was exercised over* all organizational levels than the lower third. Wood (1973) cites other studies carried out in a variety of organizations and in other countries which indioate that there is always room for more influence to be exercised across organizational levels. Several explanations can be given for this notion of an expanding influence pie. Supervisors who are perceived by their subordinates to influence the higher levels in the organization, generally have more influence over their own subordinates as long as good supervisory practices are maintained (Pelz, 1952). Also, a leader who shares power may increase his own through his increased interaction with followers and acceptance of their contributions. This builds a base for increased subordinate responsiveness 23 to a leader's directions according to Likert*s (1961) interaetion-influence system. Thus, power equalization appears to have value by changing interaction patterns which may reduce resistance to change introduced by management, even where subordinates do not initiate the change themselves (Strauss, 1963)* Participative decision making also may be seen as a means of "negotiating'* an im plicit or explicit contract between management and the individual, the group, or even the organization as a whole. Maier ( 1955) believes that the primary value of participation lies* in generating decisions which are acceptable to organizational workers. In.:this sense, according to Strauss (1963)* participative decision making is more likely to be a hygiene factor preventing dissatisfaction rather than a positive motivator of work leading to satisfaction of man's higher level needs (to use Herzberg's, I 966 , terminology). There is no one managerial,style that w ill have the same consequences for all men at all times. We have already seen that participation may be a very inappropriate technique for certain types of people in certain job situations (Vroom, 1959* 1969 1 Campion, 1968). Schein's ( 197$ analysis of man concludes with the notion of "complex man." Each individual is possessed of many needs.and potentials which are likely to differ from others. Complex man is highly variable. He has a hierarchy of needs whioh is liable to change from time to time and situation to situation* Through organizational experiences* man is capable of developing new motives which differ from his in itial needs. Different motives may operate in different organizations or subparts of the same organiza­ tion. A man nay feel alienated from the formal organization* for example* but is able to satisfy his social and self- actualization needs in informal organizations consisting of his coworkers. The nature of the task to be performed* the abilities and experiences of the person on the job* and the nature of the other people in the organization all interact to produce a certain pattern of work and feelings (Porter & Lawler* 1969)* Therefore* there is no one managerial style. Participative decision making cannot be universally applied. It is nedessary for the successful manager to be a good diagnostician (Schein, 1970).. He must be able to sense and appreciate the differences in people* to value these differences* and have the sk ill and personal flexibility to vary his own behavior according to the needs and motives of his subordinates. Several authors have noted a number of dysfunctional aspects of group participation in the decision making process. Strauss (196d) has described four problemsi (1) Individuals whose opinions have been rejected by the group may become alienated from it. (2) Participation may lead to greater 25 cohesion, hut it nay be cohesion against the objectives of management* (3) Participation may set up expectations of continued participation which management may not be able to satisfy, .(4) Participation often takes a great deal of time, can be frustrating to those involved, and frequently results in watered-down solutions, . Mulder and Wilke (1970) have criticized the major belief that participation in decision making w ill in faet result in power equalization between the "haves" and "have note.". They found that when great differences exist in the expert power of group members, the participation process w ill provide the more powerful persons with greater opportunities for using their expert power, ThUs, the experts w ill effectively influence the less powerful. Also, the less knowledge group members have, the more they are influenced by the "haves". It seems that effective participation requires certain skills and types of know­ ledge which are unevenly distributed in the various strata of our society, Mulder and Wilke state that learning in general must extend over longer periods of time and be intensive as well as very expensive if the participation goals of people are. to be realized. The coats of true participation with rewards coming much later must be weighed against the immediate rewards of feelings of satisfaction and involvement which result from members* perceptions of more participation with an ever increasing 26 power differential’** Vroom and Yetton (1973) have specified a number of problem attributes which should be considered by management in determining the extent to which subordinates should be included in the decision making process. Management must judge whether it h&s sufficient information to make a high quality decision. If not, do the subordinates possess that information and can they provide it more efficiently than other sources? Two other considerations are whether the subordinates must accept the decision and whether they w6uld'accept, a ' decision made by management alone. If participative decision making is adopted, subordinates must be trusted to have the interests of the organization in mind. If conflict among the subordinates is likely, this may detract from the advantages of participation. In addition, management must ask itself whether it 1 b willing to accept the decision made by the subordinates. In sum, participation may be differentially effective for different people. A goal of the present study is to examine different levels of deeision making and the contingencies that arise from individual differences and the resulting characteristics of group composition. A better understanding of group decision making w ill help management decide when participative techniques should be implemented*. 27 The Nature of Small Groups

Small groups have been thcf focus of investigation of many researchers who have strived to understand the psychological phenomena involved in social behavior. Small groups are simple objects to study and they may be easily subjected to controlled experimental conditions (D av is, 1969 ), More importantly, they are the setting of the bulk of our social life. Groups are formed in a variety of contexts for accomplishing one or more objectives for the mutual benefit of individuals in the group or a larger body of people of which the group members are a part. People use the group setting to satisfy their, individual needs along with:.the objectives of the group as a whole. The following literature review deals with.defining what is meant by a group, a systems model of group process, the determinants of group productivity, and the effects of task demands. Two factors of group composition, information and role, will be examined by citing a number of studies in the negotiation literature. The major variables of concern here are the heterogeneity of groups with respect to the information possessed by group members and the differences between haviftg-domplete atvi incomplete inform ation.

Defining a group Shaw (1971) cites a number of authors who provide definitions of a group from a variety of perspectives* (See Shaw, 1971» Pp. 6-10 for direct quotes of those definitions discussed below.) Each definition represents a different, although not necessarily unique, viewpoint* Bales (1950) emphasizes individual perceptions, assuming that members should be aware of their relationships to each other* Bass (I960) focuseB on motivation indicating that people join and remain part of a group to satisfy some need* Mills (I 967 ) views the defining characteristic of a group to be its purpose* The emphasis of Sherif and Sherif (1956) is on the organizational characteristics of the group suoh as roles, status*'and norms* Fiedler's (I 967 ) definition underscores the importance of the interdependency among group members. Stogdill (1959) believes that the essence of a group involves interaction Which is just one form of interdependence. Each of these authors focuses upon important aspects of a group* However, each is limited in that 6nly one variable is stressed* A definition is needed which encompasses member perceptions, individual need satisfaction, group goals, organization, interdependency among members, interaction, and many additional relevant concepts. D avis ( I 969 ) defines a group from the perspective of a system* This approach im plicitly includes1 in the definition each of the components mentioned above. According to D avis ( 1969), a group is. "...a set of persons (by definition or observation) among whom there exists a definable or observable set of relations** (P. **)• The group is not a stable entity but rather is a set of mutually interdependent behavioral systems. These systems both affeot one another and factors in the environment. These external factors in turn affectsthe behavior of members within the group. Group behavior is viewed as a function of three variablesi (1) personal variables, (2) environmental variables, and (3) task variables. The abilities, personality traits, and motives which a person brings to a group comprise the personal variables. Environmental variables include the effects of the immediate location and larger organization, community, or social context in which the group functions. The task or goal of the group is the third relevant variable.

A systems model of group process London and Walsh (197*0 have conceptualized a systems model of group process which follows from Davis's definition of a group. The model characterizes group process and outcome as multidimensional since the relationships among many variables are likely to be involved. A systems approach was adopted because it allows expression of many dimensions. The model emphasizes that groups do not function in isolation but are embedded in a complex environment. Shaw's (1971) typology of group environment, analogous to I

30 Davis's (1969) three variables of person* environment* and task# provides a basis for the model* According to Shaw (197l» Pp* 117-118)* the group environment consists of physical* personal* social* and task factors* The physical environment is a function of the physical objects of importance to thegroup members and the relationships among these objects. The personal environment is a funotion of the biological* ability* and personality characteristics of the individual group members. The particular combination of the members' personal characteristics determines the social environment. The task environment is defined by the goals of the group and the structure of the task. The systems model of group process presented in Figure 1 is comprised of input* throughput* and output components. The input includes the physical and personal environments and the in itial attraction of members to the group. The social and task environments are viewed as throughput. The output of the system consists of member effectiveness* satisfaction* and commitment to group decisions. The relationships between the input and through­ put components are moderated by the expectations members have for each other's contributions. The perceived contribution of each team member as the group reaches its goal moderates the relationships between the throughput and output com­ ponents. The feedback cycle completes the system. INPUT OUTPUT THROUGHPUT

ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENT

MODERATOR MODERATOR Ftrts6HAL ENVIRONMENT EXPECTED PERCEIVED (biographical* CONTRIBUTION CONTRIBUTION SATISFACTION ability* & OP GROUP OP CROUP A personality variables) MEMBER MEMBER COMMITMENT

ATTRACTION ENVIRONMENT TO GROUP INFLUENCE

FEEDBACK

Figure li Systeas model of group process* The present study uses the model to identity relevant independent and dependent variables for a laboratory experiment of group decision making* This study does not provide a complete test of the model* Elements of the physical environment, initial attraction to the group, members' expectations and final perceptions of each other's contributions, and the operation of the feedback cycle are not investigated. The three sets of hypotheses investigated here concern the effects of the personal environment (the information and personality characteristics the members bring to the group) and the task environment (stages of participation) on aspects of the social environment (socio-emotlonal responses), the task environ­ ment (task-oriented responses), and the output variables of effectiveness, satisfaction, influence, and commitment to decisions*

Determinants of group productivity The systems model of group behavior described above specifies a set of input and throughput components as determinants of group process and outcome. Davis (1969) has characterized these elements as person, environment, and task variables. Shaw's (1971) conceptualization of group behavior, adopted by the model, describes physical, personal, social, and task environments. S till another classification of the determinants of group process has been put forth by Steiner (1972)* He believes that a group's 33 performance of a task depends upon the demands of the task* the resources available to the group* and the group process* Task demands include the rules under which the task must be performed or the requirements imposed upon the group by the task itself. The task demands specify the degree to which a particular resource (e.g.* knowledge* ability* or Bkill) is important for goal attainment. While a group's resources include those characteristics possessed by group members* the task demands specify the kinds and amounts of resouroes needed. Por a given task* it is theoretically possible to determine the "potential productivity" of a group. A.careful task analysis should reveal the requirements impinging upon the group. The resources possessed by the group members could be determined by a battery of tests. Potential* or maximum* productivity is a function of the degree to which the group commands the resources necessary for task performance and employs those resources to that end. Actual productivity* however* may not always equal potential productivity. What the group does in fact accomplish w ill be influenced by the interpersonal actions used to transform the group *s resources into a product. Group process includes the behaviors by which members evaluate* pool* and assemble their resources* allocate subtasks* assign varying weights to one another's 3 * contribution and influence one another's behaviors. Such actions nay be intellective and communicative and ultimately faoilitative or they may be detrimental to re a c h in g maximum p r o d u c tiv ity . The group may u se i t s resources improperly, do the wrong thing at the wrong tine, or become embroiled in issues which do not lead directly to task accomplishment. Motivation and interpersonal coordination losses are most damaging to the group process. To summarise, actual productivity is a function of potential productivity minus losses due to faulty process. Potential productivity is determined by the resources possessed by group members and the demands of the task. At*this point it. would be useful to look, more closely at the.nature of task demands.

Effects of task demands on group process and outcome The efficacy of a particular kind and amount of resource w ill depend upon the nature of the task. Also, the demands of the task specify the processes group members may employ in arriving at a group product. Task demands include the goal that is to be achieved and the procedures that may be used to arrive at that end result. Steiner (1972) classifies tasks according to their divisibility into subtasks, the criteria for success, and the process that is permitted. A "unitary1* task makes mutual assistance impossible. Tasks such as putting forth an ideaf making a judgment, and selecting an alternative can be accomplished only by a bin g le member or some combination of several members of a group. Divisible tasks consist of a number of unitary subtasks. A group may succeed on a divisible task even if all the members cannot do the entire job alone. If each member performs the task element he is best att the group's performance on the task may be successful. The task-of ’ a group is Often.'divisible into three components or stages* generation, evaluation, and choice (Wood, 1973)* If one group member has the creativity and knowledge to generate novel alternatives to a problem, another may have the analytic ability to uncover the advantages and dis­ advantages of each alternative. Yet another member may desire to assume the responsibility for making the final decision. In this way, a better solution may result than if each member performed all subtasks alone.

When a c r i t e r i o n o f s u c c o b s exists against which the outcome of the group may be compared, the task may be described as optimizing (Steiner, 1972). If a group falls short of the standard number of units produced or takes longer than the specified time, the group has not performed optim ally. When success depends upon the absolute number of units produced or the absolute time the group took to produce those units, the task is said to be maximizing. Groups maximize when they aohieve their potential productivity. 36 If potential productivity can be compared to some specified standard, the group is said to perform optimally when process losses are zero* Generating an alternative solution to a problem, making an evaluative statement about that solution, and deciding to accept or reject that solution are each unitary tasks. Task demands determine how a unitary task may be structured such that the contributions of the individual members are weighted and combined. If actual productivity is to equal potential productivity, member contributions must be weighted and combined in the manner required by th e ta s k . Steiner (1966, 1972) describes several models by which 3 group may combine individual contributions to successfully perform a unitary task. An "additive" model may be applied when group members do exactly the-same thing and the group response is simply the total of the members* efforts. This model is representative of the task of generating alternatives* When-everyone makes a judgment of the same stim ulus, a "compensatory" or "averaging" model may be descriptive of the process. In evaluating alternatives a group typically i considers several alternatives before making a response* Group members may. th e n come t o an u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e prevailing (average) feeling of the group members. The "disjunctive" model applies when the productivity of the group on a common task is a result of the productivity of 37 its best member. When the outcome is a result of the group*s least competent member, a "conjunctive" model is involved. In arriving at a final decision It is possible to determine whether or not the group performed at the level of its first, second, third, ... , or least oompetent member. The heterogeneity of members* resources may be detrimental, beneficial, or have no effect on group outcome depending on the nature of the task. If a. task is additive, group performance is a function of the total resources available to the group and not its distribution. Therefore, heterogeneity of information should not affect the generation of alternatives. While each member may use different criteria in selecting potential solutions, the total of all solutions generated should be equally representative of all points of view, as should the combination of solutions generated by a group in which each member has complete inform ation, When group members evaluate alternatives; members express an opinion regarding the possible solutions. When the distribution of information is homogeneous, each member is as likely as another to be correct, and a pre­ vailing feeling is not difficult to attain. However, process losses resulting from disagreement are more likely to occur when the group is heterogeneous with respect to information. The criteria each member uses in evaluating 38 the alternatives must be spelled out and justified to the other members. Thus, the evaluation stage of decision making in a heterogeneous group may not be as satisfactory in terms of group outcome and members' feelings about the group process as the same stage in a homogeneous group. A heterogeneous group in which each member possesses information related to one source'and.all sources of infor­ mation are represented in the group has the potential of using the same information to arrive at a decision of equally high quality as the group in ehlch each member has complete information. However, large process losses are likely to result from the greater difficulty in pooling and evaluating information in the heterogeneous group. When one or more solutions must be chosen, it is not an easy matter to recognize the best alternatives. As in a homogeneous group, one member is neither clearly least competent nor most competent. When a heterogeneous group must arrive at a decision as well as generate and evaluate the alternatives, it may be hypothesized that process losses are likely to be greater than in homogeneous groups also responsible for generation, evaluation, and choice. As indicated above, the stages of group process and homogeneity of information are two variables which may affect the success of participative decision making. Therefore, the literature related to each of these will be discussed in depth* * * 39 Stages of group decision making In an early paper, Bales and Strodtbeck (1951) tested the hypothesis that groups go through certain stages or phases in the process of problem solving. By phases, Bales and Strodtbeck mean "qualitatively different periods within a total continuous period of interaction in which a group proceeds from initiation to total completion of a problem involving group decision" (P. 485). The phases are termed "orientation," "evaluation," and "control" and the transition from one to the next occurs in that order. Bales and Strodtbeck do not predict that acts of only one phase occur at a time but rather that the acts vary in their frequency of occurrence in each part of a discussion. However, the greatest number of acts during the first part of the discussion should involve orientation, the greatest number during the second should involve evaluation, and control acts should dominate the final stage. Along with these phases occur the negative and' positive reactions of disagreement or agreement, showing tension or tension release, and showing antagonism or solidarity. The relative frequency of these negative and positive reactions are hypothesized by Bales and Strodtbeck to Increase as the group proceeds through each stage. Bales and Strodtbeck did not hold that the three stages inevitably occur in all group processes. Rather, the rates of group activity vary over time and with changes in the 40 conditions under which the interaction takes place. The occurrence of the stages depends on such conditions as the personality of the individual members, the culture which all the members have in common, the pre-established organization of the group in terms of the expectations the members have established, and the nature of the problems faced by the group. Relevant characteristics of the problem include its difficulty, whether or not there can be a division of labor among the members, whether group members can correct errors made by the other members, and whether the task involves creativity or remembering (Shaw, 1971)* There are also more controllable requirements which must be mot if a particular stage of group process is to occur. According to Bales and Strodtbeck, the group must be composed of adult or young adult members of the American culture (since the theory was derived from observation of groups within this culture). The group must not have pre-established routines or customs whioh might directly affect the phase movement. There must be some minimum pressure to maintain group solidarity or commitment so that disagreement, tension, antagonism, and the like w ill be negatively valued. Also, status differences among members should not be so great as to influence the choice of the final solution or to thwart other members* rights to participate. t o The cycle of phases begins at the recognition of a problem and continues to its disposition* Orientation, evaluation, and eontrol must be essentially unsolved at the beginning of the cycle* The members must be uncertain as to the relevant facts, but individuals should possess pertinent knowledge which m&y’ be used during the discussion* The problem should not be an "open and shut" case, but should require that the alternative solutions need evaluation* The members must be assumed to be of different opinions or have different interests as to the best solution* Finally, for the team to have control over its members and the common environment, there must be both pressure for a group decision and the expectation of further action* To the extent to whioh the requirements presented in the preceding paragraphs are not met (e.g*, status differentials do exist in the group), the occurrence of the staiges, their order, and the length of time devoted to each one w ill be affected. Bales and Strodtbeck observed 22 groups of differing sizeB (3 to 8 members each) working on different problems* Only 8 of the groups satisfied the conditions thought to be necessary for the phases to occur. The number of acts performed by each group was estimated and divided into thirds* The greatest percentage of the acts in the

« first third involved orientation* The frequency of evaluation acts was highest during the middle third. k z Also,as predicted, the frequency of control actB was t greatest for the final third* The frequency of both positive and negative reactions increased as the group reached the final decision* The authors felt that these favorable results were due to the weight of those groups that met the requirements and would not hold for groups not meeting them* Another theorist :to suggest that the decision process within a group (and for that matter between groups in an organizational setting) occurs in three stages or processes is Karl Weick (1969)* Elaborating on the ideas of Donald T* Campbell, Weick suggested that the evolution of a group process occurs in three stages comprising a .continuous cycle* The first stage, "variation,** is comprised of bits ofinform ation which are "enacted" or generated by group members. This information serves as the input for the subsequent processes of selection and retention* In the selection stage, collective, rather than individual interests and values dominate. Those alternatives are selected which meet any of a variety of criteria such as whether or not they have brought pleasure or pain in the past (the law of effect), whether they have worked for other groups or individuals in the past, whether they conform to the leader's position (since the leader is chosen as a person who varies customary practices in ways that appear more adaptive to group members), and even whether *3 or not they seera rational considering expectations for what w ill one day have occurred. In the retention process the group decides'whether enough uncertainty has been removed from the situation*or whether additional questions should be raised about how to go about solving a problem. Weick goes on to suggest amendments to this evolutionary theory and to suggest in detail how each of these processes are accomplished. His theory, however, is not meant to te ll us what aatually does ocour in a group as does Bales's theory of interaction process. Weick goes no farther than to Bay his typology of variation, selection, and retention are useful guides for the study of relation­ ships which occur during the process of organizing. The three processes, however, have been used by researchers to describe the limits that may be placed on participative , decision making* Recently, Wood (1970, 1972a, 1972b, 1973) and his colleagues (Cooper & Wood, 197^1 Raben, 1973) Have examined groups carrying out various stages of a. problem. Wood divided a group problem into three stagesi generation of alternative resolutions (G), evaluation of those alternatives (E), and the final choice of a solution from among the alternatives (C). In the initial research. Wood (1970) tested.the hypothesis that group members* perceptions of influence might vary depending upon the phase of decision making in which they participate* Pull participation groups (GEC) were compared to two phase participation conditions i EC t GC# and GB. It was found that perceived member influence was greater in the full participation condition than in the other partial conditions* The weakest perceived member influence occurred when groups were unable to * participate in the final choice (those engaged in only generation and evaluation). The "influence pie" (the total amount of influence)was largest with complete-process participation (GEC) due to increased member perceived influence rather than leader perceived influence* . . t 'Cooper and. Wood (197*0 compared the fu ll participation condition with groups participating in only one stage a G9 E0 or C* They found that member influence and satisfaction were greatest in the full participation condition and in the C condition. The study also revealed that commitment to carry out the decisions resulted in a significantly greater amount of influence but a lesser amount of satisfaction than those group members who were not committed to carrying out the decision prior to the discussion* Raben (1973) also compared groups engaged in single stages of 'decision'making to those who carried out all phases* He found that influence and satisfaction depend upon the expert power of group members as w ell as the decision making stage. More influence was exerted in the choice condition as opposed to the generation and evaluation conditions, but only for those with expert power* In the full participation condition, influence was greater in the generation stage than in the other stages, but ag&in this was true only for those with expert power. Also, satisfaction was greater in the full participation condition for those with expert power than in the partial conditions* Post discussion commitment to decisions and the quality of the decisions were not related'to phase participation. Raben's. findings support the conclusion of Muider and Wilke ( 1970 ) that any beneficial effects of participative decision making may be wiped out when an expert is a participant in the g ro u p . The studies described above indicate that members' perceptions of influence and feelings of satisfaction tend to increase as the extent of participation increases. » Also, the composition of the groiq> in terms of the expertise of the members seems* be a determinant of influence and satisfaction. Another aspect of group composition is the homogeneity of information within the group. Studies cited in the previous section indicated that process losses are likely in heterogeneous groups, especially when engaged in those stages of problem solving requiring a consensus or final decision. StudieB dealing with the information possessed by group members w ill now be discussed. ^6 Elements of group composition! Information and role Several studies have investigated the effects on group problem solving of each member possessing fu ll information about a problem as opposed to each member initially possessing different and limited amounts of information. In the former case* the distribution of information within the group is homogeneous, whereas it is heterogeneous in the latter case* The information possessed by group members, however, is only one variable affooting problem solving. Another deals with the role, of group members which dictates a certain goal* Swinth and Tuggle (1971) compared groupB whose members had complete or full information (i.e.; knowledge bf the pieces of a puzzle possessed by himself and the other members) with groups whose members had partial or incomplete information (knowledge of only their own pieces). The authors also compared a condition in which group members were instructed to maximize the point scores of the group (based on the number of squares constructed) with a condition in which the individual was told to maximize his own point score. The results indicated that the joint goal led to higher'performance than the autonomous goal condition. When all conditions were paired against one another, the condition in which members possessed fu ll information and a joint goal resulted in better performance than the other conditions. In addition to performanoe, a aecond dependent variable used in the Swinth and Tuggle study involved an index of leader-plus-member interactions. They developed a dyadic process model to code the communication between any two members of the four man groups studied* A behavior was designated as either indicating leadership, membership, negotiation, information exchange, or "other”* A statement which proposes a course of action which has joint consequences was designated as leader behavior. A behavior indicating a passive state or asking for instructions fell into the member category* Negotiation messages offered : exchanges or trades, while information exchange described one's own state or asked another to describe his state* t A. joint goal With'complete information resulted/in. more leader-member exchanges than an autonomous goal. Incomplete information led to significantly more leader-member behavior in the autonomous goal condition: than, in the joint goal condition*‘.Coordination may be more difficult to attain when information about the nature of the dependencies is • locally distributed. This may be particularly true under conditions of autonomous goals. Apparently, the greater proportion of leader-member behaviors facilitated coordination when it was needed most* Another study in which the information was varied in a group stems from the negotiation literature* In negotiation, or bargaining, conflicting parties meet to iron out 48 differences (Maier, 1973* P* 628 )* Siegel smd Fouraker ( i 960 ) compared bilateral monopoly situations in which each subject knevr only what payoff would accrue to him from any proposed contract.(heterogeneous-incomplete information) with the condition in which each subject knew the payoffs that woiid accrue to both members (homogeneous-complete information). The situation of bilateral monopoly, or isolated exchange, occurs when a single buyer of a specific commodity is confronted by only a single seller of that commodity. Xt was found that joint profit was miximised under the condition in which both members possessed complete information. This was not the oase when one member held complete information and the other possessed incomplete information. This latter condition resulted in a higher joint profit than the condition in which both members had incomplete information. Siegel and Fouraker also report the finding that the differences in payoffs within bargaining pairs was greater when both members possessed incomplete information, less ' under complete-incomplete information, and smallest when both held complete information. The complete information allowed the members to develop realistic expectations of the joint profits and division of profits associated with any outcome. This resulted in a press toward reaching contracts entailing a fifty-fifty split of the joint p r o f i t s • **9 This "reality of aspiration" hypothesis has been condraticted by Schelling (i 960 ) who hypothesised that "information is weakness." This hypothesis states that knowledge of only one's own payoff schedule (Incomplete information) leadB to the individual receiving a greater share of the joint profits. A bargainer who is aware of both his own payoff schedule and that of his partner (complete information) w ill have less bargaining strength and receive less of the joint profits. The explanation is that a completely informed bargainer w ill concede more quickly because he is aware of what is a reasonable solution. The incompletely informed bargainer, unaware of a realistic solution, w ill hold out for a greater share of the joint profits. Haraner and Harnett (197*0 have tested the "information is weakness" and "reality of aspiration" hypotheses. They varied information (complete and incomplete) and aspiration level (high and low) of 80 buyers bargaining against 80 sellers all with incomplete information. The outcome of the bargaining sessions favored those buyers with low aspiration and complete information. Incomplete information tended to be a hindrance to those with high aspirations. In the Hamner and Harnett study, the composition of information within the group was heterogeneous is a ll cases (dyads in which one member had complete information and the other had incomplete information or in which both had incomplete 50 information). In the Schelling, Siegel.and Fouraker, and Swinth and Tuggle studies, homogeneity of information accompanied the possession of complete information. This condition was not investigated by Hamner and Harnett. Homeogeneity of information within a group and completeness of information held by the individual members should be viewed as two distinct variables which may account for different sources of systematic variance in decision making processes. The condition of homogeneous-incomplete information may occur when all individuals have information related to only one point of view or one person's payoff s c h e d u le . In the present study, heterogeneousigroups whose members possess incomplete*infCrmation ar 6 compared, to homogeneous groupB'whose. members have complete inform ation. Thus, the effects of homogeneity of information and completeness of information are confounded.^ However, when heterogeneous group members possess incomplete information, the information available to the group does not differ from the homogeneous group. Another variable closely related to the holding of information is the role played by the group member (i.e ., his identity to a particular reference group). If one makes an analogy between high aspiration as studied by Hamner and Harnett (197*0 and having an autonomous goal as investigated by Swinth and Tuggle (1971),

*^As additional source of variance not uncovered by this research is the amount of information possessed by the group iiiember.- In' the concluding section of this, paper, studies' w ill be suggested for investigating this; variable. incomplete information tends to be detrimental to the outcome of a group or baraglning session* Low aspiration or joint goal combined with complete information tends to benefit the outcome* A variable which may be related to goal and aspiration is role* This variable has also been recognized in studies of negotiation behavior. McGrath (1966) has argued that there are three forces acting on a negotiator arising from the social-psychologioal aspects of the situation* These -include (1)*the forcfe to obtain a. solution which is in accord with the reference group which the individual negotiator represents, ( 2 ) th e force to agree with the representative(s) of the contending reference group(s) on the negotiation issue, and ( 3 ) th e force to arrive at a creative, constructive solution in accord with values and interests of the surrounding community* The degree to which each force is active w ill depend upon the individual's perceptions of the positions of the different reference groups, the payoff accruing to his reference group for supporting another group, and his personal belief in the different positions* Whereas a ll forces may operate in any negotiation situation to different degrees, studies have attempted to manipulate the role members adopt. Vidmar and McGrath (1970) assigned subjects to oonflicting reference groups based upon thoir attraction for the group. In half the negotiation teams, members were instructed to represent the interests of thfeir\reference 52 group* In the other half* members were to arrive at a joint solution without representing a single reference group. The outcome of the negotiation was less successful when members were attracted to their representational role. Attraction to reference group was unrelated to negotiation outcome when the represents* tional role was absent. Druokman ( 1967 ) assigned subjects to a union or management group on thebasis of their attraction to the groups. In the "group" condition, the outcome of the negotiation affected the other members of the reference group^ In the “no-group" condition, each negotiator bargained only for himself. No difference was found between the two conditions. Vidmar (1971)•'however, has criticised Druckman's proeeduro of telling the subjects they were intially assigned to a reference group on the basis of favorable attitude, instructing them to pretend they were members of the organization before the negotiating sessions, and giving them a position paper for that organization. Subjeots may consequently have fe lt a commitment to the reference group in the no-group as well as the group c o n d itio n . Vidmar (1971) investigated the effects of the presence or absence of negotiator representational role obligations on negotiation effectiveness. Mediated versus unmediated groups served as a second factor. The simulation developed used reference groups pstterned after McGrath’s (1966) tri-forces model. Subjects were assigned to two referenoe groups based on their favorable attitude toward one of . these reference groups. Mediators were randomly assigned. Those assigned to a referenoe group received fact sheets related to that point of view. Mediators .road information related to both vested interest groups. In the negotiation conditions subjects were paid $1.00 to represent their reference group; They were told a prize of $5.00 would be awarded the negotiator who best represented his respective position. In the discussion condition* subjects were paid $1.00 to be good group members and to set forth a fair and constructive solution. A prize of $5*00 was offered to each member of the best team. In half the groups in each condition* a mediator served as a third member* The mediator waB paid $1.00 to be a good leader. The leader with the best group solution- would‘receive a prize of $5*00. The criteria for performance consisted of trained judges' ratings of each solution from three points of views the partisan interests of the two conflicting reference groups and the interests of the broader community within which the two reference groups resided. “Overall success" was defined as the m ultiplicative function of the three ratings for each solution. Vidmar's results indicated that representational role obligations were detrimental to negotiation performance. 6n all criteria but one related to one of the reference & groups. Mediators improved the performance found in the negotiation condition. The presence of a mediator was detrimental to the performance of the groups in the discussion condition* Each of the studies cited above deals with two factors i the-information held by group members and the role (goal or aspiration level) the member is instructed to play. When each member plays the same role, the study deals with problem solving. When members play different roles, the group task involves negotiation or bargaining. Swinth and Tuggle (1971) manipulated bdth information and goal. Hamner and Harnett (197*0 studied information and aspiration level. Siegel and Fouraker (I960) and Schelling ( i 9 6 0 ) varied information possessed by the members while holding the goal (of maximizing one's gains while insuring minimal losses) was held constant. Vidmar and McGrath (1970), Druokman ( 1967)1 and Vidmar (1971) manipulated the representational role of the members. Subjects either attempted to arrive at a solution suitable from all perspectives or tried to attain the best solution for the particular reference group. In all role conditions, members (except for mediators) received information relating to only one reference group. In the present study, the role of group members, is . held constant and the information possessed by each member is systematically varied. This leaves for future study the situation in which 55 members possess the same Information* but roles are v a .rie d . The present. research has relevance to the many organizations in which task forces are frequently convened to find a solution to a problem Ih'a manner which w ill be constructive and generally acceptable to all concerned. Government officials often appoint tadk forces of private citizens from many walks of life to recommend a mutually acceptable solution to a community problem. Committees in business organizations are composed of representatives of different groups or departments within the organization for the purpose of solving a single problem. Physicians specializing in different areas of medicine often consult to achieve the goal of diagnosis and cure of a patient's illness. Interdisciplinary teams in research and development organizations bring together an abundance of rapidly increasing knowledge from a variety of narrow specializations. In all the examples mentioned above* individuals must overcome their ethnocentrism toward one particular reference group for the good of the system as a whole. In accordance with Donald"Campbell's (I 969 ) "fish-scale model of omnicience**1 comprehensiveness among disciplines (or reference groups) must be obtained through the overlapping patterns of unique specialties. Th6 current researoh compares groups in which two members possess information from different reference groups and a third possesses 56 information related to the community interest with groups in which a ll members possess the same information consisting of a ll‘points of view. In all cases, the role of arriving at a mutually beneficial goal id maintained and attraction to the different referenoe groups is held constant. The 4 results may help to decide whether it is in the best interests of society to encourage narrow specialisations or whether the gap between reference groups or disciplines can be filled only by those who are masters of two or more disciplines or experts in the positions of two or more reference groups.

The Personal Environment

The characteristics an individual brings to a group, 4 his skills and abilities, his typical manner of behaving, and his usual reactions to others not only influence his own behavior, but also serve as stim uli for other group member responses. The physical environment is an input variable in the systems model of group process presented in Figure 1. It may be that personal factors combined with the variables of information level and participation level manipulated in this study w ill acoount for a greater percentage of the variance in group process and outcome than either component alone. Shaw (1971) considers three classes of personal attributesi biographical characteristics, abilities, and personality traits* Age and sex generally have only a minor influence on group process* The knowledge of group members serves aB an experimental variable (information) in this study. The focus of this section w ill be on four personality variables which rolate to the functioning of individuals in social settings* The review which follows w ill demonstrate the relevance of these variables to participative deicision making* While a number of other personal variables may be important to group member behavior, it is predicted that least preferred Coworker, interpersonal risk, self-esteem, and internal- external locus of control w ill account for a major proportion of variance in group process and outcome*

Least preferred coworker According to Fiedler ( 1 9 6 7 ), the high least preferred coworker (LPC) person is one who tells us, in effect* that the person with whom he is least able to work on a common task might s till be reasonably nice, intelligent, competent, etc* The high LPC person is able to distinguish between a person and the way he works* On the other hand, the least preferred coworker is described by the low LPC person as, in effect, uncooperative, unintelligent, incompetent, etc* The im plicit personality theory of the low LPC person links an individual's poor performance on a joint task 56 with negative personality characteristics while the.im plicit personality theory of the high LPC person separates performance and personality. Fiedler (1967) conoeiveo of LPC as a leadership style. Whereas low LPC leaders are more concerned with the task* the high LPC leader is more concerned with establishing good interpersonal relations. To use the factors found by the Ohio State Leadership Studies (Stogdill & Coons, 1957)* the high LPC leader is high in consideration and low in initiating structure while the low LPC leader la high in initiating structure and low in consideration. Fiddler's. (1967). important finding was that different group climates call out different types of behaviors in high and low LPC leaders• High LPC leaders do better ih moderately favorable situations and low LPC leaders do better in very poor or very favorable situations. Seeking personal sucoess and recognition through interpersonal relations (a characteristic of the high LPC individual) works best when.the leader's position power, his relations with the members of the group, and the degree to which the task is structured combine to form a moderately favorable atmosphere. When these faotors are all favorable or unfavorable, a leader who is directive is needed to get the job done and maintain the organization at a high level of productivity. Rather than considering LPC to be an important 59 characteristic of just one member of the group (i.e., the leader), this paper takes the position that all members of an originally leaderless group have the potential to emerge as leaders. Any or a ll members may emerge as leaders at different times because each member has the potential of making a unique contribution to the group and because of the participative nature of the group. The low LPC group member should be ooncemed with achieving success on assigned tasks, even at the risk of having poor inter­ personal relations with fellow workers. He should succeed when the situation is very favorable or vory unfavorable. The high LPC group member should be more concerned with having good interpersonal relations and with gaining prominence and self-esteem through these interpersonal relations. He should take advantage of his position to achieve these goals. If the situation is moderately favorable, he should be successful and the group should benefit from his expert knowledge. If the situation is highly favorable or unfavorable, the' group outcome should suffer. . LPC may also be viewed as an element of group composition. If group members, on the average^ have a high LPC, overall satisfaction and effectiveness should be highest when situtation favorableness is moderate. When situation favorableness is negative or positive, the group members should be more satisfied and effective if the average LPC is low. Here, however, situation favorableness 6 0 cannot be measured from the point of view of one leader. Instead of leader member relations, intermember relations becomes the important factor. Position power should be favorable when it is clear to all members who is the leader at the time and the value of what he has to offer the group. Task structure need not be redefined. On an individual level, a person’s LPC should be positively related to his performance when perceived group atmosphere is very high or very low. In summary, LPC has been viewed by Fiedler (1967) as a characteristic of the leader which affects the effectiveness of the group depending upon the situation favorableness. The leader may be one individual throughout the period of the group discussion or he may change depending upon the needs of the group and the expertise of the group members. LPC has been described as a characteristic of group composition and as a personality variable of each group member related to the process and outcome of the group. A major hypothesis is that the relationship between a member's LPC and his perceptions of group and personal effectiveness should be moderated by his perceptions of the favorableness of the situation. The above hypothesis is based on Fiedler's (196?) explanation of a high LPC as inter personally oriented and a low LPC as task oriented. However, several other in te r ­ pretations have been given to LPC. Fiedler (1967) also has 61 described LPC as reflecting a hierarchy of goals. The main goal of the low LPC individual is to aocomplish the task. When this goal is assured, he aims at improving interpersonal relations• The main goal of the high- LPC person, on the other hand, is to maintain good relations with the members of the group. When this goal is achieved, the secondary goals of self-enhancement and prominence dominate. This explanation of LPC leads to the same pre­ dictions as those described above. Another conceptualization of LPC has been offered by Poa, M itchell, and Fiedler (1971), Mitchell (1970), and Evans and Dernier (197*0* They view the moderate LPC individual as cognitively complex. He is able to make distinctions among task and interpersonal dimensions of his least preferred coworker.^ This ability to differentiate is identified by a high variance around the mean of the person's LPC ratings. However, others (for example, Z iller, 196*0 have interpreted a low LPC score as indicating psy­ chological distance. That is, such a person stereotypes good and bad coworkers. The hypothesis that results from both explanations is that the ability to differentiate the contributions of a coworker results in more effective task accomplishment in all situations (Evans, 1973).

The LPC scale asks individuals to describe the person with whom they can work least well by rating him on a series (usually 12!orl6) semantid differential scales. Each scale 1b anchored by bipolar adjectives of task-oriented and inter- personally oriented attributes as well as some which are not so readily categorized. 6 2 Z iller (1964) holds that the more psychologically distant leader produces a more individuated work group. That is, a distint'leader-m akes more distinctions among the workers, and the workers perceive that they are being treated more as individuals than as members of a single category—*i.e., subordinates. According to Z iller (1964), individuation is defined as "...a person's subjective mapping of the social world, in which self is differentiated to a greater or lesser degree from other sodial objects in the field. •• .The greater the number of bits of information required to locate the person, the greater the degree of deindividuation" (P. 345). Z iller's theory of individuation assumes that people have strong needs to formultate clear-cut consistent self-definitions. The leader who is able to differentiate among his coworkers should allow the group member to learn something about his own uniqueness, to test his skills, and to compare them with others in order to develop distinctive qualities. Higher productivity should result when all group members treat each other differentially as well as reward each other's accomplishments. This study examines various scores derived from the LPC scale. These include the mean and variance of each individual's ratings. The': results of a factor analysis performed on the LPC scale are presented. Subscale scores calculated by averaging.* those items loading highly on the factors extracted are analyzed. The hope is to better 63 understand the meaning of LPC and its relationship to an individual*8 behavior in a group*

Interpersonal risk A second personality variable whioh helps describe a person's interpersonal orientation is interpersonal risk* Interpersonal Risk Theory (IR Theory), as set forth by LundBtedt (1966)*holds that a person may voluntarily choose to give away power and influence to others with whom he is in contact* Such allocation of personal resources to another is most likely to occur whenever past actions of a sim ilar kind have been rewarding. The power one person has over another stems in part from his ability to give away or withhold resources which are deemed valuable by other people. Lillibridge and Lundstedt (1967) reported that subjective interpersonal risk behavior correlated significantly with independent measures of trust and risk taking. Lillibridge (196?) in a study initially testing certain aspects of Interpersonal Risk Theory reports relationships between the IR scale and a number of psychological and demographic variables suggesting the range of the construct. Every action a person takes is accompanied by a certain amount of risk. The degree of risk depends upon the pattern of rewards coming from past interactions. If two people see little risk in a relationship with each 6k other (i.e., a high degree of mutual trust exists), high IR behavior is more likely to occur than when the situation is one of low mutual trust# In accordance with the theory of subjective expected u tility (SEU), Lundstedt (1966* P# *0 states that a person's willingness to give away influence over others is based on a subjective calculation of personal risk and u tility . The lower the risk and the higher the u tility , the more likely high IR behavior is to occur# Thus, mutual trust results from repeated reinforcements as a result of expending one's personal re s o u rc e s # It is not dear from Lundstedt's writings whether the sharing of one's resources is a cognitive or acognitive process# This distinction has a bearing on the development and the effect of a situation of mutual trust. To use Behling, Schriesheira, and Tolliver's (1972) terms, the willingness to share resources appears to be cognitive, purposive# That is, people look forward to a reward and aot with the probability of receiving that reward in mind. On the other hand, the subjective probability of the reward's occurrence is based on past experience. At this point, the model becomes not only historic, but acognitive, nonpurposive. In this case, trust is based on an operant conditioning model. The operant of giving away a resource (e.g., a child sharing an ice cream cone) may have led to favorable consequences in the past (e.g., a ride on a bicycle) which*in turn affected the tendency.of the individual to emit similar behaviors at later points in time. On a schedule of variable reinforcement, such IR behavior may generalise to many different situations (e.g., to sharing one's expert knowledge in a group situation) and may become part of one's nature. In this Bense, the degree of mutual trust that exists in a group should be a function of the IR tendencies of the members in the group. The behavior that occurs in the group during its in itial phases w ill determine the mutual trust group members w ill have for each other. Each member evaluates (cognitively or aeognitively) the probability that his approach behavior w ill lead to approach behavior toward him by other members. He also evaluates the worth of the resources the other members possess and perhaps compares that to what he had to offer determining the equity of the situation. Although the decision theoretic framework is useful in explaining IR behavior, Lundstedt^ indicates that this does not imply an absence of an affective dimension in interpersonal risk behavior. He argues that such a dimension is essential to a fuller definition of the concept of trust or risk taking in personal relationships. The emotions associated with interpersonal risk behavior indicate a

------j , ------'Informal communication to the author, December 1^, 1973* The author gratefully acknowledges Dr. Sven Lundstedt's comments on an earlier version of this section of the paper. 66 significant motivational component. Cognition alone is insufficient to explain such behavior. Anxiety9 for example, is considered to be a significant affective response to low interpersonal risk behavior on the part of another9 or .a necessary precondition for the response of withholding one's resources from another*^' No doubt, mutual.trustLid a result of both the interpersonal orientation one brings to the group and the perceptions one has of approach behavior emitted in the particular group situation; If this is the case, the in itial approach behavior of each member (i.e .p his degree of open communications with other members9 social exchanges, and number of serious conflicts) might be predicted by. his IR score. During the course of a long term group process9 IR, though presumably a stable personality construct, should be less predictive of approach behavior in the group situation. Over-timC, such*intervening .variables*as pdrCeived..degree of influence of othef members compared to oneself, the importance'of the group meeting fo r:s reaching Organisational-objectives, satisfaction with-the groupproceCs,etc. mav contribute to variance is approach-avoidance behavior. In the short run, a group ‘ member's IR score should be positively related to productivity in so far as good moral is related to effectiveness.

Lunastedt is presently enlarging his initial definitions along these lines. 67 Self-esteem and internal-external locus of control Aspiration level is a function of the value of the various possible outcomes and the probability of achieving those outcomes* A person's subjective probability of attaining an outcome may be affected by his self-esteem and his belief that the consequences of his actions are internally or externally controlled* Low self-esteem reflects feelings of personal inadequacy, guilt, shyness, and social inhibition (Gelfand, 1962)* Chronic self-esteem is a relatively persistent personality trait that occurs consistently across various situations (Korman, 1970). Like interpersonal risk, self-esteem is a funotion of a person's reinforcement history. A low self-esteem person presumably has had a past history of chiefly negative reinforcement while a.high self-esteem individual has met with positive reinforcement for his efforts. For a person who is internally controlled, self-esteem may be a relevant variable in the goals he sets, his evaluation of his performance, and his reactions to group process. Self-esteem should not be an important variable for a person who believes in external causality, however* Indeed, such a person may have no clear self-concept at a ll. Korman (1970) presents a balance theory of work behavior which argues that the self-concept of an individual in relation to the task at hand is a determinant of the outcomes he w ill seek to attain and the outcomes which w ill 6 8 satisfy him* Korman (1966) purports to show that people with high self-esteem tend to choose occupations which befit their self-ooncepts whereas low self-esteem individuals do not. He has found that perception of one's own high ability on tasks that require high ability is more likely for high than for low self-esteem persons (Korman, 196?)• Also* task liking and task success are positively related ; for high self-esteem individuals but not for those with low self-esteem (Korman, 1968). The explanation is that it would be dissonant for a person of high self-esteem not to choose an occupation which corresponds to his* self-image, not to attribute success on a hard goal task to his own ability, and not to be satisfied by his good performance on difficult tasks. High self-esteem has been found to facilitate performance on hard goal tasks, particularly if the task provides knowledge of how close or how far one is to goal achievement (Korman, 1970). There is little difference in performance, however, between high and low self-esteem individuals on easy task goals. These results indicate how dissonance theory might operate as an explanation of attribution of causality. They also provide evidence that perceived task complexity (i.e ., the strength of external forces) as well as self-esteem, might be important in the attribution process and level of aspiration. Research on internal-external control has found that consistent individual differences seem to exist among 69 individuals in the degree to which they are likely to attribute personal control to rewards in the sane situation (Rotter, 1966). As previously stated, a person's history of reinforcement determines the strength of his expectation that a particular behavior w ill be followed by reinforcement in the future. Rotter (1966) has developed a scale to measure internality-extem ality as a personality construct. A variety of studies using this scale have found internal-external control to affect achievement motivation and performance. Franklin (1963) reported that internal oontrol was related to 1 5 o u t o f X? indexes of achievement motivation for high school students. Efran ( 1963 ) showed there to be a positive relationship between internal-external control and high school students* tendency to forget (repress) failures versus sucoesses. Presumably, a student who has already accepted external factors as determining his success or failure uses his externality as a defense mechanism and therefore has less need to repress failures. Rotter and Mulry (1965) found that those people who are internally controlled tend to become more involved (take longer time in making decisions) when an achievement situation results in reinforcement for skill rather than for chance. Externals took longer under the chance condition than under the skill condition, "but not significantly so,N It is expected that locus of control moderates the 70 effects of self-esteem. An internally controlled group member with high self-esteem should tend to set moderately difficult objectives and to be rated by others as effective in meeting these goals. The internally controlled individual with low self-esteem should set objectives which are not likely to be accomplished or which will be so easy that their accomplishment cannot be attributed to the individual’s own doing. Thus, the low self-esteem person may use external control as a rationale for his good performance. The externally controlled person should set difficult goals regardless of his self-esteem* since failure will not be . attributed to his own abilities but to external forces. The present study* while not examining group goals* or goals i held by individuals within a group* does investigate the moderating effects of an individual’s internal-external control on the relationship between his self-esteem and. his performance in a group.

Summary To summarize the discussion of personality variables* the degree to which group members distinguish (individuate) among those around them* their level of interpersonal risk, their self-esteem, and the degree they feel they are internally controlled should affect group process and outcome in tho various ways discussed above. These variables are a function of d person's reinforcement history and affect the subjective probability that behavior within 71

• * the group w ill lead to rewards such as positive socio- emotional responses, favorable perceptions of group atmosphere, high group cohesiveness, high levels, o f. personal influence and effectiveness, satisfaction with group related variables, and commitment to the decisions of the group* CHAPTER I I I FOCUS OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH The purpose of this study is to investigate groups engaged to different degrees in a problem solving task* Also, groups which are homogeneous with respect to information and possess complete information about the problem afe'compared to heterogeneous grbups whose members hold incomplete information* In addition to to these experimental variables, the relationships ’> between measures of selected personal characteristics and group outcomes are investigated*

Input Parameter I* Level of Participation

A number of organizational theories have focused on the needs of individuals in contrast to the goals of the organization (Argyris, 196^1 Herzberg, I 9661 L ik e r t, 1961 1 McGregor, 1960t Maslow, 1966 ). The assumption underlying these theories is that man has a need for personal fulfillm ent which goes beyond satisfying his needs for physical well being and association with others. Men and women desire to control their own fate rather than to be controlled* They welcome-responsibility and challenge and express satisfaction when self-initiated

72 73 goals are met. While such statements cannot be assumed to apply to everyone, they form the basis of the power equalization hypothesis formulated by Leavitt (1962). The literature on participative decision making (PDM) purports to show that the reduction in the power differential between people or groups on two levels in a formal power hierarchy increases effectiveness and satisfaction (Coch & French, 19^8 \ Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 19391 Likert, 1961, 1967* Morse & Reimer, 1956I Whyte, 1959). Vroom and Yetton (1973) have suggested several guidelines which may be used by managers to determine when they should share the responsibility for decision making with employees on lower levels of the organizational hierarchy. If the quality of the decision must be high and subordinates possess information not held by the supervisor, and the information cannot readily be attained elsewhere, the supervisor should obtain input from the subordinates. If acceptance of the deoision by the subordinates is critical to its effective implementation and if the subordinates would not accept a decision made by the supervisor alone, participative decision making should be beneficial. Subordinates must be trusted to base solutions on organizational considerations with little conflict in preferred solutions. Furthermore, if participative decision making is to be adopted, management must be w illing to accept the decisions of the subordinates. 74 Thus, a contingency management approach may be adopted in deciding when to implement participative decision making* However, this is not an all-or-none decision* The extent to which lower level employees are brought into the decision making process may also be varied. In fact, several authors have described a oontinuum of participation (Heller & Yukl, 19691 Likert, 19661 Vroom & Yetton, 1973)* A decision may be made by a supervisor without consulting subordinates, or the supervisor may obtain necessary information from subordinates and then decide the solution to the problem independently. Once :.the. decision is* made bjr' the''’supervisor, he may or may not justify it to his subordinates. The problem may be shared with subordinates individually or in groups prior to the supervisor^ arriving at a decision which may reflect the influence of the subordinates. The supervisor may ask for the aid of his subordinates in generating alternative solutions and/or evaluating these alternatives. Par tic ipat ion," is \ increased if the final decision is made by the supervisor and subordinates jointly. Finally, the decision making process may be delegated entirely to the subordinates. In this case, they generate alternatives, evaluate the alternatives, and make the final decision which is then related to the supervisor. The power equalization process is generally, implemented in a group setting rather than individually for several reasons. Group problem solving and judgment tends to result 75 In a better outcome than If each individual worked alone (see Shaw;. 1971, Pp. 60-6?, for a review of studies investigating individual versus group performance)* Although group performance rarely exceeds the performance of the best individual within the group, it is not always possible to identify which individual w ill generate the best outcome before work commences.Moreover, group decision making allows more people the opportunity to influence the decision. Whereas the individuals may differentially contribute to the final decision, the Theory Y approach (McGregor, i 9 60 ) of treating the subordinates as competent and capable of assuming .• responsibility may have a beneficial effect on the implementation of the decision (see for example, Lawler & Hackman, 1969)* Recent research has tested the power equalization hypothesis in the context of group decision making. This research stems from Bales (I 95O1 Bales & Strodbeck, 1951) research on interaotion process analysis. Bales found that group process tends to be divided into three stages* orientation, evaluation, and control. The frequency of positive and negative socio-emotional responses tendsto increase as the group progresses through these stages. Extending B alestheory, Wood (1970, 1972a, 1972b, 1973) and his colleagues (Cooper & Wood, 197^1 Raben, 1973) have studied groups participating in combinations of three 76 stages of decision making. The first stage, generation (G), involves the derivation of possible alternatives for attaining the objective of a given problem. The second stage (E) consists of alternative-evaluation. In the final stage, choice (C)v a recommendation must be made to put one of the alternatives into effect. Wood (1970) compared fu ll participation groups (GEC) to two-phase participative conditions (EG, GC, and GE). Member influence was greatest in the full participation condition and weakest when the choice stage was absent. Cooper and Wood (197*0 compared the fu ll participation condition with groups participating in each stage alone (G, E, and C). They found that total influence and member satisfaction were greater in each successive stage and highest in full participation. In line with Tannenbaum's (1968) hypothesis, influence was not simply an additive function of the amount of participation, but expanded such that increased group participation did not detract from the influence of an external group approximating top management,. Raben ( 1973 ) also compared groups engaged in single decision-making stages with those who engaged in.- a l l ' stages. Satisfaction- and influence were‘greatest -in* ./ the fuli:vpa*ticipation condition and greater in successive stages, but these results depended upon the expert power of group members. Influence and satisfaction were greater for those with expert power. 77 The current study compares groups participating in all stages (GEC) with groups which only generate (G) and groups which generate and evaluate (GE). This is a cross-sectional design in that group process and outcome are tapped at all stages. However, group members are aware at the outset that their participation will be limited in the G and GE conditions. The following hypotheses were formulated with regard to the effectB of differential phase participation.

Output paratetert Group process ; Hypothesis lai The percentage of positive and negative sooio-emotional reactions w ill be greatest in the full participation condition. The generation- evaluation condition w ill result in a greater percentage of socio-emotional responses than the generation condition. Hypothesis lbi Group atmosphere and group cohesiveness will be either very favorable or very unfavorable under full participation, somewhat leas directionalrunder the'generation-evaluation condition, and neutral under the generation condition. Output parameteri Group outcome Hypothesis let Effectiveness, satisfaction, influence, and member commitment to group decisions w ill be greatest when group members participate in a ll stages. The value of the dependent variables w ill be higher 78 in groups participating in generation-evaluation than generation alone.

Input Parameter IIt Information Homogeneity

I f BenniB's (1970) predictions concerning the state of bureaucracy are correct, the complexity of adapting to a turbulent environment w ill force an organisation to change its patterns of decision making. Problems w ill be solved by temporary groups of relative strangers who represent diverse disciplines. A number of authors have noted the increase of interdisciplinary problem solving teams (Fiedle?, 195^1 Jewett, 19^5f London & Walsh, 197^1 Lussski, 1958* Smith, 1973* Stone, 1969). The popularity of interdisciplinary work stems from pressure for results and the desire of the government, foundations, and other organizations to speed up the process of getting information. (Luszki, 1958). One distinguishing characteristic of such teams is that members bring different information to bear 7 on a common problem . A major question to be answered by the present research is how the heterogeneity of information possessed by different

- Interdisciplinary teams differ from other groups in a number of respects including the heterogeneity of information. A member of a discipline brings with him a particular mode ■- of behavior, a loyalty to his own discipline, stereotypes of what he expects of members of other disciplines, etc. Studies in negotion behavior have compared groups whose members represent different reference groups with those whose members play a nonrepresentational role and must arrive at a mutually beneficial outcome. Whether the role is representational or 79 members within a group affec-ts the ability of the group to solve problems efficiently* Heterogeneous groups in which each member possesses unique information have the capacity to produce a high quality judgment because the total infomration is very great. However, such groups must face the problem of pooling'the information.(Steiner,. 1972)* This process might be accompanied by increased antagonism and conflict among group members* Such process losses are not liable to occur in homogeneous teams. To test this notion, heterogeneous groupB whose members each possess different information about a problem are compared to groups whose members possess the same and complete information about the problem. Thus, the heterogeneous groups have -the same information available to all the members as the homogeneous groups. If all the information i in the heterogeneous group is brought to bear on the problem, process losses are predicted. If information is not communicated, the decision is likely to suffer. The following hypotheses relate to the effects of homogeneity of information on group process and outcome.

Output parameter» Group process Hypothesis 2aiThe frequency of negative socio-emotional nonrepresentational, each member possesses information related to only one reference group. The present study manipulates information and holds role.constant. Subjects . are instructed to represent a neutral organization while using different information in oarrying out the group task. The results may have implications for interdisciplinary team functioning, but this is only a first step in systematically investigating the oporation."of interdisciplinary te am s• 80 reactions and task oriented responses of asking and giving w ill be greater under the heterogeneous- incomplete information condition than under the homogeneous-complete information condition. Hypothesis 2bi Group atmosphere and group cohesiveness w ill bo greater in the homogeneous groups than in the heterogeneous groups.

Output parameteri Group outcome Hypothesis 2ci Effectiveness, satisfaction! influence, and commitment to group decisions w ill be leBS, when each member possesses different and incomplete information than when a ll members posses the same and complete information.

Interaction of Information Homogeneity and Participation Level

Steiner (1971) Has delineated three types of task demands which may be used to describe the stages of decision making. In the generation stage, group members do the same thing and the group response is the total of members* efforts. This additive model should result in no differences between homogeneous and heterogeneous groupB. Group evaluation involves a compensatory or averaging model. Everyone judges ■the same stim uli and a prevailing or average feeling about the potential solutions may arise* Due to difficulties in information transfer among members in the heterogeneous group, process losses are likely. Therefore, the evaluation stage should be less satisfactory in the heterogeneous groups than the homogeneous groups. The choice stage may be described by a disjunctive model in which the best sol&tion is chosen. When no one member is most competent and one alternative does not stand out from the rest as the most obvious, process losses are inevitable. When a heterogeneous group must arrive at a final decision, the outcome w ill be less satisfactory than that of homogeneous groups also responsible for a final decision. Members* feelings about the group process and outcome w ill be most f a v 6 rable in homogeneous groups engaged in full participation. Members of homogeneous groups engaged in generation-evaluation should have more favorable attitudes than heterogeneous groups also.engaged in generation-evaluation and both homogeneous and heterogeneous groups engaged in generation alone. Homogeneity of information should not affect members' feelings of the group discussion in the generation c o n d itio n . The following hypotheses summarize the above argument.

Output parameter! Group prooess Hypothesis 3ai The percentage of negative socio- emotional responses w ill be greater and the percentage 62 of positive socio-emotional responses less in heterogeneous groups engaged in full participation than in any other groups. The percentage of negative socio-emotional responses w ill be greater and the percentage of positive socio-emotional responses less in heterogeneous groups which generate and evaluate but do not make the final choice than in homogeneous groups engaged in the same level of participation The percentages of both negative and positive soeio- emotional responses w ill' be minimal and no different between homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups which ere limited to generation. Hypothesis 3b i Group atmosphere and group cohesiveness w ill be less in heterogeneous groups engaged in full participation than in any other groups. Heterogeneous groups which pnly generate and evaluate should have lower levels of group atmosphere and cohesiveness than homogeneous groups in the same level of participation. Group atmosphere and cohesiveness should be lowest and no different between homogeneous groups and heterogeneous groups which are lim ited to generation.

Output parameter! Group outcome Hypothesis 3oi Effectiveness, satisfaction, influence, and commitment to decisions w ill be greater‘in . homogeneous groups engaged in full participation than in any other groups. Group outcomes ;will be 83 greater in homogeneous groups which only generate and evaluate than heterogeneous groups engaged in the same level of participation. Outcomes w ill he lowest and no different between homogeneous and heterogeneous groups which are lim ited to generation.

Input Parameter IIIt Personal Characteristics

In addition to situational variance, the present study addresses questions of group composition and individual differences. What a person brings to a group is likely to affect not only his responses but also the responses of the other group members, These variables comprise the personal environment of the group (Shaw, 1971). Variance in group process and.-outcome may be due to differences in several relevant personality variables. There are innumerable personality variables which potentially influence all stages of group activity. However, several variables have been suggested to be particularly relevant to the group process. These include the concepts of least preferred ooworker (Fiedler, 1967), interpersonal risk (Lundstedt, 1966), self-esteem (Korman, 1970), and internal-external locus of control (Rotter, 1966). Although LPC has been viewed by Fiedler (1967) as indicating the leader*s style of leadership, each group 84 member's LPC scorb may be relevant in a situation where any group member may play a dominant role at different times in the group process. Hypothesis 4ai When group atmosphere is perceived to be moderately favorable, LPC w ill be positively correlated with a member's effectiveness. LPC w ill be negatively correlated with effectiveness under conditions of unfavorable and highly favorable group atmosphere• Hypothesis 4b* LPC w ill be negatively correlated with the percentage of task oriented responses for each member and positively correlated with the percentage of socio-emotional responses.

Another relevant variable is interpersonal risk (IR). Lundstedt (1966) defines IR as a person's willingness to share power and influence in return for some positive reinforcement (such as an increase in expert or referent power). He hypothesised that IR should be positively related to group effectiveness and to the total amount of influence exerted in the group. Hypothesis 6 a* Interpersonal risk w ill be positively correlated with a member's exertion of influence and his effectiveness in the group. Hypothesis 6 b* Interpersonal risk w ill be positively correlated with the percentage of member task oriented re s p o n s e s . 85 Hypothesis 5c» Interpersonal risk w ill he positively correlated with perceived group atmosphere*

Korman (1970) presents a balance theory of work behavior which argues that the self-concept of an individual in relation to the task at hand is a determinant of the outcomes he w ill seek to attain and the outcomes which will satisfy him. Research on internal-external control has found consistent individual differences among individuals in the. degree to which they are likely to attribute personal control to consequences in sim ilar situations (Rotter* 1966 ) . It is predicted that locus of control will moderate the effects of self-esteem. Hypothesis 6 » Self-esteem w ill be positively correlated with effectiveness for individuals who are internally controlled* Self-esteem and effectiveness w ill not be related for individuals who perceive themselves to be externally controlled*

This hypothesis rests upon the assumption that self­ esteem should not be a relevant variable for individuals who are externally controlled. Self-esteem w ill be an important variable to individuals Who are internally controlled. Such a person may be of either high self-esteem (believing himself to be the cause of his predominantly effective behavior) or low self-esteem (believing himself to be the cause of his predominantly ineffective behavior)* CHAPTER IV METHOD

S u b je c ts

Subjects for the laboratory experiment were 72 male* engineering students at The Ohio State University* These subjects were recruited by an ad placed in the university newspaper and a letter sent to 350 freshmen who had been enrolled in an introductory engineering course the quarter preceding the study* Students were asked to volunteer for a study in problem solving which paid $ 5*00 for approximately 2j hours work. Subjects responded to the notice by telephoning the experimenter. At that time* 8 the subjects were scheduled for the experimental sessions. Three people were signed for each session. An attempt was * made to discourage friends from scheduling the same session when two or more students asked to participate at one time. In all* 2*t 3-member teams participated in the s tu d y . The ages of the subjects participating in the study ranged from 17 t o 2 7 - 33* 3# of the subjects were 18 years o f age* 2 3 . 6 % w ere 19 years old* 11. 1% w ere 20 * and another

Q ‘ ... - In addition to the newspaper ad and the mailed notices* 40 engineering majors were called on the telephone by the experimenter. These names were randomly selected from the university student directory. The study was explained and the potential subjects were asked to volunteer. 6 subjects . were recruited in this manner* 86 11*1# were 21. Freshmen composed 47.2# of the sample. 23. 6 # were sophomores, 11. 1# were juniors, and 12 . 5# were seniors. 5*6# were graduate students. The mean grade point average was 2.95 and ranged from 1.5 to 4.0. The majors represented in the sample are listed in Table 1. 29*2# were electrical engineers and 18# were freshmen who had not yet declared a major but were enrolled in an introductory engineering course the preceding quarter.

TABLE 1 MAJORS REPRESENTED IN THE SAMPLE

Major (Branches of the Frequency P erc e n ta g e College of Engineering) Agriculture 1 1 .4 Architecture 1 i ; 4 Aeronautical arid Astronautlcal 4 5 .6 B iom edical 2 2 .8 Ceram ic 1 1 .4 C iv il 3 4 .2 Computer and Information Science 5 6 .9 E l e c t r i c a l 21 2 9 .2 Engineering Mechanics 1 1 .4 Industrial and Systems 6 8 .3 M echanical 7 9 .7 W elding 1 1 .4 Freshmen previously enrolled in a University College engineering c o u rse ) 13 18.0 T o ta l 72 100. 0# 88

Group Task The task was designed toi (a) be realistic in content and relevant to the subjects, (b) permit multiple alternative resolutions with no "best" outcome, and (c) permit manipula­ tion of the information subjects possess without altering the general task content. Similar criteria for task selection were used by Yfood (1970,’1972a). The task designed for the present study was a power siting problem in which the subjects were asked to select three sites for nuclear- powered electric generating stations. This task involved the relevant issues of maintaining a high standard of living at the cost of degrading the natural environment. Three sources 6f information related to the problem’(the power.industry, governmental regulatory agencies, and environmental interests) were identified for the subjects. In the homogeneous information condition, each subject received information derived from all three- sources. In the heterogeneous information condition, each group member was asked to use the information derived from only one source. All subjects were asked t6 study maps detailing population centers, topography, recreational areas, etc. The objectives were to list alternative locations for three nuclear power stations, evaluate these potential sites, and decide where the plants should be built. However, subjects were involved in this process to different degrees. Groups either generated alternatives, generated and evaluated the alternatives, or generated, evaluated, and made the final selection of three sites. 89 P rocedure Upon arrival at the experimental session, the subjects in each group completed a biodata form and a set of personality measures* The subjects were then told they would be working on a power station siting problem. A brief description of a nuclear power plant was presented in a tape recorded lecture form along with visual displays* (See Appendix A for the text of this tape and the diagrams of various power plants.) The subjects were told that there are generally three groups of people who have vested interests in where a power plant is located* "The government represents the interests of the citizens and tries to mediate between the other points of view. Groups of private citizens often form to raise ecological issues. The power companies are interested in supplying the electrical needs of industry and residents while making a profit for their stockholders." The subjects were told to act as consultants hired by the power commissions in the areas in which the sites were to be located to make some of the decisions that must be made in siting three nuclear power p l a n t s . Zn the homogeneous information condition, the three subjects in each group received several pages of information on each of the three points of view. Each member was asked to examine all sides of the question during the discussion. In the heterogeneous information condition, each member of the team was asked to stuay information 90 related to one reference group. The instructions for the two information conditions are presented in Appendix B. The subjects were then given time (20 minutes in the heterogeneousi incomplete information condition and 4-0 minutes in the homogeneous information condition) to study the information and the maps and locate three sites as individuals. Following this individual decision making, members of the homogeneous information condition were given a l i s t o f 3Q"items derived from the information and asked to pick the 10 most important in making the individual decision and rank order those ten. The subjects in the heterogeneous information condition were given a lis t of 10 items representing the major points of their respective reference groups and asked to rank order these items according to their importance in making the individual decision. At this time, subjects were also asked for a subjective estimate of the maximum probability of a nuclear disaster above which a power plant should not be built. This item was intended as a crude measure of risk taking tendency relative to the power siting problem. The items of information and the probability measure are presented in Appendix C. Following the individual decision making, one of the three participation conditions was described! (1) G (generation) E (evaluation C (choice). In this full participation condition, the group members were told to first suggest to each other possible sites using the 91 information they were given as criteria for Bite selection. These sites could include the sites selected individually* but it was emphasized that additional sites Bhould be generated. Subjects were told to follow:* the usual brain­ storming instructions * M(l) SiteB are to be suggested without regard to quality of the suggestions. ( 2 ) No id e a may be evaluated until all ideas have been expressed. (3) The elaboration of one person's ideas by another is not only permitted but encouraged" (Osborn, 1957)* In relation to the power siting problem, it was explained that this lattdr statement meant that if, one member thought a site close to one suggested by another was better, it too should be recorded without explaining the reasons at this time. The group then evaluated the alternatives "taking good and bad aspects of each site into account" again using the information possessed by each member for justification. Finally, group members were asked to agree on three choices. A designated time was allowed for each stage (5 minutes for generation, 20 for evaluation, and 5 for choicq), (2) GEi Members took part in the generation and evaluation of sites. They were told that another group, consisting of faculty members working on the project would be given the sites generated and the video tape of the dis­ cussion as aids in'helping them make the final decision.^

^The concept of "another group" represents a theoretical decision making group which did not actually exist. This "external group" was created to function as a perceived source This condition took a total of 25 minutes to complete (5 minutes for generation and 20 for evaluation)* (3) Gi Members participated in the 5 minute generation stage only* They were told another group would evaluate the site locations suggested and make the final decision* In each participation condition, the subjects were aware of the amount of time they had for each stagei The experimenter interrupted the groups when the time for each stage elapsed* At that time, instructions were given for the next stage* Appendix B contains the instructions for the three participation conditions. At the conclusion of the group discussion, all subjects received 30 items of information pertaining to the three points of view. They were asked to choose 10 of the most important to the group outcome and rank order these 10. At this time, the remaining post discussion questionnaires (Bee Appendix 0) were administered. All discussions were video taped for the purpose of later observation to obtain interaction process analysis r a t i n g s .

Individual Difference Measures

The biodata form and the personality measures uBed of varying amounts of influence relative to decisions produced. This group is analogous to those at higher levels of an org­ anizational hierarchy. While not physically visible, they may exert great amounts of influence in organizational decision making. (Cooper, 1972) 93 are presented in Appendix E. Personal information obtained included age, sex, year in college, major, and grade point average. In addition, subjects were asked their attitudes toward the ecology movement in general, government agencies, and public u tilities. They were also asked their feeling about the importance of the nuclear power plant siting problem. Ratings of attitude were made on 9-point Likert B e a le s . The following personality measures were obtained* Least preferred co-worker (LPC)* Fiedler's (1967) semantic differential format of 16 8-point, bipolar adjective scales was used to measure LPC. Interpersonal risk (IR)i Lundstedt's ( 1966 ) IR-scale was used As the measure of interpersonal risk. The IR scale requires the respondent to indicate (on a 10- s t e p modified scale) the degree of agreement or disagreement w ith each of 30 dichotomized statements. The statements describe situations where elements of subjective risk are involved and where personal influence is distributed or exchanged. Self-esteem (SE)i The self-assurance scale of O hiselli's (1971) Self Description Inventory was used to measure self-esteem . This is a 31-keyed item forced-choice adjective- pair scale which measures the extent to which the individual perceives himself to be effective in dealing with the problems that oonfront him. 9<* Internal-external locus of control (IE)» Internal- external control was measured by R otter's (1966) IB scale* This is a 20-item (6 fillers) forced-choice inventory. For each item* the subject is asked which of two statements he more strongly believes. A subject's score indicates the number of external alternatives he selected.

Dependent Measures

The post task questionnaires included measures designed to assess the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations* perceived influence* satisfaction* and commitment to the group outcome. Measures of group atmosphere and group cohesiveness were also included. Multiple methods were used to measure most of these dependent variables. It was hoped that this strategy would provide a better empirical base for the predominantly self-report measures which lacked standardized measurement procedures. Where possible* external criteria not based upon the perceptions of the subjects were utilized. The post task questionnaires are presented in Appendix D. Phase participation was measured by four items (Feedback Form I) adapted from Wood (1972a)t "I was able to offer suggestions for specific recommendations'* (stage G). "I was able to comment on and discuss the various recommendations proposed" (stage E). "I was able to play a direct part in the final choice of alternatives" (stage C). "In general* 95 I was able to participate in this session as much as the other two people in our group" (overall participation). Perceptions of information possessed by group members was measured by five items (Feedback Form I)i "The information X possessed supported one side of the power siting question." "The information I had was different from the information the other members had," "I knew as much as everyone else." "The information I possessed was as important as the information possessed by the other members." "The group was stymied for lack of information." Subjects* responses on the measures of information and participation were recorded on 9-interval scales, anchored by "Completely True" and "Not at all True," Six measures of individual and group effectiveness were obtained* the number of sites generated, the quiqueness of the sites, the quality of the sites, perceived group effectiveness, self ratings of effectiveness, and peer ratings of effectiveness. These are explained below. Uniqueness * The frequency with which each nuclear power plant site was selected by individuals or generated by groups was taken as a uniqueness measure. The more frequently a site was suggested, the less unique the site. Quality* Four indexes of quality were derived for each site. Ratings were made by experts on the acceptability of each site from the perspectives of the environment, government regulations, and the power companies. Also, an overall acceptability rating was made. All ratings were made on 7-point Likert scales. Each expert read the information given to the subjects and was asked to base his ratings on this information. One fourth of the 113 total number of sites was rated by each of four judges. The fifth expert rated a random sample of eight sites from each set. The relationship between this expert's ratings and the corresponding sites rated by the other judges was only . 17 # However, an examination of the means and standard deviations of each judge's ratings indicated a strong central tendency effect. Thus, the low estimate of interrater agreement may be explained by a restriction in the range of ratings. Analyses were carried out on the four ratings of each site standardized with a mean of 5*00 and a standard deviation of 1 .00 to gu&rd against mean differences between each type of rating. Perceived group effectiveness* A number of items dealing with team development were rated on 9-interval scales ranging from "Completely True" to "Not at all True" (Feedback Form I). These items included the following* "Member contribu­ tions were directed to the problem." "A leader tended to emerge during the discussion." (The subjects were also asked to identify the leader if one emerged.) "The final choice of the power sites was based on the information possessed by the group." "Each member had his or her own opinions about where the power sites shoud be 97 located." "I was able to discuss ny opinions, choices, etc. with the other members of the group." "The major factor which guided my decisions was the quality of each Bite." "The objectives were clearly understood." "Interest was maintained throughout the discussion." The subjects were also asked whether the outcomes of the discussion were the best possible. Self and peer ratings of effectiveness! Two behaviorally anchored rating scales (Feedback Form VII) were used to obtain self and peer ratings of effectiveness. The behaviors were generated by faculty members participating in a sim ilar group task. Each subject rated and ranked, himself and the other two members on 20-point scales for each dimension. The dimensions were "Ability to get along with other members" and "Ability on task related activitiesi"H elping the group reach its objectives," In addition to the five measures of effectiveness described above, the effectiveness of groups in generating sites was evaluated in terms of the number of sites generated. Perceived influence was measured in three ways. F irst, each person described himself and the two others in the team on each of the following five items (Feedback Form II)i

* "I (He) played a big part in how we resolved the issues." "I (He) contributed many of the suggestions that came up." The group generally agreed with my (his) ideas." "I (He) had a great deal of influence over the decision we made." Sim ilar questions were used by Wood (1972a). Responses were 98 made on 9-interval true-not true scales. Subjects rated themselves and each group member separately. The second measure of influence (Feedback Form V) was simply a single rating made on 9-interval Likert Beales of the extent to which members contributed to the final selection of a power site. Each member rated himself, the other two group members, and "any other decision-making group which may be involved in the final decision.** (It was explained that this group referred to the faculty group working on the project.) Finally, influence was measured by instructing each group member to distribute a constant sum of hypothetical influence points among the three members of his group and "any other decision-making group which may be involved in the final decision. (Feedbaok Form VII). This method was used by Cooper (1972). It allows comparison of influence perceived as a fixed amount as opposed to the notion of an expanding pie of influence (Tannenbaum, 1968 ) measured in the two ways described above. Perceptions of satisfaction with various elements of the decision making session were made on 11 9- i n t e r v a l Likert scales ranging from “Completely Satisfied" to "Completely D issatisfied" (Feedback Form VI), Examples of these items include satisfaction with the decisions reached by the group, the task on which the members worked, the relationships between the group members, the method of decision making used, and the member*s contribution to the 99 outcome of the discuss ion. As a partial control for response bias, the scale anchors were reversed for half the items. Responses to a twelfth scale, rating the satisfaction with the experimental session in general, were also obtained. Commitment to the outcome of the group discussion was measured by a number of individual items (Feedback Form III). Eaoh subject was‘asked to indicate the \ proportion of his'grade he would like based on the ' outcome of the* discussion if he was graded on his participation. Also, he recorded the proportion of his grade he would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome. The subjects were told at this point that the results of the study are going to be sent .to the power commissions in the four states (a likely possibility considering the faculty involvement in the- study previously explained to the subjeots). Each subject was asked to sign hiB name if he would be w illing to have it given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of the group session* If he signed, he was asked if he would be w illing to be interviewed by a representative of the power commissions to explain the outcome of the discussion. Finally, he was asked if he would be willing to research the topic and write a paper advocating the outcome of the group discussion if paid by the power commissions. Fiedler*s (1 967) Group Atmosphere Scale (Feedback Form IV) was oompleted by the subjects. This instrument 100 consists of 10 bipolar adjective, 8-point scales measuring subjects* perceptions of the favorabiiity of the group atmosphere * Group cohesiveness (Feedback Form IX) was measured by the method used by Seashore (195(0* The post discussion questionnaires also included a second measure of the subject’s subjective estimate of the maximum probability of a nuclear disaster above which a nuclear power plant should not be built. The purpose of this measure was to examine any shifts in risk taking tendency following group discussion. Task oriented answers and questions and positive and negative socio-emotional responses were obtained by two trained Observers' ratings on an Interaction Process Analysis form (Bales & Strod-fceck, 1951)* This form is included in Appendex D.

Data Analysis

The multiraethod strategy adopted for the collection of the dependent variables made it necessary to determine the convergence among the methods purporting to tap the same constructs, Correlational analysis was used to examine the relationships among the various measures of each dependent variable as a criterion for data reduction. Hierarchical factor analyses (Wherry, 1959) were carried out on several 101 sets of items. Those Items loading highly on a factor were averaged to obtain an index of the dimension . 10 When several measures or factors of the same construct were highly intercorrelated, only one was retained for further analyses. When the expected convergence was not found among a set of measures, all were retained as separate variables for additional analyses. The analytic design involved a 3 X 2 analysis of variance. This design is exhibited in Table 2. The participation factor is comprised of the three variables! GEC, GE, and G. The information factor is defined by the homogeneous-complete information Condition and the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition. Fixed- faotor two-way ANOVAs were used to test the effectiveness of level of participation and homogeneity of information on member*s influence attribution, satisfaction, effectiveness, commitment, percentages of task oriented and socio-emotional responses, and perceptions of group atmosphere and cohesive-* ness. Twelve (member-subject) replications occurred in eaoh cell. Post hoc analyses to test the significance of orthogonal contrasts were employed when appropriate.

T 5 ------Note that an index of a factor was obtained by averaging those items that loaded highly on the factor rather than computing factor scores by weighting each item by the factor coefficient. This procedure was followed for the following reason. Since the sample was relatively small, the reliability of the coefficients would be in doubt. Unit weights provided the best guess of the item contribution to the factor. 102 TABLE 2 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Information Participation Stases GEC GE G

Homogeneous-Complete * Information CM 12 12

He te r ogene ous- Inc omplete Information 12 12 12

12 subjects comprised U- groups per cell.

Correlational analyses between each personality variable and each dependent variable were used to test the hypotheses dealing with the effects of individual differences on group member performance. The combined effectiveness of the experimental- differential analysis in predicting the dependent variables was'examined by canonical analyses. The levels of participation and information were coded as dummy variables by the method prescribed by Cohen (1969) for regression analysis. These comprised the set of experimental variables. Additional sets of variables included (1) the personality measures (LPGt interpersonal risk, Self-esteem, and internal-external control), ( 2 ) the biographical characteristics (age, year in school, and grade point average), and ( 3 ) the subject*s attitude toward the three reference groups 103 and his feeling about the importance of the nuclear power siting problem. Those variables retained as-measures of the different constructs comprised the set of criteria. Separate canonical analyses were performed 6 n all possible combinations of the four sets of pridictors and the one s e t ’6 f criteria. The weights derived from significant relationships between the predictor-criterion sets were used to indicate the contribution of each variable to the given relationship. CHAPTER V RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The outline for presentation of the results is as followsi (1) The relationships between characteristics of the sample and the treatm ent conditions are examined to eliminate plausible alternative explanations of the results, (2) The internal validity of the manipulations is assessed by examining peroeived participation and differences in information within each cell of the design, (3) The effects of participation level and information homogeneity are discussed for each dependent variable. The relationships among the different methods of measuring the same construct are presented and . justification for the retention or exclusion of dependent variables from further analyses is given. Analyses of variance for those variables retained are presented, ' W The effects of the different types of information within the heterogeneous-incomplete 'information condition are described. (5) The hypothesized relationships among the personality measures and the dependent variables are analyzed. (6) The canonical analyses of the independent and joint effects of the various sets of predictors on the set of criteria are discussed.

lOfc 105 (1) Characteristics of the Sample Biographical data If a person’s performance in a group decision making situation is a function of biographical characteristics, it is important that these characteristics are distributed evenly across the various treatment conditions. If this is the case, it increases the probability that any differences between the different treatments are due to participation and information rather than to other intervening variables. Four variables were examined in this respectt age, year in college, grade point average, and major. (The distribution of these characteristics across the entire sample is presented on pages 86- 87.) The frequencies and percentages of these characteristics within the cells of the experimental treatments are included in Appendix F. The distribution of these characteristics within cells tended to conform to the distribution of each characteristic over the entire sample. No cell of the design was dominated by one or more levels of a particular characteristic.

Attitudes toward the three reference groupB An additional potential source of variance in the dependent variables lies in the attitudes of the subjects toward the three reference groups Studies in the' negotiation literature (e.g., Vidmar, 1971) enhanced the role assigned to the subjects by making assignments to reference groups 106 on the basis of feeling toward that group. An aim of the present study was to control the role held by the subject while manipulating information. Subjects were asked to represent the power commissions in the area as experts in the information they were given. It was hoped that attitudes toward the different points of view would not affect the subject's ability to use the information.. To determine possible differential effects of attitudes within the cells of the design, subjects* ratings of their attitudes toward ecology movements, governmental agencies, and phblic u tilities were examined. The means and standard deviations of these ratings and the results of the analyses of variance are presented in Tables 3-5* No significant differences were found across groups for each attitude measure. Overall, however, attitudes toward governmental agencies (5£*^.33) tended to be lower than attitudes toward public utilities (X-5.6^, t»^.50, df-1^2, p<.01) and ecology movements (X«"6.?6, t*8.38, df-1^2, p^.Ol). Also, feelings toward ecology movements were more favorable than those toward public u tilities (t-3.88, df-14-2, p<«01). While attitudes toward the three reference groups may not be related to the experimental treatments, they may influence the dependent variables. This possibility was examined in three ways. First, the relationships between each attitude measure and each dependent variable retained for analysis was examined. These correlations, presented in 107 TABLE 3 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD..THE! REFERENCE GROUPS FOR INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION CONDITIONS

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information i SD *5? .SD A ttitude toward ecology movements GEC 6.17 2.03 6.00 2.52 GE 7.01 1.54 6.83 1*47 0 7.33 1.37 7.25 1.55 A ttitude toward government agencies GEC 4.33 2.27 4.50 2.51 GE 3.83 1.27 4.58 1.78 G 4.59 1.44 4.17 2.37 Attitude toward public u tilities GEC 4.83 2.29 6.17 1.95 GE 5.25 1.66 5.92 2.23 G 6.25 1.06 5.42 2.39 108 TABLE ^ ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE FOR THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTITUDES TOWARD THE REFERENCE GROUPS AND THE EXPERIMENTAL VARIABLES

S ource d f MS . F £ A ttitude toward ecology movements Information (A) 1 .35 .1 1 n . s . Participation (B) 2 9.18 2.86 n . s .

A X B 2 • o • O o n . s . Within Cells 66 3 .2 3 Attitude toward governmental agencies A 1 .50 .1 3 n .s B 2 .29 .07 n .s A X B 2 2.0*f .51 n .s Within Cells 66 3 .9 8 Attitude toward public u t i l i t i e s A 1 2 .7 2 .69 n .s B 2 .72 .1 8 n .s A X B 66 3 .9 3 109 TABLE 5 ATTITUDES OP SUBJECTS WITHIN THE HETEROGENEOUS-INCOMPLETE INFORMATION GROUP

X SD A ttitude toward ecology movements Possession of information related to t Environmental Interests 7 .0 8 1 .3 1 Governmental Regulations 6 .5 2 .1 5 Power Companies* Perspective 6 .9 1.62 Attitude toward governmental agencies Possession of Information related toi Environmental Interests 3 .5 1 .8 Governmental Regulations 4 .3 1 .6 Power Companies* Perspective 5 .0 1 .5 Attitude toward public u tilities Possession of information related toi Environmental Interests 5.0 1 .9 Governmental Regulations 5 .6 2 .3 Power Companies* Perspective 5 .8 1 .4

Notet P (for attitude toward ecology movements) « .26, n.s. P (for attitude toward government agencies) - 2.55# n. P (for attitude toward public utilities) « , 56 , n . s . n o Appendix G, tended to be low. In fact, the association between any attitude-criterion pair accounted for no more than 8# (r-.28* p<.01) of the variance within the two variables. Second* analyses of covariance for the effects of participation and information holding constant the ratings of the three attitude objects were no different than the analyses of variance performed on each dependent variable. Finally* the attitude measures were included as a set of predictor variables in the canonical analyses. This set was not significantly related to the set of criteria. A more complete description of these analyses w ill be presented later.

Treatment Effectiveness

Prior to an analysis of the effects of participation and information on the dependent variables* it is important to determine the internal validity of the manipulations. The effectiveness of participation level and information horaogeneity-completeness as treatment manipulations can be determined by the manipulation checks included in the post discussion questionnaire. It was expected that the level at which group members within the full participation condition perceived their participation would be greater than the perceived participation of those who were limited to generation and evaluation and generation alone. Furthermore* Ill perceived participation was expected to be greater in the groups which generated and evaluated than those which engaged in only generation. Similarly, for the information treatment to be deemed effective, each member within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition was expected to perceive his information to be one-sided and different from that possessed by the other members. Results of the analyses of variance of those items designed as manipulation checks are presented in Tables 6-1**.

TABLE 6 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSi MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION IN THE GENERATION STAGE

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-C omplete Information Information X SD X SD GEC 8 .2 5 .97 8 .0 0 .85 GE 7 .7 5 1.29 6 .92 2 .0 7 G 7 .9 2 2.27 8.75 .87

Note* Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) " •<>«. .« “l/66, n.o. ^Participation (B) " df“2/66» n.s. ?A X B " 1#91» df-2/66, n.s. TABLE 7

TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS i MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION IN THE EVALUATION STAGE

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD

GEC 7 .8 3 1 .3 4 8 .3 3 .65 GE 7 .7 5 .9 7 7 .5 1 1 .4 9 G 2.33 2 .0 6 **.58 3 .8 3

Note i Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) " df-1/66, n.s. ^Participation (B) " ^9*56# df-2/66* p<.001 PA X B " 2*08* df-2/66, n.s.

TABLE 8 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS! MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED PARTICIPATION IN THE FINAL CHOICE STAGE

He t er ogeneous -Inc omple te Homogeneous -C omple te Information Information X SD X SD GEC 7.75 1.60 8 .5 0 .67 GE 6.33 2 .6 4 6 .4 2 2 .2 8 G 5.42 3 .7 8 4 .7 5 3 .4 4

Note i Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) * df-1/66, n.s. ^Participation (B) " 8' 13* d*“2/66, P*.001 PA X B ** • ^ ‘9 df**2/66» n .s. 113 TABLE 9

TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSi MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

PERCEIVED "OVERALL** PARTICIPATION

Heterogene ous-Incomplete Homogene ous-C omplete Information Information 5f SD E SD

GEC 7 .8 3 1 .5 3 8.58 .67 GE 7*83 1«?0 8 .1 ? .8 4 GE 9 .0 0 .0 0 8.17 1 .3 4

Notei Summary of Analysis of Variance information (A) ‘ df_1/66* n-s< iartielpatlon (B) " 1’5k' df' 2/ 66* n-B- PA X B " df«2/66» n.B.

TABLE 10 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSi MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED DEGREE TO WHICH INFORMATION POSSESSED SUPPORTED ONE SIDE OF THE PROBLEM

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information 5c SD X SD GEC 6 .8 3 1.4 0 5.7 5 2.4 5 GE 7 .0 8 2 .7 1 5.7 5 2 .3 4 G 7 .3 3 2.50 4 .5 0 2 .1 5

Note* Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) ** df*«i/66, p<.01 Participation (B) " *31* df“2/ 66* n*8* PA x B " 1.02* df*2/66( n.B. n 4

TABLE 11

TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSi MEANS. AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF

. PERCEIVED DIFFERENCE IN INFORMATION AMONG GROUP MEMBERS

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD GEC 7.17 2.1 7 2.8 3 2 .0 4 GE 7.75 1 .2 2 4 .2 5 2.0 9 G 8.50 .80 2.6? 2.46

Notes Summary of analysis of Variance ^Information (A) " 104.69# df"l/66# p^.OOl

^Participation (B) " 1§7°* AfmZ/ 66* n *s * PA X B " df-2/66# n.s. i .

TABLE 12 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS* MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF DEGREE TO WHICH A GROUP MEMBER FELT HE KNEW AS MUCH AS EVERYONE ELSE

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD * SD GEC 5.17 2 .9 2 7 .0 8 1.24 GE 6.83 2 .5 5 6.75 2 .3 0 G 5.75 3 .4 9 7 .0 0 2.45

Notes Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) ' 2'85> ^ - 1 /6 6 , n .o . ^Participation (B) “ '■w * df”2/66, n.B. PA X B " df*»2/66, n.s. TABLE 13 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESSi MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED EQUALITY OF THE IMPORTANCE OF INFOR­ MATION POSSESSED BY GROUP MEMBERS

He terogeneous-Inc omple te Homogeneous-C omple te Information Information X SD 5T SD GEC 6.75 2.14 8.1? .84 GE 7.25 1.66 7*58 1.56 G 9.00 .00 8.08 1.24

Note* Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) " *69* df“*/66, n*s * P articipation (B) " *K88* df"2/ 66* P<*°5 FA X B “ df-2/66, p<.05

TABLE 14 TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS* MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF PERCEIVED DEGREE TO WHICH GROUP WAS STYMIED FOR LACK OF INFORMATION

He terogeneous- Incomple te Homogene ous-Comple te Information Information 3C SD X SD GEC 5.00 2.22 3.17 1.90 GE 4.00 2.05 5.33 2.23 G 4.50 2.47 2.00 1.21

Note* Summary of Analysis of Variance ^Information (A) " *f,20» df"1/ 66* P<*°5 Participation (B) “ 2*9°* df"2/66, n.s. PA x B m df»2/66, p<.01 116 The results provide support for the efficacy of both experimental manipulations. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of perceived participation in the generation stage. Since all groups participated in this stage, no differences were expected. The experimental groups acted in accord with the participation stage manipulation as indicated by the significant F ratios for the mean differences between participation groups (see Tables 7-8)• An analysis of the Moveralln rating of participation, however, showed no main effects. Thus, when the questions related to specific levels of participation, the appropriate responses occurred. When the question related to participation in general, groups did not differ in their feelings of having participated in the decision making process. Furthermore, the mean scores tended to be fairly high, ranging from 7.8 to 9*0 on a 9-point scale. Tables 10-11 verify the effectiveness of the information homogeneity treatment. The perceived degree to which the information possessed supported one side of the problem was significantly greater for the heterogeneous-incomplete information groups than for the homogeneous-complete information groups (p<«01). A sim ilar significant difference occurred for the perceived difference in information among group members (p(.001). 117 Several other questions were asked in the post discussion questionnaires regarding the information possessed by group members although these are not directly checks of the manipulation of information homogeneity-completeness. No significant differences were found among groups in the degree to which a member fe lt he knew as much as everyone else (Table 12). While this measure was expected to be high throughout* the means were lower and the standard deviations higher in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition. Analysis of differences within the heterogeneous * groups were nonsignificant (see Table 55# P» .182). The effects of the information treatments on perceived equality of importance of the information possessed are summarized in Table 13. Responses to this question resulted in a significant main effect for participation (p<. 05) and a significant interaction effect (p<• 05.) • Orthogonal comparisons indicated that information was perceived as less equally important in the full participation condition than in the generation alone condition within the heterogeneous infor­ mation treatment. Apparently, the perceived information differential increased as participation increased for those in the heterogeneous groups. Data presented later (Pp. 174-178) indicate that this is evidence of a lack of ability of the group to synthesize information. No significant differences were found between participation conditions within the homogeneous information treatm ent. 118

Another question asked of the subjects was the degree to which they were stymied for lack of information. Mean responses to this question were fairly low (less than 6 on a 9-point scale). Generally, those group members possessing heterogeneous-incomplete information found themselves to be more stymied for lack of information than those in the homogeneous-complete information condition (p<*05)« A significant interaction effect (p^.01) followed by post hoc probing indicated that those group members who generated and evaluated but did not make the final decision felt more stymied than those who engaged in full participation or \ , generation alone.in the homogeneous-complete information condition* Perhaps this question is an indication of group effectiveness or member satisfaction rather than a reflection of the treatment effectiveness. Those groups in which each member had sufficient information for full participation may have attributed feelings-of bein& restricted in degree of participation to a lapk of information as a . means of dissonance reduction. Analyses of the effectiveness and satisfaction data should verify such an interpretation. 119 . (3a) Effects of Participation and Information • on Group Outcome Effectiveness A number of measures of effectiveness were collected i the number of sites generated by a group, the uniqueness of sites selected by the individuals and generated by the groups, the quality of the sites from the standpoint of the three reference groups, and perceived self, peer, and overall group effectiveness. Tables 15-16 present the data dealing with the number of sites generated by the four groups within each condition. No significant results were evident from the analysis of variance. Planned comparisons were carried out to test the difference between the mean for the groups in the generation condition and the average of the means in the full par­ ticipation and generation-evaluation conditions. These results were also not significant (the low sample size of b groups per cell making the critical level for significance difficult to exceed). However, the trend is that groups lim ited to generation generate more alternative solutions than the other groups which participate to a greater degree. Perhaps when a greater level of participation is allowed, less attention is paid to the initial stage of the decision making process. 120 TABLE 15 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR THE NUMBER OF SITES GENERATED BY EACH GROUP

He terogeneous-Inc omplete Homogene ous-C omplete Information Information X SD X SD GEC 15.75 2 .2 8 13.00 2 .1 2 GE 15.50 2 .0 6 15.00 1 .2 2 G 17.75 .4 4 16.00 3 .5

TABLE 16 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON THE NUMBER OF SITES CHOSEN BY EACH GROUP

S o u ro e d f MS F & W2

Information (A) 1 16.66 1.9 9 n .s '. .0 4 Participation (B) 2 1 2 .8 8 1 .5 4 n . s . .0 4 A X B 2 2 .5 5 .3 0 n . s . .0 0 Within Cells 18 8 .3 6

f o W (omega squared) is the sample estimate of the proportional reduction in the variance of the dependent variable given the treatment condition.(Hays» 1963• Pp. **06-407). 121 The average quality of the sites selected by individuals in the homogeneous-complete information and heterogeneous- incomplete information conditions are presented in Table 17. No significant differences were found between these two conditions for the quality of individual decisions. The data for the quality of sites generated by the groups in the different treatment conditions are presented in Table 18. Again, no significant effects were found. Also, the difference between the information conditions for the sites selected by the groups in the full participation condition (Table 19) was nonsignificant. The standardized quality scores (X-5,00, SD-1.00) for each type of rating ranged from 3*90 to 6.^7 indicating that the judges did not discriminate among the sites from any viewpoint.. ' *

TABLE 17 MEAN QUALITY OF INDIVIDUAL DECISIONS4

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information 5c SD 3f SD Quality of the sites from the perspective ofi Environmental I n t e r e s t s ’ 5*0*4- .06 5*05 .09 Governmental Agencies 5*20 .11 5.18 *13 Power - Companies 5*13 .06 5.2*f .21 Overall Favor- ability 5*15 *15 5.**0 .23 aExpreBsed in standard scores. 122 TABLE 18 QUALITY OP SITES GENERATE#

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogene ous-Complete Information Information 3T SD X SD Quality of the sites from the perspective oft Environmental Interests GEC 5*01 • 21 5 .0 3 .4 0 GE 5 .0 3 • 10 5 .1 0 • 21 C . 4 .9 8 • 20 5 .1 2 • 61 Governmental Agencies GEC 5-1 7 .03 5 .1 8 .4 2 GE 5*21 .40 5 .0 9 .2 9 G 5 .2 5 .0 4 5 .2 6 .2 8 Power Companies GEC 5 .1 0 .17 5 .2 6 .07 GE . 5 .1 2 .36 5 .1 7 .11 G 5 .1 7 .30 5 .2 9 .1 0 Overall Favorability GEC 5 .1 4 .11 5.&0 .2 8 GE 5 .1 5 .10 5 .3 6 • 08 G 5.16 .21 5.^2 .19 aExpressed in standard scores* 123 TABLE 19 QUALITY OF THE SITES CHOSEI^

Heterogene ous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD Quality of the site from th e perspective of* Environmental Interests 4.79 .0 4 4 .7 4 • 02 Governmental Agencies 5*13 .00 5 .0 3 .0 4 Power . Companies 5*29 .12 5 .4 8 .0 7 Overall Favor- • a b i l i t y 5.32 .0 9 5.66 • 21 g. — " “■ i ■ — 1 ■ ■' ■ ...... — ■■ — - ...... — i ■' Expressed in standard scores.

The frequency with which each site was generated or seleoted by the individuals (when not included among the sites generated) was used as a basis for a uniqueness measure. The mean uniqueness score for individual selections in the homogeneous-complete information group was 4.19 and 4.26 for the heterogeneous-incomplete information group. This difference was not significant. The uniqueness: scores for thecsited. generated are presented in Table 20* Again, no significant differences were found. For those groups which engaged in full participation, the mean uniqueness * of the sites selected was 6 . 8 in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition and 4. 6 in the homogeneous-complete 12 V Information condition. This difference was not significant. Apparently, the external criteria of uniqueness and quality are not affected by the participation'and'inform atibn treatments.

t* ■ TABLE 20 UNIQUENESS OF. SITES GENERATED :■

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogene ous-C om plete Information Information X SD X SD GEC 5 .2 0 1.0 3 ZM 1 .3 7 GE 5 .8 0 .9 ^ 3 .9 6 l.O if G 5 .6 0 1 .0 2 3 .2 1 .8(5

The analyses of the data on perceived group effectiveness did result in significant effects. Self reports of effectiveness were obtained in two ways. The first method consisted of ten items rated on 9~point Likert scales. These items are presented in Table 21. The second procedure Involved behaviorally anchored rating scales for two dimensionsi task effectiveness and interpersonal effectiveness. Prior to proceeding with further analyses, the relationships among these variables were examined. The results of the hierarchical factor analysis * performed on the 10 effectiveness items is included in Table 22. Four factors were extracted. This solutidn accounted for 50# of the total variance. The first dimension 125 TABLE 21 EFFECTIVENESS ITEM KEY

Item No. 1, The major factor which quided my decisions was the quality of each site. 2* I was able to actively discuss my opinions, choices, etc., with the other members of my group. 3. The objectives were clearly understood. 4. Interest in the problem was maintained throughout the discussion. 5. Member contributions were directed to the problem. 6. A leader tended to emerge during the discussion. 7. The final choice of the power sites was based on the information possessed by the group m embers• 8. The final choice of the power sites was based on my own p r e f e r e n c e s . 9. Each member of the group had his own opinions about where the power sites should be located. 10. The outcome of the discussion was the best possible. was a general factor labeled "Overall Task Effeciveness." Seven items had high loadings (those greater than .30) on this dimension. The first group factor had high loadings on the items involving maintaining interest in the probelm and directing contributions to the problem. This factor was termed "Member Contributions.*' The second group factor, termed "Effectiveness in Meeting Objectives," was comprised of items involving perceived quality of each site, understanding the objectives, the extent to* which the final choice was based on the information possessed by the group members, and the feeling of whether each member had his own opinions about which solution should be chosen. 126 TABLE 22 HIERARCHICAL FACTOR ANALYSIS OF EFFECTIVENESS ITEMS

.i.tem Ha* 1 2 1 a h* l . .23 .23 •26 -.0 2 .23 •a- o 1 2 . .62 .18 • .18 .54 3 . .17 .03 .66 —. 02 .46 o t .2 8 .68 .00 • .61 CO 0 1 5 . •21 •61 • .03 .66 6. •2H .14 - .2 4 .10 .20 7 . .66 - .2 6 •21 .24 .69 8. .61 -.1 1 -.09 .23 .44 J 1 j o • 9. .08 - .0 6 .80 V .66 10. .62 .20 .16 .13 .46

A third group factor had no loading above ,30 and hence was not interpreted. Measures of each dimension were calculated by averaging the items which had high loadings on each factor. The Pearson correlations among the factor indexes and the ratings on the behaviorally anchored rating scales are presented in Table 23* While the relationships among the general and the two group factors were significant! the TABLE 23 INTERCORRELATIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES

1 2 3 4 5 6 Factor indexes of Likert scale items 1. Overall Task Effectiveness (general factor) 1 .00

2. Member Contributions . *** - (first group factor) .67 1 .0 0 3. Effectiveness in Meeting Objectives (second . *** group factor) .16 1 .0 0 Behaviorally Anchored Rating scale items • Task Effectiveness

Self-ratings .00 -.10 .02 1.00

5. Peer-ratings .08 - .0 9 .15 .1 3 1 .0 0 Interpersonal Effectiveness

, **« 127 6. Self ratings .12 - .0 8 - .0 1 .9 ^ .01 1.0 0 _ *•- *** 7* Peer ratings .10 - .1 ^ .07 .27 .70 .1 6

*** p<.001 ** p<.01 * P<«05 128 relationship between the two group factors was not* Self ratings on task effectiveness were significantly related to self ratings on interpersonal effectiveness. Peer ratings on the two dimensions were also significantly' intercorrelated. However, self ratings and peer ratings were independent. The factor indexes were not significantly related to the behaviorally anchored rating scale measures. It was decided to retain the three factor indexes and the self and peer ratings of task effectiveness for evaluation! of the hypotheses. The means and standard deviations and the analyses of variance for the indicants of perceived effectiveness are presented in Tables 2^-25. Significant main effects were found for the factor indexes of overall effectiveness, member contributions, and effectiveness 6f the'group in meeting objectives between the participation conditions. Scheffe^ analyses for orthogonal post hoc comparisons were performed on the data. The results verified hypothesis lc in that overall effectiveness was greatest for groups which participated in all stages than for groups which generated or generated and evaluated. Overall effectiveness was significantly greater when groups generated and evaluated than when they participated only in generation. Member contributions in the full participation and generation- evaluation conditions were Significantly greater than in the generation-alone condition. Effectiveness in meeting 129 objectives was significantly greater in the full participation condition than in the generation-evaluation condition. No significant effects were found for the self and peer r a t i n g s .

TABLE 24 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information j? SD 3T SD Overall Effectiveness • 0 GEC 7 .0 1 00 7.12 .78 GE 6.22 1.34 6.06 .79 G 4 ,2 5 1 .6 4 4.78 1 .53 Member C o n trib u tio n s GEC . 7 .8 8 1.05 7.92 1.26 GE 8.13 1.05 7.92 .67 G. 6.13 2 .9 6 7.08 1.86 Effeetivdness in Meeting Objectives 00 00 GEC 7 .6 3 • 7.96 .8 4 GE 6.86 1.75 6.23 1.37 0 7 .4 0 .97 6.81 1 .28 Self Ratings of Effectiveness GEC 13.92 2 .1 9 15.42 3.26 GE 13.00 2.9 2 14.1$> 1.99 G: 14.33 3 .^ 5 18.58 15.08 Peer Ratings of Effectiveness

GEC 13.17 2 .3 3 15.67 1. 8B GE 12.50 2.88 13.42 2 .8 4 G 14.50 2.36 13.42 3 .5 0 1 3 0

TABLE 25 ANALYSES OP VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND

PARTICIPATION ON MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

S o u rc e d f MS F R w j Overall Effectiveness Information (A) 1 .4 8 .3 3 n . s . .0 0 Participation (B) 2 3 9 .9 3 2 7 .5 1 .0 0 1 .4 3 A X B 2 .7 0 .4 8 n . s . .0 0 Within Cells 66 1 .4 5 Member Contributions A 1 1 .2 5 .4 6 n . s . • 00 B 2 1 4 .7 6 5 .3 6 .0 1 • 11 A X B ;*2 2.26 • 82 n.s. .0 0 Within Cells 66 2.76 Effectiveness in Meeting Objectives A 1 1 .5 3 1 .0 2 n . s . .0 0 B 2 9.*H 6 .2 9 • 01 .1 3 A X B 2 1.76 1.18 n.s. .0 0 W ithin Cells 66 1 .5 0 Self Ratings of Effectiveness A 1 9 5 .6 8 2 .1 5 n*;s. .0 2 B 2 5 0 .6 0 1 .1 4 n . s . • 00 A X B 2 1 7 .1 8 1 .3 9 n . s . • 02 Within Cells 66 44.52 ?eer Ratings of Effectiveness A 1 1 0 .8 9 1 .5 2 n . s . . .0 1

B 2 1 3 .3 5 1 .8 6 ■k n . s . • 02 A X B 2 1 9 .3 5 2 .6 9 r m s . • 04 W ithin Cells 66 7 .1 8 131 Thus, perceptions of general group effectiveness

and its components of member contributions and effectiveness

in meeting objectives tend to be highest when groups

participate in all three stages of the decision making * * • process. Feelings of effectiveness generally decrease as

extent of participation decreases. Contrary to Hypothesis

2c, perceived effectiveness did not differ between

heterogeneous-incom plete inform ation groups and homogeneous-

complete inform ation groups. Hypothesis 3c was not

confirmed. Effectiveness in the full participation and

generation-evaluation conditions vrere.no better in the

homogeneous-complete inform ation groups than in the

heterogeneous-incomplete inform ation groups.

I n f l u e n c e

Three methods were used to measure influence; Self

and peer ratings were obtained on 5’itemd using'9-point

Likert scales, A single 9-point scale was used to measure

the perceived'overall influence of each person in the

group and the influence of the external group of faculty

members working on the project. Finally, subjects

distributed 100 influence points among the members of the group and the external group.

For the 5 items, total scores for self ratings and the

average of peer ratings were calculated. The relationships

between the items and the total scores are included in

Table 26, In all cases, the r^ s were significant at the ,001 132 level. The average item -total correlation was .83* Thus, the total scores are representative of all five items*

TABLE 26 CORRELATIONS OP SELF AND PEER RATINGS OP INFLUENCE WITH TOTAL SCORES

Self Rating Peer Ratings T o ta l T o ta l 1. I (He) played a big part in how we resolved the issues. .76 .88 2. I (He) contributed many of the suggestions that «## _*** came up. .72 .7 9 3. The group generally agreed ### with my (his) ideas. .72 .6 9 I (He) got the discussion to go the way I (he), j. wanted it to go. .81 .83 5* X (He) had a great deal of influence over the decision we m ade. .87 .9 0

***p<,001

The interrelationships among all the measures of perceived influence are presented in Table 27. All measures were highly interrelated with several notable exceptions. The total of the single Likert scale measures for perceptions of influence exerted by one's self, peers, and the external group on the final decision was uncorrelated with measures of influence obtained by the constant sum technique. ThuB, the subjects did not seem to see the. 133 Influence exerted in solving a problem to be a constant sum. A significant positive correlation between external group influence rated on the Likert scale and the total amount of influence provides some insight into the differences between the constant sum and Likert measures. If subjects were using a subjectively determined constant sum in rating influence on the Likert scale, then the « influence attributed to the external group would be negatively related to that attributed to one's self or peers. This negative relationship emerged between the ratings of the external group and the group members for the constant sum procudure. The relationship was* negative but nonsignificantfor the external group-group member pairs. Thus, group members may be perceived to have an influence over the group outcome whether the external group is involved in the decision making process or not. This is in agreement with the earlier finding that perceptions of overall participation tend to be high and no different between those in the various participation conditions. It was decided to retain only the individual Likert scale measures for further analyses since the information derived from the other measuring techniques appears to be redundant. TABLE 27

INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG INFLUENCE MEASURES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

- Item total scores 1. Self ratings 1.00 . *#* 2. Peer ratings .60 1 .0 0 Likert scales * * 3. Self ratings .27 .27 i.o o ** *** «*** 4. Peer ratings .31 .43 .38 1 .0 0 5. External . ~ group .15 -.1 7 - .1 8 - .1 5 1.00

6 . T o ta l . . „ *** _ in flu e n c e .16 .20* .57*** .53*** ;6o i.o o C o n stan t sum ■ . ** *** 7. Self ratings .3 4 .35*** .59*** .21* -.52 .01 1.00 * , *** * -*** 8. Other members- .21 .25* .47 .20 - .5 6 - .0 9 .81 1.00 *** ♦♦ 9. Peer ratings .39 .37 .25 .50 - .3 1 .1 2 .27* .20 1.00 ** ** *#* *** - *** ** *** ,0. External > .27 - .3 0 - .5 5 - .2 1 .57 .05 -.9 2 - .9 7 - .2 4 group * * * p < .0 0 1 **p4.01 *p*.05 135 The values of perceived influence for the different treatment conditions are presented in Table 28. The summary of the analyses of variance performed on this data is contained in Table 29. As predicted in Hypothesis 2c( significant main effects were found for perceptions of selft peer, and external group influence across the participation conditions. Self and peer ratings tended to be higher in the full participation and geheration-evaluation conditions than in the generation-only condition. The reverse trend’occurred for.ratings of external group influence. A significant main effect was found for peer ratings between homogeneous-complete and heterogeneous- incomplete information conditions. .Peer ratings were higher in the homogeneous groups as predicted by Hypothesis lc. While not significant, the same trend appeared for self ratings. However, the amount of variance accounted for by this effect, indicated by omega squared (W ) was quite low (6 f» for the significant effect of participation on peer r a t i n g s ) . Significant interaction effects were found for all the measures of influence. However, these results only partially confirm Hypothesis ^he significant interactions for self, peer, and external group influence may best be explained by examining the interaction of the total amount of influence for the different levels of participation and information. TheBe data are diagrammed in Figure 2. 136 TABLE 28 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF LIKERT SCALE MEASURES OF INFLUENCE

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD Self ratings GEC 6.50 1.73 6.92 1.21 GE 5.50 2.11 4.42 1.38 G 2.75 2.34 4.83 2.55 Peer ratings GEC 5.92 1.56 7.00 .95 GE 5.08 1.62 5.08 1.08 G 2.75 1.29 4.75 2.09 External group GEC 2.83 2.48 4.*f2 3.48 GE 6.67 2.64 3.58 3.26 G 6.00 3.54 6.67 2.96 Total (self + peer + external group Influence) GEC 15.25 2.60 18.33 3.94 GE 17.25 3.65 13.08 3.83 G 11.50 3.99 16.25 4.63 1 37 TABLE 29 ANALYSES OP VARIANCE FOR EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON LIKERT SCALE MEASURES OF INFLUENCE

Source d f MS F n W2 Self ratings Information (A) 1 4 .01 1 .0 4 n . s . .00 Participation (B) 2 51.72 13.45 .001 .24 A X B 2 15.06 3.92 .05 .06 Within Cells 66 3 .85 Peer ratings A 1 19*01 8 .6 4 .01 .06 B 2 44.01 20.00 .001 .31 A X B 2 6.01 2 .7 3 .07 .03 Within Cells 66 2 .2 0 External group A 1 1.39 .15 n . s . .00 B 2 44.18 4.64 .01 .09 A X B 2 36.68 3 .85 .05 .07 Within Cells 66 9 .5 3 Total (self + peer + external group in flu e n c e ) A 1 2 6 .8 9 1 .8 4 n . s . .01 B 2 5 1.26 3.51 .05 .05 A X B 2 134.85 9 .2 4 .001 .17 Within CellB 66 14.60 Total Influence (self + peer + external group Influence) 20 gur Gah he ma l s of l a t o t f o ls e v le mean e th f o Graph i 2 re u ig F E GE GEC tons. s n itio d n o c n o i t a p i c i t r a p in flu e n c e f o r in fo rm a tio n and and n tio a rm fo in r o f e c n e flu in ^ Homogeneous- Homogeneous- ^ o lt!Informaton. n tio a m r o f n I plete! Com omplt I or i n tio a rm fo In lete p m co n H ete ro g e n eo u s- s- u eo n e g ro ete H 138 139 Post hoc analyses revealed that the total amount of Influence was higher in the homogeneous groups than the heterogeneous groups participating in generation, evaluation, and choice. This is inLaccord with Hypothesis 3c which stated that group process should be facilitated and member influence..should be greater in the homogeneous- complete■information groups. This trend was reversed in the generation-evaluation condition in which group members did not have to arrive at a final decision but may have averaged their opinions to arrive at a concensus or general feeling about the proposed' solutions during the evaluation stage. Here, the total amount of influence exerted in the heterogeneous- incomplete information groups was greater than in the homogeneous-incomplete information groups. An examination of the means for the individual ratings of influence indicated that this difference was due to the perceived influenoe attributed to the external group. The members of the heterogeneous group may believe the external group to be more important in making the final decision since it must synthesize the divergent information expressed by group members during evaluation. In the homogeneous- complete Information groups, each member was aware of all information prior to the discussion. The systhesis may be carried out by each group member. Therefore, differences between the information expressed by the three group members 140 Is less likely to be discrepant, making the task easier for the final decision makers. In the generation-only condition, It was expected that no differences in influence would emerge between the homogeneous-complete information and heterogeneous- incomplete groups. The members need only add the alternatives suggested by the individual members. As predicted, the amount of influence attributed to the external group Was relatively high in both information conditions. However, the total amount of influence was significantly gre&ter in the homogeneous-complete information condition than in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition. An examination of the other influence measures demonstrated that this difference also occurred in the self and peer ratings* This trend is identical to the difference between information groups in the full information condition. Thus, group members perceive themselves and their peers to exert more influence in the generation-alone and full participation conditions when the information in the group is homogeneous and complete. This is in agreement with Hypothesis lc. The fact that differences in perceived stage participation between the full participation and generation- evaluation groups were nonsignificant (see Tables 7-8) demonstrates that those participating in generation and evaluation do not perceive their responsibility to be much different from those participating in generation, 141 evaluation, and choice* When homogeneous group members are excluded from the choice condition but are asked to generate and evaluate, they may fdel they have not fully made use of the information they possessed. That is, they may have felt competent to carry out the final choice phase* Therefore, they perceived their contribution to be less than did the heterogeneous-incomplete information groups in the generation-evaluation condition* This is in accord with the dissonance explanation given for the responses that the groups with heterogeneous-incomplete information in the generation-evaluation condition fe lt stymied for lack of information (see P. 118).

Satisfaction The twelve items used to measure satisfaction are listed in Table 30. Table 31 presents the results of the hierarchical factor analysis performed on the intercorrealtion matrix of these items. A general factor and three group factors emerged from this analysis. An item with a loading greater than .30 was included in each factor. The higher order factor consisted of high loadings on all items. The first group factor was termed "Satisfaction with Outcome." This was comprised of satisfaction with the decisions reached by the groups, the final power site chosen, and the accomplishments of the group. The second group factor was termed, "Satisfaction with Group Process." 142 It included satisfaction with the influence the member had over the group, the member’s contribution to the outcome of the discussion, and the whole experimental session in general. "Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relations," the third factor, was comprised of satisfaction with the relationships between group members and the feeling of togetherness.

TABLE 30 SATISFACTION ITEM KEY3

Item No. 1. The decisions reached by our group. 2. The final power sites chosen. 3. The way we went about making a decision. 4 . The task on which we worked. 5 . The relationships between the group members. • 6 . My part in the group discussion. 7. The method of decision making we used. 8, The feeling of togetherness between myself and the other members. 9. The influence I had over the group and its actions. o . The accomplishments of our group. 11. My own contribution to the outcome of the discussion. 12. The whole experimental session in general. aAdapted from Cooper (1972, Pp. 170-172). 143

TABLE 31 HIERARCHICAL FACTOR ANALYSIS OF SATISFACTION ITEMS

Item No. 1 2 1 4 h2 i ON 1. •21 •ita * o .03 .7 6 2. .68 -.0 5 .00 .63 3. •21 .08 .19 .09 • 56 4 . •21 - .0 1 .2 4 - .0 5 .1 6 5. .6Z —. 18 - .2 0 •21 .85 6. •21 - .1 0 .27 .19 .73 7 . •21 .15 .12 .10 .62 8. •21 .01 -.09 •21 .7 4 9. •21 - .0 1 •21 .08 • 75 10. •21 •21 .00 .07 .67 11. .2 2 - .0 ? .4 4 .03 .81 12. •21 .02 .40 - .0 3 .67

Notei Residuals ranged from -.085 to .113* Those loadings greater than .30 are underlined.

These factors conform to the product-process distinction found by Cooper (1972) on a sim ilar set of items. In the present analysis, however, satisfaction with interpersonal relations emerged aB independent from the group process In arriving at an outcome. Average scores were computed for the items loading highly on eaoh factor. The intercorrelations among these indexes are presented in Table 32* All intercorrelations were significant (p<,001). Since the scores representing the factors were not independent, it was decided to retain the average of the 12 items, labeled "Overall Satisfaction," for further analyses.

TABLE 32 INTERCORRELATIONS OP SATISFACTION MEASURES

1 1. Overall Satisfaction 1.00 2. Satisfaction with Outcome .86 1.00 3. Satisfaction with Group Process .91 *68 1.00 4. Satisfaction with Interpersonal R e la tio n s .79 .63 .64

*** p <.001 ' “

The means, standard deviations, and summary of the analysis of variance for the measure of overall satisfaction are presented in Tables 33-34. A significant main effect ( p { , 01) was found for satisfaction between the participation conditions. Post hoc analyses revealed that satisfaction in the full participation condition was significantly greater (p<. 05) than satisfaction in the generation-only condition. This is in line with Hypothesis 2c. Hypothesis lo predicting-a mAin Affect between homogeneous-complAte information andi heterogeneous-incomplete.information ■ conditions and Hypothesis 3c predicting a participation- information interaction were not supported. 145 TABLE 33 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF OVERALL SATISFACTION

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information 3T SD X SD

GEC 6 .7 7 1.21 7 .4 0 1 .2 8 GE 6 .5 8 1 .4 8 6.12 1 .4 2 G 5 .2 9 1 .7 9 5 .7 4 1 .6 4

TABLE 34 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON OVERALL SATISFACTION

S ource d f M3 F £ ■W2 Information (A) 1 .7 6 • 35 n . s . .00 Participation (B) 2 14.87 6 .7 5 .01 .1 4 A X B 2 2.03 .92 n . s . .00 W ithin Cells 66 2.20

Thus, group members feel more satisfied the more the group is allowed to participate in the decision making process. However, groups in the generation-evaluation condition did not significantly differ in satisfaction from the full participation groups. The results so far indicate that feelings of participation and satisfaction 1*6 are not much different for groups participating in generation and evaluation than for those participating in the full decision making process. The finding that total influence perceived by group members was greater in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition than the homogeneous-complete information condition for those groups engaged in only generation and evaluation was not accompanied by a corresponding difference in satisfaction. This runs contrary to the dissonance explanation for*: the homogeneous groups feelings of being stymied for lack of information in the generation- evaluation condition.

Commitment The measures of commitment dealt with the degree to which the subject was willing to stand by the group product and the process of arriving at that product. The list of items used and the interrelationships among them are presented in Table 35. The proportion of the grade the group member would like based on the outcome of the discussion was unrelated to the proportion he would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome. These two measures were also unrelated to whether or not the subject was willing to have his name given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of the group discussion. Generally* if he was willing to have his name 14? presented to the power commissions he was- willing to he interviewed by a representative of the power commissions to explain the outcome of the discussion or to research the topic and write a paper advocating the outcome of the group 'discussion* Therefore, the .last two measures were eliminated from further analyses.

TABLE 35 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG COMMITMENT MEASURES

1. Proportion of grade group member would like based on the outcome of the . discussion, 1.00 2. Proportion of grade group member would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome .14 1.00 3. Would he be w illing to have h is name given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of the group discussion?' -.11 -.08 1.00 4. If yes, would he be willing to be interviewed by a representative of the .power commissions to explain the outcome ### of the discussion? -.12 ^.09 .83 ^ 0Q 5* If paid, would he be be willing to research the topic and write a paper advocating the outoorae of the group ### ### discussion. -.17 -.11 .73 .93 148 The average values for the commitment variables and the analyses of variance and chi square tests performed on this data are presented in Tables 36 - 38. Contrary to the hypotheses, no significant main effects or interactions em erged.

TABLE 36 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP COMMITMENT MEASURE3

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD Proportion of grade group member would like based on the outcome of the discussion. GEC 60.00 20.45 67.50 20.94 GE 64.17 16.21 52.50 25.27 0 46.67 20.60 54.17 27.12 Proportion of grade group member would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome. GEC 56.67 20.15 61.67 27.25 GE 40.00 20.45 52.50 21.79 G 45.83 13.79 56.67 26.40 149 TABLE 37 ANALYSES OP VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON COMMITMENT MEASURES

Source df MS F £ W2 Proportion of grade group member would like based on the outcome of the discussion. Information (A) 1 22.22 .05 n . s . .00 Participation (B) 2 1079.16 2.2 2 n .s* .03 A X B 2 73**.72 1.51 n . s . .01 Within Cells 66 486.23 Proportion of grade group member would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome. A 1 1605.56 3 .2 9 n . s . .03 B 2 1018.04 2 .0 9 n . s . .03 A X B 2 9 3 .0 5 .19 n . s . .00 Within Cells 66 488.12

Shift In RlBk Taking Tendency A number of researchers have investigated what has been termed the "risky shift" phenomenon (see reviews by

Brown, 1965 i Burnstein, 19&9t Cartwright, 1971» Clark, 1971* Kogan & Wallach, 1967* Pruitt, 1971)* The risky shift hypothesis states that the average individual choice made following group discussion be more risky than the average of the individuals' decisions made prior to group discussion. The problem often used in studies of this phenomenon requires the subjects to complete the 150 TABLE 38 FREQUENCY OF THOSE WILLING TO HAVE THEIR NAMES GIVEN TO THE POWER COMMISSIONS AS PROPONENTS OF THE OUTCOME OF THE GROUP DISCUSSION

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-C omplete Information Information GEC 8 10 Yes GE 10 10 G 8 8 GEC 2 No GE 2 2 G I*

Note i jt2Inf0rmation (a ) " •00^» d f “ 1 ' n *s# ^ Participation (B) " df-2, n.s X B " 1.020, df-5, n.s.

Wallach-Kogan Choice Dilemmas Questionnaire items (Kogan & Wallach, 196*4-, Appendix E) or sim ilarly constructed items. Each item generally consists of a hypothetical situation in which the "hero" must choose between a high value-low probability of success outcome and a low value- high probability of success outcome. The subject is asked for the minimum probability of success that he would recommend the uncertain outcome. Findings indicate that the minimum 1 5 1 probability tends to decrease after group discussion of the problftra. A number of hypotheses have been set forth to explain risky shifts (see Shaw, 1971* Pp« 76-7$ for a review). The "diffusion of responsibility" hypothesis holds that the risky shift is a result of knowing that one's decisions are being made jointly with others rather than alone. According to the "leadership" hypothesis, high risk takers exert the most influence on the group. The "familiarization" hypothesis attributes the shift to the discussion of the arguments, pro and con, which bring to light information the individual had not considered on his own. The "risk-as-value" hypothesis makes the assumption that moderate risk is a stronger cultural value than caution and that individuals come to view themselves as being at least as willing as their peers to take risks. Finally, the "rationality" hypothesis assumes that the. Shift is a result of-a more .rational maximizing approach applied to the situation*. Vinokur and Burnste in (197*0 point out that a number of reviewers (cited above) have noted that thd group induced shift has nothing to do with risk per se. They note studies in which cautious shifts have occurred.and in which shifts have occurred when items do not involve ^isk at all. AS a result, Vinokur and Burnstein have extended the fam iliarization hypothesis to explain choice shifts in general. They found that an individual's initial 152 choice is determined by the balance of pro-risk and pro-caution arguments available to him. Shifts following discussion were more likely to occur when the information related*t6 these arguments was partially shared, that is, known only to a few people. If all members initially had the same information, the decision made after the discussion should not differ from that made prior to the discussion. Substantial shifts in choice occurred when individuals initially lacking information merely read the arguments. In .the' present study, *a. single measure ...of .risk taking tendency was adm inistered jto thd subjects prior to the group discussion, following the individual decision. The measure asked'the subjebt fofr/a Judgment of the highest probability of a nuclear disaster at a power plant he would accept and s till build the plant. This measure was also administered following the group discussion, The mean for both measures was .14 (14# chance of a nuclear disaster). The correlation between the two measures was .93 (p<.001). . Itr’mifeht be expected that the subjects in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition would be more likely to alter their responses following the discussion, especially if vthe discussion involved more than simply generation. Also, those in the homogeneous oondition should have more risky (i.e., higher probability) responses than 153 those in the heterogeneous-incompldte-information condition prior to the group discussion. The means and standard deviations for these probability judgments are presented i n T able 39. No significant main or interaction effects were found when an analysis of variance was carried out on these d&ta. There was no change in either the heterogeneous- incomplete information condition or the homogeneous-complete information condition between the two administrations of the measure. Homogeneous groups did not have more risky responses than heterogeneous groups prior to the group discussion. TABLE 39 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OP THE MAXIMUM PROBABILITY OF A NUCLEAR DISASTER

Heterogeneous-Incomplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information £ SD £ SD Time 1 (following individual decision. prior to group disdudBion) GEC .096 .112 .188 .219 GE .106 .082 .158 .100 G .159 .160 .161 .22? Time 2 (following group discussion) GEC .'104 .120 .168 .217 GE .107 .077 .163 .105 a .153 .160 .164 .225 15^ The probability responses for thoBe individuals possessing the different types of information within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition were examined. No Significant differences were found between these groups.

v 155 (3b) Effects of Participation and Information on Group Process Interaction process analysis Two trained raters observed a video tape of each group session* recording the frequency of responses in the 12 categories of Bales's Interaction Process Analysis form. These categories are listed in Table 40. For the purpose of the data analysis* the categories were reduced to four by summing across the frequencies for the three 11 types of responses within each area. Thus, data were available on the frequency of positive and negative socio- emotional responses and task oriented responses of giving and asking Within each decision making stage. Coefficients of interrater agreement for each category within each stage were calculated based upon the raw frequency of responses. The average interrater agreement was .58* It is notable that agreement was lower for i observations of the 5-minute generation stage. This may be due to a restriction of range in the ratings for this stage since less time was available for all types of responses to occur and the frequency of negative socio- emotional responses was about zero.

ll * This procedure was adopted after examining the interrater agreement and the frequency of responses within each of the 12 categories. Since the frequencies of the different types of responses were low and interrater agreementwas low (perhaps as a result of restriction in range), it was decided to pool the data within each category. 156 TABLE 40 BALES'S INTERACTION PROCESS ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

H Shows solidarity, raises others status, gives help, reward. § •H■p 5 U Shows tension release, jokes, 0 at H S a> 6h laughs, shows satisfaction. W U H 1 ^ 8 Agrees, shows passive acceptance, •H Pt U understands, concurs, complies. o m

Gives suggestion, direction imply- autonomy for others. Gives opinion, evaluation, analysis, express feelings, wish. Gives>‘ orientation, information, Task Task A rea repeats, clarifies, confirms. ATTEMPTED ATTEMPTED ANSWERS

Asks for orientation, information repetition, confirmation. Asks for opinion, evaluation, analysis, expression of feeling. Asks for suggestions, direction, QUESTIONS Task Task A rea possible ways of action.

Disagrees, shows passive rejection, formality, withholds help. 1 •H M P S Shows tension, asks for help, 0 Qt H S 0) Eh withdraws out of field. 1 « 3 Shows antagonism, deflates other's 2 £ o status, defends or asserts self. o w 157 To prepare these data for analysis9 the frequency of responses for each category was averaged across the two raters. The frequencies were then converted to percentages of average total responses within each stage. These percentages were averaged across stages to obtain four scores for all subjects in all levels of participation. The average percentage was based upon three stages for those in the full participation condition* two stages for those in the generation-evaluation condition, and the single stage for those in the generation-only condition. All percentages were normalised by conversion to arcsin scores as suggested by Bales and Hare (1955)* The intercorrelationB among the four categories of responses within each stage and across stages are presented in Table 4>1. In the generation stage* all responses were significantly related with the exception of task oriented responses involving giving and asking. In the evaluation stage* only positive and negative socio-emotional responses were related. In the choice stage, positive socio-emotional. responses were positively * related to task oriented responses of asking. Across all stages* the average positive socio-emotional responses were related to the percentage of asking and negative socio-emotional responses. Asking was also related to negative socio-emotional responses. The percentage of giving responses was not significantly related to the other types of responses. In all of the 158 TABLE 41 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG IPA RESPONSE PERCENTAGES

1 2 3 Generation Stage (N*72) 1. Positive socio-emotional re sp o n se s 1 .0 0 2. Task oriented responses * (G iving) .28 1 .00

3. Task oriented responses CO (A sking) .53 • 1 .00 4. Negative socio-emotional , , *•# #*# re sp o n se s . 66 .44 .55 Evaluation Stage (N-48) 1. Positive socio-emotional re sp o n se s 1 .0 0 2. Task oriented responses (G iving) .15 1 .0 0 3* Task oriented responses (A sking) .02 .22 1.00 4. Negative socio-emotional *# re sp o n se s .40 .03 . ; n Choice Stage (N«»24) 1. Positive socio-emotional re sp o n se s 1 .0 0 2. Task oriented responses o o (G iving) • 1.00 3. Task oriented responses (A sking) .36 .13 1.00 4. Negative socio-emotional t CD re sp o n se s .03 • o .26 Average Percentage Across Stages (N-72) • 1. Positive socio-emotional re sp o n se s 1 .0 0 2. Task oriented responses (Giving) .02 1 .0 0 3* Task oriented responses #* (A sking) .35 .15 1.00 4. Negative socio-emotional *« re sp o n se s .42 .12 .53*** ***p<.001 **p<.01 *p<,05 159 intercorrelations among the four categories, no more than 44# (r».66, p<.001) of the variance was accounted for. Therefore, it is likely that a substantial portion of unique variance within each variable may be explainable by the participation and information conditions. Analyses of variance were performed on the arcsin scores of the four types of responses within each stage of participation. No main or interaction effects were found. (Tabl®summarizing these results have been omitted.) The results of the analyses of variance carried out on the average percentages across stages are presented in Table 42. A significant main effect was found for the percentage of asking responses between the homogeneous-complete information and heterogeneous-incomplete information conditions (p<. 05) . In addition, the percentages of negative socio-emotional responses were significantly different between the levels of participation (p^.001). TABLE 42 ANALYSES OP VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OP INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON AVERAGE IPA RESPONSE PERCENTAGES

S o u ro e d f MS F £ W2 Positive socio-emotional re s p o n s e s Information (A) 1 .02 .70 n . s . .0 0 Participation (B) 2 .06 1 .8 5 n . s . .0 2 A X B 2 .02 .6 3 n . s . .0 0 Within Cells 66 .0 3 Task oriented responses (G iv in g ) A i • 01 .3 0 n . s . .0 0 B 2 .03 .9 4 n . s . .0 0 A X B 2 .01 .4 4 n . s . .0 0 Within Cells 66 .03 Task oriented responses 1(A sking) A 1 .29 5 .8 6 .05 .06 B 2 .0 4 .52 n . s . .0 0 A X B 66 .0 5 Negative socio-emotional responses A 1 .0 4 2 .8 8 .1 0 .0 2 B 2 .1 0 2 .5 9 ;001 .15 A X B 2 .01 .72 n . s . .0 0 Within Cells 66 .01

The average percentages for the experimental treatment groups are diagrammed in Figure 3 . An examination of this figure shows that asking was more prevalent in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition than in 161 the homogeneous-complete information condition. This difference is greatest for those in the generation-only condition, somewhat less for groups which generate and evaluate, and zero for groups engaged in full participation (although the interaction effect was not significant at the .05 level). These data suggest that less questioning i3 required in the homogeneous groups, especially when generation is the only task. Analysis of the three types of responses within the area of asking indicated that the nature of responses differ depending upon the stage of participation. (These data are not presented

* here.) Asking for suggestions involved a.greater percentage of responses in the generation stage than the other stages. The percentage of asking for information and opinions increased As groups engaged in more extensive participation. It may he that those with heterogeneous-incomplete information find it more difficult to generate alternatives or are reluctant to express their ideas and, therefore, more suggestions must he called for. The significant difference between the three par­ ticipation conditions for negative socio-emotional responses seemed to be due to the practically nonexistent percentage of this type of response, in the generation condition. As predicted In Hypothesis la, there was a tendency for a greater percentage of negative reactions in the heterogeneous groups than in the homogeneous groups (p<.10). 162 Multiple t-tests performed on the average arcsin scores across information and participation conditions revealed significant differences &t the *001 level between all pairs of response categories in the directions indicated by Figure 3. Task oriented responses of giving involved a significantly greater percentage of responses than all other types. The percentage'of asking responses was greater than the7p6sitive and.negative socio-emotional response percentages. The percentage of positive socio-emotional responses was greater than : . i: the percentage of negative socio-emotional responses. This order of response percentages conforms to that found by Bales (1950). XPA Response Percentages (expressed in arcsin scores) 1.1 1.0 .3 .1 7 8 9 5 6 2 0 gur » vrg IA es e per ages expr s d sse re p x (e s e g ta n e rc e p se n o sp re IPA Average 3» re u ig F KEY — —— — — — Task o r ie n te d re sp o n se s s se n o sp re d te n ie r o ——— — — Task — ______P o s itiv e s o c io -e m o tio n a l l a n tio o m -e io c o s e itiv s o P _ _ _ GEC p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o n d itio n s , , • s n itio d n o c n o i t a p i c i t r a p n scor for i or i &nd n tio a rm fo in r o f ) s re o c s in s c r a n i M N eg ativ e s o c io -e m o tio n a l l a n tio o m -e io c o s e ativ M eg N Task o r ie n te d re sp o n se s s se n o sp re d te n ie r o Task es es se n o sp re es es se n o sp re Gi ng) g in iv (G Asking) (A GE '■"homogeneous ' “ eterogeneous H G , Homogeneous H etero g en e o u s s u o e en g Hetero Homogeneous eterogeneous H eterogeneous H 163 164 Group cohesiveness Seashore's (195*0 measure of group cohesiveness was * administered to the subjects following the group discussion. Six items dealt with how the group compared w ith other problem solving teams the subject had belonged to or heard about. These items and their relationships to the total score are presented in Table 43. Since a ll r^ correlations were high, the total score seemed to be representative of the dimension of cohesiveness dealing with the comparison of one's own team to another. Two other items also iftcluded. in thd -questionnaire . asked for the subject's feeling about being really a part of the group and his feeling about changing groups. The interrelationships among these variables and $he group comparison measure are presented in Table 44. Although two correlations were significant, they were of relatively low magnitude, accounting for no more than 14# (r-,38, p<*001) of the joint association between the two variables. Therefore, all three measures were retained for further a n a ly s e s . The means and standard deviations for these cohesiveness measures are included in Table *+5. The analyses of variance (see Table 46) resulted in no significant main or interaction effects. Therefore, perceptions of group cohesiveness do not seem to be affected by the level of participation and homogeneity of information. It may be 165 ♦ that even in the full participation condition, sufficient time did not elapse for differences in cohesiveness between the homogeneous-complete information and heterogeneouB- incomplete information conditions to develop. Since those in all levels of participation, including the 5-m in u te generation-alone condition, reported relatively high cohesiveness, the validity of the measures may be questioned.

TABLE CORRELATIONS OP ITEMS WITH TOTAL SCORE FOR HOW THE GROUP COMPARED WITH OTHER TEAMS

Item No. T o ta l S core ” T7*’** 1. The way members got along together .8 ^ „ ### 2. The way members stuck together .82 3* The way members helped each other .78 The amount of sk ill and knowledge the members' had .82 5* How hard the members worked .78 6 . The way the work was planned for th e group .80

* * * P C . 0 0 1

TABLE W INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG COHESIVENESS MEASURES

1 2 1. Comparison of group with other teams (Total Score) 1.00 2. Feeling of being really a partof ### the group *36 1.00 3* Feeling about changing groups .21 .19 to perform the same task ***pT.ooi ~ ' * p£,05 166 TABLE 1*5 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR COHESIVENESS MEASURES

Heterogene ous- Inc omplete Homogeneous-Complete Information Information X SD X SD Comparison of group with other teams (Total Score) GEC 11.50 6.20 ir .2 5 5.68 GE 1 1 .0 0 l*.i*7 1 1 .0 8 !*.23 G. 11.1? 2.82 8 .7 5 5 .3 3 Feeling of being really a part of the group GEC l*.l*2 . 6 ? 1*.50 .6 7 GE 25 1.1*2 3 .9 2 1. 1*1* G 3.1*2 2.23 If. 00 1. 1*8 Feeling about changing groups to perform the same task GEC 3.00 1.21 2 .7 5 1.66 GE . 2.92 1.38 2.50 1 :17 G 2.58 1.38 2 .7 5 1.1*9 aThe higher the value, the less the subject desires to change. 167 TABLE 46 ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON COHESIVENESS MEASURES

Source df MS F E w2

Comparison of group with other teams (Total Score)

Information (A) 1 1 3 .3 5 .5 5 n . s . .00 Participation (B) 2 12*17 .5 5 n . s . .00 A X B 2 11.06 .4 6 n . s . .00 Within. C ells 66 2 4 .1 4 Feeling about being really a part of the group A 1 .22 .11 n . s . .00 B 2 3 .3 8 1.66 n . s . .02 A X B 2 1.26 .62 n . s . .00 Within Cells 66 2 .0 3 Feeling about changing groups ' « to perform the same task A 1 .5 0 .26 n . s . .00 B 2 .2 9 .1 5 n . s . .00 A X B 2 .5 4 • 28 n . s . .00 Within Cells 66 1 .9 3 166 Group atmosphere Fiedler's (196?) measure of group atmosphere was also included in the post discussion questionnaire. The adjective-pairs comprising this semantic differential scale are presented in Table 4?. The results of a hierarchical factor analysis performed on these items can be found in Table 48. A general factor was extracted with high loadings (those greater than . 30) on all but one adjective pair* interesting-boring. Two group factors also emerged from the analysis. The first, labeled "Interpersonal Relations," included friendly and accepting with positive loadings and successful and productive with negative loadings. Apparently, perceptions of group performance were independent of the favorability of intermember relations. The second group factor, termed "Favorability of Atmosphere for Task Accomplishment," was composed of the satisfying, warm, interesting, and productive continua. Cooperation was negatively related to this factor. 169 TABLE 47 FIEDLER'S GROUP ATMOSPHERE ITEM KEY

Item No • 1.. Friendly....., 2. Accepting ...... , 3 . S a t is f y i n g ...... , 4 . Enthusiastic ...... 5 . S u c c e s s f u l...... 6 . Warm...... 7 . Cooperative ...... 8 . S u p p o rtiv e ...... 9 . Interesting ...... 10. P ro d u c tiv e ......

TABLE 48 HIERARCHICAL FACTOR ANALYSIS OF GROUP ATMOSPHERE ITEMS

Item No. 1 2 2 h 2 1 . .60 •iii. .62 2 . .2 0 •21 - .1 9 .67 3 . •11 .1 6 .24 .65 t

4 . • 0 .28 VJ .62 .53 ►* CD 5 . .8 2 - 2 1 • .85 6 . • n .26 •21 .53 7 . •Z l .06 - 2 0 .65 CM 0 8 . .6 4 • -.1 1 .46 9 . .15 .06 .66 .46 10. .4 4 - 21 .52 .57

Note* Residuals ranged from -.067 to .059* Those loadings greater than .30 are underlined. 1?0

TABLE INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG GROUP ATMOSPHERE MEASURES

1 2 1. Overall Favorability of Group Atmosphere (average of all items) 1.00 2. Interpersonal Relations -.l* f 1.00 3. Interest and Enthusiasm in' Task ### ## Accomplishment .37 -.27

*** p«.001 ** p<.01

T able k9 indicates that the intercorrelations among the factor indexes (the average of the items loading highly on each factor) are fairly low# though two were significant. The favorability of interpersonal relations was negatively related to the favorability of interest and enthusiasm in task accomplishment. All three indexes were retained for further analyses. The means'and'j.htandard deviations for the group atmosphere scores are presented in Table 50. The analyses of variance performed on these data (see Table 51) resulted in only one significant effect. This was the participation by information interaction effect on the favorability of interpersonal relations. Post hoc analyses revealed that interpersonal relations was greater in the average of the full participation and generation-evaluation groups than in the generation-alone groups for those in the homogeneous-complete information condition* The trend was reversed in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition such that interpersonal relations was greater in the generation-alone condition than the average of the full participation and generation-evaluation groups. As predicted by Hypothesis 3b, heterogenedus and incora-: ple.te information tended to hinder interpersonal relations while homogenedtis and complete information was facilitative of interpersonal relations in the full partidipation and generation-evaluation conditions.

In support of Hypothesis lb, .the index of overall favorability of group atmosphere tended to be greater for those in the homogeneous-complete information oondition than those in the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition (p<«07). 1 7 2 TABLE 50 MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR GROUP ATMOSPHERE MEASURES

Heterogeneous-Incomple te Homogeneous-Complete Information Information 5T SD 3f SD Overall Favorability of Group. Atmosphere GEC 1 .9 9 1 .3 9 3 .4 7 2 .1 9 GB 1 .9 9 1.45 1 .7 5 .75 GE 2 .0 0 .85 2 .7 3 1.92

Interpersonal Relations •

GEC 1 .5 8 .67 1 .7 5 •75 . GE 1 .7 5 .75 2 .3 4 .78 0 2 .3 3 .78 1 .5 8 .67 Interest and Enthusiasm in Task Accomplishment GEC 2 .1 6 8 .9 4 2 .2 5 .87 GE 1 .8 3 .72 1.67 .9 9 G 1.92 .67 1 .8 3 .72 173 TABLE 51 ANALYSES OP VARIANCE FOR THE EFFECTS OF INFORMATION AND PARTICIPATION ON GROUP ATMOSPHERE MEASURES

S o u rce d f MS F 2 WS Overall Favorability of Group Atmosphere Information (A) 1 7 .7 8 3 .3 8 .0 ? .03 Participation (B) 2 1 .9 5 n . s ; • 02

A X B 2 1 .9 5 n . s . .02* Within Cells 66 2 .3 Interpersonal Relatione o o A 1 .0 1 ;’ .0 2 n . s . . B 2 .9 3 1 .7 2 n . s . .02 A X B 2 2 .7 9 5 .1 7 .01 • 10 Within Cells 66 .5 * Interest and Enthusiasm in Task Accomplishment A 1 • 06 • 08 n . s . .00 B 2 1 .3 5 1 .9 8 n . s . .03 A X B 2 .1 0 .1 * n . s . • 00 Within Cells 66 .6 8 (*0 Effects of Type of Information On Group Process and Outcome

This study has been concerned with oomparing those groups which are homogeneous, with' respect to information with those which are heterogeneous. Members Of the. homogeneous groups had complete information (i.e ., each member had information related to all three reference groups) while each member of the heterogeneous group had Information related to one reference group. It is possible that the particular information possessed by those in the heterogeneous information condition differentially affected group member responses. An analysis of the effects of type of information pay help tb e*]plain some of the findings when comparing the a ll members in the heterogeneous group across type of information with those in the homogeneous- complete Information condition. Siich an analysis shbiild determine the generalizability of the results by more fully describing the composition of the heterogeneous groups. The information was constructed so that two types (the power companies* perspective and environmental interests) would conflict on most points while the third type (governmental regulations) would overlap the two extremes. The nature of the group composition should be evident in what information Ofcohsubject .perceived to be important to the group in arriving at an outcome,, the 175 type of responses emitted by the members 9 and the outcome « of the discussion. ' Following each group discussion, all individuals received a list of 30 items consisting of 10 points derived from each of the three types of information. All the major points from each set of information were included. Subjeots were asked to check 10 of the most important to the group outcome .-.and rank order these 10. Those in the homogeneous « group completed the same task following the individual 12 decision. Table 52 presents the frequency of .which each state­ ment was selected as being among the 10 most important. * It is evident from the data in Table 52 that a group member tended to perceive the information he possessed initially as being of prime importance to the group decision. While this result was significant ()l2*63.21, df-8, p<_.001), the frequency with which members selected information other than the type they originally possessed was substantial. This indicated that some of- the-informdtlon rpOdsessed by; otherswas-communicated during' thewdiscussiotu iri' the heterogeneous-incomplete information groups. Significant differences occurred between the homogeneous and heterogeneous groups in terms of perceived importance, of information to the group decision (f?'? 10.63* <*f«5» P<*®5)* Inform ation

"'i p — ■ ■ ■ This could not be accomplished by the' heterogeneous group members since a presentation of all 30 points prior to the group discussion would have confounded the incomplete information treatment. 176 related to governmental regulations and the power companies* perspective tended to be selected more often

&b important to the group decision than information dealing « with environmental interests. This was especially true for those in the homogeneous-complete information condition. Apparently* when members had different information* the use of all types of information was more likely to occur during the discussion. The inference is that if all points of view must be acknowledged during the decision making process, heterogeneous groups may be best* The data relating to quality and uniqueness of the sites selected by those groups in the full participation condition, however, did not indicate that the heterogeneous groups were any 1 more effective than the homogeneous groups. It would be of interest to know which pieces of information were ranked first (most important) and tenth

* (least important) among the ten pieces of information the subject chose as important to the group outcome. The frequencies with which items were ranked first and tenth following the individual decision for those in the heterogeneous group are presented in Table 53* It is clear that the first item, derived from the information on government regulations was most frequently ranked number one. This item stated that the power plant should transmit power to large, growing populations. The item which received the second most frequent nominations as most important stated that the TABLE 52 FREQUENCY OF SELECTING DIFFERENT TYPES OF INFORMATION AS AMONG THE TEN MOST IMPORTANT TO THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION AND GROUP DISCUSSION

Post Discussion Post Individual D e c isio n Information Possessed Information Possessed Incom plete Complete Types o f Com plete Information Gov't | Power j Env't I S e le c te d Regulations{ Companies j Intereste T o ta l

1 i G o v 't « Regulations 63 29 51 143 168 155

Power Companies 30 75 24 129 138 142

E n v 't I n t e r e s t s 27 16 *5 88 5^ 63

N 12 12 12 36 ! 36 3 6 z Wotei if (within heterogeneous-incomplete Information condition)"^*21* P**001' A 2 ->3 (post discussion homogeneous-complete information with heterogeneous- incomplete information across type) - 10.63, df-5, p<.05.

jC (post individual decision with post discussion homogeneous-complete information condition) • 1.272, df-5« n.s. 178 nuclear power plant must be very close to a body of water. This Item was included in the information related to the power companies* perspective. All but three of the thirty items were ranked tenth most important at least once following the individual decision. No one item emerged as distinctive in this r e s p e c t . The frequencies with which items were chosen first and tenth following the group discussion are presented in Table 5^* The same items were ranked number one most frequently following the group discussion as prior to it. In fact, the frequency with which the two selected as most important most, often increased slightly after the discussion. .Again, moBt items received a rank of ten at least once, and no one item was chosen more than 7 times. Overall, then, there seems to have been little shift in the information deemed most important from before to after the group disoussion. The effects of^-the- type-Of• informatidn .pn perceptions of participation and information (the manipulation checks) are presented in Table 55* One-way analyses of variance performed on this data showed no significant differences. It is important to note that all individuals within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition equally perceived the information they possessed to support one side of 179

TABU! 53 FREQUENCY OP ITEMS CHOSEN AS FIRST AND TENTH AMONG THE PIECES OP INFORMATION JUDGED TO BE MOST IMPORTANT Rank Rank ______TO THE INDIVIDUAL DECISION 1 The power plant should trarismki powei'^o iargo, {jffcWlngTnTpUlatlotm . 1 3 1 — j In the next ten years, power oonsumptlon In this region Is expected to double. 5 j WaterUfe may be killed by direct hot emissions Into the lake. * 1 Few Inhabitants should live In the area In whloh tho plant Is located. 5 5 The power plant should be located less than 200 miles from the area it serves. $ l Fish and other organisms are killed by entralnment and screen-kllls when they are 1 2 drawn into the cooling system of the plant. The plant must be located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas 1 2 where qualified manpower can be recruited. There is little danger In transporting nuclear fUel. 0 5 The heated water from the plant lnoreases the nitrogen content whloh ceases 0 2 hemorrhaging in the fins of the fish. The power plant should not be too aloso to airports or major harbors. 0 0 There has never been an Instance where a commercial nuolear plant has affected 2 1 publlo health or safety. The continual flow of heated water can act as a dam preventing some fish from 1 3 migrating to warmor waters during winter months. The effects of contamination of drinking water and water used for recreational 1 1 purposes must be considered. The amount of publlo exposure to radiation by a nuolear power plant is negllgable. 0 1 Chlorine used to prevent corrosion of the plant's cooling system has harmful effects 0 2 on acquatlo life. Noise from the nuolear power plant may have an impact on nearly residents, 0 2 The nuclear power plant will bo designed to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes. 0 0 Fog from cooling towers deposit salt on land and vegetation nearby the plant, 1 2 The ecology of the area (plants, wildlife, and waterllfe) may bo affected by the 1 0 operation of a cooling towor o r direct emission of hot water into the lake. The nuolear powor plant must be very elose to .a body of water. Ilf 1 The fog from cooling towers will lead to Increased air pollution. 0 2 Jobs for unemployed people may bo created by the construction of the powor plant. 0 5 The surface area of the lake affected by a temperoturo rise from the plant's hot 0 5 wster discharge will be insignificant. Dangerous somatio radiation is likely to cause major illnesses suob as cancer and If if result in mutations affecting lator generations. The power plant should not disrupt the aostbetlos of the environment. 0 3 A cooling tower is an unnecessary additional cost. 1 if Current population exposure to radiation is tea times too high even without nuolear 2 0 power plants. Publlo attitudes will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site will be Uoensed 2 b by the A, E.C, and other governmental agenoles. Locating a nuolear plant on elevations higher than 500 feet above sea level lnoreases 0 5 the radiation exposure to nearby citizens only sUghtly, A nuclear plant should be located far away from recreational areas and other 0 j areas of cultural value. _ ,, __ __ Total 72 72 u *■ Government Regulations P “ Power Companies* Perspective B ■ Environmental Interests 180

TABLE $k FREQUENCY OF ITEVB CHOSEN AS FIRST AND TENTH AMONG THE PIECES OF INFORMATION JUDGED TO BE MOST IMPORTANT RanV Pn„v ______TO THE GROUP.DISCUSSION j "Jg* Tbe powor plant should transmit power io large, growing populations. 28 3 In tbe next ten years, power consumption In this region Is expected to double* 6 2 Watorllfo may be killed by direct hot emissions Into the lake. 0 0 Few Inhabitants should Uve In the area In which the plant Is toosted. It 2 The power plant should be located less than 200 miles from the area it eerres* 5 _ 3 Fish and other organisms are killed by entralnment and screen-kllls when they are 1 2 drawn Into the cooling system of the plant. The plant must be located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas 0 , 2 where qualified manpower can be recruited* There is little danger la transporting nuolear fuel* 0 3 The heated water from the plant Increases the nitrogen content which causes 0 1 hemorrhaging In the fins of the fish* The power plant should not be too dose to airports or major harbors. 0 4 There has never been an Instance where a commercial nuolear plant has affected 2 0 publlo health or safety. The continual flow of heated water can not as a dam preventing some flsh from 0 4 migrating to warmer waters during winter months. The effects of oontnmlnatton of drinking water and water used for reoreatlonal 1 2 purposes must be oonslderod. The amount of publlo exposure to radiation bya nuclear power plant is negllgable. 1 1 Chlorine used to prevent oorroslon of the plant's cooling system has bannibl effects 0 2 on acquatlo life. Noise from the nuclear powor plant may have an Impact on nearby residents. 0 3 The nuclear power plant will bo designed to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes. 2 0 Fog from cooling towers deposit salt on land and vegetation nearby the plant. 0 1 The eoology of tho area (plants, wildlife, and watorllfe) may bo affected by the 4 6 operation of a cooling towor o r direct emission of hot water Into the lake. The nuclear power plant must bo very doso to a body of water. 15 2 The fog from oooltng towers will lead to Increased air pollution. 0 1 Jobs for unemployed people may bo created by tho construction of tho powor plant. 0 5 Tho surface area of tbe lako affected by a temperature rise from the plant's hot 0 1 water discharge will be insignificant. Dangerous somotlo radiation Is likely to cause major illnesses such as cancer and 1 1 result In mutations affecting later generations. The power plant should not disrupt the aesthetics of the environment. 1 4 A oooltng tower is an unnecessary additional cost, 0 $ Current population exposure to radiation Is ten times too high even without nuolear 0 1 power plants. Publlo attitudes will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site will be licensed 1 3 by the A. E. C. and other governmental agencies, TjmsUng a nuolear plant on elevations higher than 600 feet above sea level lnoreases 1 1 the radiation exposure to nearby citizens only slightly. A nuolear plant should be located far away from reoreatlonal areas and other 1 7 areas of cultural value. Total

*0 • Government Regulations P • Power Companies' Perspective B " Environmental Interests 181 the problem and that there were perceived differences in information'afhong group members. Apparently, any overlap between the information regarding government regulations and the other two types of information did not affect the heterogeneous information manipulation. T ab le $6 presents the values for each relevant t dependent variable (those retained for further analyses) for those individuals having different types of information* The frequencies for the commitment measure of willingness to act as a proponent of the group.outcome for thoBe subjects having incompleterinformation are presented in Table 57* Out of a total of 21 one-way F-tests and one chi square, not one was significant. (This is fewer than the 5% which would be expected by chance alone.) Thus, while differences were found between heterogeneous-incomplete information and homogeneous-complete information groups, differences of information within the heterogeneous groups had no effect on the perceptions of group process and outcom e. 182 TABLE 55 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND F VALUES FOR THE EFFECTS OF TYPE OF INFORMATION POSSESSED BY MEMBERS OF GROUPS WITHIN THE HETEROGENEOUS-INCOMPLETE INFORMATION CONDITION ON VARIABLES OF TREATMENT EFFECTIVENESS

Gov't Power Env't Regulations Companies Interests X SD X SD X SD F w2 archived-' Participation o o ift Generation . 7*9 2*2 7 .9 1 .4 8 .1 1 .0 .0 4 • in Evaluation 6.0 3.2 5 .8 3 .2 6 .1 2 .8 .02 .00 in 'C h o io e 5 .9 3 .7 6 .1 2 .6 7 .5 2 .2 1 .0 8 •06 “Overall" 8.4 1 .5 8 .2 1 .1 8 .1 1 .6 .18 • 00 ifo rm a tio n information supported one side of the problem 6.0 2.8 8.0 1 .1 7 .3 2 .1 2 .7 3 .1 4 difference in information among group members 7 .6 1 .1 8 .1 1 .2 7 .8 2 .3 .31 .00 feeling he knew as much as everyone o o e ls e 5 .8 3 .3 5 .6 3 .1 6 .4 2 .9 .25 • importance of information 7 .5 1 .8 8 .3 1 .1 7 .3 2 .3 1 .0 0 .06 g roup was stymied for la c k o f information 3 .8 2 .1 5 .0 2 .3 4 .8 2 .3 1 .0 7 • 06

Notes df - 2/35 TABLE 56 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND P VALUES FOR THE EFFECTS OF TYPE OF INFORMATION POSSESSED BY MEMBERS OF GROUPS WITHIN THE HETEROGENEOUS-INCOMPLETE INFORMATION CONDITION FOR THE DEPENDENT VARIABLES

G o v 't Power E n v 't Regulations Companies I n t e r e s t s * SD 5T SD * SD F W 2 Effectiveness * Number of--sites generated 15.9 2 .0 1 6 .4 2 .4 1 6 .6 1 .8 .83 .00 Quality of sites chosen E n v 't 5 .0 1 .2 5 .1 .8 5 .1 .9 .1 .00 G o v 't '5 .2 .7 5 .2 .9 5 .2 .9 .1 .00 Power C o .s 5 .2 .9 5 .1 1.0 5 .0 1 .0 .1 ,00 O v e ra ll Favorability: 5»0 .8 5 .4 1.0 5 .3 . .9 .1 .00 Qu&lity of sites g e n e ra te d E n v 't 4 .8 - .9 4 .9 .8 5 .2 .9 .1 .00 0 0 G o v 't 5 .1 7. ISO 5 .1 .9 5 .0 .8 .1 • Power C o.s 4 . 9 . . 7 5 .0 .9 5 .0 .9 .1 .00 O v e ra ll Favorability 5 .0 • .9 5 .1 1.0 5 .1 .9 .1 .00 Uniqueness of sites chosen 6 .7 11*3 6 .6 1.2 6 .9 1 .0 .2 .00 Uniqueness of s i t e s g e n e ra te d 5 .3 * .i:i 5 .7 1 .0 5 .5 .9 .1 .00 Overall Task Effectiveness 5 .8 2*0 5 .7 1.6 5 .9 1 .7 .05 .00 Member Contributions 7 .6 1 .6 7 .2 2 .3 7 .4 2 .3 • 12 .0 0 Effectiveness of Group in Meeting Objectives 7.1 1 .4 7 .2 1 .3 7 .5 1 .3 .35 .00 Self ratings 13.1 2.9 13.7 2 .5 1 4 .5 3 .3 .7 3 .00 m TABLE 56 continued

G o v 't Power E n v 't Regulations Companies I n t e r e s t s X SO X SD X SD F W2 Peer ratings 14.3 2.3 1 3 .3 2 .1 1 2 .5 3.2 1 .5 .09 In flu e n c e Total amount of influence (self+ peers + external group) 14.9 5.2 1 4 .3 3 .4 1 4 .8 4.0 .0 .00 Self ratings 5*7 2.8 4 .6 2 .8 4 .5 2.1 .7 .00 Peer ratings 4.5 2.2 4.8 1 .9 4 .5 2.1 .0 • 00 Satisfaction 6.0 2.1 6.0 1 .3 6 .7 1.3 .7 .00 Commitment Proportion.of grade member would like based on the 0 0 outcome 54*1 21.1 5 7 .5 . 1 8.6 5 9 .2 21.9 .2 . Proportion of grade member would like based on the p ro c e s s 47.5 19.1 4 4 .2 19.3 5 0 .8 20.2 .2 .00 Average IPA Percentages® Positive sbeio-emotional responses .2 .2 .3 .3 • 2 .1 .2 . 00; Task oriented resnonses 0 c* 0 (Giving) 1,0* .1 1 .0 .2 1.1 .1 .6 « Task oriented responses (A sking) .5 .2 .5 .4 .3 .2 1 .1 .0 0 ' Negative socio-emotional responses .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .1 1 .2 .0 0 Group Cohesiveness Comparison of group w ith o th e r teams 10.8 4.8 1 0.7 4 .5 12.3 4 .6 .4 • 00 Peeling of being really a part of the group 3.3 2 .2 4 .2 1 .4 4.6 .7 2 .0 .11 Feeling about ch an g in g groups 2.8 1 .3 2 .7 1 .4 3.0 1 .3 .2 .00 185 TABLE 56 continued

Gov • t Power E n v 't Regulations Companies Interests 3T SD 5c SD 5T SD F W2

Group Atmosphere • O v e ra ll Favorability 2.3 1.8 1.8 .8 1.8 .8 .6 .00 Interpersonal1: * • O O Relations 1.9 .8 1 .7 .8 2 .1 .8 NO Interest and Enthusiasm in- Task Accomplish­ 00 to m ent . 1 .8 .8 1 .8 .7 • • • 6 .0 0

aIPA mean response percentages are expressed in arcsin s c o r e s .

TABLE 57 FREQUENCY OF WILLINGNESS TO HAVE ONE'S NAME GIVEN TO THE POWER COMMISSIONS AS A PROPONENT OF THE OUTCOME OF THE GROUP DISCUSSION FOR TYPE OF INFORMATION POSSESSED BY THOSE IN THE HETEROGENEOUS-INCOMPLETE INFORMATION CONDITION

Gov't Power Env't Regulations Companies Interests Yes 10 9 7 No 2 2 5

Notei^t? ■ 2.44, df-2, n.s. 186 (5) Relationship between Personality Characteristics and Group Process and Outcome Generally, it was hypothesized that the personal environment (what the individual group members bring to the group) would be important to the results of the group discussion* The information possessed by group members is one such variable investigated in this study* Another set of variables deals with characteristics of each member's personality. Pour variables were measured in this respect prior to each experimental session* Subjects completed Fiedler's (196?) least preferred coworker scale, G hiselli's (1971) Self Description Inventory used to measure self­ esteem, Lundstedt's (1966) interpersonal risk scale, and Rotter's (1966) measure of internal-external locus of control. All these variables have been hypothesized to be related to the behavior of individuals in social situations* The correlations between these personality variables 12 and the process and outcome variables are included in Appendix G. Out of a total of 1^0 correlations, only 10 were significant at the *05 or *01 levels. Group atmosphere as & moderator of the relationship between LPC and perceived effectiveness. Several of the hypotheses predicted that a relationship involving two variables would be moderated by a third variable* ' — - ' . I' - — — i - -. _ . Only the perceptual measures of group process and outcome are included. The external criteria of quality and uniqueness of the sites selected or generated by each individual were unavailable for this analysis. 18? Hypothesis 4a stated the major tenet of Fiedler's (196?) contingency theory of leadership. Here, it was applied to the LPC of all members in each group. It was predicted th a t. when group atmosphere is moderately favorable, LPC w ill be positively correlated with effectiveness. Furthermore, LPC will be negatively correlated with effectiveness under conditions of unfavorable and highly favorable group atmosphere• Before this hypothesis could be tested, the LPC scale (see Table 58) was factor analyzed. Fox, H ill, and Guertin (1973) also factor analyzed the LPC scale completed by samples of managers, m ilitary personnel, and students* These authors uncovered five factors labeled."Hostile- Self-assured, " "Boring-Ineffective," "Hesitant," "Tense," and "Remote-Rejecting." The engineering students in the present study apparently used three group factors and one general factor. These results are presented in Table 59• All loadings on the general factor were greater than .34. This justifies the use of the average score used by Fiedler. A loading of .30 was used as the criterion for inclusion of an item in one of the three group factors. The first factor was comprised of the following adjective pairsi pleasant-unpleasant, friendly-unfriendly, cooperative- uncooperative, and supportive-hostile. The self-assured- * hesitant pair was negatively related to this factor labeled "Hostile-Self-assured." The second factor included items 188 related to being efficient, relaxed, interesting, har­ monious, self-assured, and cheerful. This factor was termed "Boring-Inefficient-Hesitant-Tense" corresponding to three of the factors found by Pox, H ill, and Guertin. The third group factor had high loadings on two itemst warm-cold and close-distant. This factor was identiOal to that labeled "Remote" by Pox, et al.

TABLE 58 FIEDLER *S LEAST PREFERRED COWORKER ITEM KEY

Item No. 1. pleasant ...... 2. f r i e n d ly ...... 3. a c c e p tin g ...... 4 . helpful...., 5. enthusiastic.. •• • 6.. r e la x e d ...... 7 . c lo s e ...... 8. warm...... 9 . cooperative....,< 10. s u p p o rtiv e ...... 11. interesting ...... 12. harmonious...... 13. self-assured.,..., 14. e f f i c i e n t ...... 15. c h e e r f u l ...... < 16. open ...... 189 TABLE 59 * HIERARCHICAL FACTOR ANALYSIS OF THE LPC SCALE

Item No. 1 2 2 4 Jl2 1 . •22 •21 - .1 6 .1 8 .8 4 2 . •21 •21 .01 .0 9 .61 3 . •21 .19 - .0 1 .1 1 .31 4 . .6 4 .1 4 .1 0 .15 .47 5 . •52 - .0 1 .21 .1 7 .42 6 . • in .0 5 •21 - .0 7 .31 7 . .61 - .1 0 - .2 3 .6 1 .8 5 8 . .6 4 - .0 1 - .1 5 •21 .6 8 9 . .68 •21 .09 - .0 1 .57 10. .6 8 .40 .2 5 - .2 3 .7 4 1 1 . •21 - .1 9 •2k .23 .5 4 1 2 . •21 .1 2 .42 - .1 0 .6 0 13- •21 - .2 6 •21 .1 4 .5 5 14. •21 - .1 5 •21 .17 • 43 15. .6 4 .01 •2 2 .0 6 .5 5 16. •2ft - .0 8 .0 9 .21 .1 7

Nooti Residuals ranged from -.157 to .131. Those loadings greater than .30 are underlined.

Five scores were derived from the LPC measure. Three scores representing each group factor were calculated by averaging the items having high loadings on the factor. The mean score was computed as an overall measure. In addition, the variance of each individual's responses was also used as a possible indication of his cognitive complexity (see Evans & Dermer, 1974» Foa, M itchell, & Fiedler, 1971i 190 M itchell, 1970). The Intercorrelations among these measures Are presented in Table 60. All variables were significantly * interc or related with one exception (the relationship between the varianee and the factor dealing with hostility). The lower a person's average response, the lower his dis­ crimination among the items. The distinction between a high variance as.1 an indication:of cognitive1 complexity and a high mean score which has baen interpreted as an interpersonal orientation camot be made for the present sample. Since most^of the correlations were of a relatively low magnitude and unique systematic variance may exist in eaoh one, all were retained for further analyses.

TABLE 60 INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG LPC MEASURES

1 -.'2 : 3 v 4 1. Mean s c o re 1 .0 0 ### 2. Variance .35 1*00 ### 3. Hostile .68 «lif 1 .0 0 B oring-. Ineffective- **# „**♦* «„*** ■ ' Tense .86 .32 .32 1 .0 0 5 . Remote .6 9 #29 #^3 #^2

*** p < .6 0 i ** p<.01

To test the contingency hypothesis, the sample was divided into three approximately equal groups on each score 191 representing a factor of group atmosphere. The. relationship between LPC factor indexes and the perceptual measures of effectiveness were examined. These correlations are presented in Table 61. The predicted relationships were not verified. Not only were most correlation^ not significant, the the trend of mostly negative correlations within the highly favorable and unfavorable group atmosphere groups and positive correlations for group members perceiving moderately favorable group atmosphere was not evidont. This lack of significant results may be due to several facors. This is an individual analysis and Fiedler's theory deals with the relationship between a group leader's LPC and group performance. The criteria in this analysis * dealt with perceptions of effectiveness rather than group performance. Also, a single measure of situation favorableness was used.father: than indexes of position power, task structure, and leader-member relations. Problems with personality measures in general as predictors of group behavior are discussed in a later section.

Internal-external control as a moderator of the relationship between self-esteem and effectiveness Another hypothesis dealing with the moderator of a relationship involved self-esteem and internal-external control. It was predicted in Hypothesis 6 that self-esteem., would be positively correlated with effectiveness for individuals who are internally controlled. Self-eBteem 192 • TABLE 61 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LPC SCORES AND DIMENSIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS FOR HIGH, MEDIUM, AND LOW GROUP ATMOSPHERE FACTORS

Overall Favorability of Group Atmosphere H igh Medium LOW Overall Task Effectiveness -.02 .32 .0 9 Member . Contributions - .2 7 .23 .4 0 Effectiveness in Meeting O b je c tiv e s - .0 4 .0 6 .35 M i i Self ratings - .1 1 - .3 6 - .5 8 JL Peer fatings .0 3 - .0 2 - .5 1 N 26 21 18

, Interpersonal Relations

• H igh Medium Low Overall Task 0 1 Effectiveness .47** • - .1 7 Member Contributions .35* .0 4 - .0 9 Effectiveness in Meeting- O b je c tiv e s .1 4 .1 6 - .2 4 Self ratings - .2 7 v - .2 7 « .2 1 Peer ratings - .0 7 - .2 6 - .0 1 N 26 28 18 Interest and Enthusiasm in Task Accomplishment H igh Medium Low Overall Task Effectiveness *07 .15 *05 Member t? # Contributions -.18 .07 .39 193 TABLE 61 continued

Interest and Enthusiasm in Task Accomplishment High Medium Low Effectiveness i n M eeting Objectives "*06 .2 3 Self ratings -.09 .39 Peer ratings .03 .10 N 26 24 22

** p .01 * p .05 and effectiveness*would, not be related for individuals who are externally controlled. To test this hypothesis, the sample was split at the median internal-external control score. The relationships between self-esteem and effectiveness factors was examined for each group (see Table 62). The hypothesis was not confirmed. None of the correlations were significant.

TABLE 62 INTERNAL-EXTERNAL CONTROL AS A MODERATOR OF THE RELATION­ SHIP BETWEEN SELF-ESTEEM AND EFFECTIVENESS

Low IE High IE Total Sample Overall Task Effectiveness .01 -.01 -.01 Member Contributions .02 - .1 4 -.05 Effectiveness in Meeting O b je c tiv e s - .1 9 -.02 -.11 Self ratings -.10 - .1 6 - .1 2 Peer ratings • 0** .14 .06 . N 38 34 72 19^ Problems with personality traits as predictors of group process and outcome Conceptually at least, there are reasons to suspect that the four personality variables investigated here would be predictive of individuals* perceptions of their group performance. However, Davis (1969* Pp. 76-78) found that pregroup measures of personality are neither strongly nor consistently related to group performance. Several reasons for this are suggested below. The variables in this study were chosen because of the imfjlic&tiofis derivable from the construct each claims to measure. However, the meaning of each variable may not always be clear. As noted earlier (Pp. 57-66), LPC is a prime example of a measurement technique with ambiguous meaning. Even if all researchers could agree on the meaning of each personality variable, measurement problems abound. Traditional measures of personality characteristics have rarely been validated against actual social variables. As an example, Fiedler and his cohorts have giveft.muohv...^ attention to LPC, however, a great deal of equivocality s till exists about its relationship to group performance (see Graen, O rris, & Alvares, 1971). The self-assurance scale of G hiselli'8 Self Description Inventory, on the other hand, has been empirically derived. Much of the research on Rotter's IE scale and Lundstedt's measure of 195 Interpersonal risk has been predominantly aimed at establishing construct validity. McGrath and Altman (1966, Pp. 6k-6$) noted that the expectation of a monotonic relationship between group behavior and measures of personality may be inappropriate. More (or less) may not be better when it comes to personality characteristics. Rather, the optimum level enhancing performance for any one tr& it may be somewhere in between* On the other hand, restriction in range may have been a problem in decreasing linear relationships between the personality measures: and the dependent variables (although the standard deviations for these variables, exhibited in Appendix G, do not indicate this). In addition, a person's behavior may not be a function of hiB tendency to respond as a result of past experience or biological makeup. Task attributes, the physical environ­ ment, attraction to the group, the particular composition of the group, etc. must all be considered. The systems model of Figure 1 tried to identify the sequential linkages that exist between member input, group throughput, and output. Davis (1969) has hypothesized that personality may be more directly related to aspects of the social milieu, but related to group output only derivatively and in some complex way. The relationships between personality and IPA responses in the present study verified this hypothesis to some extent. Interpersonal risk was positively related 196 to the percentage of positive socio-emotional responses p<.01). Also, the variance-of the individual LPC responses was negatively related to the percentage of task oriented responses involving giving (r--.l6, p<. 0 5 ) . Another problem occurs when experimental treatm ents are involved. By studying group behavior under extreme conditions (e.g., homogeneous-complete information versus heterogeneous-incomplete information), the salience of the manipulation is enhanced and is likely to be the overriding factor in accounting for subjects* perceptions of the situation. However, if a systems approach to the study of group problem solving is applicable, it is important to investigate the differential effectiveness of each # type of variable (situational versus individual differences) in predicting group behavior. This was investigated*by a series of canonical analyses described in the following s e c t i o n . 197 (6) Canonical Analyses of Predictors and Criteria The systems model of group dynamics presented in Figure 1 depicts the general hypothesis that the personal environment determines the composition of the group, the processes that occur in arriving at the outcome! and the nature of the outcome itB elf. In the current study, the personal envivironment included the information possessed by each group member, biographical characteristics (age, year in school, and grade point average), four personality variables (LPC, interpersonal risk, self-esteem, and internal-external control), and the attitudes of the subjects toward the three reference groups and their beliefeabout the importance of the problem studied by the group. The social environment consisted of positive and negative socio-emotional responses, group cohesiveness, and group atmosphere. The task oriented responses of providing and asking for information comprised the task environment, along with the treatment condition of level of participation. Outcome variables included measures of effectiveness, influence, satisfaction, and commitment to the group process and product. The approach so far has been to examine the relationships between each predictor and each criterion. These separate analyses were justified in that while there may have been overlap among the different criteria and among the predictors, 198 the relationships were far from perfect (see Appendix G). Within the bounds of reliability of each measure (which is Unknown 6xcept when alternate forms were highly related for a given construct), differential relationships may exist between predictors and criteria. Multiple tests of this nature do increase the number of effects likely to be signigicant by chance alone. It would be useful then to be able to summarize the relationships among the numerous relevant variables without altering the level of alpha (the probability of accepting an hypothesis when it is false). Therefore, from theoretical and statistical stand­ points, it is reasonable to apply canonical analysis to the data. This procedure computes coefficients which reflect the linear combinations of variables within each of the predictor and criterion domains which yield the largest possible correlation between the two domain variates (H a ll Sc Williams, 1971t Veldman, 196?). The personal environment is the predictor domain in the present case. This is comprised of four subsets of variablesi the experimental treatments of information homogeneity-- completeness and level of participation, biographical variables, personality characteristics, and attitudes toward the three reference groups and belief about the importance of the nuclear power siting problem. The criteria include the process variables of the social and task environments and the outcome variables which were retained for analyses after examination of the 199 i multiple measures of each variable. While the systems model distinguishes between process (as a cause) and outcome (the effect)* the measurement of these variables at different points in time was not possible and no i causal inferences may be made. Therefore* the: perceptual Measures of both process and outcome were treated as a single set of criterion variables. It was decided to include the percentages of responses derived from the. IPA ratings as part of this set. For the purposes of this analysis* the treatment effeots of level of participation* information‘homogeneity hnd; completeness*•and type of information within the. heterogeneous-incomplete information condition were coded as dummy variables according to the pro 9edure suggested by Cohen (1966). The coding scheme used iB .presented in T ab le 6 3 .13 . . A canoncial analysis was performed for each set of predictors and the single set of criteria. Analyses were also carried out on all possible combinations of predictor sets and the criteria. A summary of the results is presented in Table 6*f. This table includes the canonical correlation between the set or combination of sets 'of predictors and the single set of criteria. The root

33 : An alternative coding scheme that may have been followed was recently suggested by Wolf and Cartwright (197*0. This manner of coding allows the differences between each pair of means for each main and interaction effect to be determined separately. Since the basic approach herevas to uncover the relationships among the various sets of variables* this more complex procedure was not utilized. The results of the analyses of variance and post hoc analyses provide more detailed information on the nature of the effects. 200 value (the square of the canonical correlation coefficient) represents the percentage of variance in the weighted set of predictors associated with the weighted set of criteria.1** For a given canonical analysis, a number of canonical variates may result. A canonical variate is one way of weighting the variables in the predictor and criterion setB such that the linear relationship between the two sets is maximized. Since one oanonical variate usually cannot account for the total variance between the two setst additional canonical variates may be extracted. Generally, the more variables involved, the more variance to be accounted for and the more canonical variates which can be 4 derived to explain the relationship among the independent** dependent variable domains. In the present study,:a*number of canonical variates were derived from each analysis. In all analyses, no more than the first variate, extracting the greatest percentage of variance, was significant* For some analyses, no canonical variates resulted in a significant * correlation* The data in Table 6^ relate only to the first canonical variate for each analysis.

Steward and Love (1968) have proposed the statistic Rx#y as the proportion of* variance of set Y predictable from set x. This is the sum of the squared canonical correlation coefficients derived from each canonical variate extracted from an analysis multiplied by the sum of squares of the loadings divided by the number of canonical variates. (The loadings are the sums of squares of the original variables and the components of a canonical 201 TABLE 63 SCHEMA FOR CODING INDEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR CANONICAL ANALYSES

Information Dummy V a ria b le (DV) 01 Heterogeneous-incomplete 1 Homogene ous-Complete 0 Participation DV02 DV03 GEC 1 0 GE 0 1 G 0 0 Type of Information DVO^ DV05 DV06 Gov#t Regulations 1 0 0 Power Companies 0 1 0 Env.*t Interests 0 0 1 Homogeneous-Comple te 0 0 0 Type of Information Nested within the Heterogeneous- DV07 - DV01 X DV04 Inoomplete Information C o n d itio n DV08 - DV01 X DV05 Participation by Information Interaction DV09 - DV01 X DV02 DV10 - DVOt X DV03 Participation by Type of DV11 - DV07 X DV02 Information Nested within Heterogeneous-Inc omplete DV12 - DV07 X DV03 Information Condition Interaction DV13 - DV08 X DV02 DVl^ - DV08 X DV03 variate.; Nicewander and Wood tl97&/ have claimed that this is an inappropriate index of redundancy in the criterion set given a particular set of predictors* They believe that Stewart and Love's contention that the redundancy index is equal to the squared multiple 202 TABLE 64 SUMMARY OP CANONICAL ANALYSES0,

R oot y. C a n o n ic a l V a lu e 0 R * 2 d f P r e d ic to r s >o 00 Treatment effects (A) • .93 325.66*** 242 Personality variables (B) .4 9 .70 111.48 110 Biographical data (C) .4 5 .6? 7 3 .4 2 66 Attitudes toward reference groups (D) .5 0 88 .71 103.51 Jiii AB .9 0 .95 429.89 352 AC .8 8 • 94 329.96 308 AD .8 8 .94 410.78** 330 BC .5 5 •74 179.42 176 BD .5 8 .76 212.6? 198 CD .5 8 .76 177.24 154 ABC .9 2 .96 490.11** 418 ABD .9 0 .95 524.65** 440 ACD .9 0 .95 483.93** 396 BCD .6 1 .78 282.49 264 ABCD .9 2 .96 588.59** 506

^The results presented represent the first canonical variate of each analysis. Other roots did not result in significant functions and therefore are not given. °The percentage of variance in the weighted set of prediotors associated with the criteria. *** p<.,001 ** p < .0 1 correlations between the composite of criteria and the elements of the predictor set is erroneous. Nor, Nicewander and Wood claim* is the redundancy index equal to the average of thfe squared multiple correlations between a linear composite of one set of variates and the canonical variates of a second set. In the current analysis* the eigenvalue* or canonioal correlation squared* is taken as the index of amount of variance associated between the predictor and criterion sets. 203 It is evident from Table 6b that only those analyses which included the treatment effects were significant. The increase in the canonical correlation when additional sets of predictors were analyzed simultaneously was negligible. While substantial shrinkage of the canonical correlations would be likely upon cross validation, the conclusion seems warranted that the individual differences did not account for substantial increments in variance above that accounted for by the treatment effects. It is of interest to know the contribution the individual variables within each set made to the relation­ ship between the two sets of variables. The b weights for each variable derived from the analysis which included all predictor sets are presented in Table 65.*^ These coefficients reflect contributions of the individual variables.

-*It Bhould be noted that configural relationships or interactions among the predictors were not analyzed except for interactions among the treatment manipulations. This might have been accomplished by multiplying all possible combinations of predictor variables* Since there were no a priori reasons to suspect particular interactions ' among the variables between the four sets of predictors (except for the moderating effects analyzed earlier) and since such an analysis would be overwhelmingly complex, configural relationships were not examined. Also, the sample size was not large enough to achieve variation on the personality and biographical characteristics within the different treatment levels. *^The b weights are calculated by multiplying the inverse of the intercorrelation matrix by the vector lo a d in g s . 2 0 4 The weights for the main effects of level of participation and information homogene ity-completeness are relatively high* The negative freight for the dummy variable related to information (DV01) indicated that those within the homogeneous-complete information condition tended*to be higher on the outcome and process variables taken as a whole than those in the heterogeneous»incomplete Information condition, A positive relationship existed between the set of 6£iteria. and-membership in a group which engaged in full participation or generation and evaluation.*^ The interaction between participation and information was also important to the relationship. The effects of type of information possessed by group members nested within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition and its interaction with participation had fairly low weights (less than .20), The one personality variable with a moderately high weight (-.24) was internal-external control* Apparently* internally controlled individuals had higher output and process scores. Among the criteria* the following variables had weights greater than *20t self and peer ratings of influence* group atmosphere (the overall favorability and interpersonal

- .i ...... 'Note that since it was unnecessary to code all effects to obtain the generalized effect of the treatments (e.g.* participation in generation-alone was indicated by zeros on both dummy variables* DV02 and DV03)* th is analysis did not indicate the specific effect of each level of the treatments and their interaction. 205 relations dimensions)* overall task effectiveness and task oriented responses. The giving of information had a negative loading while the asking for information had a positive loading. It seems that homogeneity and completeness of information* participation in the generation* evaluation* and choice stagey and an internal locus of control score are related to perceptions of influence* effectiveness* group atmosphere* and frequency of task oriented responses.

TABLE 65 CANONICAL COEFFICIENTS FOR THE FIRST VARIATE SET COMPOSED OF ALL PREDICTORS

b P r e d ic to r s Treatment Effects Information (DV01) -.^ 8 Participation (DV02) .7 0 (DV03) .62 Type of information nested within the heterogeneous-incomplete information condition (DV07) .1 3 (DV08) -.02 Participation by Information (DV09) .5 0 (DV10) .2 9 Participation by Type of information nested within the heterogeneous- incomplete information condition (DV11) -.1 2 (DV12) -.11 (DY13 -.10 (DV14) - .0 3 206

TABLE 65 continued

b Personality Variables LPC (mean) *09 LPC (variance) .02 Interpersonal risk *08 Internal-external control -v24:\ Self-esteem *02 Biographical Characteristics Grade point average *12 Age .10 Year in school -.08 A ttitu d e s Ecology. moVemehts -.11 Government agencies .05 Public utilities -.03 Perceived importance of nuclear power siting problem .07 C r i t e r i a Effectiveness® Overall taBk effectiveness .55 Member contributions .19 Effectiveness of group in meeting objectives '.••24- Self ratings .03 Peer ratings -.12 In flu e n c e Total amount of influence (self + peer + external group) -.16 Self ratings .33 Peer ratings .68 20?

TABLE 65 continued

b Satisfaction with Group Discussion .12 Commitment Proportion of grade group member would like based on the outcome of the d is c u s s io n .08 Proportion of grade group member would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome .08 Willinghess to hdve his name given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of the group discussion .05 Group Cohesiveness Comparison of group with other teams .12 Feeling of being really part of the g ro u p .10 Feeling about changing groups .17 Group Atmosphere Overall favorability .27 Interpersonal relations .22 Interest and enthusiasm in task accomplishment .17 Average Interaction Process Analysis Response Percentages Positive socio-emotional responses .0** Tahk oriented responses (Giving) .22 Task oriented responses (Asking) .21 Negative socio-emotional responses .1 9

^he external criteria of quality and uniqueness of individual decisions were not available for this'analysis. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS The study investigated the power equalization hypothesis of the benefits that accrue to the organization and its members when decision making is delegated to . groups of individuals at lower levels in the organization. Three basic questions were addressed* (1) Will the heterogeneity of information possessed by different members within a group affect the ability of the group to solve problems efficiently? (2) Will the extent to which a group is allowed to participate in the decision making process determine group performance and members' perceptions of group process? and (3) How does an individual's ability to function in a social setting determine the success of participative decision making in accomplishing the objective of integrating individual and organizational goals? The literature on participative decision making and group dynamics led to the formulation of hypotheses related to the extent to which a group is asked to participate in the decision making process and the homogeneity of information within the group. Generally, the hypotheses stated that the favorability of group process and outcome would reach higher levels the more a group participates in

208 20 9 the decision making process. Groups in which all members possess the same information would be more effeotive and have members with more positive attitudes toward the group process than groups in which the distribution of information is heterogeneous. Interaction effects were predicted such that group process and outcome would be best under conditions of full participation and homogeneous inform ation. To test the hypotheses, 2*f groups comprised of three engineering students each were asked to participate in the task of recommending potential sites for nuclear power plants. Three levels of participation were investigated. Groups either generated alternatives, generated and evaluated alternatives, or generated, evaluated, and made the final choice of locating three nuclear power plant sites. The subjects played the role of consultants to the power commissions in the area. In the heterogeneous information condition, each member received different information pertaining to either government regulations, environmental interests, or the power companies* perspective. In the homogeneous information condition, each member had information related to all three points of view. Thus, in both.information conditions, groups had the potential for bringing the same information to bear on the problem. However, it was argued that process losses would occur in heterogeneous information condition due to the in itial la c k o f common in f o rm a tio n . 210 In addition to the experimental manipulations, the contribution of individual differences in the form of selected personality variables was considered* A review of the literature indicated that four variables might be important to the performance of individuals in a group setting. Prior to the experimental session, subjects completed measures of least preferred coworker (Fiedler, 1967 ), internal-external locus of control (Rotter, 1966), interpersonal risk (Lundstedt, 1966), and self-esteem (as measured by G hiselli's, 1971, Self Description Inventory). It was hypothesized that the combined experimental- differential analysis would account for more variance in the criteria of group process and outcome than either component alone (Hunt, I 9651 Vroom & Yetton, 1973 1 Weinstein A Holzbach, 1973). Criterion data were collected from post discussion questionnaires, interaction process analysis ratings of each discussion, and measures of the quality and uniqueness of the power sites, chosen. The questionnaires measured members* perceptions of effectiveness, influence, satisfaction, commitment to decisions, group atmosphere, and group cohesiveness. ' < • The results provided general Bupport for the hypotheses* A summary of the major finding is presented below. a) As long as groups are allowed to participate in decision making, feelings of overall participation are 211 about the same regardless of the extent of the dedision making task delegated to the group. b) The perceived equality of importance of information possessed by group members is highest in groups with heterogeneous information under the generation condition* o) When the criterion of effectiveness is the quantity of alternatives generated, those groups responsible for generation alone seem to perform at higher levelB than groups in other participation conditions (though not significantly so). d) The quantity and uniqueness of alternatives generated by the groups in the different conditions do not differ significantly. Also, homogeneity of information has no effect on the quality and uniqueness of individual or group solutions. e) Perceptions of the dimension of overall effective­ ness are significantly more favorable the more a group participates in the decision making process. f) Peer ratings of influence are higher in groups with homogeneous-complete information than those with heterogeneous-incomplete information. g) Group members perceive themselves and their peers to exert more influence in the generation and. full participation conditions under homogeneous-complete information than under heterogeneous-incomplete information. In the generation-evaluation condition, total influence is 212 greater for those in heterogeneous groups than those in homogeneous groups. In this participation oondition9 influence attributed to the external group responsible for the final decision is more for the heterogeneous than the homogeneous groups. h) Allowing groups to fully participate in the decision making process does not necessarily decrease the total amount of influence involved in'the process. i) Feelings of satisfaction tend to increase as level of participation increases. j) Participation and information have no significant effects on commitment to the outcome of the group or commitment to the way the group arrives at the outcome. k) Fewer questions are asked in the homogeneous groups than in the heterogeneous groups for those engaged in generation-alone. 1) A sking f o r s u g g e s tio n s i s more common in groups responsible Only for generation while asking for information and opinions increases in groups engaged in more extensive participation. m) Group cohesiveness measures tend to be relatively high and unaffected by level of participation and homogeneity of information. n) Group atmosphere is highest for homogeneous groups engaged in full participation than all other groups, o) Those in groups with heterogeneous information 213 believe their own information to have been most important in the decision making process* However* if all information must be acknowledged during the discussion* heterogeneous groups are best in this respect. p) Full participation groups do not differ significantly from groups which only generate and evaluate as far as percentages of responses* satisfaction* and perceptions of member contributions are concerned* However* those in the generation-evaluation condition perceive less total influence to be involved in the decision making process than those engaged in full participation* q) Individual differences (which in the present case included personality variables* biographical characteristics* attitudes toward the reference groups* and perceived importance of the power siting problem) are not as important as the experimental manipulations of participation and information in accounting for the variance in the joint set of group process and outcome variables* The following synthesis of these findings makeB evident several important implications for involving thoBe at lower levels of an organization in the deoision making p r o c e s s . Overall* the extent to which groups are allowed to participate and the homogeneity of resources within the group w ill affect the nature of members' responses and the outcome of the discussion* However* the level of participation 214 may not be as important as being allowed to participate in the decision making process as far as perceptions of overall participation are concerned. The quality and uniqueness of the solution is not significantly affected by level of participation and homogeneity of information. The quantity of alternative solutions is higher if groups only generate. This may be a result of the relatively high percentage of responses devoted to asking for suggestions in the heterogeneous groups which are responsible for generation alone. Perceptions of overall effectiveness and member satisfaction increase with the level of par­ ticipation. Generally, the differences between full participation and lim iting participation to generation and evaluation differ only with regard to perceived influence exerted by group members. When part of a decision making task is allocated to a group, the total amount of influence is not stable but varies with homogeneity and completeness of .information as well as level of participation. Allowing groups to fully participate in the decision making process does not necessarily decrease the total amount of influence within an organization. Heterogeneity of information does decrease the perceived influence of group members except when participation is at the generation-evaluation level. Under these conditions, members are necessary for providing different perspectives on the probelra without having to arrive at a consensus and the external group is neoessary for synthesizing the divergent 215 Information. Heterogeneous group members in the generation-evaluation condition may have fe lt competent in arriving at a final decision and hence frustrated in having to stop short of it. This lack of closure may have resulted in decreased feelings of personal influence. Member commitment to group outcome and to process are not affected by participation and information. Further investigation is necessary to test Patchen*s (1970) claim that commitment to the organization increases with participative decision making. The perceived differential in information expands as the level of participation increases for those in heterogeneous groups* However, this appears to result in process losses rather than in an increase in the quality of the dedi&ion. All types of information are acknowledged to be important to the heterogeneous group outcome, but this is accompanied by the finding that heterogeneous group members perceive their own information as most important to the group decision. Thus, a proper synthesis of information may not occur in the heterogeneous groups.

To summarize, homogeneity of information and level of participation are related to the group outcome variables of perceptions of effeotivensB, influence, and 216 satisfaction and the process variables of task oriented responses and group atmosphere. The quality and uniqueness of the solutions are not affected by participation and information. Individual differences are generally not as important as the treatment conditions in predicting process and outcome* If subordinates* feelings are important, increasing levels of participative decision making may be beneficial. Heterogeneity of information may lead to process losses which lim it the advantages of participative decision making*

Implications for Interdisciplinary Task Forces

An interdisciplinary team is a group of persons trained in the use of different tools and concepts which each member applies to a common problem (Luszki, 1958). Interdisciplinary teams have the advantage of bringing together an abundance of rapidly increasing knowledge from a variety of narrow specializations. The popularity of interdisciplinary work stems from pressure for results and the desire of the government# foundations, and other organizations to speed up the process of getting information. Such a team is characterized not simply by the disciplines from which the members come but by the tools they use and the roles they play. Team members generally come from a variety of subcultures differing in interests, loyalties, habits, and stereotypes of each others* modes 217 of behavior* The composition of an interdisciplinary team results in what Loeb (i 960 ) has described as M..«the anomoly of increased dependence, the one }jlisciplinql upon the other, together with increased distance between the mutually dependent units and decreased communication to bridge that distance" (cited in Stone, 1969, P . 3 5 2 ). The interdisciplinary team must exhaust considerable energy and sk ill to maintain good teamwork and effective communication. In so far as interdisciplinary task forces may be characterized by heterogeneity of information, this study has implications for this type of group. Heterogeneity of information may be detrimental to synthesizing all points of view. But, homogeneous groups in which each member has fu ll information do not differ* from the heterogeneous groups in quality and uniqueness of the final product. Interdisciplinary teams, however, diffe'r from those groups studied here in that each member of an interdisciplinary team brings a different focus of interest and a different conceptual system to the group. The im plicit stereotype each member holds of the disciplines of the other members w ill affect how the team is administered and the facilitation with which the decision making processes are carried out. Furthermore, it would be rare to find a task force charged with solving a complex problem in which each member has complete information. A more likely circumstance would be for each member to possess different. 2 1 8 . and limited information related to all relevant points of view. These factors point the way for future research.

Suggestions for Future Research

The results of the present study are not clearly in favor of increasing levels of participative decision making unless the feelings of group members are of primary importance. Interpersonal relations are generally better in homogeneous groups, but heterogeneous groups are better at bringing all points of view into a discussion. This research should be expanded in two directionsi (1) Field studies should use the measures found to be relevant here to tap the process and product of long-term groups in a variety of organizational settings. (2) Additional independent variables Bhould be investigated. In particular, the amount and completeness of resources should be studied. Also, the effects of member loyalty to a given reference group should be assessed. In this research, the effects of amount and completeness of information are confounded with the effects of homogeneity of information distribution. In the homogeneous information condition, a ll members have complete information related to all three points of view. In the heterogeneous information condition, each member has information which is related to only one viewpoint. Also, the quantity of information is less than that possessed by the subjects, in the homogeneous condition. 2X9 Therefore, In addition to the effects of information homogeneity, future studies should isolate'the effects of completeness of information available to the group. Homogeneous groups in which information related to only one reference group is available should be compared to homogeneous groups in which each member has the^same' inform ation related to a number of perspectives. Heterogeneous groups in which each member has information related to all reference groups and the content of the information differs from member to member should be compared to heterogeneous groups in which each member has incomplete information. .Secondly* the amount of information should be varied. Homogeneous groups with complete information should be compared to homogeneous groups in which the content of information possessed by each member is decreased but information related to all reference groups is retained, and remains the same for a ll members. The amount of IS information may also be varied within heterogeneous groups. Future studies should compare groups in which members play a nonrepresentational role to those in which members play a representational role. Whether each member has complete or incomplete information, he may represent a given reference group or he may represent the larger interests of an entire organization or system (such as the power commissions in this study). In the case of a

■■ , .. — .. .. A complete factorial design including two levels of amount of information would be impossible if content of information is to be controlled. If amount of information within the hterogeneous condition were varied, the corresponding homogeneous condition with complete information would also 220 representational role9 members have a loyalty to one reference group and attempt to maximize the outcome in favor of that reference group at the expense of the others. Members playing "nonrepresentational" roles try to arrive at the best possible decision from all points of view. The composition of the group with respect to role may be varied such that one or more members represent single reference groups while the others are concerned with achieving the most equitable solution. Another relevant variable is the rank of group members within the organization. Participative decision making may be studied in groups which are composed of one or more supervisors or members of top management as well as lower level employees. In addition, leaderless group discussions may be compared to those with assigned:7 leaders from among the ranks of supervisors or subordinates while varying the information held by group members • The strategy for future research must be one of accounting for as muoh systematic variance as possible while increasing generalizability. The first step is to investigate six aspects of group composition in the laboratory. These are homogeneity, completeness, and amount of infomration, the role played by the subject, his assigned have to be altered which, in turn, would create a larger amount of information to be tested in the heterogeneous c o n d itio n . 2 2 1 fank In the organization, and his position of leadership* In addition, the tine allowed for group decision making may be varied to determine whether process losses resulting from heterogeneity of group composition w ill dissipate if no time constraints are placed on the group* The nuclear power siting simulation may be useful in future studies for its realism and for allowing • manipulation , of theIrblevantvariables Without changing the nature of the problem. The approach of simulating organizational decision making on a standardized task may be enhanced by soliciting the participation of experts in the pertinent information with loyalties to their respective reference groups. This may provide*a-more externally valid study while accounting for a substantial portion of systematic v a r ia n c e • * Field studies of long-term problem solving teams should be conducted by_ collectingLdata- from as manyv v groups as possible in a variety of contexts. Groups should be classified according to homogeneity, completeness, and amount of information and the role, rank, and leadership position of group members. The measures of group process and outcome used in the present Btudy should be administered at various points in time. No doubt, there are a number of other variables not mentioned above which could be studied in testing the 222 power equalization hypothesis. Laboratory and field studies of the nature suggested here should help determine the composition of a group and the level of participation best for the success of participative decision making. PLEASE NOTE:

This is not original copy. Much of the print in the Appendices is very small and indistinct. Best available copy. Filmed as received.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS. APPENDIX A TEXT OP TAPED PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTIONS AND LECTURE ON NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS 2 2 4

Power Siting Problem

Several month* ago the electrlo power companies In the four states sur­

rounding Lake Michigan announced that they Intended to pool their resources and

build three large nuolear-powered electrlo generating plants to serve the area bordering Lake Michigan. The existing power plants of the companies are tra­ ditional "fossil fuel" plants which function by burning coal or gas. However, la light of recent events, the companies determined that the best way to keep pace with the growing power needs of tho area Is to build a chain of three high-capacity nuclear generating plants. Your task will be to locate the sites for the plants.

You and your teammates are to suppose you have been hired as consultants by the power commissions to help moke some of the deolsions that must be ar- * rived at In locating the altos. At tho end of the session, one of you will bo chosen as a spokesman to defend the outcome of the group discussion. First it is neces­ saryto havo some facts about what a nuclear power plant is.

Nuoloir Power Plants •

Kuolear fuel Is dean power. There Is no smoke or fiimes, no movements of bulky fUel, no oombuslons products and gases to dispose of. The oapaolty of a single plant is 870,000 kilowatts, enough to supply alt the residential needs of about 1,500,000 people and the industrial needs of a city of that size.

' Most electrlo power In tho United States Is made by burning some type of fuel. Traditionally, these have been eithor coal, gas, or oil. Heat from burning fuel Is used to boll water, produolng high-pressure steam. Figure 1 presents a 225

diagram of a foiall fuel plant. The steam passes through the blades of a turbine, causing the shaft on which the turbine blades are attached to turn. The rotating part of the electrical generator la one the same shaft so that it spins, along with the turbine, and eloctrldty is generated.

Stcaa line

• urbini>

Boiler Condenser

' % Figure It Traditional Fossil Fuel Plant A nuclear power plant works in much the same manner. The difference la

In the source of heat. Instead of burning fossil fuel, heat is produood by nuclear • • fission occurring within the reactor. A diagram of a nuclear plant Is exhibited

In Flguro 2. The water, under pressure to prevent boiling, circulates through the reactor and oarrles heat to a secondary water system where the needed high- pressure Is produced. From there, the eloctrla generating prooess is nearly

Identical to a present-day power plant. Steom'ls directed to the turbine, which

In turn spins tho generator and electricity flows. Control kdUe ' Tr sns former r\ Beat exchanger Turbine — Generator! a - I

. Beactor Condenser

. * ' • . • . Figure 2i Nuclear Power Generating Plant 2 2 6

b a nuclear reactor, fission occurs when atoms of a heavy element, such as uranium, are spltt Into two fragments. When this happens, a small amount of heat Is released along with two o r three bee neutrons. These free neutrons, traveling at tremendous speeds, then strike other uranium atoms, causing them to split,'releasing more boat and more free neutrons. This sequenoe continues as long as the reactor Is In operation and is called a ohaln reaction.

During the operation In the reactor, water Is circulated upward through the core. Each fuel rod, containing tho uranium dioxide pellets, Is slightly sep­ arated from those next to It so the wator can flow freely around and past eaoh rod, picking up tho heat from the fissioning going on Inside. The water Is undor about 2,200 pounds-per-square-lnoh prossuro so that It will not boll or turn to steam In tho reactor.

After passing through the core, the heated water travels In a closed loop through a set of pipes called a steam generator, then on to a pump and connecting piping back to the reactor. There are two of these loops In the reactor. Water olrculatos continuously through theso loops, removing boat generated in the core e and giving it up to tho steam generators. The water flows back to the reactor to cool It and pick up more heat.

In the steam generators, the primary system water travels Inside stain­ less steel tubes, which separate It from the secondary system water on the out­ side of the tubes. The heat passing through the Inside of the primary tubes Is transferred to water flowing outside the tubes. As this happens, the water flow­ ing In the secondary loop begins to boll, and steam Is transformed. 227

From this point on, tho nuclear power station closely resembles any present-day steam generating plant. The steam coming from the steam genera­ tor drives the turbine, which turns an electric generator.

Tho steam used to spin the turbine Is mado from highly purified water so it Is wise to use It again. Howover, It must be converted back to water, be­ cause steam cannot be pumped. This Is accomplished In a condensor. A con­ denser can be thought of as a room ftill of steam through which pass hundreds of smalt parallel pipes. Cool water, from a lake, ocean, or cooling tower, Is pumped through these small pipes. The exhaust steam collects on the cooler pipes os water drips to the bottom, and Is returned to the steam generator to be put back to work. The warmed cooling water Is then pumpod bock to the lake or the cooling tower and the oyclo begins once more, Tho nuclear plant differs from tho traditional plant In that It generates a great deal more heat and requires much mord cooling water. . APPENDIX B INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION 229

EN VIHONMKNTA L INTEREST GROUP’S ARGUMENTS

Impact on Aouatto Ecology

Tho three power companies, in the name of alleviating the energy crisis, will be oroatlng a resource oriels. Nuolear power plants near the estuaries along the coast of Lake Michigan will result in the destrlctlon of the ecology of the lake, killing fish end plant life.

Estuaries, such as the beys and small Inlets around the bay areas of Lake

Michigan play key roles In the Ufa cycles of many fish species. They ere highly productive bodies of water, supporting dense populations of phyto- and soo-planktoo, open which the larval stages of forage, rough, and game 11 ah feed. Temperature la s orltloal factor in eatuarine ecology. Seasonal changes In temperature Initiate and control the rate of spawning activity and development of tho fish.

Fish and other organisms are killed by "entralnmcat” when thqy are drawn

Involuntarily Into the cooling system of the power plant. Especially vulnerable are the freo-flootlng egga of a number of fish species, larval fish, smaller fish than

2-1/2 Inches, and plankton, the microscopic plant and animal llfo on which mapy fish grace. Death by entralnment cornea from the high volocity of the water flow, whloh smashes the flsh Into various parts of the system, and the sudden temperature rise In the cooling water, which causes thermal shock.

Soreen-klllB

TO keep debris from entering the plant Innards with the cooling water, poorer plants have trashbacks and Intake screens. Two nuclear plants on the Hudson Hirer kill over five million flsh a year by screen-killing. Locating a nuolear plant away from the major bay areas around Lake Michigan would avoid trapping much water life in the plant's mechanisms. 230

Nltrogen-Kllls

Tba 3mlthaonloa Institution reported that thousands of adalt Atlantlo Menhaden

(10" to H " long) are dying from the warm water discharge of Eoston Edison's nuclear power plant located In Plymouth. The heated water from the plant Increases the nitrogen content which causes hemorrhaging in the flns of the flsh which swim In the waters dose to the plant.

Thermal Pams

In addition to high temperature shock kills, the oontinuol flow of heated water eon act as a dam preventing some flah from migrating to warmer waters during the wlntor months when parts of the lake freeze over. This "discharge plume" would not have to block a large area to Interfere with flsh migration. Following the shat* down of the Oyster Creek nuolear plant at Bamegut Bay on the Atlantic coast, mil­ lions of flsh that bad not migrated to warmer waters off North Carolina were killed by the change to normal low winter temperatures. Therefore, migration passage ways must be Identified and the plants located in other dlreotloos.

Chemloal Effeote

Chlorine Is used to prevent corrosion of the plant's cooling system. Recent studies at Johns Hopkins University Indicate that long exposure to very small closes of these compounds eon have harmful effects on soquatla life.

Cooling Towers

Discharging water into the lake is termed ocoo-through cooling. A cooling tower at the site of each power plant would considerably reduoe the temperature of water emitted Into the lake. A cooling tower would require a small dally emlttanoe 231 * * %

of hot* water end a email Intake from the lake, but the damage to water life would

be minimal. Also, with the use of a cooling tower, a plant could be located near a

bar area and inlets whloh serve as breeding grounds.

However, cooling towers pose other environmental throats. The water die*

charged from the tower would have high concentrations of salt In addition to the

corrosion Inhibitors. Also, as the cooling tower tans draw air through the water In

the tower, a small fraction of water would be carried as droplets. Unlike evaporated water molecules, whloh carry no other chemicals, drift droplets contain the same concentrated chemicals as the circulating water. The water droplets eventually fall, depositing salt on land and vegetation surrounding the tower. Therefore, farmlands nearby the plants would be seriously damaged by reducing the productive capacity of the soil. It would also pollute grazing lands resulting In poisonous chemical content

In milk, eggs, and meat. The salt also affects man-made surfaces. Increasing the oorroalon rate of the steel structures In the cities.

Perhaps moat serious la the air pollution and fog that results from the water evaporation from the towers. This would be more of a problem for those residents living downwind from the nuolear plants* Downwind Is usually southeast In the ares * of Lake Michigan. Radiation

The most obvious kind of radiation damage Is called somatic. This Involves actual injury of human tissue that Is hit by radiation. It con result in radiation burns and radiation Illness, Symptoms are nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, blood cell and In later stages, hemmorrhago and loss of hair. Radiation con oause changes In the reproductive cells, thus causing mutations In later generations. Radiation has also been linked to cancer. 232

Two scientists; John Gofknan and Arthur Tamplln, have charged that tho cur­ rant population exposure to radiation la 10 times too high. If a nuclear power plant is to be built at all, it must be as far away from population centers as possible.

Aesthetic Concerns

Finally, nuclear power plants tend to be huge, destroying the scenery around beaches, wildlife preserves; and parks. Cooling towers add another tremendous structure to the nuclear power plant facilities. A nuclear plant should be loosted sway from recreational areas, residential areas, and also historical, religious; archeological, scenic, or other areas of cultural value. 233•• • » •• -

#H«n

Note* The maps included in the information presented to the subjects were obtained from the Great lakes basin framework study, Appendixes 10, 17. 19,"anaT2l', Prepared by the Power Work Group* Great Lakes Basin Commission. Sponsored by the Federal Power Commission, 1971. 23**

4* f

D

n i LEQENOt Migration end/or wintering Resting and nigratloa i

.

: *

PRIMARY WATERFOWL USE AREAS, FUN AREA-3. 835...

B JO * . B s. . I

ra S a "* ^ ^*0, S ® ^ ~ ■ * * * * ■ * i»9rja 1 ‘ * w • .'*1 \ ’1-^ :1^ v »•■• • • .’V*' w ' i .* .• * •• • -»/ .r **'*,*?? *£‘j: * j / < .i;6 J • •.*;>/:• V%\ t • * /.;- l—Hii -4 ^ n ‘w' • • . *■" a *■• V • • t J1 1I'-.T k *** a* *•• v'«(< . >* ■ • .. * • •’* • • . * *•* •. *:4. i \ , np. .*• *•"$!*• • \l, » - * . *-> *-••*.* • *. • • ' r% v n r £nmm 2 1

*jm>* « J > to i * * ’ MM * ' ^ Ilk • • *. w 1. i *na/ •wta; Pn 1 Vcyagcurs National Park * 12 Green Bey Islands •* 2 Boundary Waters Canoe Area 13 Sleeping Bear Dunes 3 Apostle Islands / 1 4 Ice Age National Sclent 4 Isle Royalc National Fork Reserve (proposed) 5 Porcupine Mountains 15 Indiana Dunes 6 Huron Mountains .16 Bass Islands 7 Pictured Hocks 17 Niagara Fall3 8 Taliquaincnon Falls 18 Zoar Valley 9 WhUcilsh Bay 19 Genesee Gorge 10 Patogannisslng Bay Islands 20 Finger Lakes 11 Wolf River 21 Thousand Islands Area ' *22 Adirondack Park I

t « # * i Urn i I i>

i i* !

ii • ftett uuur«i«Qi I • turf Mm im .[ICUSf pUBU aY OSISO IAN0S OPEN TO HUNTING IX i _ r *W AEA2.l AS Of (970 : XHAKA 2.2 AS OfRTO lA' <0S O™ 1 TO KUNTlto IN ( IHS

CO VjJ

1 t

t 11 % •J

« t f a i « t <£>■ « a 4**

* i

I 9 m. I I i

I t t t m . « m j a m M S i!&%l

ncuf£ir*« PUBUaYCWRO tANOS OKNTIDHUNTme w wwsauAsofwo * •

g*D4

» to Vt) t 00 239

GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS

A number of ctrtngent Federal requirement* must be met before a nuclear

power plant may be txillt or operated, first, a alto must be approved. Secondly,

a construction permit la Issued, and third, an operating license la secured. All

this must come from the Atomic Energy Commission after detailed analysts by the

A.E.C. staff. The plant must also meet the requirements Imposed by the National

Environmental Policy Aot of 1966. In addition, state, county, and city boards

must also review the decision to build a power plant In a particular area. In

chooslug a alte, the following factors must be considered.

Need for the Facility

Whether the plant will serve a largo population which la Ultoly to grow In the next 10 years, thereby Increasing demand for electricity must be determined.

Health and Safety

The health and safety of the employees of the nuclear power plant and the

surrounding population must be considered. Therefore, the demographic patterns

around each proposed power plant site must be examined.

The probability of Increased respiratory diseases due to deterioration of air quality from power plant emissions Is another consideration. The possibilities of serious failures of emission control equipment must bo determined. The A, E, 0,

Insists that nuclear plants be built to withstand an almost Inconceivable combination of accidents. Such a disaster la called a "maximum hypothetical accident. " This disaster Includes tornadoes, earthquakes, and major failures of equipment.

The operations of the plant must be Uconsod by the A.E.C, The operators of the plant must be licensed by the A* E, C, and are subject to re-examination every two years to assure their proficiency. Therefore, each plant must be located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas where qualified man-power to operate the plant can be recruited.

Fog and Ice Formation

The probability and extent of hazardous driving conditions due to fog and loe fall tram cooling towers must be considered. If an airport Is situated too near the alto of the power plant, will aircraft flights be delayed by the fog and loe from the plant? Will this delay vessels docked In the harbor?

Water Pollution

Tho amoung ot water contamination must be estimated. This includes drinking water and water used for recreational purposes (e.g., boating and swim­ ming). Also, the effects of chemicals released from the power plant may affect the water and foul life In the vicinity.

Noise Pollution

How many people reside or work within audible range of the construction and operation activities of the proposed facility? Does this noise have an Impact on the population? Ecological Effects

It must be determined whether orops aro likely to be affected by the drift from cooling towers. Including tho effects of excessive moisture, ice foil, and deposition of obemloals. The power companies must enumerate what steps will be token to safe­ guard against the failure of emission control equipment. 2k 1

If the plant will recycle water into the lake in place of a cooling tower, thia may have several effects, all of which must be accounted for in selecting a site.

Such adverse impact on water and fowl life may Include the following:

a. entrapment of Hah and plant life in the cooling mechanism; heating the water to above normal temperatures;

b. adverse alteration of life cycles of fish species through Increased water temperature;

o* thermal abode due to cessation of hot water.

Economic Impact

Consider the effects of inoreased traffic and change in access to various areas.

Are needed Jobs likely to be created during the construction and operation of tho plant?

Cultural Impact

The Impact of the plant on the scenery, historical landmarks, and recrea­ tional areas, etc, must also bo considered. Is the power plant hidden or Is it within public view?

Social Attitudes

What people ore likely to think of the nuclear power plant is of major impor­ tance in choosing a site. For example, will they see it os increasing business in the area and creating more Jobs as well as increasing the electrical capacity for abetter standard of living or as on environmental hazard to human, animal, and plant life?

The publlo's attitude will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site Is licensed fay the A. E. C. and other governmental agendas. I «• wtfgwuTorwowaw fom rygmci,. NATIONAL FORESTS U.S.’GREAT LAKES BASIlt 1906

. ucoio c a Ka«M*ir«ml • C 3 rwchtMUaR * flttiwwl ■ B 3 UObiDM PnJ*ct* I

ill

o«t 0]

in* 161DU YCAJIS nouns » total t r a f fic on o r ea t l a k e s - ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY to -P- \j9

PLANNING 5UBAff; 2W

OVER

111

□ 0 0 0 3 0

f

m

h >

Fi. GREAT LAKES BASIN GENERATING PLANTS 10 MW 6. OVER EXISTING E. SCHEDULED ,(os of December 31,1970) »•» njwio-* POWER COMPANIES* ARGUMENT

Need for a Nuclear Powor Plant to this Area

The demand for electricity, especially In tho cities which lie on Lake Michigan,

h u been doubling approximately every 10 years. This has been due partly to the population Increase, but also to lnoreaaed per capita use of power. Tho records

from 1959 to 1969 show that residential power consumption Increased 81%. Com* merolal consumption (schools, office buildings, shopping centers, hospitals, etc.)

Increased 109%, Industrial consumption was up 78%.

In the next 10 years, power consumption In this region is again expected to nearly doublo. By 1985 this area will need as much electricity ns It has prodnoed . during the past 90 years.

Electricity oannot be stored^ but must bo produced as It Is needed. There­ fore, the electric power Industry must anticipate these demands end have generating plants ready to go when the power Is needed. With the Increasing shortages In tra­ ditional fUei, nuolear power Is the only alternative. In order to conserve energy and to avoid loss of energy during transmission over long-distance power lines, the power plants should be located the least distance from all major areas of power consumption. The maximum distance Is 200 miles from the major area served.

Obtaining Nuolear Fuel

The fuel, uranium 235, will come from a leading manufacturer of nuolear plant equipment and foel. The fool gradually loses some of Its ability to produce energy and from time to time a portion of the foel will have to be taken from the reactor to be reprocessed. The foel will be shipped away sealed In lead casks, from the plant to another company which specializes In reprocessing. Tho foel will be transported in strlot accordance with A. E. C. and U.S. Department of Transpor­ tation handling regulations. 2k6

*

Breeder reactors, whleh produce their own fiiel, are not yet available for oommerelal use.

The fiiel need play no part In choosing the plant sites. Heavy precautions significantly reduce any risk in transportation and storing the fiiel.

Safety of Nuolear Power Plants

Because of its wartime heritage, the peaceful application of nuclear energy has been extremely cautious. Rigid regulations mako the nuolear industry In the

U. 8. probably the safest in tho entire history of technology.

There has never been an instance whore a commercial nuclear power plant has affected publlo health or safety) and no employee of such a plant has ever been

Injured fay radiation.

The degree to which a human being is exposed to radiation effects Is measured

In a unit called a rem. For convenience, tho mllllrem, which equals 1/1000 of a ram.

Is usually used.

A person living at a relatively low elevation In Michigan, Illinois, or Wisconsin might receive 100 mllUreme annually. Someone living in higher areas (500 feet above sea level or more) might receive 50 to 100 mllUrema more a year. This is about the same amount as a single chest X-ray, If you sat right at the boundary of a nuolear plant site for a whole year you would be exposed to less than one addi­ tional mllllrem. The small ride Is far outweighed fay the advantage of the additional power. Possibility of a Nuclear Disaster

The nuclear power plants will be designed to withstand tornadoes and earth­ quakes much more severe than have ever been recorded In this area. The exterior ft structures bousing tho reactors will consist of a shield building with conorete 2-1/2 tael thick. Approximately 4-1/2 (eel Inside the concrete shield building will be a containment vessel of steel 1-1/2 Inches thick. Tbs dome on top will be 2 feet thick and the containment structure will rest on bed rode covered with no less than

4 feet of concrete. Whether they will over be needed or not (and It's highly unlikely that they will be) these super-safety features will be part of eaeh plant's design. Thus, there Is no dangor In locating a power plant near s population center.

Water Recycling

Eight-hundred and fifty thousand (850,000) gallons of water will flow through the oondeneor of each plant every minute, or 1.2 billion gallons a day. Therefore, the nuolear plants must be very close to a body of water.

As the water Is drown through the plant It absorbs tho heat of the super­

heated steam after It has driven the turbines that spin the generators* Along the way, the water becomes anywhere from 10° to 34° hotter. It is then shot bock Into

the body of water from which it was drawn at these higher temperature levels.

The plan to dispose of this heated water Is to return It to tho lake. Such

a plan was studied fay scientists at the University of Michigan and Johns Hopkins.

The plan most favored was to discharge tho water directly Into the lake within a

sone of about 88 acres. This water will have an average temperature rise of 14°

at the discharge point, and will rapidly mix with the adjacent lake water. The

surfaoe area affected by a 5- to 14-degree temperature rise will be only one-tenth

of an acre — about the size of an average front yard. This Is Insignificant when one

thinks of the also of Lake Michigan. I A cooling tower might be used as a replacement to allowing the boated water to flow Into the loko. The water ie recycled to a hugo tower where It la cooled and need over again. However, a small amount of hot water le still returned to the lake and a small daily "make up" refill Is required from the lake. Also, a cooling tower ocota an additional 9 million dollars to build and a million dollars a year to operate. Table 19-1-3, ‘ . Population of Croat likia Baalnt' by Plan Art a and Planning Subare^ Hucber of Porwone and Pcrccnf o f Panin.' 1940->2020 Census Final Count Wo. Poaerlptlon 19^0 I m o i I960 I 1970" 1980 1 2000 l 2020 TAT a t cnnt't iTlrttf I'ltlO U S. > Basin. Total 187791“ 2 1 , if 2 2 0 ,Ju4 29.332 A l,368 T yri'itT " H .447

1. L.Superior 533 513 565 5?? 538 594 669 1.1 L.Sup. W. .336 ' ” 330" ■""SSV 345 367 417 475 I t 2 1*. Sup. E. 197 183 186 188 171 177 194 2. L.Mlehlean B.673 9.953 12.061 13,317 15,562 19.645 24.830 2.1 UMlch.KW ™ rf\" sn 896 1,00 A 1,082 1,338 1,726 2.2 L.Hlch.SM 6.034 6,919 8,481 9,493 10,999 13,844 17,386 2.3 L.Hich.SE 1.499 1.807 2,211 2,523 2,914 3,772 4,876 369 * 410 453 496 547 671 842 2.4 L.Hlch.NS m 3. t . Huron 732 • 860 1,036 1,236 1,411 1.810 2.324 - 3.1 L.Hur.N. 94 102 115“ 142 164 209 26? 3*2 LiHuttSi 638 738 937 1,094' 1,247 1,601 2,057

4. li tr tm 7,093 8,520 10,466 11,514 13.299 16.794 21.281 4.1 L.Erla KM 2,657 3 ,4 4 0 4,292 4 ,8 4 6 ' 5 ,8 0 2 7,425 9,368 4.2 L.Erie SM 1,176 1,323 1,566 1.723 1,963 2,474 3,116 4.3 L.Crle Ctn, 1.887 2,233 2,825 3,099 3,476 4,389 5,527 4.4 L.Erla E. 1,333 1,522 1.7B3 1,842 2,058 2,306 3,070 3. L.Ontario 1,758 1,966 2.236 2,532 2.776 3,495 4.393 3.1 L.Ont. U. b id " 682 7 f f a " 946 976 1,722 1,538 3*2 L*Ont»Cifla 940 1,057 1,236 1,362 1,572 2,016 2,336 5*3 1-aOnta Ea 198 207 222 224 226 237 299 C rest Lakes PEP.CE.'rr O? P.AS IK Basin. Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 0 0 .0 100.0 lo 0 .fi' 1. L.Sunerior 2.8 2.4 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.4 1 .3 1.1 L.Sup. W 1.8” ' 1.5 . 1.4 1 .2 i . l ” ’1.0 " 0.9 1.2 L.Sup. E. 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.5 . 0.4 0 .4 2. L.Mich lean 46.3 45.7 45.7 46.1 46.3 46.4 46.4 2.1 L.HLch.KW 4.1 3.7 3.4 T,"4 3.2 3.2 3 .2 2.2 L.Hlch.SM 32.1 31.8 32.2 32.4 32.8 32.7 32.5 2.3 L.Hich.SE ' 8.0 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.7 8.9 9 .1 2.4 L.Hlch.KE 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1 .6 3. t.Huron 3.9 3.9 4.0 . . . 4.2, 4.2 • 4.3 ■•4.3 3.1 L.Uur.H. 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 .5 3.2 L.Hur.S. 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.7 . 3.8 3 .8 4. L .E rla 37.8 39.1 39.7 39.3 39.6 39.7 39.7 4.1 L.Erla Wl 14.6 13.8 16.3 1 6 ,6 17.3 17.5 17.9 4.2 L.Erla SM 6.3 6.1 5.9 5.9 5.8 • 5.9 5.8 4.3 L .E rla Can. 10.0 10.2 10.7 10.6 10.4 10.4 10.3 4.4 L.Erla E. 7.1 7.0 6,8 6.3 6.1 5.9 5 .7 5. 1.Ontario .9.3 8.9 8.5 8.6 8.3 8.2 " '8.3 ' 5.1 L.Ont. H. d . i • 3 .1 3 .6 1.2 r .v 219 " 3.2 L.Ont.Con. 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.8 3.3 L.Ont. E. 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0 .6 . A «tr '•I FJ r Br e) a S 0 s Ji f E ETRATEtTU/ H W /K U toT E T A MET HEATR £ 9 &ss° NET HEAT RATE RATE HEAT NET ------t i K «* a ■/ / t-fr -4- /. / o t / / - / / m t jA / BTU/KWH » e , > t V / H f. / A / / / / / V 'A . T 'y- / / > A / A / / f / s / / V y v y s j j A C R E F E E T P E R M t L U O N K W H / • / s y 1/ o I 1/ y A / A / * y ' S y V fy. - o —n — y •• y * yf ,• " * .» ‘3 iu Vi £ : a ;:i i -TiI v* i; M 13 ia ~ O ** I •> r» : * • i* I : . CO J • ?2 3 I I 5(jO cj 3 » g 3 3 8 § £ £ § £ o C P ACTS FEET PER IOUOM K W H i — — KETPUNT HEW• RATE-8 TU/KWH N \ (KUC’-EA?. GSJtXTATKSPLANT) • (Alt. Vi 'V L_L \iVfVi»V \iVfVi»V \ V S*F r«cp. nbs< h w wf »U fluOi t»UU awtf ww S. - J > l .CttJiujp s I ' FlowTltrK^i 'N" ii.. . i 'i i m l l 1 0-87 1 SJ boi rad n v»ter V, * b-Mi b-Mi i « | i s ooSrJ » t*e*? N CXI \ Vo OC UO \ tar) FfemKMO \ S N 0 0 3 7 •

ACTE FEET PER VJUJON KWH 09 OB OB 7 0 . (FOSSIL. * • PLANT d I KEAT RATE-8 CONSUMPTIVE (Al IS* F FUEL GENERATINGPLANT) Temp. D*M Rita hCoaEnQ WATER TU/KWH Wow) USE flgailM 252

Figure 21-4. Moan Maximum Tomporaturo (*F), July*

v - !«• r ( f t

n

t

(Soureot U. S. Wo other Buroau)

Flguro 21-5. Moan Maximum Tomporaturo (*F), January.

I L

(Sourcct U. S. Wcnllicr Bureau) * ' • •5 ■ 3 . • ‘Z i V « 85 I 2 3 s . # .*«rj ^ J ■ O « 0 Elevation 570 « *° Elevation 6 0 0 __ •_? ” Elevation 579 3 VWl /fora/f i \ % - \\ Elevatton g 4 S r * sO£ct \.J j X 1 I t \ X ■'■i j .1" i v l » ; StLevrteCtRirtr : A :

' US'

. nstiro 21-3. LoDgltadlnfll profile of tho Great Lakes. 253 25^

INSTRUCTIONS HETEROGENEOUS-INCOMPLETE INFORMATION CONDITION You are to suppose you have oeen hired as consultants by tho power commissions In the states surrounding Lake Michigan. Your task will be to moke some of the deolstons that must be arrived at in locating three nuolear power plant B ite s.

You will receive Information related to one of the three aspects of the power siting problemt government regulations, environmental concerns, and the power companies' perspective. The government represents tho tnteroeta ot the citizens and tires to mediate between tho other points of view. Groups of private citizens often form to protect the ecology. The power companies are Interested in supplying the olectrloal needs of Industry and residents while making a profit for their stockholders. Each of you will be asslgued to one Of theao points of view. You will be considered on export In the Information given to you. You must solve the problem with what knowledge the information gives you.

After you have read this Information, study the maps and select three sites you think would be appropriate. No two eltos may be located in the same area* They must be at least 50 miles apart. Do not discuss your choices with your colleagues at this time.

Record your choices on tho form provided by indicating the Intersection of the letters and numbers ot tho margins of Mop A which Is closest to the power attse.

You will have 20 minutes to study this Information, select three sites, and reoord these sites on tho special form. When you bavo completed this part of the study, your forms will bo collected by the researcher.

Do you have any questions at this time? 255

. INSTRUCTIONS HOMOGENEOUS-COMPLETE INFORMATION CONDITION You aro to suppose you have ooen hired as consultants by the power com­ missions in the states surrounding Lake Michigan. Your task will be to make some of the deolslons that must do arrived at in locating three nuclear power plant sites*

You will receive information related to the following throe aspects of the power siting problomi government regulations, environmental concerns, end the power companies' perspective. 1 ho government represents tho Interests of the oltlzons and tries to mediate betwoen the other points of view. Groups of private oitlzons often form to protoot tho ecology. The power companies are interested In supplying tho oloctrlcal needs of industry and residents while making a profit for their stockholders. All of you will have the same information. You will be oonsldored experts in the throe points of view. You must solve the problem with what knowledge tho information givos you*

After you have read this information, study the maps and select three sites you think yrould bo appropriate, Ko two sites may bo located in the same area. They must be at least 50 miles opart. Do not discuss your choice with your colleagues at this time.

Record your choices on tho form provided by Indicating the intersection of the letters and numbers at tho margins of Map A which la closest to the power sites.

You will have 40 minutes to study this information, select three sites, and reoord these sites on tho special form. When you have completed this part of the study, your forms wfll be collected by tho researoher.

Do you havo any questions at this time? Instructions - Goaeratloa-Condltlon

Now that each of you have studied the Information and solected three sites on your own, you wilt have 5 minutes In group discussion to moke suggestions for possible sites for the nuolear power plants. Another team will evaluate your sug- gestlons and moke the final decision of selecting throe power sites.

Taking the Information you have Just read Into acoount, study the maps and suggest to your teammates as many potential sites as you can think of. These may Inoludo the three you selectod earlier on your own, but you should also suggest additional sites. Also, keep the foil 1 wing brainstorming Instructions in mlndt

1, Slteo are to be suggested without regard to quality ot others' suggestions.

2, No Idea may be evaluated.

9. The elaboration of one person's ideas fay another Is encouraged.

Each member should keep a record of the sites suggested by all the members. Accord tho suggested sites on tho paper provided. Identify tho sites by tho corres­ ponding letters and numbers on the margins of Map A.

I will Interrupt your group to let you know when the brainstorming session Is over. At that time you will be asked to All out sovernl questionnaires.

Do you have any questions?

Your discussion will bo recorded on videotape. Please identify yourselves before you begin brainstorming. 257

Instructions - Generation-Evaluation

Nov that each of you have studied the information and seleotod three sites on your own, you wilt have 25 mlnutos In group discussion to make sug­ gestions tor possible sites and to evolueto the sites. You and your colleagues will do this in two separate stages. Another team will moke the final decision of selecting three power sites after examining your suggestions and evaluations.

Stage A (5 minutes)) Taking (he information you have Just read Into account, study the maps and suggest to your toammatos os many potential sites as you can think of. These may inolude the three you selected eartior on your own, but you should also suggest additional sites. Aemembor that you will have to defend your suggestions later. Also, keep the following brainstorming Instruc­ tions in mindi

1. ottos are to be suggested without regard to quality of others* suggestions.

2. No idea may be evaluated until tho end of Stogo A.

3. The elaboration of one person's Ideas by another is encouraged.

Each team member should keep a record of the sites suggested fay alt the members, iteoord the suggested sites on the paper provided. Identity the sites by the corresponding letters and numbers on the margins of Map A.

Later on you will evaluate the sites. I will Interrupt you when the first five mlnuto braiaatorlng stage is over. At that time you will reoeive Instruct loos for the evaluation stage.

Do you have any questions?

Your discus sion will be recorded on videotape. Please identity your­ selves before you begin brainstorming;

{After 5 minutes, the foltov/lng instructions are given. ]

Etage t (20 minutes)! Members of the team will now evaluate the sites suggested. Loth good and bad aspects of each site must be considered. Members should take into account as much information as they con during the discussion.

I will let you know when this evaluation stage is over. At that time you will be asked to fill out several questionnaires relating to your discussion. 258

Instructions - Generation-Evaluat loo-Choice ■

Now that each of you have studied tho information and selected three sites oo your own, you wltl have 30 minutes in group discussion to make suggestions Cor- possible sites, evaluate tho sites, and selcot three sites. You and your colleagues will do this in three separate stages.

Stage A (6 minutes): Taking the information you have just read into account, study the maps and suggest to your teammates as many potential sites as you can think of. These may include tho three you selected earlier on your own, but you should also suggest additional sites. Remember that you will have to defend your suggestions later. Also, keep tho following brainstorming instructions In mlndi

1, Sites are to bo suggosted without regard to quality of others' suggestions.

S. No idea may be evaluated until tho end of tttege A,

3. The elaboration of ono person's ideas by another la encouraged.

Each team member should keep a rocord of the sites suggested by all the members. Record the suggested sites on the paper provided. Identify the sites by the corresponding letters and numbers on tho margins of Map A.

Later on, you will evaluate the sites and moke the final decision of selecting three sites. I will interrupt you when the first 5 minute brainstorming stage Is over. At that time, you will receive instructions for the evaluation stage.

Do you have any questions?

Your discussion will be reoorded on videotape. Please Identify yourselves before you begin brainstorming.

[After 5 minutes, the following Instructions are given.]

Stage B (20 minutes): Members of tho team will now evaluate the sites suggested. Both good and bad aspects of each site must be considered. Members should take Into account os muoh information as they can during tho discussion. I will let you know when this 20 minute evaluation stage is over. You will then receive instructions for the selection stage.

(After 20 minutes, tho following instructions are given.] 259

Instructions - Generation-Evaluation-Choice (continued)

Stage C (5 mlnutes)i Team membors wilt soleot three plant sites for the nuclear power plants. You may take a few minutes to discuss your decision with your teammates. No two sites may be located In the same area. Then the group must oome to an agreement on three sites. Each person will record the votes of the group for the three sites on the recommendation form provided at that time.

X will let you know when this 5 minute decision stage Is over* At that time t you will be asked to fill out several questionnaires reluting to your discussion* 260

APPENDIX C POST INDIVIDUAL DECISION FEEDBACK FORMS 261

pp Power Sit* Recommendation Form Individual Selection

Year namet

List tho threa sites you recommend In order of preforenoe. Identify the sites by using the corresponding letters end numbers on Map A.

Number Letter (Most Prefered) 1. ______

2. ______

9. ______

Rank order the following ten (10) pleoes of Information Indicating how important each statement was In making your selection of the three sites.

Rank from 1 ■ most Important to 10 ■ least Important.

Bsnk

_____ in the next tea years, power consumption In this region Is expected to double, _____ The power plant should bo located less than 200 miles from the area It serves. _____ There Is little danger in transporting nuolesr fuel. _____ There has nover been on Instance where a commercial nuolesr plant has affected publlo health or safety. _____ The amount of public exposuro to radiation by a nuclear power plant Is negUgable. _____ The nuclear power plant will be dealgned to withstand tornadoes and earth­ quakes, _____ The nuolear power plant must be very close to a body of water. ____ Tho surface area of the lake affected by a temperature rise from the plant's hotwater dleohsrgo will bo Insignificant* * * A cooling tower Is on unnecessary additional cost. _ _ _ _ Locating a nuolear plant on elevations higher than S00 feet above sea level Increases the radiation exposure to nearby citizens only slightly. 262

B Power Site Recommendation Form Individual Selection Your name: -

List tho three sites you recommend in order of preference. Identify tho sites fay using the corresponding letters and numbers on Map A. Number Letter

(Most Profered) 1, _ _ _ _ . 2. ___ S. ______. t Rank order the following ten (10) pieces of Information Indicating how Important each statement was In making your selection of the three sites.

Rank from 1 “ most Important to 10 ■ toast Important.

Rank

_____ Waterilfo may be killed by direct hot emissions Into the lake. Fish and other organisms are kilted by entralnment and soreeo-ldll* when they ore drawn into the cooling system of the plant. _____ The heated water from the plant Increases the nitrogen content which osusos hemorrhaging in tho fins of the fish. _____ The continual flow of heated water can act as a dam preventing some fish from migrating to warmer waters during winter months. _____ Chlorine used to prevent corrosion of the plant's cooling system has harmfhl effects on acquatlo life. ______Fog from cooling towers deposit salt on land and vegetation nearby the plant. fog from cooling towers will lead to Increased air pollution. _____ Dangerous somatic radiation Is likely to oouae major illnesses such as cancer and result In mutations affecting later generations. ______Current population exposure to radiation Is ten times too high even without nuolear power plants. ______A nuolear plant should be located for away from recreational areas and other areas of cultural value. 263

a Power Site Recommendation Form Individual Selection

Yournamei

List the three eltes you recommend In order ot preference. Identify the eitae fay using the corresponding letters and numbers on Map A.

Number Letter

(Most Profered) 1. _ _ _ _ _ .

3. ______3.

Rank order the foltowing too (10) pieces of information indicating how Important each statement was in making your solectlon of the three sites.

Rank from 1" most Important to 10 « least important.

Rank

The power plant should transmit power to largo, growing populations. _____ Few inhabitants should live in the area in which the plant is located. _ _ _ _ The plant must be located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas whero qualified manpower can be recruited. Tho power plant should not be too close to airports or major harbors. _____ The effects of contamination of drinking water and water used for rooroational purposes must be considered. _ _ _ _ Noise from the nuolear power plant may have an Impact on nearby residents. _ _ _ The ecology of the area (plants, wildlife, and woterllfe) may be affected by tho operation of a cooling tower.or direct emission of hot water into tho lake. _ _ _ Jobs for unemployed people may be created by the construction of the power plant. _____ The power plant should not disrupt the aesthetics of the environment. . Publlo attitudes will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site will be licensed by the A. £.C . and other governmental agendas. Power Site Rec omm endatlon Form lodlvldual Selection Your namet List the three sites you recommend In order of preference. Identify the sites by using the corresponding letters end numbers on Map A.

Number Letter

(Most Prefered) 1*. ______

2. _____

3. ____ Heed the following pleoes of information. Pick ten statements sod rank order them according to how Important each statement was In making your selection of the three sites.

Rank from 1 " most Important to 10 ■ least important. 265

The power plant should transmit power to large, growing populations. In the next ten years, power consumption In this region is expected to double. Waterllfe may be killed by direct hot emissions Into the lake. Few Inhabitants should llvo in the area In which the plant is located. The power plant should be located less than 200 miles from tho area It serves. Fish and other organisms are killed by entralnmeat and soreeo-kllts when they are drawn Into the cooling system of the plant. Tho plant must bo located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas where qualified manpower can be recruited. There Is little danger in transporting nuclear fuel. The heated wator from tho plant 1 no rouses the nitrogen content which causes hemorrhaging In the fins of the fish. The power plant should not be too close to airports or major harbors. There has never been an Instance where a commercial nuolear plant has affected public health or safety. Tho continual flow of hosted water can act os a dam preventing some fish from migrating to warmer waters during winter months. Tho effects of contamination of drinking water and water used for reoreatlooal purposes must bo considered. The amount of publlo exposure to radiation by a nuolear power plant Is negllgable. Chlorine used to prevent corrosion of the plant's cooling system has harmful effects on acquatio llfo. Noise from tho nuolear power plant may have an Impact on nearby residents. Tho nuclear power plant will be dostgned to withstand tornadoos and earthquakes. Fog from cooling towers deposit salt on land and vegetation nearby the plant. Tho ecology of the area (plants, wildlife, and waterllfe) may be affected by the operation of a cooling tower or direct emission of hot water Into the lake. The nuolear power plant must be very close to a body of water. The fog from cooling towers will lead to Increased air pollution. Jobs for unemployed people may bo ereated by the construction of tho power plant.. The surface area of tho lake affected by a temperature rlso from the plant's hot water discharge will be Insignificant. Dangerous somatic radiation Is likely to cause major illnesses such as oanoer and result In mutations affecting Inter generations. The power plant should not disrupt the aesthetlos of the environment. A cooling tower Is an unnecessary additional cost. Current population exposure to radiation Is ten times too high even without nuolear power plants. Public attitudes will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site will be lloensed by the A, E, C. and other governmental agencies. Locating a nuolear plant on elevations higher than 600 feet above sea level Increases tho radiation exposure to nearby citizens only slightly. A nuolear plant should be located for away from recreational areas and other areas of cultural value. 266

Ram

Please read the foHoning question twice. If you have any questions about it please ask the researcher.

Due to the gas, coal, and o il shortage, le t's say a powar company decides to build a nuclear plant. Thera viU always be a risk of nuolear disaster when the plant is in operation, no natter where its location.

In your opldlon, what ia the maxi gum probability of a nuclear disaster above which the power plant should not be builtt (Place a slash acroas one part of the line.)

probability of a nuolear d i s a s t e r APPENDIX D POST DISCUSSION FEEDBACK F0RP6, 2 6 8

SUGGESTED FOUEB SITES

Tour M— _

Each team member ahould keep a record o f Che elcee suggested by ell Che members. List tho power sites as they are suggested by you sod your ceamnatea. Identify the sltea by Cho corresponding lettera and numbers on Cha margins of ItAP A.

♦ S it a Number L e tte r I ______* r 3 _ _ _

4 ______5______6 ____ 7 ______8 ____ 9 _ —_ W ______a 11 ______12 ______13 ______14 ______is ______

OIHESS 269

FEEDBACK FORMA 0

Four turner ______'

Read the pieces of information on tho following page, Check ten (10) that were Important to your group In suggesting the sites. Then rank order these ten (10) according to their Importance to your group.

Rank from 1 •• most Important to 10 * least Important*

r 270

FEEDBACK FORMA OK

Your namei ^

Read lbs pieces of Information on the following page. Check tea (10) that wore Important to your group la suggesting and evaluating the sites. Then rank order these ton (10) according to their Importance to your group.

Rank from 1 ■ most Important to 10 ■ least Important. 271

Power Site Recommendation Form Group Selection

Your names ..

Vote for the three altea you believe your group should recommend In order of preference* Identify tho altea by uaing the corresponding letters and number* on Map A.

Number Latter j (Most Profered) ■ 1. ______

I . . _____

S . ______Road the following pieces of Information* Pick ten statements and rank order them according to bow important each statement was la making tho selection of the three stios. Rank from I * most important to 10“ least Important. Tho power plant should transmit power to large, growing populations. In the next tea years, power consumption In this region Is expected to double. Waterllfe may be killed by direct hot emissions Into the lake. Few Inhabitants should live in the area In which the plant Is located. Tho power plant should be located less than 200 miles from the area It serves. Fish and other organisms are killed by entralnment and acreen-kllls when they are drawn into the cooling system of tho plant. The plant must he located within reasonable distances from metropolitan areas whore quail fled manpower can bo recruited. Thero Is little danger In transporting nuclear fuel. The hooted water from tho plant Increases tho nitrogen content which causes hemorrhaging In the fins of the fish. The power plant should not be too close to airports or major harbors. There has never been an Instance where a commercial nuolear plant has affected publlo health or safety. The continual flow of heated water con not as a dam preventing some fish from migrating to wanner waters during winter months. The effects of contamination of drinking water and water used for recreational purposes must be considered. The amount of publlo exposure to radiation by a nuolear power plant Is negllgable. Chlorine used to prevent corrosion of the plant's cooling system has harmful effects on acquatla life. Noise from the nuolear power plant may have an impact on nearby residents. The nuclear power plant will bo designed to withstand tornadoes and earthquakes. Fog from cooling towers deposit salt on land and vegetation nearby tho plant. The ecology of the area (plants, wildlife, and waterllfe) may be nffected by the operation of a cooling tower o r direct emission of hot water Into tho lake. The nuolear power plant must be vory close to a body of water. The fog from cooling towers will lead to increased air pollution. Jobs for unemployed people may be created fay the construction of the power plant. The surface area of the lake affected by a temperature rise from the plant's hot water discharge will be Insignificant. Dangerous somatic radiation is likely to cause major illnesses suoh as cancer and - result In mutations affecting lator generations. Tho power plant should not disrupt the aesthetics of the environment. A cooling tower is an unnecessary additional cost. ' Current population exposure to radiation Is ten times too high even without nuclear power plants. Publlo attitudes will be a determinant of whether or not a plant site will be lioensed by the A. E.C. and other governmental agencies. Locating a nuclear plant on elevations higher than 600 feet above sea level increases the radiation exposure to nearby citizens only slightly. A nuolear plant should be located for away from recreational areas and other areas of cultural value. Hu m

Please rend the following question twice. If you have any questions about It please sale the researcher.

Due to the gas* coal, and oil shortage, le t's say a power company decides to build a nuclear plant. There w ill always be a risk of nuclear disaster when the plant Is In operation, no matter where Its location*

In your opinion, what is the maximum probability of a nuclear disaster above which the power plant should not be bulltt (Place a slash across one part of the line.)

• ■■ I ■ 1 f, I ■ L. .1 .2 .3 X .5 .6 i.( probability of a nuclear d isaste r 27*f

FEEDBACK FORM I

Below you will find nineteen statements regarding tho activities of your'team. Describe the degree to which each of these statements is true or false by marking the appropriate spaoo an tho line below each statement. At one end of tho lino Is the dos- orlptton "Completely True", and at the other end the description "Not at all True". The spaces between these points Indicate varying extents to which each statement Is true or la not true. Respond to the statements fay making only one mark for each.

1. I was able to offer suggestions for specific rooommendotlons. . ,

Not at all « t » » t » t i » » Completely True 1 1 2 3 . 4 5 8 7 8 9 Truo

2. X was able to oomment on and discuss the various recommendations proposed.

Completely tttttriitt Not at all True 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 True

3. X was able to play a direct part in the final oholeo of alternatives.

Not at all r « t i » t « i i i Completely True 12 3 456 78 9 True

4. In general. I was able to participate In this session as much as the other two people In our group. Completely » « t i » t i » i t Not at all True 9 8 7654331 True

5. The information I possessed was as Important as the Information possessed fay the other members.

Not at all t « « » t » i t » i Completely True 1 3 3 4 6 6 I, 8 9 True

6. The Information X possessed supported one side of the power siting question. •

Completely i » i » » » « t i » Not at all True 98 76 54 32 1 True

7. X knew ae muoh as everyone else.

Not at all Completely True 1234 6 6 78 9 True 275

I

8. Tbe group « u stymied Cor lack of Information*

Completely Not at all True 887654821 True

9. Hie Information I had was different from the Information the other members had.

Not at all i « t i i i t i t i Completely True 123466788 True 10, Tbe major factor whloh guldod mydecisions was the quality of eaoh site.

Completely « i t t i » t t t i Not at all True 967664321 True

11, x was able to actively discuss my opinions, choices, etc., with the other members of my group.

NotataU t t t % i i t. I t I Completely True 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 True

12. The objeotlves were olearly understood.

Comnletelv t t t i * i * t I t NotataU True 9 8 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 True

IS, Interest In tho problem was maintained throughout the discussion.

* Not at an t i t t r t t t 1 I Completely True . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 True

14. Membor contributions were directed to the problem. * Comoletelv t r * f t t i l I J NotataU True 9 3 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 True

16. A leader tended to emerge during the discussion.

Not at all i i i t t t t t I I Completely True >1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 True

* 16. a. If a leader tended to emerge, what le his name?

16. The final choice of the power sltawns based on the Information possessed by the group members.

* Comnletelv i t i i r i t r t J NotataU True 987664321 True 17* Tbe final ehoice of tbe power sltmwas based on toy am preferences.

Mot at all i t i i » » i « » « Completely True 1 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 True

18. Each member of tbe group had bis (her) own opinions about when the power site* should bo looated.

Completely i » i t t t t * i t Not at all True 987654331 True

19. The outcome of the discussion was the best possible.

Not at all t i i i t t t « i t Completely True 133455789 True 27 7

FEEDBACK FORM H

Below yon will Had five statements regarding the influence of tbe members of your discussion group. Describe tho c* igree to which each of these statements ts true or false by marking tho appropriate space on the line below each statement. At the one end of the lino is the description "Completely True", and at tho other end tbe desorlption "Not at all True". The spaces between those points Indicate varying extents to which each state­ ment is true or Is not true. Respond to tho statements by making only ono mark for each.

1. I ployed a big part in how we resolved the issues.

N otataU j Completely True 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 True

2 . 1 contributed many of the suggestions that came up.

Completely ft t » t t i NotataU True 9 8 7 6 6 True

3. Tbe group generally agreed with my ideas.

N otataU « Completely True 1 2 3 4 5 6 True

4. I got the discussion to go tbe way I wanted it to go.

Completely NotataU True 9 8 7 8 5432 True

6. I had a great deal of Influence over the decision we made.

Not at aU i i t t t i i « i Completely True 123456789 True

Now. pick one of your teammatos and rate him on the following questions.

His name is: ______

1. He (she) ployed a big port In how we resolved the Issues.

Completely NotataU True 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 True

2. He (she) contributed many of the suggestions that coma up.

NotataU Completely True 8 True 278

3. The group generally agreed with his (her) Ideas*

Comnletelv i f t i t t i i t t N otataU True 98766432 1 True

4. He (she) got tho discussion to go tho way be wanted It to go.

Not at all t i t i t t * i * t Completely True 1-33 4 5 6 7 8 9 True S. He (she) had a great deal of Influence over the decision we made.

Comnletelv t t t i t t t t t i N otataU True 88765433 1 True

Now, riieyourother teammate on the following questions.

Hie name lei

1* He (she) played a big part In how we resolved tho Issues*

Not at aU tttittt rttCompletely True 1 2 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 True 3* He (sho) contributed many suggestions that come up*

Comnletelv t i i i t t t t * f N otataU True 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 1 Trim 3* The group generally agreed with his (her) Ideas.

Not at aU t « i t t i * t f 1 Completely True 1 3 3 4 6 6 7 8 9 True 4* He (she) got the discussion to go the way be wanted It to go.

Comnletelv i t i i i i i t l t NotataU True 9 8 7 6 5 - 4 3 2 1 True B. He (she) hod a great deal of Influence over the decision we made.

Not at <11 itttttt ttICompletely True 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 True 279

Feedback Farm HI

1. How Important a problem la tbe loo at loo of a nuclear power plant?

Very Very Unimportant » i i » t t t i i t Important 183456789

(5) Neither Important nor Unimportant

8* a. If you were graded on your participation In this study, what proportion of your grade would you like based on tbe outcome of your discussion group? t t t t » t t t t » » 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

b. Wbat proportion of your grade would you like based on tbe way your group arrived at tbe outoomo? i t t « t t » i t t t 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 60% 70% 60% 90% 100%

3* Tbe results of this study are going to be seat to tho power commissions In the four states.

s. Would you be willing to have your name given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of your group's discussion? If yos, please sign your name. U no, leave blank.

If yes, please answer. e (1) Would you bo willing to be Interviewed by a representative of the power commission to explain tbe outcome of your group's discussion?

(2) If paid by the power commissions, would you be willing to research tbe toplo and write a papor advocating tbe outcome of your group's dls~ . mission? 2 8 0

FEEDBACK FORM IV

Please plane an V In the etttegoiy which best deaorlbos team meetings during the group meeting.

Friendly i t t ‘ * f t t Unfriendly 8 7 8 8 3 a l

Aocepting t i »• t t t t Rejecting 8 7 6 6 3 a

Satisfying f t I t i t i Frustrating 8 7 6 8 3 a

t t » t I t i Unentbuslastio 8 7 8 6 3 a

Successful i i i t t t F Uasuooessftil 8 7 6 8 3 a

Warm t t t l t t i Cold 8 7 8 6 3 a » Cooperative i l t t i i t Uncooperative 8 7 8 6 3 a

Supportive i t t t l t t Hostile 8 7 8 6 3 a

Interesting f I * I t t t Boring •8 7 8 8 3 a

Productive * i l t t i i Nonproductive 8 7 8 8 3 a 281

FEEDBACK FORK V

Please rate bow much Influence you believe each team member has over the Baal dloisloo (choosing one pwoer site}.

1 ■ very little influence; B a great deal of Influence. Circle one number.

1. Myself 1 3 3 4 S 6 7 6 9

3. Tho other two members of my group.

Name of one team membon

133483739

Name of tbe other team member;

133463789

3. Othor groups which you may have been told would be Involved in choosing the final sttcv

13346378 9 282

FEEDBACK FORM VI

Sarto faction

In this part of tbs questionnaire, you ora to Indicate how satisfied you are with soveral features of the group discussion period you Just completed. For each Item, mark the appropriate space on tho line below that item which indicates the degree of your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with tho aspect. Read each Item carefully and check to see whioh end of tho line represents satisfaction, since this will be different for some Items.

For example, the item might read, "Tho room we used". Below this would bet

Completely itttittttt Completely Dissatisfied 1234567 89 Satisfied

If you are completely satisfied with the room you would check tho last space to the right; If completely dissatisfied, check the extreme loft spaoe. Check aqy one spaco whioh best describes your degroo of satisfaction with the aspect listed in the Item. Rending from leit to right In the abovo orrroplo. tho spaces would indicate! Completely dlssatlsllcdt Very dlssoMafledt Moderattfv dlssatlsrtcdi SHtrhtlv dlasntlallcdi Neutral - not satisfied or dissatisfied; Slightly atuiatiedt Modorntelv satisfied; Vorv aatlailcdt Completely satisfied. For some Items. thc3o spaces will bo exactly reversed, with "Completely Satisfied; at the far lelt of tho line. Be sure to road oaeh Item and look at tbe ends of the scalo before marking the spaco which best doseribos your satisfaction with that asp eat of tho experiment.

1. The decisions reached by our group.

Completely Completely Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Satisfied

2. The final power sttwobosea.

Comnletelv i r t t t t i t f t Completely Satisfied 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 1 Dissatisfied 3. The way we went about making a decision.

Comnletelv i t i t t t t t t 1 Completely Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Satisfied 4. The task on which we worked.

Comnletelv t t t i t t t t t t Completely Dissatisfied 123456789 2 8 3

» 8. Tho relationships botwooa the group member*.

Conditolr t t t l * « t I t t Completely Dissatisfied Satisfied 9 8 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 . ■ 6. My part in the group discussion.

Comnletelr i t t t t i t I i I Completely Satisfied 9 8 7 8 6 4 3 2 1 Dissatisfied

7. The method of deoleloa making we sued. '

Comnletelr t t t t i t i 1 t t Completely Satisfied 9 8 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 Dissatisfied

8. The fooling of togothomoss between myself and the other members. , Comnletelv i t i t i t t t t l Completely Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Satisfied

9. The Influence I bad over the group and its actions.

Comnletelr t i t t t i t 1 I t Completely Dissatisfied 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Satisfied

10. The accomplishments of our group. • Comnletelr i t i t t i t f I t Completely Satisfied 9 8 7 6 6 4 3 2 1 Dissatisfied 11, My own contribution to tho outcome of our discussion. * • Comnletelr i » t t t t t t t i Completely Satisfied 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Dissatisfied

12. Tbe whole experimental session. In general.

Comnletelr i * i t t t t t t t Completely Dissatisfied 123456789 Satisfied 28*f

FEEDBACK FORK VH

Please read these Instructions careMly. Ask the research assistant any questions you have before markfog the ratings.

You have 100 points to distribute among the three mombors of your group end any other decision-making groups wblohyou may have been told would be Involved in choosing the final site. These points represent the total amount of lnfluenoo. You are to distribute these InQucnoo-points according to the degree of lnttuoncc you think each member and any other groups hnd over the final power alto chosen. For example, If you think you exerolsed all of tha Influence, while the two other members of your group, and any other decision­ making groups, exercised none, you would give yourself 100 points and the other members of your group, and any other declslon-meklng groups, each zero. You may assign these points In any amounts. However, the sum of tho points you assign to 1. IT. and m must add to 100. and the sum of Q(a) and 11(b) must add to n. Do not use fractional values. Now, assign those 100 points according to how muoh influence saoh person and any other groups had. POINTS I, Myself Z.______

n. The other two mombers of my group n, ______

11(a). Name of one team member 11(a). ______

11(b). Nome of other team member 0(b),

HZ. Any other decision-making groups whloh XU. yon may have been told would be Involved In choosing the final sites.

Sum oft, n., andm. -100

j 285

FEEDBACK FORM V III This la a measure of your perceptions of each person's effectiveness as a member of the group.

Carefully read all statements typical of member effectiveness. Using the letters corresponding to each person's name, place each member on each continuum at a point that best reflects his effectiveness on the dimension given tf, the top of the page.

One limitation you must observe Is that no person (letter) should be placed at exactly the same point on each scale.

EXAMPLE! a. George Graen b. Edwin Fleishman c. Fred Fiedler

Helping the team meet its obtectlve

can be expected to constructively fp^rlTnnm evaluate hie own and others' Ideas — o

Statements typical of group members at different levels of effectiveness. — b

— a oan be expected to orltlolzo eve «y- ones Ideas and insist that be Is always right minimum

a. hfyself

b. One member of the team ■>

H (« namei ______

o. The other member of the team

His name! ______

* Ability to get along with other members

can be expected to show concern for ethers problems; to seek out group members outsido of meetings

can be expected to listen to others attentively; to Joke frequently Statements typical of group members at different levels of ability to get along with others.

oan be expected to be friendly when spoken to; to rarely Initiate conversation

oan be expected to Ignore others; to show antagonism or hostility

m in im u m 287

Ability on task-related activities; helping the group reach Its objectives maximum oan bo expeotod to suggest ways of implementing others' ldeass to follow through on what ho promised to do; to give direction to the group

oan be expected to clarify others' Ideas; to constructively evaluate these ideas; to relato comments to those of others Statements typical of group members at different levels of ability to help the team reaeh its objectives.

oan be expected to give information when appropriate; to often remain silent though seemingly Interested

oan be expected to be critical of pre­ vailing opinions; to bring extraneous material Into the dlsousslons; to con­ stantly go back to previously covered material

m lw tnw im 288

FEEDBACK FORM IX r Group Member Opinion Surrey • ^ »* e 1, Mow did your group compare with other toams which you havo belong to o r heard about on each of tho following polnta?

Better than About the Not a* good Not ascer­ moat same as as most tained moat____

The* way member* got along together.

The way the member* stuck together.

The way the member* helped each other.

The* amount of skill and knowledge the member* had.

Hoar hard tho member* worked.

The way the work was planned for tho group.

S. Did you feel that you are really a part of your group?

, Really a part of my group. ’ Included in most ways. [ Included In some ways, but not In other*. | Don't foel 1 really belong. , Don't work with any one group of people. Unsure.

3. If you had a chance to do the some kind of task for the same pay (or oredlth la apy other group, how would you feel about changing? -

> Would want very much to change. Would rather change than stay where I am. Would moke no difference to me. Would rathor stay where 1 am than change. Would want very much to stay where I am. Unsure. 289

to

n

j ■ t t

to <> »-t

£ < V sa B » u

a TOToISLTAGE 3«>

|l 41 41 SUM 6 H 3iX!1I33-I " Kar.vr^oi^V Ft;«iacnvi jTOopota^-i=rocsj -3MV > ;!"d j ■MV ICK&JWMa-ICiC-5S APPENDIX E BIODATA FORM AND PERSONALITY MEASURES 291

BACKGROUND FORM Ntffi« Addream

Telephone Nd . i

Sex (clrolo ono> Male (1) Female (2) Aget

College year (circle coo)} Freeh, (1) Soph. (2) Junior (3) Senior (4)

Malon

* ■ * Estimated cumulative (overall) grnde-polnt avaragm

Subject numben

1. la recent years tho ecology movement baa grown In force. Many people am concerned about oleanlng up the air and waters from Industrial wastes. However, many of the environmental methods am extremely costly.

How sympathetic are you to the ecology movement In general (check one)?

Very » t t t » » t t « i Very Unsympathetic 12345678 9 Sympathetic

(6) Neither Sympathetic nor Unsympathetic

2. What la your opinion of government agencies In general?

Very t t t t t t i » « t Very Unfavorable 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 9 Favorable

(8) Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable

3. In general, what la your opinion of public utilities such as tho telephone company, electric powor company, gas company, eto. ?

Very i t t t t t i i i t Very Unfavorable 1 2 3 • 4 5 6 7 8 9 Favorable (5) Neither Favorable nor Unfavorable 4. How Important a problem Is the location of a nuclear power plant? Very i t i i i « t i i t Very. Unimportant 123456789 Important (8) Neither Important nor Unimportant Namat 'to n NumbMt

Tho parpoao ofUdt InHAteiy it to obtMn a ptetwe ot the ucwa $

IN EACH OF THE PAIRi OF WORM ASLOW CHECK TltS ONS YOU T1BHK Kfo&? DESCRIBES YOU.

1. ctptMa 1. tndumtoue 11. affectionate 81. rogfrttftibla dlaoroto PttOtlOtl frftMt „ roiiihla a. under- t l * ^ ,pregraaaivo M.^dlgAttted gtandlaf roaougooftd thrtnv ^ tv ilU o t) thorouah

3. ooopo re* 11. unaffected ID. claooro 81. laagtflAtlye tlve _ alert calm inventive

A, friendly 11. thartH 10. thoughtful H.__ CfttcciettUw ohoorfttl wilted fair-Mlndod dallbereie

S. onorgatlQ J d n d ll._jpetied 10. tarieal amblUout ^ j o l l y Iflttaatoua adtfttAlde a fl. porter* 14. offlolant 18. ■odablo l6..__eva6aUt«ia vertng otoar- ■toady .jtaUeat- Independent thlaklaf

7. loyal lB.^jreallaUo a3._ippreolaiive 31iM atable dependable tactilil tfood«aaturad idfoalghted

S . dctermiaod Id. eater* 84. ptOMtat 88. -_hottoat couragooua .pricing modart . dfiflflfOUl lntalHrtBt

O htflolli (1971) Self Description Inventory 293

New Directiook

IN EACH OF THE PAIRS OF WORDS BELOW CHECK THE ONE YOU THINK LEAST DESCRIBES YOU.

33. shy 41. jconeelted 49. careless 37 . __ opinionated taanr "inianUlo fooliah nesalmlstio

34. unambitious 42. shallow 50. anathotto 38. shiftless r eckless stingy egotistical bitter

35 .__ noisy 43. unstable ■ 51. despondent SO. hard-hoartod arrogant frivolous evasive golf-pitying

33. emotional 44. dcfenalvo 52 . __ dlstrietible 60. cynical headstrong touchy complaining aggressive

37. Immature 43. t ense 33. weak 81. dissatisfied quarrel- irritable selfish outspoken some

38. unfriendly 48. dreamy 34. rude 82. undependable self- dependent self- resentful seeking centered

39. affected 47. changeable 35. rattle-brained 63. __ sly moodv prudish disorderly excitable

40. jstubborn 48. jiervous 86. fussy 64. irresponsible "cold 'intolerant submissive impatient OPINION SURVEY #1

Name: ______Tour Numbers ______

This Is a questionnaire to find out the way In which certain important events In our society affect different people. Each Item consists of a pair of alternatives lettered 's ' or *b'. Please select the one statement of each pair land only one> which you more strongly believe to be the coso os for os you're concerned, bo sure to seleot the one you think you should choose or the one you would like to bo true. This Is a measure of personal belief: obviously there are no right o r wrong snswers.

Please answer these Items carefiilly but do not spend too much time on any one item, be sure to find an answer for every choice. For each Item, plsee a olrcle around the letter (a or b) corresponding to the statement you beliove to bo more true.

In some Instances you may discover that you beliove both statements o r nelthor one. In such eases, be euro to soleet the one you more strongly believe to be the csss as for as you're coneornod. Also, try to respond to each item Independently when making your choice; do not be influenced fay your previous choloes*

X, a. Children get into trouble bocauso their parents punish them too muotu b. The trouble with most children nowadays Is that their parents are too easy with them. ■

2. a. Many of the unhappy things In pooplo's lives ore partly due to bad luck, b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

3. a. One of tho major reasons why we have wars Is because people don't take enough Interest In politlos. b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.

4. a. In the long run people get the rospeot they deserve in this world. b, Unfortunately, an Individual's worth often passes unreoognlted no matter how hard he tries.

5. a. The Idea that teachers are unfair to students Is nonsense. b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are Influenced by accidental happenings.

6. a. Without the right breaks ono cannot be on effective leader. b. Capable people who fall to become Isadora have not token advantage of their opportunities.

7. a. No matter how hard you try some pooplo Just don't like you. b, People who can't get othors to like them don't understand how to got along with others.

Rotter (1966) IB SoaXe 295

8 . a. Heredity plays the mejor rolo in determining one's personality, b. It is one's experiences In life which determine what they're like,

0 . a. I have often found that what la going to happen will happen. b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a definite course of action.

10. a. In the case of the well prepared student there la rarely. If ever, such a thing as an unfair test. h. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to the course work that studying Is realty useless,

11. a. Becoming a success la a matter of hard work,. luck has little or nothing to do with it. b. Getting a good Job depends mainly on being In the right place at the right time.

12. a. The average citizen can have an lnfluenco In government decision. b, This world Is run by the fow people In power, and there Is not much the little guy can do about It.

13. a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work. b. It Is not always wise to plan too far ahead beeauso many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

14. a. Thore ore certain people who ore Just no good, b. There Is somo good In everybody.

16. a . In my oase getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck. b. Many times we might Just os well decide what to do fay flipping a ooln.

10. a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the right plaoo first. b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing to do with It.

17. a. As far as world affairs are concerned, moat of us are the victims of force we can neither understand nor control, h. By taking an active part In political and social affairs the people can control world events.

18. a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled fay accidental happenings, b. There really Is no such thing as "luck".

19. a. One ahoutd always be wilting to admit mistakes, b. It la usually best to cover up one's mistakes. 296

20* a. It la bard to know whether or not a person realty ltkes you* b. How many friends you have depends upon how nice a person yon are,

21. a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us ore balanced fay the good ones, b. Most misfortunes are the result of lock of ability. Ignorance, laziness, or all three. 22. a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption. b, It Is difficult for people to have much control over the things polltlolana do In offfoe.

23. a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give, b. There Is a direct connection between how bard I sutdy end the grade I get.

24. a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do. b. A good leader must make It olear to everybody what their jobs are.

25. a. Many times I feel that I have little Influence over the things that happen to me. b. It Is Impossible for me to believe that chance or luck ploys an Important role In my life.

25. a. People are londy because they don't try to be flrendly. b. There's not much use In trying too hard to please people, If they Uke you, they Uke you.

27. a. There Is too muob emphasis on athletics In high sobooL b. Team sports are on excellent way to build character.

28. a. What happens to mo Is my own doing. b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my Ilfs Is talcing.

29. a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behavo the way they do, b. In the long rim, the people ore responsible for bod government on a national as well as a local level. 2 9 7

Name* Your Numbers

The Interpersonal Risk. Sc ale (! Dt Scale) Lundstedt (1935} INSTRUCTIONS* Please read each statement carefully. Then, to each give your very first reactions. If you agree with a statement, mark the appropriate boat in tho Agree column. If you disagree, make your response in the Disagree eolumn. The boxes are numbered so that you may indloato the extent to which you agree or disagree with a statement. For examplo, a (1) In the Agree column would indloato mild agreement while a (5) in the Agree oolumn would indicate strong agreement. (2), (3), and (4) are varying degrees of these extremes. AOREE DISAGREE 1., Unless you know a person very well it Is best not to take any chanoes by giving 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 6 them too muoh freedom and responsibility In your mutual work with them.

2. Even if you don't know too muoh about a person, I still think it's worthwhile to 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 gamble on anotbor person's ability to handle a Job*

3. Most people can't bo trusted with too much influence and responsibility because you 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 oan never bo sure about the way they will use them when you are not around to keep an eye on things.

4. As a rule, good snporvlslon requires that people be carefully watobed and oontrolled 1 2 3 4 6 to avoid mistakes and latiness.

8. Of oourse, it usually depends on the person as an Individual, but most people will come 1 2 3 4 5 through for you If you give them a chance on their own.

6. X don't know about you, but Fm caroful never to stick my neck out in delegating 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 authority to others. Fve been burned too many times.

7* Unless you know aperson very well sad oan trust them completely It's best to keep 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 aearefiil, close, check on their every move. 2 9 8

AGREE DISAGREE 8 . F v b run tho risk of giving people a lot of Influence and responsibility on the job, 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 and would do It again even though some have failed to measure up* 8. People have many good untapped resources, /_AJLI-U and to reach the resources you havo to give 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 them lots of room and influence to express their talents*

10. Unless you keep a close eye on employees unwarranted liberties will Invariably be 1 2 3 4 5 taken by them*

11* It la best to delegate authority and influence freely because you can never tell when you 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 will discover someone with exceptional skills.

12* A manager, supervisor, or boss o b v io u s ly Is naive and foolish if bo o r she thinks on 1 2 3 4 5 employ oe can accept authority without close supervision*

13. There la no such thing as a good bet. You have to watch people carefully and take 1 2 3 4 6 palna not to give them too much authority and freedom.

14* Our most Important resource Is people^ and like everything else In life you have to 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 take some long shots on them very fre ­ quently. a 18. Some of our very best people were long shots. 1 2 3 4 5

18, I strongly feel that if It were not for a gambling spirit and a faith In the future 1 2 3 4 6 even though unknown, a lot of qualified people would not havo been discovered.

17. Don't take too many unnecessary chances with new employees o r staff. Supervise 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 them closely, and don't give them too muoh authority because if you do they Just disappoint you* 299

18. My ldoa of a good administrator la some­ one who would take a risk on any promising 1 2 3 4 5 now employee that seemod to fit a role. 19. If people know you are taking a chnnoe on U-UJ-I them they will work harder and better for 1 2 3 4 5 you.

SO. Every parson has a different approach to a Job and you have to havo faith In their •1 2 3 4 5 native Individual common sense and ability to come up with the right solutions to problems.

21. There la really only two ways of doing a Job, the right way and the wrong way. It would bo foolish and risky not to watch a person closely to make sure thoy do the Job right.

22. Most employees today a n really the same os before; give them on Inch and they take a mile.

23. You oan only trust your own associates with whom you have worked for many 1 2 3 4 6 years, and even then It Is best to be careful.

24. People have to be reminded of tbolr res­ ponsibilities by constant and oloso super­ 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 8 vision, espoololly about Important details. 25. Gambling on people is a risky business. U-IJU-I 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. Gambling is, after all, a natural part of everyday life. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. Life Is a gamble, and It Is best to take U J - l - J - t /-JL7-/-JL/ risks. 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 6 28. A good executive takes risks, especially U -l-J -J -J on poople. 1 2 3 4 6 1 2 3 4 5 300

AQBEE DISAGREE 29. Risk taking la baalo la management and U -t-J -J -J administration. 1 3 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 SO. The social influence and power In an U - j J - t - J U-I-U-J organization, which one needs to do a good 1 S 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Job of administration and supervision, tends to be fixed quantity; if you give away some of It to others Just that muoh more control over them is lost.

Copyright! Sven Lundatedt, i960

The Ohio dtate University, 1775 S. College Ad,, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Namet Your Number*

Coworkor Opinion Questionnaire F ie d le r (1967) People differ In the ways they think about those with whom they work. This may be Important In working with otliors. Plcoeo give your Immediate; first reaotloa to the Items on the following page.

On the following page nro pairs of words which are opposite In meaning, suoh as Very Neat and Not Neat. You ore asked to describe somoone with whom you hare worked by placing an "X" In one of tho eight spaces on tho line between the two words.

Each space represents how well the adjective fits tho porson you are describing; as if It were wrlttcu

VetyNeab t t t / t t t t Not Neat 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1- very Quito some- slightly slightly somo- quite very neat neat what neat untidy what untidy untidy neat untidy

FOR EXAMPLEi If you were to describe the person with whom you are able to work least well, and you ordinarily think of him ns being quite neat, you would put an 'qpt in the second space from the words Very Neat, llko thlsr

Very Neat* ______t X i t / » i ______t iNot Neat 8 7 6 5 4 3 8 1

If you ordinarily think of tho person with whom you oan work leant well as being only slightly noat. you would put your "X" os follows!

Very Noati » t i X / t t t i Not Neat 8*7 6 8 4 32 1 If you would think of him as being very untidy, you would use tho space nearest the words Not'Neat.

Very Neati i t______i______/ r______« t X t Not Neat 8768 4321

Look at the words nt both ends of tho line beforo you put In your ’X". Ploase remember that tbcro are no richt or wrong answer a. Work rapidly; your first answer Is likely to bo the best. Please do uot omit nay Items, and mark each Item only once. 302

Think of tho person with whom you can work least well. Ho may be someone you work with now (e. g., a member of the project team), or he may bo someone yon knew In the past.

Be does not have to be the person you like least well, but should be tho person with whom you had the most difficulty in getting a Job done. Describe this porson as he appears to you. t i t t t t * I t 8 7 6 6 4 3 3 1 & - U • * k s & 8 I ■a 3, I I 1 Ss i» Sj ■ w t Ploasant i I t ? I t t t Unpleasant Friendly t f t t / t t » t Unfriendly Rejecting r t t t ( ! t t t Aoocptlng Helpful t t I t f t t t t Frustrating Unenthu- i t t t / 1 t i t Enthusiastic slsstlo Tense ' t t t i f 1 1 t t Relaxed Distant r t t i I t t i i Close Cold r t i i f t t i t Warm Cooperative t t t t ( t t i i Uncooperative Supportive j I I » / 1 t t i Hostllo Boring t t t t / t t i i interesting Quarrelsomo i t t i ? t I t i Harmonious Solf-Aosurod i t i t f t 1 i t Booltont Efficient t l t t / t t i t Inefficient Gloomy t t t t / t t Cheerflil Open t t t i / t t t t Guarded 3 0 3

APPENDIX P DISTRIBUTION OP BIOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS WITHIN TREATMENT GROUPS 30^

VARIABLE CODE

INF - Information 1 - Heterogeneous-Incomplete Information Condition 2 ■ Homogeneous-Complete Information Condition PAR - Participation 1 - GEC 2 - GE 3 - G TYP * Type of Information Nested within the Heterogeneous- Incomplete Information Condition 1' - Government Regulations 2 ■ Power Companies' Perspective 3 - Environmental Interests AGE ■ Age GPA - Grade Point Average RAN - Year in School 1 ■ Freshman 2 * Sophomore 3 - J u n io r 4 - S e n io r 5 11 Graduate Student MAJ - Major (Branches of the College of Engineering) 1 « Agriculture 2 - Architecture 3 “ Aeronotical and Astronautical $ « Biomedical 6 - Ceramic 7 - C iv il 8 Computer and Information Science 9 ■ Electrical 10 » Engineering Mechanics 12 ■ Industrial and Systems 305 VARIABLE CODE con tin u ed 13 - Mechanical - W elding ^ » Freehmen (previously enrolled in a University 18 College engineering course

Note* Crosstabulations of Information by Participation interactions are not presented. * * * MITE OF STAGE 1 06/ 17/76 FACE 7 ------EKE4 NONAME (CREATION OATE ■'06/ 17/761 • •*•••••*••• *.• c tostit 6 ULATIDN 0 F • 6 * • * •-'* •••••*****• A • AGE ...... 3V INF • 6 6 » •♦•••**• * • 9 • *»•****••• PAGE 1 OF 2 INF ' - COUNT I RON PCT 1 ROW - COL FCT I TOTAL TOT FCT 1 1.001 2.001 ------1------1------1 ■ 0.0 t 0 1 1 1 1 I 0.0 I 100.0 1 1.6 I 0.0 t 2.6 1 1 0.0 1 1.6 I ' , * -I------1—------1 17.00 1, 0 1 2 I 2 - i o.o i ioo .o I 2.6 ______I 0.0 I 3.6 i______1 0.0"! 2.6 T . .. .-1— -I______11.00 1 II I 13 1 26. _____ I 63.0 „ I „ 56. 2 _ I _ 33*3 I 30.6 1 36.1 I 1_ 15.i_ 1 16.1 _ I ______- 1— I------1 ______. 19.00 ___ 1 12 1 5 I _ 17 I' 70.6 I 29.6 1 23.6 ______I . 3 3 0 . 1 . 13.9 1 _____ t 16.7 1 6.9 I . -I------1------I 20.00 1 6 1 6 t • 1 50.0 I 50.0 1 . 11.1 . t 11.1 1 11.1 1 * _ I 5.6 „I_ 5.6 I -I------1------I ■ * 21.00 I 2 1 6 1 6 1 25.0 1 75.0 1 11.1 IS. 6__l 16.7 1 1 2.6 1 6.3 1 -I’-——~ 1.—------1 22.00 1 3 1. 0 1 5 t 100.0 1 0.0 1 6.9 I 13.9 1 0.0 1 ■ I 6.9 I 0. 0_ I VjJ - 1—------1------I * o _ COLUMN . 36 „ 3*. 72 06 TOTAL 50.0 50.0 100.0 . tCONTINOEOI * • ------L — ■ ■ ...... ___

T • •

WRITE UP STAGE I b*/l7/Yi FACE 6 FILE ' NONAME ICRCATION DATE ■ 04/17/74) 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 CROSSTABULATION. OF 9 4 9 99999999 - ACE BY INF ' 9 .49499449 4 4 8 9 4 4 49999 4 9 49 9 9 9 9 9 9 4 9 9 4 9 9 9 9 9 4 9 9 9,9 9 9 9 9 PAGE 2 OF 2

INF ■ • “ COUNT I ROW FCT 1 ROW COL FCT 1 TpTAL TOT FCT I 1.001 2.001 ACE ------1------1---;------1 ; * 23.00 I 1 1 1 1 2 I 3 0 .0 ‘ 1 SO.O I 2.B . 1 2.B I 2.8 I • . I . .1 - 4 , I _ ; 1.+ .» ___ , , 23.00 1 0 1 11 1 1 0 .0 *1 100.0 I 1*4 I 0.0 I 2.8 1 I 0.0 1 1.4 I - -I ------1- - ...... 1 26.00 I 11 0 1 1 I 100.0 I 0 .0 I 1 .4 * •<* 1 2.B 1 0.0 1 v -V 1 1 .4 I . 0 .0 I . - 1 ...... 1-'------1 * 27.00 1 0 1 3_.l I 0.0 1 100.0 1 4.2 * 1 0.0 I B.3 1 - I 0.0 1 4.2 1 • -I ------1------1. f COLUNN 36 3» 72 ___ TOTAL .. 5 0 .0 ____ 30.0 ,100.0 , * * , _ CHI SOU ARE - l a . 04901 WITH ,10 DECREES OF .FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE ■ . ,q .0 3 4 1 _ 1 CRAMER'S V > 0.30068 ... _ .CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT 0-44770 . * * * • KENDALL'S TAU B * -0 .0 3 6 1 3 SIGNIFICANCE ■ 0.2394 • KENDALL'S TAU C » -0 .0 7 0 9 9 SIGNIFICANCE. ■ 0.1832 - CAIUU « -0.08647 _ SONER'S 0 ■ _ -0 .0 7 0 9 9 . *■

- * *

« • •• , « • 1 •

1 9 9 " 1 % M?f7m PACE * WHITE UP STACE’1 * 0 4 /1 7 /7 4 PACE 10 ,MLE ' KOKAPE " (dlEAl joirbiTE” 04/17/74) ' ‘ :

• puE 2 OF Z »S ‘ : : ■ COUNT I______ROW PCT 1 ROW CDL PCT I TOTAL * TOT PCT I 1.001 2.001 3.001 ____FGE ------1— ------“ I ~ ----- ~ l ~ ------1 23.00 I • 0 1 It 11 2 t 0.0 1 50.0 I 50.0 1 2 .8 I 0.0 1 4*2 1 4.2 I : 1 , 0 .0 1 1 .4 I 1 .4 I -I ------1— ------1 ------1 . • ■ 25.00 I 0 1 0 1 11 . 1 . 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 100*0 I 1 .4 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 4.2 1 I 0.0 1 0.0 1 1.4 I • . r i “ ------1— ------1— ■ "i 0 26.00 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 1 100.0 1 . 1 .4 • I 0 .0 I 0 .0 1 4 .2 1 * * I 0.0 I 0.0 1 1.4 I * -1 ------;-----1------1------1 27.00 1 2 1 11 0 1 3 1 66.7 1 33.3 I 0.0 1 4 .2 * • I 8.3 1 4.2 1 0.0 I • 1 2 .8 I 1 .4 1 0 .0 1 ■ COLUNN 24 24 24 72 ■ TOTAL _ _33.3 33.3 . 33.3 100.0 . .. .CHI SQUARE * 14.22352 .WtTH_.20.OEGREES...0F_FREE0Cn___SIGNIFICANCE_«_0.8190. CRAHER'S V > 0.31428 CONTINGENCY .COEFFICIENT _■____Q.40615 ______. ______KENDALL'S TAU 8 » 0.04438 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2877 KENDALL'S TAU C ■ . 0 .0 4 8 6 l^ S lC N lf 1CAHCE. » _ 0 .2 6 9 6 ______!______GAKHA ■ 0.06026 . . . ..SOWER'S 0 ■___JJ.04861______;______NRITE UP STACE 1 OA/17/7*" PACE 11 PILE KONAKE (CREATION OATE • M/IT/TA) •••••••••

TTP COUNT I ROW PCT ROW COL PCT I TOT PCT I 3.00 r • 11.00 11 - • 30.* _

12 . • 33.) * .

20.00 * n . i

, , 2 5.6 ’ •- . 5 . I 20.0 1 13.0 f 0.3 """l I. » -I------1 iJifiQ I 1 _ 1 1 0 0 .0 2.0

20.00 1 1 100.0 1 2.0

______COLUMN .... 3A 33.3 ioo .o Ch TW a RE » 10.3# 181 HUH 12 DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 0.5651 t CRAMER'S V ■ 0.30337 ______CONTINCEMCT COEFFICIENT ■ 0.'*7t42.‘ » KENOaU 'S TAU B ■ . -0 .0 * 3 0 7 SIGNIFICANCE • 0.2825 WHITE UP STACE 1 " * . 0 4 / i T / 7 A ...... PACE . 12 ...... KEMMU'S TAU C ■' *-0«04744"*'SIcillPlCAIICE*<* ~ 0.249* : T SOHEA’S6AMHA • O”* - 0" . 0-0.049W 8 9 ( 2 ______; •______.______\ ______** NUPBER~CF KlSSlMCaaSElTvAflGNi'* U : ■ i«ITi'G*~St*£fl ; ' ‘ . 04/17/74 PACE-*13 ■ FILE «JNJmE ICREATIOK DATE * 04/17/74) .* ...... ' : ~ ~

• • • i~

• * * »* •v iin r ; •••• rr»^T ri*»r»r« * •'»•»«»»»**** • face Tof 4

• IMF COUHT I____ ROM FCT 1 ROM COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT t 1.001 2.00 CPA ■ ,-!-■ ■------1------1.90 1 11 0 1 . I 100.0 1 0.0 1 .4 •- * 1 2.8 I 0.0 /* I 1 .4 I 0 .0

2.00 I 11 2 3 1 33.3 1 66.7 .4.2 • 1 2.8 1 S.6 1 1.4 I 2.B -1------1------' ‘ 2.10 1 11 0. 1 * * 1 100.0 I 0.0 , . »*4 v*V ' • 1 2.8 I ' 0.0 ' t .1.4 _J ,0.0 . . .2.20 I , 1.1 1 2 - . - . . * I 90.0 1 50.0 2 .8 . t 2.8 I 2.8 . I 1 .4 I 1.4 I -I ------1------1 • 2.30 1 9 1 3 a * 1 62.5 I 37.5 l l . l ■ I 13.0 I 8.3 * 1 6.0 I...,4.2 -

2.40 I _ 0 I 1 1 * 1 0.0 1 100.0 1 .4 1 0.0 1 2.8 , . 8 * I 0 .0 I 1 .4 ■* -I—...... 1------' 2 .9 0 I 1 1 1 2 * I 5 0 .0 1 9 0 .0 2 a 1 2 .8 I 2 .8 * _ . 1 _ 1.4 1 1.4 m -I--' ------1------1 * . _ «______jCOLUMI__ :___ .36______36______J2_ TOTAL 90.0 90.0 100.0 a icpMiflyrai ______

V 0*/1 7 /7 * “w irt* U P " sT A C E T 04/17/7* MCI 13

PILE NONAME (CREATION DATE - 0 4 /1 7 /7 4 ) ***** r>o iTTTTii l a f i o “»t“ O F" * • * • * • * * * » CPA______8Y_ INF__ * • ****** * • • PACE 3 OP 4 INF _ COUNT ROW PCT RON _COl PCT TOTAL TOT PCT 1.001 2.00 CPA J- 3 .3 0 3 1 _}pO .0 _ t 0.0 1 ‘ 4.2 E.3 1 0.0 ‘ 4.2 I __ 0.0 I------J,«L 1 _ J _ . 2. 33.3 1 66.7 4.2 2.8 _ I ___ 5 .6 1.4 I 7.11 1------3.SO 0 ' T 4 4 0.0 I 100.0 o .o " i~ i i .i ^_0.0_I _ 5.6 1------1 I 2 3 3 .3 I 6 6 .7 4 .2 2.E l _ 3 .6 1.4 I 2.0 I -- 3.70 0 I 1 1 __ 0.0 I 100.0 0.0“ I' 2.B .. 0.0 _ I 1 . 4 ^ 1------I___I___0 _ 100.0 I 0.0 1.4 ... z.a__ i__o .o _ 1.4 1 0.0 —.-" I.-.-----" 3.30 1 1 1 2 50.0 I 30.0______VjJ 2.3 1 2.B K _ 1 .4 I 1 .4 __ 1 — ___ -P- .COLUMN. .3 6 . 36_ _72_ TOTAL 50.0 50.0 100.0 (CONTINUED) MRXTE'UF STAGE 1 . 0 4 /1 7 /7 4 PACE 14 ‘ FILE NOHAKE (CHEATION DATE“ 0 4 /I7 /7 4 ) ! ~ * * » V ••••»**• CR0SSTABULAT10N OF • •'* • • *•••••••*# ______CFA______■ 67 INF ______

ROM FCT COL FCT TOT FCT 1.001 2.001

_ COLUMN total

Cut SOUARE ■ 17.8110* WITH i'l OtCAfcESllF FREEDOM S IgnTfICAnTe ■ 0.646T" CHAFER'S V ■ 0.49737 _ •______CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT »■ 0.44333 RENDALL'S TAU S • 0.09210 ..S1CNIFICAMCE.>_0.122* ______KENDALL'S TAU C - 0.12577 SIGNIFICANCE • 0.0563 GANNA ■ 0.13350 ______SONER *S 0 • 0.12577 5 a' i 5 CL

n

S o' ft «s"I

I e I »• I ' i0 » 1 +* J o "a

s

2

9TC MITE UP STAGE 1 O*/17/7 A FACE IE FILE ' NONAKE (CkEATIOH 6 A fE "^ "0 * /1 7 /T V r

“ _ 6FA .... BY FAR * . FAX COUNT 1 .. • ROW FCT 1 ROW - COL FCT t TOTAL ■ 8 TOT PCT 1 1.001 2.00 3.001 CPA , ------...... )■ ■ .. ■ 2.80 I 0 1 1 t 1 2 • 1 0.0 . | 90.0 • 1 0.0 1 A.? 4.2 _ I 0.0 I .1.4 1.4 -I ■It - .2.70 1 - - 1 .1... 2 0 1 33.3 I U .7 0.0 4.2 I 4.2 2 _ 8.3 0.0 I 1.4 I 2,8~ 0.0 _ -i—-----1—r...... 2.80 I '211 2 5 I 40.0 1^20.0 40.0 I 8.3 I- 4.2 . 8.3 ------1.„.7.8_! ___ 1-4.. _ 2.8 -I------1------2.00 1 3 _I 0 0 3 "I 100.0 I ~ 0.0 “ 0.0 4.2 I. 12.5 I O .O .. 0.0 1 4.2 I 0.0 0.0 -I- ;------r l=r=—— 3.00 I 3 1 ' 3 3 * 33.3 _ 1 _33.3 33.3 .12-5. 1 12.5 1 12.9 ' 12.5 I . 4.2.„I_._4.2._ . 4-2 -I- ■I 3»10- I 2 „ l__ „ 0 — -.2- 90.0 1 0.0 50.0 3.6 ______1 ..8.3_ I_ 0.0 - 8.3 I 2.8 I 0.0 2.8 rl-rr——=-lrrr---- 3.20 1 3 1 3 2 8 37.5 1 .25.0 _ u , i . 12.5 1 12.9 ‘ 8.3 Vi> _4.2 1 . 4.2 . . 2 . 8 . -I— I ■V} ______COLUMN_____ 2 4 ______24 - .2 4 . _ 72. TOTAL 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0 -ttasiswEpj ______:______JL ---

t -

i ...... 318

i i

£

+

*4s s

-3, :»J •J

I o AN A N NO iwfa * a SS 4 * 1 I* I ) **■£ iWS i 1 I - *o m h M j o | I OO'O o N1* in o iioan 'OOOO oo'ooV a a • I d o • « a • a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N . a OtOO< MNf in I OOO ,04*4 OOO -•* tt £»M ;o ' I u ! $*4 ;s ' 1 ! nanN OOOO pa rt’N *# o o o o OOOO' • T i n • a a a a a a a a a a a N • 3 rt , OOO, ;a

iS o ooo oooie MOM-*’ HAN« O 'O O O • a a . a *, a a a a a a a . a a a J51 f ooo, OOiO. lAif H n 4 n OOO O O N O r :R a « |

. J | I ; hhH 1 1 i o I ' - o ; su as I i * Ul 1 1 Si is * o •■o “ 282 s.e WftsnSBJT n P £ 3 !

I I I I *

.J tftlTE UP STAGE! • 0*/l7/74 ...... PACE 20 PILE ' N0NANS“ 'f«lATl6OAYfV 04/1 7 /7 4 1 ' * "" • • •»»••• CROiSTASULATION 5"? ••••••*•••*••••••• CPA______? Y _ _PAR______.______;______• •••** • *•••••••••«•«•••••••• m c e 4 0 / 4

HuT “ . ______COURT__I______'______;______;______- ROW PCT I ROW COL PCT 1______„TOT*L,_ TOT PCT 1 1.001 2.001 3.001 Cpa ______r ------— I - --j , . ■■ _ I ~ 4.00 1 11 2 1 0 1 3 I 33.3 1 44.7 I___ 0 . 0 __ I • 4 . 2 '1 4 .2 1 8 .3 I 0 .0 1 .. . -I——_I I ------—_ l._ 0.0 | -1 COLUMN . . 24______2 4 24 72. TOTAL 33.3 33.3 ' 33.3 100.0 CHI SOUARE “ 47.1 4 9 8 4 WITH 42 0ECAEE3 OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE * 0 .2 7 0 1 CRAMER *S V • 0.37221 ______CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT • 0.4290A AENCALL'S TaU B - -0 .0 4 4 3 3 .SIGNIFICANCE - 0 .2 0 0 4 ______„______KENDALL'S TAU C « -0 .0 7 8 7 0 SIGNIFICANCE ■ 0 .1403 . gamma - rO.Gl333 ______;______:______SOMER'S 0 • -0 .0 7 8 7 0

U1 HA vO 320

I 1

•J ° 6

_ J !«* « i f * O no o» 22' ■ J In n ! f 1 1 1 I I i I ' I ! * * h o n ■ OOOO Mdn« O O O O 1 I i Is i • 1 ! 3

V * UNITE UP S T A G E T ...... ' 06/17/76 “ PACE 2*'

FILE ~ NONAKE “ (GREATiOM*DATE*-* 6 * /I7 /7 aT “ * * :

► • • • * * • » . C A 0 1 s Tabulatiom op •••••••••••**•»*** “•____ , CPA___ 8Y TYP . TTP COUNT 1 MU PCT I RON COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT 1 1.001 2.00 3.001 CPA ------I* -—I- ■I 2.70 I 1 t 1'■ 0 1 2 t 30.0 I 50.0 0 .0 1 3 .6 I 8 .3 1 8 .3 0 .0 I I 2 .8 I 2 .8 0 .0 I • -I------1- I . 2 .80 I . 0..I. 2 0 1 2 - . ______I 0.0 1 100.0 0 .0 1 3 .6 . I 0 .0 I 15.7 0 .0 t 1 o .o i 3.6 0 .0 1 -I------1- ■I ' • • ’ 2.90 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 . I 0 .0 t 0 .0 100.0 I 2 .8 I 0.0 I 0.0 8.3 1 . - * I 0 .0 I - O .o .. 2 .8 1 * -I------J. ■I _ . _ ‘ ?.oo 1 1 I 6 „ 0 1 4 I 2 0 .0 1 8 0.0 0 .0 I 13.9 t 8*3 I .33.3 0 .0 I * ____ 1 2 .8 I 11.1 0 .0 1 -1------1- ■I 3.10 l . 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 100.0 1 0.0 _ 0.0I .2.8 _ _ . I 8 .3 I 0 .0 0 .0 1 I ..-2 * 8 .. I 0 .0 0 .0 I • • ' • • -I------1- ■1 - • 3 .1 0 I 2 I 0 2 1 6 1 30.0 1 0.0 30.0 1 11.1 I.16.7..1, 0.0. . 16.7 1 _ __ .... • I 3 .A . I 0 .0 3.6 1 -I- -I _____ 3.30 I 1 1 1 1 I ' 3 I _33.3 1__33.3 1 8 .3 I 8 .3 I 8 .3 8 .3 1 1 M . . J .__2 .8 _ 1 ...... t -I* ...... I' ■I .CaLUHN . 1 2 . . . 12 - _ 12 _ 36 ______• ■ TOTAL 3 3 .3 3 3 .3 3 3.3 100.0 (CONTINUES) * * . 9 ' •

m 9

— ------.------1 ' ------1------"iffitTE UP "STAC E 1 08/17/76 PACE 23

FILE NOMAHE (UEATION DATE « 08/17/78) • CROSSTABULAT1QK OF SfK______Jt_ . TYP • FACE 3 OF 3

0 1 X I t _ 0 . 0 _ I l p O . D I 2 .8 0.0 I 8.3 1* 0.0 1 ------2.S 1 I __ , .60_I 0 I_ 0 1 1 I __ 1 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 2.8 I 0 . 0 _ 1 ___ 0.0 _I 8.3 _1 ______X 0.0 I 0.0 I* 2.8 I - I — ---- —I—------1------■—I ___ 3.80 1 11 01 01 1 ______I 100.0 I_0.0 1 0.0 _I ___ 2 .8 I . 8.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I .1___ 2 .8 ____ I___0 .0 I ___ 0 .0 t ______

100.0

8.00 3 0 .0

C O unw _ 12 - 3&- TOTAL 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0 CHI SQUARE * 37.77982 WITH 36 DECREES OF FREEOCM SIGNIFICANCE ■ 0 .3 8 7 0 CRAKER'S V » 0 .7 2 8 5 7 ' ______CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT - 0.71568 * ~ KENDALL'S TAU 8 ■ 0.12799 SIGNIFICANCE -_ 0 .1 2 8 8 ______"KENDALL*S~TAU C 0.15086 SIGNIFICANCE- 0.0917 .CAHKA « 0.15819 ______SOWER'S 0 ■ 0.15086 • " NUMBER Of N IS SlNC OBSERVAT JONS 36 'FILE NCNANE {CREATION OATE > 04/17/74)’

PACE 1 Or INF COUNT 1 ■ ______"kov PCT i AON It PCT I ______TOTAL IT PCT I 1.001 2.001

CHI SQUARE ■ 9.03AM WITH A DECREES OF FREEDOM SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0415 CRAMER'S V ■ . 0.37144______;______;_____ COtTINCENCY COEFFICIENT • 0.34S21 KENDALL'S TAU » - -0.04203 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2979 ______- KENDALL'S TAU C ■ -0.0493* SIGNIFICANCE - 0.2444 CAMMA ■. -0 .04897 . . ^ ______;______SOHER'S 0 « -0.04938 Hi i f f u p ' j f agTT ! | */ir/fi riel is FILE “ KOXAME (CREATICM*OATE~ 0 4/£7/74) ' * ~ ' • “ T * * • • • • • * • • * * • • • * CROSSTABULA T~1 0 N O F ______RAM . ______BY__JAR______• RAW 1 OF 1 . ^ . — - ; ■ ______count i ______;______■ ROW FCT" I ROW . ______COL KT I - TOTAL ______;______' TOT PCT I * ~i76oi V.ool **3.001 RAH------——-----1------! ■■----- ■ ! .... I ______’ ______*1.00 I 1J I" 8 1 IS I‘“"34 . “ : ______• I„ )»•*_ >_»•* A7.t I 54.2 I 33.3 1 M.i i " ______I 18.1 I 11.1 1 18.1 I ______• • - I ...i j —„ —_ i „ — I * . ______2 .0 0 __t 5 1 4.1 3 1 17 ______;______I ■ 29.* I 52.4 I 17.6 ' 1 23.6 . ______1,20.8 I 3 7 .5 I _12*3 __I ______'______|______;______f 6.9 r 12.5 I 4.2 1 ______v »r------1 -z — r - i ______3 .0 0 I 2 1 A t . 2 1 8 ______1 _25.0 _ I _ 50.0 . 1., 25.0 . I _ ll.l______1 8.3 1 16.7 1 8.3 1 I 2.8 1 5.6 1 2.8 I - 1 ...... — 1------1------1 . 4.00 1 3 1 2 1 4 1 * ... • I 33.3 1 22.2 I 44.4 1 1 2 . S I 12.5 I . 8.3 1 16i7 , I '• I 4.2 1 2.8 1 5.6 1 - | ------1_------1------_ i • • 5.00 1 11 11 2 1 4 • ' ■ ____ I 25.0 I. 25.0 ■ I. 50.0 I , _ S -6 ' I 4.2 'I 4.2 I 8.3 I ...... :...... _I 1.4. |__ 1,4. 1... 2.8 I______:______- 1— - i ______COLVHt______24______24______24______72 • TOTAL - 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0 ’ ■' “ CHI SQUARE'* '6.93137 WITH 8 DEGREES* OF'FREEDOM s'lWfFUAMCiF ■ T .5 4 4 T _ CRAMER'S V ■ 0.21940 ______‘______C0HT1KCEMCT COEFFICIENT - 0.29634 - _ RENOALL*S TAU 8 * __0.03924____SIGNIFICANCE • _0 .3 1 0 2 ______REHOALL*S~TAU~C~a 0.03993 S1 CM 1 FI CAWCe"" 0.3072 _ Gamma « 0.05688 ______•______;_____ SOMER'S D ■ 0.03993 MITE UP STAGE'l' 04/17/74 PACE 26 >1LE‘ NONAmE " CCREATION*OATE04/17/741 *

ROW PCT I ROW ______COL PCT 1 _____ . ______TOTAL TOT PCT 1 i.OOt 2.001 3.001 _ _ JAN______rrr:— —I------1— — — l-rrrr---- 1 1.00 I 41 61 41 14 .I__2B.6_I 42.9 1 28.6 I _3S_.*?_ I 33.3 I 30.0 I 33.3 1 I 11.1 I ..16.7 1 11.1 1 - 1 ------1------1------1 _?.00 I _ 4 _ I .3 . . I. 6 . I_ 13. I 30.8 I 23.1 I 46.2 1 36.1 ______I ...33.3 I_25 -0 |_ 5o.0__l ______I 11.1 1 8.3 1 16.7 1 -I ------1 ~ — I ------1 . . . 3.00 I 2 1 1 I 11 4 ______I. 50.0 , 1. 25.0. I..25.0 l_ll.l_ I 16.7 I 6.3 I 6.3 I t _,5.6 I 2.8_ I. _ 2.8 ..1. -I------1------1------1 . ..4,00 I 2.1. 2. 1. 11 .5. 1 40.0 1 40.0 1 20.0 1 13.9 ______;l . 16.7 . I 16.7. I 6.3. I __ ' I 5.6 t 5.6 I 2.6 I _ . - T1T — ~ ~ -—I ~ — ~1—.--- -1. COLUMN 12 12 12 36 ______TOTAL...... 33.3____ 33.3____ 33.3___ 100*0.. CHI SCUARE ■. . 2.54835 WITH... 6 DECREES OF. FREEDOM.. .SIGNIFICANCE.* ._0.863 0.18813 ' CONTIKCEKCY COEFFICIENT 5___ fi.25711. KENDALL'S TAU 8 ■ -0.06158 SIGNIFICANCE-* 0.2930 * .KENDALL'S TAU C - -0.06250_SIGNIFICANCE ■_ .0.2902 GAMMA * -0.08970 .SOHER'S 0 ■__-0.06250______:______WHITE UP STACE I M/03/74 PACE 7

FILE KONAME (CREATION DATE - M /0 3 /7 4 ) 0 S t T'A I U LA T X O N •

1 WRITE UP STACE 1 04/03/74 PACE t

PILE NONAHE (CREATION DATE - 0 4 /0 3 /7 4 1 I » « • » » • * * * • * » » * • * * » ' CROSS TAtULAYXO N—0 P-----• ‘•'•"V .T.-*' RAJ »Y INP *»•«*••••*••*••**•»*»**•***»•«**•*•**•*•••••*»«»* MU * OP 2" INP COUNT I ROW PCT I ROW “ COL PCT I TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.00 9 .0 0 I I I 4 5 I 2 0 .0 I 8 0.0 6 .9 I 2 .8 I 11.1 I 1 .4 I 5 .6 •I* 10.00 I 11 I 10 21 I 5 2 .4 I 4 7 .6 29.2 I 3 0 .6 I 27.8 -I-I 1 5.3 I 13.9 12.00 I 1 1 0 1 I 100.0 1 0.0 1.4 I 2.8 1 0.0 0.0 -I-I 1.4 1 1 3.00 1 2 1 4 6 1 3 3 .3 I 66.7 •»S I 5 .6 1 11.1 -I-1 2.8 I 5 .6 14.00 I 3 1 4 * 7 ' I 4 2 .9 I 57.1 9 .7 1 8 .3 I 11.1 I 4 .2 I 5 .6 -I- 17.00 1 0 1 l 1 I 0 .0 1 100.0 1.4 ‘ I 0 .0 I 2.8 1.4 -I-I o .o I 18.00 1 7 1 6 13 I 53.8 1 46.2 18.1 I 19.4 I 16.7 I 9 .7 I 8 .3 -I- \j 3 COLUMN 36 36 72 I» TOTAL 5 0.0 5 0.0 100.0 M CHI SQUARE - 11.73406 WITH 13 DECREES OF FREEDOM * SIGNIFICANCE 0 .5 4 9 6 ' CRAKER'S V ■ 0.40370 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT « 0.37435 KENOALL'S TAU » ■ 0.05511 SIGNIFICANCE ■ 0.2434 1 M IT E UP ST ACE 1 0 A /0 3 /7 * PACE KENDALL'S TAU C 0.071TA SlCmnCANCC ■ 0.1*2* cak Ma 0 .0 * 3 * * SOHEX'S d • 0 .0 7 1 7 4 *

VjJ t o 00

1 WRITE UP STAGE X 04/03/74 PAGE 10 FILE NOHAKE (CREATION DATE • 0 4 /0 3 /7 4 ) \ «»**•»•»*»»« i»*'«* •" CKO S ST ABULATZON “OF----*“ ♦ " m~* " i n m * '» * * * NAJ BY PAR • t * ••••*••*• PAGE X OP 2 PAR COUNT 1 ROW PCT t ROW ~ COL PCT X TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.001 2.001 3.00 KAJ ------j, 1- 1. 1.00 I 0 I 1 I 0 1 1 o.o x 100.0 I 0.0 1.4 1 0 .0 x 4 .2 I 0.0 X 0.0 I 1.4 X 0.0 -I- - I- 2.00 I 1 X 0 1 0 1 X 100.0 I . 0.0 I 0.0 1.4 I 4.2 I 0.0 X 0.0 1 1.4 X 0.0 I 0.0 -X* -I- 1- 3.00 X 2 I 1 X 1 4 I 50.0 I 29.0 I 25.0 5.4 X - 0.3 X 4.2 X 4.2 I 2.0 I 1.4 X 1.4 -I- ■I* -I- 3.00 1 0 X 1 1 2 X 0.0 X 50.0 50.0 2*8 X 0.0 X 4.2 4.2 I 0.0 I 1.4 1.4 -I- -I* '4.00 X 1 I 0 0 ’ 1 X 100.0 1 0.0 0.0 1.4 X 4.2 X 0.0 0.0 X 1.4 1 0.0 0.0 -I* -I- 7.00 X 1 X 3 2 4 1 14.7 1 50.0 33.3 8.3 X 4.2 I 12.5 8.3 X X.4 X 4.2 2.8 -I- •I- S.00 X 2 I 1 0 1 X 44.7 X 33.3 0.0 4 .2 ' I 1.3 X 4.2 0.0 X 2.8 I 1.4 0.0 329 -I* 1- COLUMN 24 24 24 72 TOTAL 33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0 tCOMTXMUEO)

1 M ITE’ UP STAGE I 04/03/74 PAGE I I PILE NONARE (CREATION DATE • 04A)3 /7 AJ A T I 0 N HAJ BY PAR AGE 2 OP 2 PAR COUNT ROW PCT COL PCT TOT PCT 2,001

10.00

12.00 - : 100.0

12.00

1 4 .0 0 2 8 .6

I . 1 1 1 100.0 I I 4.2 I I 1.4 I

V»> W COLUNN O TOTAL 100.0

CHI SQUARE - 3 1 .0 7 7 9 4 WITH 26 DECREES OF FREEDON — SICNIPICANCE 7 » '0 .2 2 5 4 - CRAJfER'S V > 0 .4 0 4 9 6 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT ■ 0.54409 KENDALL *S TAU B • 0.07647 SIGNIFICANCE • 0.1473 1 WHITE (JP STAGE 1 0 4 /0 3 /7 4 PAGE 12

KENDALL'S TAU C 0.08*23 SIGNIFICANCE • 0.13*3 CAHMA ■ 0.09187 SOMES'S 0 ■ o^iim ~ J *» 5 s s ■ 9 0 3 1 s t 5 i V i. « W o > m c n 1 4o R M s • • 1 3 M N ooo OOOO 0 0 • 0 « 1 OOOO • • • • M

O O o OOOO OOO • » • OOOO • » • I » V 000 « « 1 OOOO OOO I t* OOOO ooo OOOO ooo OOOO • • • * • • • • MOO ooo • • • OOOO o o o • ♦ ♦ OOOO M M <■ O <■ M o OOOO ooo OOOO OOO • • • • • « I 2C€ WN M M fCONTINUED) NRITE UP STAKE 1 0 4 /0 3 /7 4 FACE 14

FILE NDMAHE (CREATION DATE - 0 4 /0 3 /7 4 1 ' ~ • • • • • • • * • • • • * • * * • > "CROSSTABU L'A V I 0 N"~ OF— * •"•“^VVVTrV • • • MAJ 8Y W »•••«*»••••**••**«***••**»»»**•««*»********••*••*-»(( I Of 2 ' TTP '...... COUNT I ------ROM PCT I * ------* ------RO N------—— — — ———————— COL FCT 1 TOTAL TOT PCT I 1.Q0I 2*001 3.001 ' MU .... ------x- -I- -1 — -I • . . . . * .. ...» ... - ’ - — . — *.00 I 1I 01 0 1 1 * “ * ' ***** "* ' J 100.0 I 0 .0 I 0 .0 z 2 .4 * *• * ------I e .3 I 0 .0 1 " 0 .0 f 1 • I 7 .4 1 0 .0 1 0 .0 I -I* -1 “ -I— -1 * " **' . * 10.00 1 4 I 4 I 1 1 11 ■* I 34.4 1 54.5 I 4 .1 I 30.4 ' *"* I 3 3 .3 I 50.0 1 a .3 I * “ ------J 11.1 I 14.7 1 2 .4 I *■ -I- -I- -1 — -I 12.00 I 01 Di li 1 t 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 1 2.8 i o.o i o.o I a.3 i I 0.0 1 0.0 I 2.4 z -I- -I- -I- -I 13.00 I 0 I 1 I 1 1 2 1 0 .0 I 30.0 I 50.0 I 5 .6 * ...... * ------1 0 .0 I 8 .3 X 8 .3 1 t I 0 .0 I 2 .8 I 2 .8 I • . . . '**■ » **“ **“ “ ’ * * * * * * -I--I- -I- -I * 14.00 I 0 I 1 1 2 I J ...... 0. 1 ■ I 0 .0 I 3 3 .3 I 4 4 .7 1 8 .3 1 0 .0 I F.3 1 16.7 I . . ' »*—• * *** 111 ' ■* * * ',** * “**' * *** ’ * * * « • • * 1 0 .0 1 2 .8 I 5 .6 1 ’ -I- -I--I- -X ‘ • * * * * ■ * la .o o I 1 I 2 1 4 ‘ X 7 * I 14.3 1 24.4 I 57.1 X W .4 ' ...... 14.7 I 33.3 X 1 8 .3 1 • “* ** . •* 'r* “ * * ** ’ ‘ I 2 .8 I 5 .4 1 11.1 X -*■ i -I--I- -I- -X 3JLUNH 12 12 12 TOTAL 33.3 33.3 3 3 .3 100.0 CHI SOUARE > 24.03447 WITH 24 DECREES OF FRCEDOK SIGNIFICANCE - 0.3304 CRANER’S V ■ 0.40153 CONTINGENCY COEFFICIENT- 0.44707 KENDALL'S TAU S - 0.33541 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0015 KENDALL'S TAU C - 0.37500 SIGNIFICANCE - 0.0005 GAMMA - 0.43314 - - SOKER'S 0 > 0.37500 KUHSIR OF MISSING 04SERVATIOHS • ' 34 33*

APPENDIX 0 MEANS,. STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND INTERCORRELATIONS AMONG VARIABLES V/ITHIN PREDICTOR AND CRITERION SETS

f 335 VARIABLE CODE

P r e d ic to r s Treatment Effects Variable 01 Information (Dummy Variable 01) 02 Participation (Dummy Variable 02) 03 " (Dummy Variable 03) 0*f Type of Information Nested within the Heterogeneous-Incomplete Information 'V ; >; *. ■'*T • Condition (DUihmy V ariable 07) 05 " (Dummy Variable 08) 06 Information by Participation (Dummy Variable 09 07 " (Dummy Variable 10 08 Type of Information by Participation (Dummy V a ria b le 11) 09 ** (Dummy V a r ia b le 12) 10 “ (Dummy Variable 13) 11 " (Dummy Variable Iff) Personality Variables 12 LPC (mean) 18 LPC (variance) l*f Interpersonal Risk 15 Internal-External Control 16 Self-Esteem Biographical Data 17 Grade Point Average 18 Age 19 Year in School Attitudes toward Reference Groups 20 Ecology Movements 21 Government Agencies 22 Public Utilities 23 Importance of the nuclear power siting problem C r i t e r i a I n flu e n c e 2*f Total amount of influence (self+peers+ . external group) 25 Self ratings 26 Peer ratings 27 Satisfaction with Group Discussion Group Cohesiveness 28 Comparison of group with other teams 29 Peeling of being really a part of the group 20 Peeling about changing groups 336

VARIABLE CODE c o n tin u e d

Group Atmosphere Variable 31 Overall favorability 32 Interpersonal relations 33 Interest and enthusiasm in task accomplishment Commitment 3k Proportion of grade group member would like based on the outcome of the d is c u s s io n 35 Proportion of grade group member would like based on the way the group arrived at the outcome. 36 Willingness of group member to have his name given to the power commissions as a proponent of the outcome of the d is c u s s io n Effectiveness 37 Overall task effectiveness 38 Member c o n trib u tio n s 39 Effectiveness of group in meeting o b je c tiv e s 40 Self ratings k l Peer ratings Average Interaction Process Analysis Response Categories k2 Positive socio-emotional responses k3 Task oriented responses (Giving) kk Task oriented responses (Asking) k$ Negative socio-emotional responses M IT ? UP STAGE 1 FILE N9MHE (CREATION DATE » 03/30/7A I

VAEIABLE CASES KEAH VAROl 72 0,.5000 0.5035 VAR02 72. , . Ci3333 0.-7A7 VAR03 72 * 0. 3333 0.A7A7 .VAAGA__ 72_ 0. 1667 0.3753 VAR05 * 72 0. 1667 (i.3153 VARU „ 72 0..1667 0.3733 VAR 07 72 0.,lob7 0.3733 VARC8 ... ____72 0..0556 . 0.2307 VAR 09 72 0..0636 0.2307 VARJO _ 72 0. 0356 0.2307 VARll 72 0. 0336 0.3207 VAR12 72 . 3. 3159 1.A0C6 VAR 13 72 3. .0331 2.1702 VAR1A . . 72 . 59, 9722 . .51.9927 VAR 15 72 9, ,Au2B *..6076 VAR 16 72 2 a . 9261 3.7223 VARI7 72 2,.9363 0.3333 VARIB „ 72 19, .3139 3.1669 VAR 19 72 2.0336 1.2039 VARZO 72 . 7639 1.1037 VAR2I 72 A. 3333 1.9A28 „ VARJ2 _ 72 . 5. 6J69 1.3FP9 VAR 23 72 7. .5699 1.33«y VAR2A 72 * »>■2176 A.3C06 VARZ5 72 5, I32B 2.3A77 VAR26 72 * . »«0972 1.9293 VAR 27 72 6 .3136 1.3920 VARIB ______72 10,•7V17 A.8793 VAR29 72 A,0933 1.A217 VARJO ____ 72 .... *■ ,7300 1.3303 VAR3I 72 2. 3225 1.3811 . VAR32 _ 72 . . I- 0689 0.7792 VAR33 72 1,9AAA 0.6703 _ VAR3A______72 . 57. 5000 22.6393 VAR’S 72 52. 2222 22.5313 _ VARJ6______72 1. 2222 O.ASIO VARJ7 72 3. 9027 1.5913 VAR3B ' 72 7, 5C69 1.7A92 VAR JV 72 7. 1AJ6 1.31 AO VAR AO______72. 9026 6.6322 VARAl 72 13. 7778 2.75AA ... VARA2______72 . 0, 2A6A 0.1861 VARA3 - ■ 72 1. 0671 0.1661 _ VARAA_____ 72 . 0, 3AW . 0.2308 VARAS 72 0, 0725 0.1232 WHITE UP STAGE 1 1*3/30/7* PACE 10 FILE" MKAKE "(CREATION DATE**' 03/30/7*1 ------PE A R S O H c ‘o"if R EL A* T 'io 'if

. VAROl VAR02 VAR03 . .VARO* VAROS . _ VAR07. YAW „ VAR10 __

.VAROl ,.1. 0000, . 0. 0. 9.0 0.4*72,. , 0 .4 * 7 2 . . 0»**T2 , . 0 .4 * 7 2 , 0 .2 * 7 5 . _0j>2*23._ . ,0.2*23, ( 0) ( 72) • ( 721 I 721 ( 721 t 72) ( 721 ( 72) I 72) ( 72) .$■0,001 . S-0.500__ S-0.500 $■0,001 . $>0,001 . s - o . o e i . _S»0.001_ _J$-0.U20. „$-0.020. . $>0,020 . VAX 02__ 0.0 1.0000 _ -0 .3000. 0.0 0.0 0.6325 . -0.3142. . 0 .1 * 3 0 . .,-0.1713 .. . 0.3*30 I 721 ( 01 I 711 ( 721 ( 72) I 72) . ( 721 ( 72) ( 771 ( 72) £■0.500 ,,$•0.001.__ S-0.001, .$■0,500 . $ -0 ,5 0 0 .$■0,001 _.$-0.003_ ,,$ - 0 ,0 0 7 , _ S * 0 .0 7 5 ,_ ,$■0,002, VAX 03____ 0.0 _-0.5000 _ 1.0000 0.0 . 0.0 —u.3162 . 0.6323 ,-0.1715 . . 0 .3 * 3 0 _ -0.1715 . ( 721' ( 721 I 01 ( 721 ( 72) ( 72) 1 721 ( 72) ( 77) ( 72) .S-0.500, _S-0.001__ S-0.001 .$■0,500 .$ * 0 ,3 0 0 $■0,003 _ $ > o.coi . S -0 .0 7 3 . $*0,002 . $■0,075, VARO* 0.4*72 0.0 0.0 1.0000 . - 0.2000 . 0.7000 0 .7 0 0 0 _ 0 .3 * 2 3 , _ 0.5*?1_ ,-0.1063, ( 721 I 7ii i n r ( 01 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 7 2 ) ( 72) ( 72) SbO.OOI _$-0.5OO Sf 0.500 $■0.001, $■ 0 . 0*0 . . 5*0.0*5 . S-0 .0 4 6 . . $-0.001. .,$■0.001,. $■0.162., VAR03_ 0.4*72 0.0 0.0 . - 0.2000 1.0000 , 0.2000 0.2000 0 .1 C P 5 . ...-0.1085, . 0.5*23. ( 721 (721 ( 721 ( 721 ( 0) ( 72) ( 77) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) S-0.601 S*0.500 $*0,500 .$* 0 . 0*6 .. ,$■0,001 $■ 0 . 0*6 . $*0.0*6, .A -C .IP 2 . _S?D.I62_ ,S*0.06I„ .VAR08____ . 0.4*72 , 0.6325,__ -0.3162 _. 0.2000 O.2C00 . 1.0000 -0.2000 ... . 0 5*23. „ - 0 .1 0 f 3 . .. 0.5*73-. ( 721 C 72) ( 72) •( 72) ( 72) ( 0) ( 72) I 721 ( 72) ( 72) $■0,001 _ S-0.001,_$*0,003 ... $-0.0*6 $-0.0*6 $■0,001 $-0.0*6 .,$■0,001 . $ - 0 .1 8 2 . . S . 0 . C 0 1 , VAX07____ 0.4*72 -0.3162 0.6323 0.2000 0.2000 -0.2000 „ 1.0000 ,-0.1083, _ 0.5*23 „ - 0 . I C B 3 , ‘1 72)' ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) C 77) ( • C) ( 72) ( 721 ( 72) $-0,001 „,S-0.003 ..,$■0,001_ $-0.0*6 $■0.0*6 $•0.0*6 _ $-0,001,,$■0,162,.,S«0.00t„ $-0,187,

.VAR08____ 0.2*23 _ 0.3*30 .. -0.1713 . 0.3*23 -0.10X3 0.5*73 . -0.10X5 . . 1.0000 , -0.03*8^, . -0.0368. t 721 ~( 72) ( 72) ( 721 I . 72) 1 72) ( 72) ( O) ( 72) ' ( 72) '______$*0.020 __ $*0.002__ S-0.073 ___S-0.C01 ,.$■0,182 ,s-u.ooi . ,$*0.1E2_, ,,$■0,001, _ S « 0 .3 1 2 _ ,$-0,312,

VAR 09 ____ 0.2*25 .-0.1715 _ 0.3*30 . 0.5*23 -O.U'85 -0.1065 . 0.3*23 . -0.0518 _ 1.0000, _-0.05*8, I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 7?) ( 72) ( 7?) 1 72) ( 721 ( 0) ( 72) . .. : ------$-0,020 ..,$•0,075_$-0,002 _ $-0,001 $-0,162.. $*0,162 $-0,001. ,$■0,312,_ S-0.001._ ..$-0*312. .YAR10____ 0.2*25 __ 0.3*30 -0.1713 _.-0.1063 0.3*23 . 0.3*23 -0.1063, —0.05X11. ,,-0.0388., _ l.OCOO, I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 721 ( 0) . v ------.$>0,020 _$-0,002... S-0.073 . SaO.182 $-0,001 $*6,601 . $*0,182. ,$*0.312.. . $*0,312 , . $ 0 . 0 0 1 . VAA11 .... 0.2*25 . -0.1713 0.3*30 „ -0.1065 0.5*23 -0.1083 0.5*23 ,-0.05*8. -0.05B B . -0.0588 ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 77) . - ______— ,$■0.020__ S ■0.075.__ $*0,002. $-0.182 .. S*O.OUl . $-0.)62, $■0,001 $>0,312, ,$0,312,

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF * 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUIFO) MITE UP STA6E 1 03/30/74 PACE 21 PILE " MMAME ' (CXEATH m' da TE* 03/30/7*1 4 - - - p"g *TTs~o liT c~ o i pel* i i 6 i f C 0 f f F I C I E if f 3 ------

VAAOt ..VAXOZ . . VAX03 VAXQ4. VAX05 . VAX 06 VAP07 . _ VA»Ofl . . V4R09. VAR10 . . VAH12 .... 0.0620 _ ... 0.1476 . ..-0.1316 , .—0.0363 0.0217 . 0.1664 _-O.lO01_ .. 0.0407...._-0»010l_ . 0.1329. I 72) I 72) 1 72) ( 72) 1 7 2) I 77) 1 771 C 7 ? ) I 72) ( 721 S-0.Z47. . 3*0.106,. 3-0.133, 3*0.373 3*0.426 3-0.079 3-0.202 . 3 -0 .3 6 7 .,3*0.464 , _ S*0.I33_ VAX 13 _ 0.0341 -0.0032 . . 0,0190. 0.1026 -0.0147 . 0 .1 2 1 6 -0.0491 _ 0 .0 6 2 7 . „.0.0544,. 0.195* ( 721 ( 12) ( 72) « 72) ' I 72) 1 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 7?) ,3*0.326,. _3"0.403- .5*0.457 . .3*0.196 3*0.*43 . 3-0.134 . . 3*0.341_, _ 5 * 0 . 3 0 l _ _3-0.313 „ .5*0.030 VAX14 -0.1264 0.1031 . .-0.0213 . . C.0I61 . -0.C922 -0.0763 0.0262 .. 0,1117.. .. 0.C025 —0.2269 ( 721 I 721 1 72) 1 72) I 72) I 72) 1 72) ( 72) I 72) I 7?) 3-0.145 ._ 3-0.194.. . 3*0.430 .3-0.447 3*0.221 3*0.262 .3*0.413 . 3 * 0 .1 7 5 . 3*0.492., ,5*0.027, VAX 13 , 0.0330 . - 0. 1660 _ ,0.2244 _ O.03»5 . -0 .1 3 1 6 . 0 .6 3 6 6 .. 0,1A02„ _ 0 .1 1 6 2 . ,;.0.157X, ...-0.1331 I 72) - t 72) I 72) ( 721 I 72) I 72) ' 1 72) { 77) < 77) I 7<| .3*0.326 .3*0.062 3 * 0.029. . 3-0.364. S-C.101 3—0.235 S—0.065 „,.3-0.163 . :.3-0. 093, . 3*0.132 . VAX 14. _ 0.2042 0.1444 - O . 0 9 0 0 0.0326 0.1533 .0.2331 0.0770 . 0 .1 6 9 3 . .. 0.0006 . 0.13*9 . 1 72) I 72) t 721 1 72) ( 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) 1 72) t 72) .3*0.043.. _S-0.113.. _ 5 * 0 .2 2 6 . . 3-0.330 . . 3*0.U 96. 3*0.014 _ 3*0.274 . S*0.03 b _ _S*0.49H. .5*0.126 . VAX 17__ , -0.1061 _. 0.1340 -0.0373 -0.1220 -0.0542 0.1103 rO.0S39 —O.O J6 X . .. -0.0037. . 0.0294 ( 721 I 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) < 72) f 72) ‘ S*0.1S7 _.3-0.131 . .3-0.377 . .3*0.154 3*01373 3*0.167 .. 3-0.369. _ S * C .3 « 0 . 3—0.*99 . . 3*0,*03 .

VAXII. 0.0363 0.0*21, -0.1113 . O.ICOb ..-0.0361 . -0.0361 -0.0019 0 .0 5 6 7 . ^ JJ.GS47 , 0.0175 I 72) I 72) I 72) 1 72) 1 72) I 72) % 72)~ . » 72) C ' 72) C 721* 3-0.375 .. 3*0.363. 3-0.176 3*0.260 3-0.362 3-0.362 _ 3-0.494 3 -0 .3 1 0 .3-0.324 3*0.4^2 VAX 10_ -0.0442 —0.0761 0.0391 0.0395 -0.0494 -0.0791 , 0.0099 ..^0.1072 .. .0.0657 , . 0.0657 I 72) I 72) t 72) C 72) ( 721 ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) t 72) t 72) .5*0.336 ,.3*0.257. .3*0.372 _ 3*0.371 . 5*0.340. 5*0.233 _ 3-0.467,__ 5-0.163__ 3*0.737 „ 3*0.237, VAX20____ 0.0366 —0.2667 0.0603 0.0796 -0.0659 -0.1491 0.0390 -0.0496 _ 0.0997 . —0.23rX I 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) ( 721 1 72) I 72) 1 72) I 72) I 72) 3*0.373 „ 3*0.011. S*U.JCi7 . 3*0.233 . 5*0.291 . 3*0.106 _ 3-0.311, _. 3*0.261 5-0.202,,. 3*0.022 . VAX21___ -0.0432 . . 0.0303 .-0.0431 -0.1932 -0.0193, 0.0 _ -0.1139 __ rO.0419 __ -0.1474 _ -0.1676 I 72) ( 72) C 72) 1 72) I 72) C 7?) t 721 1 72) t 72) * 72)' 3*0.337 . 3*0.399, 3*0.331 3*0.032 S-0.-36 3*0.300 . ,3*0.166, _3*0.363 _S*0.C60 _ 3*0.060, VAX22 _ —0.0960 -0.0499 - 0.0200 -0.1432 -0.0126 -0.1*31 -0.0*64 ,-0 .1 0 9 6 . -0.1712 —0.2637 ‘ C 72) I 72) I 72) < 72) C 72) I 72) (• 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) ______S»0.204_ 3-0.339 5-0.434 5-0.112 3*0.456 3*q.062 3*0.230, ,S*0.1fiO_ 3*0.073 _S*P.013

TCOEFPICIENT / ICASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 CO IS PXlHTEO IF A CUEFFIClEXT CANNOT IE COPPUlEOt MITE UP ST ACE 1 03/30/74 MCE 22 FILE wonane" (creation' date-- 03/ 30/ 74) ' '* ) ...... “ - r ears oh Cok~r' e la t ion i o T 7 f T’c i t iTt“ s

.. .VAROl ,_.VAR02 VAK03 .. _ VARO* VAR 03 . VAR 04 „ . VAR07 VAR08 VARO* VAR10 __ YAK 23. -0.1929 __ rO.2969 ___ 0.0«77__ -0.2132 _ .0.0*23 . -0.3322 ___ 0.1247__ “0.5607___ 0.1442__ rO.OlGV ( 72) I 72) • C 72) ( 72) t 72)1 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 7?) 3*0.100 ._ S«0.009 3*0.249 3*0.036 3*0.331 .3*0.001 ___ _S*0.t4R __ 3*0.001 __ 3*0.110 3*0.644. VAR24. *0.1409,. 0.2441 _-0.01B1 -0.0371 , -0.0*71 -0.002*. __ 0.2020___ 0.0243 ._ 0.1239 . _-U.Ol55 ( 72) ( 77) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 77) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) 3-0.120__S*Q.01*_i_S*0.440 _ 3*0.378 , 3*0.20*. _ 3-0.491 3-0.044 3-0.413 __ 3-0.190 __ 3*0.449 VAK2S _ -0.1013 0.4716. „-0.0590, . 0.0*44 _ -0.10*2 0.2344 .. 0.0464._ 0.2447 . 0.0101 0.1141.. I 72) ( 72) ( 721 I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 721 t 72) ( 72) 3*0.199 _ 3*0.001 „ 3*0.311 . S-0.2O9 3*0.161 3*0.014 . 3*0.269 __S*0.-319, ,3-0.444. . 3-0.170 . VAK?4. -0.2467, _ 0.9023 ...—0,0051 _ -0.13*6 -0.0310 0.1913, .-0.0032 __ 0.0624 0.067* _ 0.149* I 72) ■ ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ' ( 72) t 7?) ( 72) ( 72) ( 7?) 3-0.011 3-0.001. _3*0.483 3*0.121 3-0.749 3*0.044 3-0.469_ 3-0.245 .3-0.244. ,3-C.lll VAKZ7 -0.0491 _ 0.3443 0.0190. -0.1023 . -0.0626 0.1293.. 0.07*3... 0.1437 ... 0.009* -O.OJB* _ I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) ( U i ,3*0.293 _ 3*0.002 __ 3*0.450 __ 3-0.194 , 3*0.245 „ S-C.13V ,,3*0.247 __ S-0.114_3*0.469, __ 3*0.405.. YAK 23 _ . 0.0696 0.0640 0.0349 -0.0039 -0.0117 0.0661 . 0.0194 „ —0.0146 0.0738 .. -0.C653. _ I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) t 72) I ' 72) ( 72) „ . 3*0.227 . 3*0.234 ,3*0.374. 3-0.467 3-0..61 . 3*0.241 1*0.436._..3-0.491 ,,3*0.269 .. 3*0.293 _ VAK79 -0.0394 ... 0.1876 ______0.0 _-0.237- 0.0264 0.1056 _ 0.0576__ 0.1149 1 -0.1U02 ___ 0.U786,, I 72) ( 72) I 721 ( 72) ' ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) { 72) ( 72) 3*0.371 .. 3*0.037 _S-0.400 _S-0.U72 3*0.413 3*0.189... 3-0.330 _3*0.169 __ 3*0.201., 3*0.40- _ YAK SO _ . 0.0621 _ 0.0639_ -0.0220 0.02)6 -0.0276 ,0.0834. _ 0.0956 ___ 0.6904 _ 0.0492,,'.. 0.09U4, _ I 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) t 77) ( 72) t 72) ( ' 72) ( 72) 3-0.302__ 3*0.291 __ S*0.427__ 3-0.406 . 3*0.406 , 3*0.243 .3*0.321 __ 3-0.225___ 3*0.393 _3-0.229 VAK31 -0.2094 __ 0.1642 _-0.2034, -0.0022 -0.13*3 -0.0*45 -O.OV4S 0.1O04 0.0617 -0.1697 : I 72) ( 72) t 72) * I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) 7( 72) ( 72) . 3-0.039 _ 3-0.061 3-0.043 . 3-0.493 3*0.172 3*0.215 3*0.719 , 3-0.201.. 3*0.303 _3-0.C82, VAKJ2_ _ 0.0 „ -0.2031 _ 0.1396 0.0161 -0.1744 -0.17*6 -0.0603 __ .-0.2002___ 0.1132 -0.1219 ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) I 72) " I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) *1 721* _.S*0«500 _ SfO.044 _ 3*0.121 . , 3*0.447 3*0.141 S*b.0t.9 3*0.251 _ 3-0.046 _ 3*0.172 ,„3*0.154 , VAK33 0.0341 . 0.2291 ..-0.1-68 ..-0.0410 -0.0610 0.1220 -0.0610 0.0910 -0.097* -0.0979 I 72) t 72) ( 72) < 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 7/) ( 72) I 72) 3*0.388,,__3*0.026_ 3-0.078_ 3*0.305 3*0.305 3*0.194 3*0.305 ___ S»0.224__S*0.J1S S-0.314

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES)’/ SICMFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS FRINTFO IF A*COEFFICIENT CAVNOT aE COM^IEO) MITE UF STAGS 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 A SAGS 2 ) FILE" KOMAKE (CAEATIONDATE - 03/30/741 _ - _ V - - -PEARSON "eO M liu'l’OH COEFFICIENTS------

VAROl. . . VM02 VAA03 VARD4 VM03 . . VM06 VAR07 . VAR08 VA809 VARIO VAA14. -0.0249. ».0.1983 _ . 0.0266 .-0.066*. 0.0 0.0502 . ... 0*1338,. _-0.0272 , .. 0.0544 . ,-0.0272 t 711 I 72) * 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) t 72) t 72) ) 7i) . 5*0.418 . $■0,067 _ $■0,413 . $-0,268 S-0.5 00 $-0,336 .$*0.131.,. $*0.4)0, . S-0.375, .$■0,410, VAR33. - 0.2111 . . 0.2193. -0.I80T -0.0946 -0.1610 . 0.0888 . -0.2443 , . -0.0512 ,-0.0241, .0.0843, C 72 J C 72) « 72)* ( 72) I 7*) 1 72) ( 721 ( 721 ( 72) ( 121 $■0.038,, ,.$■0.032...$■0,056 __S*0.219 . .$■0,088 _ $•0.22*. . $*0,019 _ ,,$■0,333. ,5-0.420. S -o .i.i VMM 0.0 0.0439 .-0.0877 -0.0>53 -0.1387 0.1109 -0.0333 . 0.0150 -0.1203 C.GlVG . I 72) t 72) * 72) ( 72) I 7?) I 72) t 721 C 72) C 72) * 72) S«0.500 . $*0,397 . $•0,232 3-0*322 $-0,123 $■0,177 $*0,322 . . $*o.4$o S-P.137, ,$■0.430., VM37___ -0.0317 0.5209 . 0.1654 _-0.0333 -0.0303 6.3125 _ 0.0687 „ „ 0.2246 _ -0.0070 , ,. 0.0757_ I 72) 1 72)” I 72)" I 72) I 721 * * t 721 t 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) $■0,333 ,S*0.0D1 $■0.16* $■0.3*1 $-0,338 $-0 «UG4 $-0,229 $-0,029 *,$-0,477 . $-0.264,. VMM —0.0760 0.1983 0.20V? 0.0197 -0.W76 0.0*68 . 0.1391 0.0*680.08*3 -C.0339 .. ( 721 C 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) I 7?) t 72) „S*0.263 _ _S*0.092 _S*0.«3*.. ..$■0,435 . S*0.232 $-0,214 ...$*0,091 . ,$■0.213__ $*0,236, ,$■0,387, VMM___ . 0.1110 . 0.3300 . -0.3276 .,—0.0071 0.0214 0.1642 -0.1000 O.C638 <-0.0620 O.OF—1., ( 72) I 721 I 72) * f 72) ( 7/) I 721 I 72) .1 72) ~t 72) I 72) .$■0,173 S-0.001. .$*0,002 . $-0,476 $-0,429 S*0*C84 3*0.202 . 5-0.251 . 5*0.303 S-Q.228, VMM . -0.1737 0.0252. ,-0.1\06 ..—0 . 1*26 . -0.0833 -4.0665 ..—0.12E7 , ,-0.0471. ,—0.0655 . , —0*0604 ( 72) ' ( 72) I 72) ' I 72) 1 72) ’ I 72) t 72) I 72) t 72) t 7.’) . S-0.072 , ..$■0,417. $•0,119 .$■0,132 $*0,243 $■0,240 . $-0,142, S-C.363 $■0.2*1 ,$■0,307 —0.1A06 _ 0.1634 .-0.2096 . 0.089* -0.0719 *0.0968 -0.206?. -0.0244 _-0.0Z4* , -0.0443 I 72) I 72) t 72) » 721 < 72) ( *72) t 72) ( 72) C 72) ( 72) _s*o.ii* ,5-0.085, _S*0.039 _ $-0,226 . $>0,274 . $■0,204 .. S»0.04l_ ,$■0.420__ 5*0.420, . S-0.35C 0.072* ,^r0.0346 _ 0.0523, .VM«.. -0.0986, 0.1929, . 0.0082 _-0.0712 . 0.0208 (1.0764 , 0.0343 . I 72) C *72) I 72) I 72) ( 721 1 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) .$*0,205 _..$■0,092. ..$•0,473 . $-0,276 . $*0,431 $-0,262 . .$*0,387, ,$■0.271__ $*0.386. .,$■0.331,, JWU __ —0.0666 , _r0.1233 .TO.OS26 _ -O.OE79 -0.0732 -0.1418 „ 0.0214_ -0.0167 ‘ 0.0812. -0.1753 , I 72) .1 72) I 121 * I 721 ' t 72) I 72) ( 72) I ' 72) C 72) I 72) S-0.290 $■0,131 $*0,393 . $-0,231 $*0,471 5*0.117 , SM.42*. ,5-0.445, .,.$-0.24* „$*0,070 , VM44. , 0.2745. .. 0.0798 . 0.0653 . 0.2160 0.1*59 0.0504 0.1534. 0.C718 —0.1102 0.07-9 _ I 72) I 72) t 721 < 72) ( 721 I • 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 721 $ ■0,010 _$*0.253 S-0.2V2 S■0.054 $*0,030 $-0,337. S-0.099 „s-oT275*_5£0.i7n_ ,$*0,252

(COEFFICIENT t (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) IA VALUE OF 9 9 , COGO IS PRINTED IF A COEFFlClthT CANNOT 8L CONFUTED) MITE UP STAGE 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 * PAGE 2* . .A - - PILE NOKARE (CREATION DATE ■'03/30/741 ...... ------> E~aT ~ l" 0 N *~C O K R £ V *~ T~i N C O t f F CltlTi

.VAROl VAR02 VAR03 . VARO* VAR05 VARO* VAR07. . ..VAROB ...VAROV .... VARIO . ..VARAS______0.11)4 0.13*7 0.2787 0.03*1 ... 0.279* 0.20*3 . 0.3032 ___ 0.0807 ___ 0.11*6 __ 0.203*.. ( 72) I 721 I 72) t 721 (72) ( 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ______5*0.062 ___ 5*0.130 _5*0.00*... S*0.3S« 5*0.009 $*0.0*3 .. 5*0.00*. _ .1*0.230 _1*0.165,. 5*0,00..

(COEPPICIEMT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OP 59.0000 IS PRINTED IP A COEPPtCICNT CANNOT BE CONPUICD)

*v ../ • '

1 MITE UP STAGE 1 ' " 03/30/74 PAM 23 . m e mmjlhe cwmioVoiTi-* q*/»/7*i ...... ' ...... T ' i-rirr^Te *! son corre l a t i o n ' t o t>> i c ' i e n u * ------

______VAAU . _,_VAM2 ... VAA13 . VAA14 VAA15 VAR16 . VAR IT ._ VAR18 . _.VAR19 VAR20 . — VAA01_____ 0,2425___ 0.0520____ 0.0541 -0.1264 . 0.063V 0.2042 -0.1061___ 0.f>3f3----0.0442---- 0.03*6 - * “ | T2I ( 721 C 721 t 721 ( 721 I 72) I 72) I ' 721 I 7Zt 1 72) 5*0.020 5*0.247 5*0.326 5*0.143 5*0.326 5*0.043 . 5*0.107 __ 5*0.375 __ 5*0.356 _5*0.373 ----- VAR02 -0.1715 0.1476 -0.0052 0.1031 -0.1660.. 0.1444 _.. 0.1340____ 0.047)-0.0751 . -0.2667 _ * " ( 721 C 72) I 72) ( 721 I 72) ( 72) ( 721 ( 72) ( 72) I 7*1 _ 3*0.073 5*0.106 5*0.463 . 5*0.194 ..5*0.062 __5*0.113 __ 5*0.131 _5*0.363 _-..S*(V257 ___ S*0.011 VAK03 0*3430 -0.1316 0.0190 -0.0213 0.2244 .-0.0*00 _ -0.0375 _rO . 1113 _ 0.0391 _ 0. 0)03 _ ( 72)' I 721 I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) 5*0.002 . 5*0.135 .. 5*0.437 . .5*0.430. 5*0.029 5*0.226 _S»0.377 _5*0.176 — 5*0.372— S*0.3LT _ VAR04 -0.1065 -0.0363 0.1026 0.0161 0.0355 0.0526__ -0.1720__ 0.1006 _ 0,0345_. O.OIVt ------( 72) “** 72) f 72) "* 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) 5*0.182 . 5*0.375. 5*0.196.. 5*0.447 5*0.364 5*0.330 . 5*0.154. ..5*0.200 _ 5*0.371 _ 5*0.253.. VAAOS 0.5423 0.0217 -0.0167 .-0.0922 -0.1516 ...0.1558. -0.0542 . ..-0.0361 ,-0.04*4 _ -O.C6S9 ~ ' l 72) C 72) ” ( 72) C 72) I 72) « 72) I 72) C 72) C 72) t 721 5*0.001 5*0.426 __ 5*0.445 5*6.221 5*0.101 _._5-0.09A _5-0.325_S-0.352__S-0.340 _ 5-0.241 VAR06 -0.1065 0.1664 0.1216 -0.0763 . 0.0466 .. 0.2331 .. 0.1153 ,_.-0.C3M_-0.07VI.. -0.1491 _ ( 72) "t 72)t 72) .1 72) ( 72) ( 72) C 72) I 721 1 721 ( 72) 5*0.182 . 5*0.079 ... 5*0.154 ..5*0.262 . 5*0.235 ...5-0.024....5*0.167...5*0.362 5*0.255 5*0.1oA.. VAR07 0.5423 -0.1001 -0.0491 0.0762 0.1802 _ 0.0720__ -0.0339 __ M).0019 __ 0,0049 __ 0.0550 ( 72) ( 72) f 72) I 72)~ 7?) t 7?) I 72) C 7?) ( 72) I 721 5*0.001 .. 5*0.202 __ 5*0.341 . 5*0.-IS. . 5*0.065 S*0.*74 . 5*0.369 5*0.494 .5*0.467 . 5*0.311., VAR06 -0.0566 0.0407 0.0627 0.1117 0.1162 C.1R93. ,-0.0366 -0.0567. _-O.1072,.. .-0.0646.. ** C 72) "C 721 ' ( 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) C 721 C 721 I. 72) I 72) 5*0.312 __ 5*0.367 ___ 5*0.301 _S«0.17S . 5*0.165 5*0.056 __ 5*0.380 __ 5*0.310 _5*0.145 .. 5*0.281 VAROV -0.0588 -0.0106 0.0564 0.0025 . 0.157b .. 0.0CC6 _ -0.0C37 __ 0.C547 _ 0.0857 . 0.0497 _ ( 721 "~C *72) ~l 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) -1 72) I 721 I . 721 { -72) 5*0.312 . 5*0.464 _ 5*0.313 _ 5-0.442 .. 5*0.093 5*0.4v6 ...5*0.488. .5*0.324 ,_S»0.237 __ 5*0,702.. VaR 10 -0.0586 0.1329 0.1*56 -0.2269 . -0.1331 _ 0.13A4_. 0.0744__ 0.0175 _ 0.0*57_ -0.22*4 _ ( 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 721 I 7i) I 721 I 72) ( 72) f 72) 5*0.312 5*0.133 5*0.050 5*0.027 5*0.132 5*0.116. ..5*0,603 __ 5*0.442 ..5*0.237 5*0.022.. VAR11 1.0000 -0.0V23 -0.1454 0.1023 -0.0500 . .0.0245 . -0.0699. ..-0.0753 _.-0.1554.. 0.1335 C of* C 72) " t 721 I 72) C 72) C • 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) 5*0.001 __ 5*0.220 5-0.112 5*0.196 _ 5*0.336 _ 5*0.240 __ S*0.21.0 __ 5-0.265__ 5*0.046 __5*0.132

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) I * VALUE OF V 9.U 060 15 PR 1NIED IP A COFFFlCIfNT CANNOT 6E CONFUTED) UNITE UP STAGE 1 03/30/74 PACE 74 FILE NONANE I CHEAT I Cl* DATE - 03/30/74}

— — - - . i-T fT irio m c'o « it’i t'A T i oV CUE P F 1 C I E N T S ------

„.VARIt .VAR12. _VAR13 VAR 14 VaR 15 VAR17 VARIB VAR 19 VAR20 . .VAR14. _VAAl*_ ,-0.0923, 1.0000_ _ 0.3*96.. .-0.1407. . 0.1467 0.0009 .-0.0060. .-0.0486, _-^.0039 , .-0.1439, ( 721 ( 0) < 72) I 721 C 72) f 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) I 72) 1-0.220. _S*O.OQ1__ .S-0.001. S-0.104 S-0.109 S-U.2SO s-o .-to . .S-0.343. . .S-0.4B7. , . S-0.114, VAR13____ -0.1454 0.3494 ., _ 1.0000 -0.1073 -0.0434 -0.1330 . 0.0437, .-0.0935 . . 0.0314 . - 0 .1 1 1 4 . I 72) I 72) I 0) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) ( 72) ,S-0.U2_ _S»0.001._ .S-0.001. . S-0.185 .S-0.333. .S-0.100 ,5-0.338_ _S-0.217 „ ,5-0.396, _S-0.173 VAR 14___ „ 0.1023. ,.-0.1487 .-0.1073 1.0000 -0.1708 -0.22V2 . .0.0652_ 0.0770 -0 .0 2 6 7 . „ 0.111*6 , ( 721 ( 72) t 72) C O) I 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) t 71) .5-0.196. S?Q«I06 _.$40,185. 3-0.001 .S-0.076 S-0.026 , S-O.2-3. .5-0.411 — 5 -0 .4 1 2 3*0.117 . VAR 15 -0.0500 _ 0.1447 _ -0.0434 -0.1708 1.0000 0.0639 -0.0040 .-0.1369. 0 .0 3 6 3 . ._ 0.2445. ‘ I 721'" ( 721 I 72) I 72) ( O) I 72) "I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 77) S-0.33A ..S-0.109 _ S-0.353. 3-0.074 .5-0.001 5-0.297 $-0,487. .S-0.176 — 5-0.31?., . 5*0.017., VAR16 0.0645 _ 0.0809 _ -0.1330 _ -0.2292 0.0639 1.0000 „ 0.0367 . 0.0137 , - 0 . 1 6 0 4 , . -0 .2 9 1 3 . 1 72) I 72) 1 721 I 72) I 721 . I 0) ( 72) I 721 I 72) I 77) S-0.240 5-0.230 $-0,100 5-0.036 S-0.247_ S-0.001 , $-0.312,,_S-0.237_ _$-0.Ob?. _ S - 0 .0 0 ) .VAR IT__ -0.0699 -0.0060 0.0437 0.0652 -O.0U40 U.US07 . 1.0000. _-0.1227. .. 0*0678 . 0.0323 1 72) 1 721 1 72) ( 72) 1 77) 1 72) ( 0) I 72) f 72) ' I 72) S-0.280 __ S-0.480.__ 5-0.356 S-0.243 S>0.907 S-0.312 .5*0.601. .5*0.132 . S -0 .2 3 7 ..S-0.394 . VARIB__ _-0.0753__ -0.0486 __ -0.0935 __ 0.0270 -0.1364 __ 0.0637 .-0.1227 _ 1.0000 0 .4 8 0 2 0.2131 ( 72) ( 721 I 72) C 72) 1 72) 1 721 1 72) C O) I 721 I 72) _ S-0.265,, S-0.343 S-0.217 _ .5*0.* 11 S-0.126 .. S-0.237 , S-0.132_ .S-0.001 ._ S - 0.001 ,5-0.036 VAR19. -0.1554. _—0.0039 0.0316_ -0.0267 0.0365 , —0.1664 0.0878 . _ 0.4062 , _ 1.0000 -0.0603. ( 72) I 72) I 721 C 72) I 77) I 7?) ( 77) I 72) I 0) I 72) S-0.096 _S*0.437_ _S-0.346„ ..$■0,412. .S-0.319 .S-O.OR9, _S-0.232_ ,$*0,001, ,5 f0. 001_ _5-0.494 VAR2 0 . . 0.1335. .'-0.1439 -0.1119 o.noe 0.2495 -0.2913 . 0.0323. . 0-2131 .,.-0.0003 _ 1 0000 t 72) I '72) < 72) I 72) t 72) C 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) I d S-0.132 „S-0,II4. . 3-0.173 .. S-0.177 ,5-0.017 S-0.007 , S-0.394,, _S—0.036 __ 5 -0 .4 9 4 . s-o.ooi. VAR21__ 0.0210 _ 0.0419 -0.2124_ 0.0620 0.1091 -0.0631 . 0.0798. -0.2*20 ,_ rO .4 S 3 0 P*1793. , t 72) I 72) ' I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 721 I 72) i 72) < 77)" I 77) S*0.431 . . S-0.363. S-0.037,, .1-0.302 $-0,161 S*0.249 . S-0.252. . S-0.016.,_ s- 0.001 .5-0.066. VAR22 . 0.0753 _ 9.1616 .-0.1313, 0.0703 -0.0912 0.00-1 -0.2400 .-0.0230 - 0 .3 6 6 4 . .-6.0400 , I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) C 72) S-0.265 S-0.088 S*0.102_ S-0.279 S-0.223 S-0.473 S-0.021 S-0.424 S -0.G 04 _S»0.349

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE (IF 4 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRtNTEO IF A COEFFICIENT CAN NUT BE CONFUTED) MUTE UP STACE 1 03/30/7A pjtr 27 PILE NON AXE (CXEATION MIE« 03/30/76) ' ' 1 i pV a “a s ri k ~ ' e q'n‘a*e i. a t i o n COEFFICIENTS------

VAXll ...VAN12 _. VAX 13 VAX 16 VAX13 VAX 16 . VAX17 ...VAX18 ____ VAR19 VAX20 VAX23 _ 0.1069 .-0.1223., . .0.0062.. .-0.0382. -0.0363, . 0.0238 _ 0.0T70, _ -0 .0 1 1 2 __ -0.0733 O.lt.91 I 721 ( 721 I 721 I 721 C 721 ( 721 I 721 I 72) I 721 ( 721 - S-0.186, $■0,133. .$■0,236 $-0,316 $■0.319 $*0,613 . . $<0,260. . $<0,663 „ $*0.270,. $-0,078. YAX26__ , 0.0821. _—0.0190 ,-0.1773 0.0638 0.0826 .0.1031 _ 0.0663. _ 0 .0 6 6 7 _-0.0330_ . 0.0263 . I 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 ( 721 t 721 I 771 I 771 .,S*0.267_ _S-0.637_ _S*0.06B_ .$■0*292. .$■0,266, . S-O.lVO__ $<0,368, .$ ■ 0 .3 3 3_$ * 0 .3 8 3 ____ S -O .-ly VAX25 ____ 0.0881 0.0113 .-0,0307. 0.2016 -0.0918 0 . 2011., -0.0068. .-0.0731 -0.lh30_-0.076S, I 721 I 721 I 721 t 721 1 721 I 721 I 721 I 72) r 721 I 721 $■0,731 $■0,663 . „ S * 0 .iV t. $■0.0*3. $•0,272 $■0,063 ,$■0,686 ,$■0,626, ,.$bQ.GA2 $>0,267 VAX26. .-0.06*0, -0.0719 ^-0.1886 0.1338 -0.1107 0.1U 67____ 0.71169 . 0.0798 -0.6399 __ -0.IT16 t 721 "( 721 f 721 I 721 t 721 I 721 I 721 I 72) I 72) I 721 $■0,387 $■0,276 , S*Q.ti>7 $■0,099 $-0,177 $■0,186 _,$<0.061 .$■0,602 . ,„$»O,309. . S-0.073 VAX 27 . 0.0670 .. 0.1066, _ 0.0031 0.1739 . 0.01*2 , ,-0.0623 ... 0.0733, .-0.3620__ -00533 _,-0.1El6. ( 721 I 721 I 771 t 721 I 721 < 72) ( 721 I 7/1 t 12) I 721 ,$-0.288,, .$■0,191. .$■.0.690__ $-0.072__ S *0.*36, $-0.301__ $-0.6?2_ .S-0.C02__ $<0.001_S-0.C.8 ,V A A 2 8 ____ . 0.0358._ -0.1136 _ * 0 . 2 7 0 7 0.2226 0.0291 , - 0 . 0 3 7 2 0.0*36 . , -0.2131. ._-C.332t... O.II02 ( 72) ( 72) ( 721 . ( 721 1 7 2 1 ( 7 2 ) ( 721 t 72) t . 721 I 771 ------.$-0,383 $■0,171,...$*0,011 $■0,030 . S * 0 . 6 0 6 .. S« 0 . 3 7 8 3-0.338. .$*0,036 _ S-C.C02 _ S-G.065 . V 1 X 2 9 _ , __ _ 0 . 1 1 6 3 0 . 0 0 6 2 __ - 0 . 1 3 5 1 __ 0 . 1 8 7 3 - 0 . 0 1 8 9 __ 0 . 0 7 6 7 -0.00*6 .-<1.2201., .-0,2*22 r*i.l26gi„ ( 72) ( 77) ( 721 ! 77) ' ( 72) ( 7 2 ) ( 721 I 721 t 72) I 7*1 . . . . . $-0,169,_ $<0,686 _ S»0.129 . $■0,036 $■0,637 $ ■ 0 , 2 6 1 $*0.683,. ,$■0,037 ,$■0.006__ S-0.150

V A X 30 ____ - 0 . 0 6 3 2 „ — 0 * 0 3 2 6 0 . 0 0 1 2 - 0 . 0 6 8 6 0.0172 , 0.0891 •0 . 2 1 2 0 . . 0.7132 . 0.0*06 O.UOT. ( 72) ( 721 ( 72) I 721 ( 72) ( 7 2 ) ( 721 ( 72) ( 72) I 71) ____ S - 0 . 3 3 3 .... $*0.331,__ $ - 0 . 6 9 6 __ $-0,363 $<0,663 .,$■0,228 $■0,037. „S*0.036„ $■0,223 _ $*0,066'

V A X 3 1 _____ -0 . 0 6 9 8 , - 0 . 0 6 7 2 __ -0.0867 , 0.1513 - 0 . 0 6 0 7 * 0 . C 0 8 3 -0.133*. ,-0.1661 . .-0,3023___ 0.0613 ( 7 2 ) ( 721 ( 7 2 ) ( 721 ( 7?) ( 7 2 ) C 771 ( 77) I 72) I 721

. -* ------,,$■0,339. _ _ S * 0 . 3 6 7 _S*0.2*0._ $■0,102 $ ■ 0 , 3 6 7 $ ■ 0 , 6 7 2 .$■0,099. .$•0, 110. . S-0.005__ $-0.3n3_ VAK32. -0.2002 0.1326 0.0313 -0.0963 —0.0*06 -0.1587 0.0183 _-0.03*3 _ 0.1636 _-0.2296 I 721 I 721 ( 721 I 721 I 721 I 7?) ( 721 ( 721 I 72) ( 72) $•0,066 $■0,100 ,S<0.3»7, $•0,713 $•0,307 $■0,062 $.0,639, .$*0,323 .$•0*083 _,S<0.02* . VAX33 -0.0579 0.0130 0.0733 0.2123 -0.0872 0.0173 -0.0735 ,-0.0310, -0.308V _-0.l6l$. f 721 C 721 t 721 ( 721 I 721 ( 72) ( 721 ( 72) C 721 I 72) _Sfp.3l5_ _S-0.6S7 $■0,622 $-0,037 $-0,233 $■0,662, S<0.770_ _ S « 0 . ? 9 S _ $-0.006 JtfOjOFP.

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 1$ HUNTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT. SC CONFUTED) m m UP STAGE 1 03/10/79 PAGE » FILE NMAK2 l«EATicN~OATE "■ 03/30/76) V - — - - - - p ea iTs'oT« c*3 *f'*rirt’A'T' n rs" COEFPtCl ENTS

.VARll VAR12 VARll VAR16 VAR15 ..VAR 16 VAR17 _ .VA»18 VAR19 VAR20 . __VAIU\. 0.1088, _-0.007l, _ 0 .0 7 8 8 , _ 0.0658. .- 0. 1022. 0.1690 . 0.1705, _-0.I2S5_ _*r0.2330_ .-0.0926. I 72) t 72) I 7 2 ) I 721 I 72) t 72) I 72) ( 77) ( 771 I 77) ,s«o.m.._$-0.676, .$ ■ 0 ,2 5 5 . .$>0,331 .$■0,197 .$.0,078 . .$•0,076. . $-0.167.,..$•0,026, $-0,361 VAR35 , .-0.2138. 0.0097. . 0 .0 3 5 1 . .-0.01*21 0.0 2 0 6 0.1398 , —91.0637, _ 0. 1060.. .-0.1677 . 0.1387. ( 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) _S«0.036, $-0,668. _5»0.323_ . $-0,297 . $-0,632. . $ ■ 0 , 1 2 1 . _S«0.352,_s-o.ieo_ _$-0.116. ,$•0.0*2 VAR36, . rO.1203 -0.0139.. . 0.130V 0.0699 -0.0527 .-0.1061 0.1163., _ 0.1300, „ 0.3981 _ -0.1623. t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 7?) I 72) I 72) C 72) ( 72) I 72) $-0,137...,$•0,956. .$ ■ 0 ,1 0 3 . $■0,280 .$•0,330 . $ * 0 , 1 8 8 $-0,061.. $-0,137 , 5*0.001 _. $•0,116, VAR37, 0.130B 0.0728 0.0391 ,0.11*7 -0.0816 -0.0176 0.1032, _ .-0.7310 _■-0,3036. .-0.1999 I 721 I 72) I 72)' ( 72) ( 72) ' I 72)' I 72) C 72) I 77) I 72) $■0,137 $■0.272., .$■0*311 .$>0,136 $■0,798 $■0,638 $-0,196 S-G.017 ,,$■0,006 S-O.O-b . VAX AS . 0.1561 _ 0.0393 . 0 .1 8 9 3 0.1060 -0.0006 - 0 . 0 6 5 8 0.0759 , . - 0 . 2 1 1 2 _ -0.2619, 0.0093. ( 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) I 72) C 72) f 72) 1 72) t 72) I 77) .$■0.095._S«0.372_ ..$ ■ 0 ,0 6 1 . ,$■0,192 , ,S-0.6v9„ .$•0,352 ,$•0,763,_$-0.037._$«0.020__S»0.66*, VAR39 -0*0968 0.06E0 -0 .0 0 9 9 0.1006 -0.1829 -0.1060 -0.0085 - 0 . P 7 6 . -0.1*33 ,-0.1630 "I 72) ( 72) I 72) ' I ‘ 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) t 72) .( 7/1 I 77) $■0,209 .$■0,285 .$ •0 .9 6 7 ,, S-0.1R7 $■0,062 $*0,188 . .$-0,672 _ $*0,066 $•0,037, .$-0,093 . VAR AO .-0.0S13 -0.1751 .-0 .1 3 3 5 0.0309 -0.29*2 .-0.1177 _ 0.0061, _rO.CK.31 >0.135*. _ 0.0993 I 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) f 77) ( 721 I 72) ( 72) $■0,336 $■0.071. $■0,132 .$-0,316 $-0,017 , $ * 0 , 1 6 2 £-0.680. , $*0,353 S-C.12B . S-U.3-0... VAR91 —0.06B2 -0.1598 0.1698 -0.2696 0*0613 ' -0.0216 , -0.0719 —C.0276 „ ( 72) . I 72) C 77) t 7?) I 77) t 7?) I 72) ( 77) ,$•0. 2* J_ _S ■0*090. ,$■0,105 $-0,012,.. $- 0 , 3 0 6 .$•0,928, $-0.279.. .5*0.910 VAR62_ 0.0966 0.0676. -O.OV38 . 0.3326 -0.0155 0.1123 —0.0667 _-0.02C9 -0.0818, „-0.G6tl_ ‘ 1 72) ~ C .72) t 72) I 72) I 721 I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) $•0,210 ,. S-0.396, ,$•0,217. . S-0.C01 $-0,669 ,.$•0,173 . S-0.289,, .$■0,631. . S-0.267, „S*0.3<.6... VAR AS -0.0090 _.-0.0526 -0.7660 -0.0166 0.1650 0.0968 -0.1695 „-0.0501. - 0 . 1 6 6 5 _ O.G9t»7_. I 72) ( 721 I 72) ‘ "I 72) I 72) ' ( 72) I 72) f 77) I 72)' I 77) $■0,670 .$■0.331. . $-0,013 .$*0,632 $■0,083 $•0,216 . $■6,105., _ $ » 0 . 3 3 C ,$■0,113 ,$■0,209, VARGA___ 0.1666 . 0.0256 .-0.1816. . 0.1651 -0.1660 0 . 0 9 0 3 -0.1928 _ 0.2171 0 . 0 9 1 1 . -0.0098 . I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I : 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) $4,011 $■0,615 $■0,066 $■0,083 $■0 ,1 1 0 $-0,725 $-0,052, $■0,033 $-0,223 . S»0. 6P6. _

{COEFFICIENT / {CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS.M INTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE CCMPUTED) mute up stace l " o s n o ns palf 29 ' * * PILE NONANE" (CAEATIO*'DATE - 01/30/76) ’ \ • “ ’ - - - 9"iE* A ViTo M C o V A ELAT I O K " C O E* VfTc'lTK~T s' - - - - -

. . ______VAEll _ __VAA12 ..JfAMS . VAA16 VAA15 . VAA16 ... VAMT VArtlS ...-VAM9 .VAK20 ____ . _.VA»65______0.3931 ___ 0.1019 ___ 0.02T0___ 0.09P7_ .-0.0006 ___ 0.1573___ 0.0596 __ “0.0137___ 0.0116_O.OiOV___ ( 721 f 72) I 721 I 72) ( 72) f 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) . . . . , „S«0.001 . S-0.193 _ S-0.611 . . S-0.205 .. S-0.69* S-0.093 ...S^O.310 __3-0.635__ 5-0.662_S-0.33B.__

(COEFFICIENT 7" (CASES) 7 sTcn IfICANCE) IA~VALUE OF 99.0000 IS P*’lNTED~IFVCOE f'fICIENT’ LA-tKof"!F 'CONFUTED) KITE UP STACE I 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 FACE 3 0 FILE igHAHE (MEAT IWTOATE 03/30/7A) ------p EARSON' c'o i'ii E L A- T’I 0*« COEFFICIENTS .-

..VAR21 . .VAR22 VAR23 VAR24 VAR2S VAH26 VAR27 .VAR28 VAR2- VAR30 VAROl. ..—0.0432. _-0.09**_ „T0.1529_ -0.1405 .-0.1013 . •0.2662 _ -0.0651 __ 0.0*9* , -0.03-4., . 0.0621, ( 721 ( 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 721 ' C 72) C 72) 1 72) ( 72) .S-0.359. _ S-0.204. .S-O.IOO .. $-0,120. $-0,199 $-0,011 .$■0,293 . $-0,727 ..$■0,371., S-0.30? . VAR0 2 . .. 0.0305 _-0,0499. , —0.29*9., 0.2*61 0.4718 0.5023 . 0.3443 _ 0.0*60. 0.1*7* . 0.0655, t 72) (' 72) I 72) < 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) < 72) I 72) I 72) _S-0.399_ ..$■0,339, _S-0.005_ .$■0,019 , $-0,001 . .$■0.001...$-0.002 $-0. 2)6 . ..$■0,057... S-O.IVl, VAR03. -0.0458 —O.Q2CO _ 0.0827 . - 0.0181 -0.0590. -O.OC51 . 0.0150 __ 0.026V. . 0.0 _ -0 . 0120, t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 7?) t 7?) ( 72) C 72) 1 7?) I 72) t 72) _S-0.35l. ,.$■0,434. . S-0.245 ; - $>0,440 S-0.3il S-C.4E3 S-0.450 S-C.379 _.S;0.5CG „ $-0,427 VAR 04 -0.1932 _-0.14S2„ „-0.2132 -0.0371 0.09*6 —0.13*4 -0.1025, , - O . C 0 3 9 _ J-0.237#__ 0.027*, ( 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ' I 72) ( 72) I 721 I 72) I 72) $■0,052 $■0 ,1 1 2 _S-0.036 .$-0,378 $-0,205 $-0,121. 5*0.19* . ,.$-0.4*? .$-0,022 . $—0.40*.

VAR 0 5 ____ -0.0193 __ -0.012b. . 0.0523 -0.0971 .-0.1092 -0.0*10 -0.0628 ,-O.Cl 17 0.0269 „ —0.L276., ( 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) t 72) I 72) ( 72) C 72) C 7?) ( 7?) .S-0.436__S-0.45S_ _S-0.331_ _S»0.2G9 . $■0,181, ,.$■0,249 . _ $-0,245 , _S«G.4*1„_$*0.413__ S - 0 .4 U J , VAR Ob.____ 0.0 ■ -0.1*31. ,-0.3822_, -0.0029 0.2584 . 0.1913 . . 0.1293 _ 0.C6A1. ... 0.1056 0.0*34. . ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) (. 72) I 72) .$■0,500 _S»0.062 ..$■0,001 . S-0.491 $■0,614 $•0,054 $-0,139 ..5*0.291 . „ $-0.1*9 , . $-0,243 _ VAR 07___ -0.1159 __—0.0064. 0.1247. 0 . 202* 0.0666 -0*003? 0.0743 . _ 0 . 0 1 9 4 . 0.052*.. ,.0.0556. "( 721 I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 7?) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) .S-0.166 ...S-0.230 . 5-0.148 . .$■0,044 $-0.2*9 . $■(1,489 . $-0,267 . $>0,436 ..$■0,330 $-0,321 VAROl ... -0.0419 .-0.109b. -0.5607 0.0263 0.2442 0.0326 0.1437 -0.0148, . 0.1145 .. 0.0944 t 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) S-0.363 _S*0.1b0_ _S-0.001 . ..$■0,413 .. $*0,019. S»0.24S... $-0,114 _S«0.431 .. $-0,169 _ .$■0.125,, . VAR09. ____ -0.1676. .-0.1712 0.1462. ..0.1239 C.01P1 0.0626 . 0.0094 , 0.0738 ,.-0.1002. . 0.0452 I 72) ( .72) ( 72) { 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) t 72) (. 72) ( 72) s . 0.010 . „S-0.075_. . $-0,110 . 5*0.150 $■0,466 . $-0,245 . $-0.4*9 . . $-0,269 _ $-6,201. $-0,353 VARIO. -0.1b7b -0.2637 -0.0109 -0.0155 _ 0.1141 „ 0.1459. -0.0289 -0.0653. 0.0286 _ 0.09)4 ' t 72) ( 72) I 72) I 721 ( 7 2 ) I 721 C 721 t 72) I: 72) I 72) KjJ . S-0.080 . . S-0.013. . $-0,464 . $-0,449 $■0,170 $-0,111 . $-0,405 . S-C.293 _. $-0,406 . S-0.225. ■CT 00 VARll. _ .. 0.0210 .. 0.0753 0,1069 . 0.0821 . 0.0*81 . -0.0440. 0.0670 . .0.035* 0,1145 . .-0.04S2 t 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) t 72) I 721 t 72) I 72) 1 721 _ 5-0.431 $■0,265 $■0,186 ,$■0,247. $-0,231 $-0,357.. $-0.2*8 $-0.363._$-0.164_.1-0. A5>.

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE • OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS FRINIIO IF A COLFFICICNT CANNOT * £ COMnJUb) w i r e u e s t a g e x 0 3 /3 0 /7 * FACE 31 -I FILE NOJURE (CREATION 0ATE~-03/30/76>

------F CARSON COEFFICIENTS- --

______VAR21 „ .YAAZZ „..VAR23 . VAR76 VAR75 VAR26 . . VAR27 VAR28 „ VAR29. .VARJO ___

VAR1 2 . . 0.0*19 0.1616 .-0.1225.. ..-o.otvo. , 0.0113. -4.6719 __ 0.1066...-0.1136__ 0.0662. .-0.052*. ( 721 ( 721 ( 72) 1 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) I 7 2 ) . S-0.363 _ ,5-0.088, .$-0,153,. 5-0.637 . $-0,663 .5-0.276.. .5*0.191 ,,5-0.171. __S-0.6*6. , 5 - 0 . 3 3 1 ___

VAR13____ - 0 . 2 1 2 * ____- 0 . 1 5 1 3 . 0.0862 . , - 0 . 1 7 7 5 .-0.0307 . .—0.1CB6_ 0.0031 -0.2707,. .-0,1331. 0.C012 I 721 I 72) I 7?) 1 7 ? ) I 72) I 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) $ - 0 . 0 3 * ___ S * 0 . i 0 2 . _1*0.068. . .$•0,399. 5-0.037__ S-0.69Q _$-0.011___ S-0.175, ,$■0,696 v a i * ______0.0620 0.0703. -0.0582., _ 0.0638 . 0.2016 0.1938 . 0.1739. ...0.2226 _ 0.1873 _ -0.0686 C 72) ' ( 721 C 72) ( 71) < 72) C 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) S*0»30Z ■ 5*0.279 . S>0.316. . 5-0.ZV2 $•0,065 5-0.069 . 5*0.022 . 5*0.030 $*0,096 .. $*0,363 VAR 15.__ 0.1091 -0.0912 —0.0565, „ 0.0826. —0.C918 -0.1107 0.0197. __ 0.0291 -o.oir-v __ 0*0172, "I 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) ( 72) ( 7?) C 72) ( 77) ( 72) t 7?) 5*0.181 $-0,223 . $-0,319. ..$-0*2*6 $■0,222 ,5*0.177 .. 5-0.636.... $*0,606 .$•0,637, , S-0.-63 VARi* ___ -0.0631 0.0081 0.0258 . 0.1051 0.2011 0.1067 -0.0623 -0.0377 . . 0.0767 . .0.0861 C 72) < 72) C 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) 1 72) I 72) ( 77) I 72) . S*0.299„ .5*0.*73 , _5-0.613, _5-0.190 . .5-0.065 . $-0,166 _,S*0.301_.,5-0.37* _5*6.261, __ $-0,226 VAR 17 .... 0.079S -0.2*00 , 0.0770 . 0.0603 -0.0068 0.7069 0.0739. . 0.0*36 ,-0.0066 .,-0.7120 I 72) ( 7 2 ) ( 72) 1 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) C 7k) .£■0.232. $>0.021„. S>0.260 , S*0.368 5-0.686 3-0.061 5-0.622 5*0.338 5-0.663 ... S*0.037 VARta. -0.2520 -0.0230 -0.0112 , 0.0667 -0.0231 0.0298 -0.3620 .,-0.2131 ,-u.220l 0.2132 ( 72)" ' I 72) t 72) "l 72) I 72) '( 72) ' I 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 721 S*0.01&. $■0.626.._5*0.663 .5-0.355 .$■0,626 5*0.602 _ 5-0.002 , 5-0.036 , 5*0.032 .. 5-0.036 . VAR 19 •0.6830 -0.3066 -0.0735 -0.0358 -0.1830 -0.0599 -0.3588 .-0.3371 -0.7977 . 0.09w> . I 72) < 72) I 72) t 711 I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) $■0,001 ..$■0,006,,$■0.270.,.$■0,383 . S*0.042 $•0,309 .. 3*0.601 ,.$•0.002 , 5*0.006 5-0.223,

VAR 20 _ -0.0*00 0.1691 0.0265 .-0.0765 -0.1716 -0.li.16 . 0.1002 _-0.I7*U __ -0.1807. I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) $ ■ 0 , 0 6 6 „$*0,369 . ,S >0.070 .$■0,619 $*0,767 5*0.075. $-0.088... 3-0.069.. $*0.150,,5*0.066

1.0000. 0 . 3 5 7 6 , _ 0.1696. . . 0 . 0 F S 9 , .. 0*1110. 0.0674_ 0.2090 ___ .0*1801 __ 0.09U __ .-0.6W0, t 0) I . 7 2 ) ( 72) ( 7 2 ) I 72) ( 72) " i 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) s-o.ooi . s-o.ooi. $■0,077, $-0,226 : $*0,0 3 8 $•0,366 S-0.039 .$*O.Ut9 SaO.222 ,_$«O.OOl,.

VAR22 . _ 0 . 3 5 7 6 1.0000 0.0586 •0.1019 0.0393 -0.0865 0.1329 _ 0.1201 _ 0.0238 __ -0.2132 . I 7 2 ) '■( 0)" C 72) C 72) I 72) t 723 C 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) $ ■0,001 SbQ.001 $■0,313 $■0,197. _$-0.372 5*0.235 5-0.133 __ $-0.157__ $*0.615__ $*0,036,

(COEFFICIENT / ICASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) IA VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 1$ FRlNIfO IF A CQFFFJCIENT CANNOT BE CORFU 110) WRITEUP STAGE 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 PAM 32 I FILE tOHlKE. l«EATiON-DATE - 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 ) CARSON c*o i COMHC 1ENTS------

...... VAR21 V A R22______V A X 23. .. VAR24 VAR23 . VAR26 VAR27 VAR29. VAR29 VAR30 ______

VAR2* ___ _ 0.1694 _ _ P , 0 5 8 6 . _ 1.0000. 0.0840, . 0 .0 3 3 7 —0.0985. . - 0 . 2 1 9 1 ___ - 0 . 1 * 5 9 ____- 0 . 0 - C 2 ___ - 0 - 2 3 9 8 . . I 72) I 72) I 0 ) ( 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) . 3-0.077_ .3-0.313. .3*0.001. . 3*0.242 . . 3 * 0 .3 6 9 , .3*0.205 .. . 3 * 0 .0 3 2 ____ 3 * 0 .0 3 0 __ 3 * 0 . 2 0 6 ___ S * 0 ,C ? 1 _ VAR 24. 0.0899.. .rO.1019. _ .0.0840. . 1.0000 . 0 . 3 6 9 7 0.5333 . 0 . 2 1 * 9 ____ 0 . 1 0 7 3 ____ 0.2405_, -0,1214.. C 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 0) 1 7 2 ) I 72) f 72) ( 72) C 72) t 72) _S*0.226_. _S»0.197 .5*0.242. 3*0.00) . 3*o.ooi . . 3*0.001 3 * 0 .0 3 2 ____ 3 * 0 . 1 8 5 ___ 3 - 9 . 0 2 1 ___ S - 0 .1 3 S - .

VAR2S, 0.2110 „ , 0.0393 _0.0 3 3 7 . _ 0 . 3 * 9 7 1 .0 6 0 0 0.3822 0.3727 0.6724. . . 0.2746 _ -0.0433.. I 72) C 72) ' ( 72) I 7 2 ) ( U) I 7?) ( 72) { 72) I 72) C 7 2 ) . S«0.03B .3*0.372, 3*0.289 .. 3 * 0 .0 0 1 . 5*0. 1)01 . 5*0.001 . S-0.601 5*0.273._ _3*0.010 3 * 0 . 3 3 2 ,

VAR26 0.0476 . - 0 . 0 s t » -0.0485 0 .3 3 3 3 0 .3 6 2 2 1.fllGO . 0.2747 _ . 0«216P__ 0.1421. 0 . 0 * 3 1 . ~t 72) “ I 72) I 72) I 7 2 ) 1 7 2 ) C t . ) ( 72) t 72) t 72) ( 7 2 ) .3*0.346.. .3*0.203. 3 * 0 .6 0 1 3 * 0 .0 6 1 , 3 * 0 . 0 0 1 _ 3-0.010 3*0.034 .3*0.053.. 3 * 0 .7 3 9 .

VAR 27 0.2090 . _ 0.132? , —0.21V I . 0 .2 1 9 9 0 .3 7 2 7 0.7747 1.0600 .. 0.4373 0.4964. 0 . 1 6 6 7 , "C 721 ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) (. 72) I O) f 72) C 77) I 7 7 ) 3*0.039 .. JS*0.133_ „ 3*0.032,. 3 * 0 . 0 3 2 . .3*0.661 . 3-0.016 3 * 0 .0 0 1 ___ 3 * 0 . 0 0 1 . 5f 0.601._ S * 0 . 2 1 3 _

VAR2A 0.1801 . 0 . 1 2 0 1 -0.1959 . 0 .1 0 7 3 0,0724 0.2168 0.4575 1.6000._ 0.3621 U.21P0 t 72) I 72) I 72) 1 7 2 ) 1 7 2 ) t 7 2 ) I 7 2 ) I O) I 72) I 72) , 3*0.063 . 3*0.157 .. 3*0.030., 3 * 0 .1 8 5 3 - 6 . 2 7 3 3 * 0 .0 3 4 3*0.001 _3-0,l*01_ _3*0.001.. . 3* 0.026 VAR 29 0.0918 . 0.0258 -0.0962 , 0 .2 4 0 5 0.2746 .. 0.1971 . 0 . 4 9 0 4 ____ 0 . 3 8 7 1 „ _ _ 1,0600 ,.,0 .1 8 7 1 . 'I 721 1 72)"*' 1- 72) I 72) ’ 1 72) 1 7 2 ) I 72) < 72) I O) ' I 72) _S*0.222 _ .3*0.206 . 3 * 0 .0 2 1 S-0.610 3*0.053 . 3 * 0 .6 0 1 ___ 3 * 0 .6 0 1 5*0.001. . 3-0.036.. VAR30 .. -0.4080 . —0.2132 -0.2398 - 0 . 1 2 1 4 - 0 . 0 4 3 5 0 .0 8 3 1 0,0867 G»2100.—. .0.1871- l.ooOo. 1 72) I 72) ' ( 72) 1 t i l ( 7 2 ) 1 7 2 ) ( 72) ( 72) t r/i I O) _s*o.ooi _ . 3*0.036 _ .3*0.021.. 3 * 0 . 1 5 3 . 3 - 0 . 3 3 2 _ S * 0 .? J 9 , 3 * 0 .7 3 5 ____ S - 0 . 0 3 8 _ .5*0.036 _3*0.001, VAR31____ . 0.2493 . , 0.1207 0.0743 . 0.2854 0.3V17 0.2420 0.4926 . 0.1993 0 . 3 6 ) 0 . —0.12*1, I 72) » 72)"*' ( 72) ( 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) t 7 2 ) *1 7 2 ) " I 7 2 ) 1 7 2 ) C 72) 3*0.017. 3*0.lS6,_ 3*0.2b7 3*0.008 3-0.001 3*0.020 , 3 * 0 . 0 0 1 ___ 3 - 0 . 0 4 6 _ 3 * 0 .0 3 1 ,. . 5*0.142 VAR 32____ 0.0062 „ 0.0740 0 . 1 2 2 7 -6.2178 -0.2969 - 0 . 1 4 2 6 - 0 . 2 0 3 3 , _-0.I*34 ' _ r0 .l* 4 9 —0 . 0 7 6 8 „ 'C 72) t rn ~ C 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) f 7 2 ) I 7 2 ) 1 7 2 ) I 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) I 72) Vj) .3*0.479 . . S - 0 . 2 6 Q . 5*0.132 . 3*0.033 3*0.007 3 - 0 . 1 1 6 3 * 0 . 0 4 3 . 3 * 0 .0 5 2 . 3 - 0 . 0 5 0 . .3 -0 .4 1 2 . Va o VAR 33 . . 0.2062 . .. 0.2302 . -0.0853 0.0984 0.2970 0 .0 2 1 3 . 0.5070 . 0.2957 0 .4 5 0 9 . 0.1398 t 72) 1 72) ' I 72) < 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) I 7 2 ) I 72) I 72) I 7 2 ) ( 72) 3*0.041 _ 3*0.026 3*0.238 3*0.205 ..3-0.006.„3*0.4J0. 3*0.001 3*0.006 _S*0.001 3*0.121.

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SICNIFICANCE) IA VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 6 0 IS PRIMTU) IF A COEFFICIENT CAN HOT M COXPUltO) MITE UP ST ACE 1 63/30/7* PACE 33 PILE NONAKE (CREATION DATE ■ 03/30/7*) \ ” p'E AR SON "C ( LATION COE P P I C I e n i s -

VA.R21 . — VAR22 . VAR23 VAR24 . VAR75. VAR26 . .VAR27 . . . VAR28 . _ .VAR29 VARIO --- - VttH. . 0.061*. _ 0.0966. .-0.0232 . 0.141V 0.2*61 „ 0.2171. 0.3729. __ 0.2304, __ 0.0661__ 0.0073 ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) < 77) ,£■0.304 £■0 . 2 1 0 , ,£■0.-23 £-0.117 £-0.007 .£-0.033. S-0.001 ,. .S-0.02A, £-0.236 , 5-0.492 VAR35 _ ,-0.0558 ,-0.0226 -0.0668 0.1392 0.2145 0.2282 .. 0.1881 . .. 0.2943, __ 0.0293, 0.2b36,_.______( 72) I 721' ’ C 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) ,5*0.*25, ,£■0.263. . £-0.091 _ £-0.035,_ £-0.027__ S-U.U37,__ £*0.606__ £*0.403. „S-O.olA VAR36 —0.1962 -0.2357 -0.1227 -0.1665 -0.1236 -0.041* —0.268* , ,.-0.3211 -0.2*89 0.1136 I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 7?) ( 77) 1 72) I 72) ( 721 ( 72) I 72) £■0.048 £■0.013 £-0.132 £•0.036 £•0.147 £■0.365 £-0.011 £-0.003 .£-0.017 5*6.167 ______VAR 37. 0.0*7* -0.0023 -0.2303 . 0.1*37 0.3B24 0.2667 0,7*36__0.310a 0.341/2 . 0.0*47 _____ ( 72) ‘ ~C 72) ' “I 72) I 72) ' I 7?) 1 721 f 72) ( 7?) ( 72) ( 74) £■0.3*6 £-0.492 £■0.017. S-O.All £■0.001 £*0.007 S-O.COl ._ s*o.oo* ,£*0.602 . £*0.289 ______VAA38____ -0.0732 -0.0338, 0.0270- 0.0926 0.2415 0.0106 . 0.4389 .. 0.2611 . . 0.1810 . -0.0231 ______( 72) I 72)" I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) .S-0.271 ,S»0.389„ .£>0.411 ,,£■0.220,. £-0.020 ,.£■0-436_S-O.OOI__ S-0.013, __£»0.06*... £*0.42* ------VAR39 . 0.1296 0.0760 -0.1463 . 0.1337 0.1334 0.1660 0.6068 0.3V49 _ 0.1498 . 0.0*67 t 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72)' ‘ ( 72) t 77) I 72) £■0*139 .£■0.263 ,£■0.110,,£■0.099 £■0.128 S-0.039 £-0.001 £-0.001:.£.o.io*,;. £■0.367 _ . YAR40, 0.0*92 —0.1U06 _ O.OtOO _ 0.1)VO -0.075* 0.2407 .-0.0023 _ 0,04)4 „0.o73Q 0.05aa_ I 72)' I 72)' ( 72) ( 72)' I 72) ( 72) C 721 I 72) ( 7?) I 72) .,£■0.3*1, ,£■0.200,,,£■0.232. ,£■0.122 £■0.265 £-0.013 . £■0.492, ,£-0.359 .£-0.26*. £-0.316 . 0.0321 0.0646 0.01O1 0.03*6 0.1108 0.7925 0.1423 0.2372 0.1377 0.04)7 . I 72) I 72) ' 1 72) I 721 ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 721 I 72) ,£■0.39*; ,£-0.239, .£■0.4*6. . £0.324 ,£■0.177 £-0.006 .£*0.1la. £■0.025 .£■0.0*3. £-0.366 _ VAR *2. ,-0.0066 0.0733 ,-0.219* . ,-0.0298 0.1392 0.03*2 0.3036. . 0.1075 . * 0.2332 -0.003*., I 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) t 72) £■0.478, .£■0,270. . £-0.032 . £*0.402 .£*0.091 £■0.373 .£•0.003, .£—0,16* __S-C.C23 , .£■0*488.. VAR*3_ _ 0.1*23 _0.2639, 0.0817, .. 0.1349 0.0060 0.1102 ...0.1019, _ 0.0236___ 0.0337 „r0.0397. I 72) ( 72) t 721 ( 72) t 721 1 72) ( 72) ( 72) t 77)' ( 77) ,£■0.116. £-0.013, S-0.2-3. ,3-0.12V S-0.460 £■0.178 . £*0.197. £■0.413 ...S-0,327 £■0.309, VAR** __ 0.0111 . 0.1115 -0.1069 ,-0.0968 0.0343 - 0.1026 -0.0596 .-0.0193 _-i».03a3 ...-0.0176 , t 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) < 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) $■0,463 _$ ■0.176, £■0.161 _£»0.209, £-0.325 £•0.1*5 ,£■0.310, _£-0.436- £-0.361__ £»0 .4*?_

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED) MITE UP STAGE 1 03/30/74 PACE 3* PILE ' NOKAKE' '(CREATION OATE » 03/30/741 PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENT'S

„ ...... VAR2L____ VAR22___ VAR23 , VAR24 VAR23 _ ..VAR26 VAR27 VAR2S. . .VAR27 , .VAR30__ VAR43_____ 0.0236,_-O.OBfeO_-0.0805_ 0'.1023,„ 0.3504 0.0639 ____ 0.0340__ -0.0044___ 0.100V -0*1202.. C 721 ( 721 I 721 < 721 I 721 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) _ 5*0.415 ___ 5-0.234_5-0.231 _S-0*196 S-0.0C1 .5*0.241 __ 5*0.32,4 _ 5*0.479 ___ S*0.?C0 5*0.142.

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 6E COMPUTE!))

1 WRITE UP STACE 1 03/30/74 PALE 35 >1LE'“ NONAJlE' VCREATIOn “dATE * 03/30/74) ...... ‘ . - - >~ea~r s on ‘ c oil elation "c VeTTT c TTT n “t~s - - -

______VAR31 . . . VAR32 .VAR34 VAR35 . VAR36 . ... . VAR37 VAR38 . VA*J9. ,VA»40 ___ .VAROl. .-0.2094 0.01*1 ..-0.024V -0.2111 _ 0.0 __ rO.0517_ „—0.6760.. .. 0,1118 . _-0.1737_ I 711 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) C 72) C 72) t 72) 3*0.039. ..3*0.500. 3*0.333 3*0.418 3*0.038 ,3*0.300.. .3*0.333. .3*0,263. .3*0.175, 3*0.072. . VAR02_____ 0.13*2 . ..-0.2031,, . 0.2291 . 0.1983 .0.2195 0.0439 . . 0,5209. _ 0.1563. _ 0.3500. -0.0252.. I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I .72) ______3-0.061. _ S * 0 .C 4 4 _ .5*0.026. .3*0.047 .3*0.032. 3*0.337 _. 3* 0. 001. _S-0.0V2_ .3*0.001 .3*0.417. VAR03 ___ -0.2036 0,1396. 0.1683 . 0.0264 -0.1887 -0.0377. 0.1054 . _ 0.2092 0.3274 .-Q.14C6, C 721 C 72) < 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) 3*0.043 3*0.121, 3*0.073 3*0.413 3*0.05» 3*0.232._ ,3*0.164 3*0.039. .5*0.002 .3*0.114. VAR 04 - 0.0022 O.Olbt - 0.0610 • 0 .0 6 6 9 -0.0944 _—0.0355 —0.0333. _ 0.0197. -0.0071 . .-O.I72A , t 72) ' I 72) I 72)' "l 721 I 72) ' I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) Vl^* 3*0.493 3*0.447 5*0.3U5 3*0.268 3*0.215 3*0.322 3*0.391 3*0.435 .3*0.476 3*0.152 VAROS -0.1393 -0.1234 -0.0610 0.0 -0.1610 -0.1317 .-0.0303 -0.0876 0.0714 —O.ot33 ( 721 I 72) 1 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) 1 72) I • 72) I 72) ( 72) 3-0.122. _ 3*0.141. 3*0.305 _5*0.300.. 3*0.088 . 3*0.123 . 3*0.338 3*0.232 __ 3*0.42* . 3*0.243 VAROA _ -0.0943 -0.1766 0.1220 0.0562 0.0888 . 0.1109 0.3125 0.0*48 0.1642 -0.0663 I 72) C 721 1 72) t 72) 1 . 72) 1 72) 1 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) 3*0.215 3*0.069 . 3*0.154 _ . 3*0.338 3*0.229 . 5*0.177 3*0.004 3*0.214 _3*0.064 3-0.290 .. VAR07_ 0945 -0.0803 -0.0610 0.1338 -0.2443 . -0.0535 0.0867 __ 0.1591 -0.1000 ,„-0.1282 I 721 ‘ 1 72) t 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) ( 72) ( 72) 3*0.215 .3*0.231 . 3*0.305 .. 3-0.131 . 3*0.019. .3*0.322 ._ 3*0.229 _3*0.091 _ 3*0.202 ...3*0.142 0.1004 - 0.2002 0.0410 -0.0272 -0.0512 0.0150 0.2246 0.0638 0.0658 . -0.6421 ( 72) I 72) 1 721 ( 72) C 72) 1 7?) 1 72) 1 72) t 72) ( 72) 3*0.201. 3*0.046 3*0.224 __ 3*0.410 . 3*0.335 . .3*0,450 __ 3*0.029. __ 1*0.783 __S*0.291_. 3*0.363. ..VAR 09. ____ 0.0617 _ 0.1132 -0.0374 . 0.0344 —0.0241 -0.12U3 -0.0070 _ 0.0863 _ -U.062O -0.06*3. t 72) I . 72) ( 72) I 72) 1 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) ( 72) . 3*0.303 3*0.172 3*0.315 . 3*0.325 . 3*0.420 . 3*0.157 3-0.477 _ 3*0.236 3*0.303, _S*o. 2ei VARIO. -0.1657 .-0.1219_ -0.0579 _.-0.0772 0.0843 0.0150 0.0737 __-0.0359 _ 0.0891 0.0604 I 72) I 72) 1 721 ( 72) . I 72) I 72) 1 72) 1 77) 1 721 1 72) 3*0.032 3*0.134 3*0.313 3*0.410 3*0.241 3*0.430 .. 3*0.264 .. 5*0.382 _ 5-0.228 . 3*0.307 VjJ Vn VARll -0.0493 - 0.2002 -0.0379 . . 0.1088 . -0*2138. -0.1203 0.1308 _ 0,1561 _ .-0.0968 -0.6513 I 721 I 72) ( 72) 1 72) t 72) t 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 721 1 72) U) JfeWJt. _3*

(COEFFICIENT / ICA3ES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF V9.6G00 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT RE COMPUTED) 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 A WRITE UP STACE 1 PACE 36 FILE NONANE {creation " DATiTi'63/30/74) • t ’ ------PEARSON ~ ' f b R * E L A T 1 "6'W COE PP I Cl f ITS*------

_____ VAR31____ VAA32 VAR33 VAR34 VAR35 .VAR36 VAR 3 7 VAR38 VAR39 VAR40 ____ _VAR1 _ 0.1526_ 0.0130_ .-0.0071 . . 0.0097. .-0.0139. 0.0728 _ ,,0.03-3___ 0.0680 . ,-0.1751___ ( 72) ( 72) C 72) t 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) t 72) _S*0.347. _S*0.100_ „S-0.457_, .5-0.476 5-0.468 S-0.454 . . S-C.272_ ,5-0.372__ 5-0.235, ,5-0.071__ VAR 13. „-0.0847 „ _ 0.0313 . _0.0235_ , 0.0768 0.0331 0.1309. . ,0.05V!_ _ 0.1443, _—O.O C 49 . , —0.1335 I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) C 7?) I 72) _S-0.240_ _S»0.397„ .3*0.422 . .5-0.255 ,5-0.323 5-0.103, _ S * D .3 U _ .5-0.061. . 5 - 0 . 4 6 7 . .5-0.132__ VAR14.___ 0.1513 -0.0943 . .. 0.2123 _ . 0.0458 ,- O .O I > 2 1 0.0699 , 0.1147,, 0.1040, O.ioei . 0.65UV___ C 721 I 72) I 72) I 72) C 72) t 72) I 1 2 ) t 72) C 7 2 ) < 7 2 ) ,5-0.102 . 5-0.215, . 5-0.037 5-0.331 5-0.747 5-0.280 5-0.158. 5-0.192 . 5 - 0 . 1 8 2 . 5 - 0 . 3 3 6 ____ VAR IS -0.0407 -0.0606 -0.0872. -0.1022 0.0206 -0.0527, -0.08U_ ,-0.0004, , - 0 . 1 S ? 9 _ .-0.7*97. ( 721 I 72) " ( 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) I 7 2 ) I 7*1 ,,5-0.367 ,5*0.307,. ,,5-0.233., . 5—0.1V7 ,5-0.432 5-0.330 ,$■0,248 _ 5-0.499 , 5 - 0 . 0 6 2 , 5-0.017. VAR16.. 0.0083 . —0.1587 . , 0.0175. . 0.1640 0.1398 -0.1061 , _-0.0126 . -0.0456, , —0.1061), ._—0.1177. I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) f 7?) ( 7 2 ) ( 7 2 ) ,5-0.472 . _S-0.092, _S-0.442_ „S-0.07« ..5-0.121 5-0.188, . S f 0.4 3 8 . _ S - 0 . 1 6 8 _ _ 5 - 0 . 1 6 2 , VAR17_ .-0 .1 Mi . 0.0185 , -0.0735. . 0.1705 . -0.0457 0.1843 ., 0.1032,_ 0.0749, -0.0084 __ 0.0061 I 72) t 72) ( 72) f 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) 1 72) S*0.0V9 ,5-0.439, ,5-0.270 . 5-0.076 5-0.352, 5-0.061 _ 5-0.194 _ 5-0.263,_5-0.472 .. S-0.4«0 VAR 16 . -0.1461 -0.0543 -0.0310 -0.1255 0.1060 0.1308 —0.2310 _ rO 12112__ —0.1976 ..-0.0451 C 72) ‘ ( 72) ~l 72) I 72) ( 72) { 72) 1 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) _s-o.no, , 5*0.325, .5*0.398 . S-0.14T 5-0.168 . 5-0.137, „S»0.017_ 5-0.037, 5-0.04a .5-0.353 VAR1*. , -0.3023 0.1634. -0.3089 . .-0.2330 -0.1427 0.3431 . -0.3058 , -0.2419, _-0.1533 ..-0.135V ( 72) I 72) ' I 72) I 72) 1 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) C 721 ( 72) $■0,005 ,S*0.0«5_ _5-0.004. . S-O.U24 ,5-0.116 5-0.001.._S*0.004_.. 5-0.020 _5-0.062 ... 5-0.128 VAA2Q 0.0413 -0.2294 -0.1613 -0.0426 0.1587 -0.1423 -0.1999 . 0.0046 -0.1660 . 0.0496 ( 72) "•{ 72)' ~ l 72) C 72) ( 7?) 1 77) 1 72) 1 72) .1 72) "( 721 5-0.365 _S-0.026_ .5-0.088. ,5-0.361 5-0.092 5-0.116 5-0.046, 5-0.469 __5-0.083 _5-0.340 VAR21. 0.2493 0.0062 0.2062 0.0614 -0.0558 -0.1982 0.0474_ -0.0732 0.1296 0.04—2 "I 72)‘ ( 72) ( 72) " I 72) 'l 72) ( 72) I 72) { 72) U) I 72) _ l 72)'' ,5-0.139 S-0.017. _S*0.479 . 5-0.041 . 5-0.304 5-0.321 5-0.048 5-0.346 . 5-0.271 5-0.341 Vn-p- VAR 22 . 0.1207 _ 0.0740, 0.2302 . 0.0966 -0.0278 -0.2557 -0.0023 -0.0338 0.076b —0.1406 I 72) I 72) C 72) " I 72) ( 72) 1 721 ( 72) ( 72) “ I 721 ( 72) S-0.1SA £■0.268 5-0.026 5-0.210 5-0.425 5-0.015 5-0.492 5-0.389 5-0.263 __s-t..200

{COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 4 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTCO) 1 WRITE UP STAGS 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 PAGE 37

PILE NONANE (CREATION OATS - 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 1

PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

. VAR31 VAR32. VARS3 . VAR34 VAA3S VAR36 . VA*3T VAP38 VAR39.. _VAR40 „_VAR23.. _ 0.0743. . 0.1227. „-0,G bS3 . -0 .0 2 3 2 -0.0668. -0.1227 ,,.-0.2503. . 0.0270_ .-0.1443 . _ 0*0800. ( 721 I 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 721 ( 7?) t 72) ( 72) _S«0.267 S-0.132 _ $-0,238 . . $ -0 ,4 2 3 $-0,283 S-G.152_. 5-0.017. .5-0.411_ .$-0,110 _$-0,292 VAR24 . _ 0.2654 -0.2178. 0.0984 0.141V 0.1592 -0.1883 „ . 0.1457 . 0.0—26_, 0.1537. . .0.13-0. ( 721 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( - 72) s-o.ooa S-0.033. _ S-0.2U3. . $-0,117. $-0.091. $-0.056__ $-0,111. ,$-0,220, ,$•0.0—9 _S*0.122. ... VAR25 . . 0.3917 . -0.2909 _ 0.2970 . 0.2881 0.2145 -0.1256 .0.3824 . . 0 . 2 4 1 & ,0.135- ...-0.0734. I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) < 72) I 72) I 72) ( 7?) ( 72) S-0.001 S-0.007 . .S—0.006 S -0.C 07 $-0,035 $-0,147 S-0.001., $-0.020. .$■0*126 . $ - 0 .2 /3 VAR 2b 0.2420 —0.1426 0.0213 0.2171 0.228? -0.0414 . 0.2787. . 0.0186 _ 0.1660 . . 0.2607* ( 72) < 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) S-0.020 .S-O.llb . S-0.410 $■0,033 5-0.027 5 -0 .3 6 5 ■S-0.007 . $■0,436 s*o.o$v $■0,013 VAR27 .. 0.4924 -0.2033 0.S070 0.372V 0.1881 -0.2684 0.7436 0 .4 4 8 9 0.6068 -0.00P3 C 72) I 721 ( 72) I 72) t 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 7i) .S-0.001. . 5-0.0.3 ...$•0.001. S-0.001 .... S-0.057 6 -0 .U I1 , .S-O.OOI, '$•■>.001. ,S-0.001 . ,$•0,442 , .. VAR2I. 0.1995 -0.1934 _ 0.2457 0.2304 0.2-43 -0.3211 0.3106 0 .2 6 1 1 0.344V 0 .0 -3 4 1 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( T 2) I 72) .$-0.044. .S-0.052, _s«o.oo6.: S -0 .0 2 6 $-0,006 s-o.ooi S-O.OC4 S-0.01J _S-b.G01 $■ 0,334 ... .VAR2P__ 0.3610 -0.1949 0.4309 0 .0 8 6 1 0.0.93 -0.2689 . , 0.3402 G.1E10 _ 0.1498 0.073V I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) I 721 I ‘ 72) I 72) ( 72) S-0.001 . $-0,050 _ S-0.001 $—0,2 3 6 5-0.4U3 S-0.017 .. $—0,002 . $ -0 ,0 6 4 _S»0.1G4 5 - 0 .2 - 6 , VAR30_ .-0.1281 -0.0268 . . 0.139U 0 .0 0 2 3 0.2636 0.1156 0.0667 , -0.0231 _ O.OVi? 0 .0 3 —6 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 7?) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) _S-0.142. _5-0.412„ S-0.121__ S«U.-92__ $-0,013 ,$■0.167-__ $-0,209 . _S«0.424_ _S»0.Jo7„. S -0 .3 1 J VARll___ _ 1.0000 -0.1394 _ 0.3712 0 .2 3 1 2 0.2I<27 . -0.2944 _ 0.2729 ,0.2136 _ 0.3352 0.0429 I O) ( 72) t 72) I 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) C 72) ( 72) ( 72) S-0.001. ..S-0.121 . .S-0.001 $ -0 ,0 2 3 S-0.008 . $-«).00$' $-0, 010. $—0.0 3 9 . . S-0.001 . .$-0,560 . VAR32. -0.1394 _ 1.0000 —0.2742 ,-0.1833 -0.2344 0.2716 -0.2370 .-0.3197 _-0.04V9 0.0493 ( 72) I 0) ( 72) ( 72) I 7?) I 72) ’ I 72) ‘ ( 7?) I 72) t 72) S-0.121 S-0.001. .. $-0,010 S-0.060 $-0,024 $-0,011 $-0,015 $-0,003 '.$>0,280 . $ -0 ,3 4 0 VAR33 ____ 0.3712. . -0.2742 1.0000 0.061*9 0.2201 -0.1946 0.3107 0.2555 . 0.3571 -0.04-7 ( 72) I 72) ( 0) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) ( 72) S-0.001 S-0,010 S-0.001 . .$-0,283. $-0,032 s-o.031 &o.oo$ ,5-0.015, 5-0.001 _S-9.355

(COEFFICIENT 7 (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE UF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 6F COPPUTTO) WRITE UP STACE 1 03/30/7* PACE 30 PILE ~ WONAXE " (CREATION DATE ■ 03/30/76) 1 ------■*

~ ------=-p-YT rso * cor'r" e l a u ' b ¥ " c oe/picient~s ------

VAR31 _ ..VAR33 ’ VAR3* VAX3S ..VAR36 . VAR37... _ VAR30 VAK39. VAAAO ._____

_ 0.2312__ -0.18S3_ 0.0689 _1.0000. _ 0.1*21 -0.1113 ___ 0.3633___ 0.208* __ P.2110_ _ t 0 . 1 2 5 * _ I 721 I 72) ( 72) I U) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) C 72) t 72) S-0.02S__ 5-0.060 _S-0.283. 5-0.601 S-0.117. 5-0.176__ 5-0.001. _3-0.039 __ 5-0.037. . 5-0.167. VAR 35. 0.2827 0 .2 2 0 1 . 0.1*21. _ I.OOCO . -0.0770 _ 0.0762 C.060* __ 0.2206 _—0.M93 I 72) I 72) ( 0) 1 7?) I 7?) I 771 t 7?) ( 72) S«0.008 ..5-0.032. .5-0.117.. . 5-0.001 .; 5-0.260__ 5-0.262 _JJ-0.307___ 5-0.031 .3-0.226. -0.29V* 0.2716 -0.19*6 . -0.1113 . -0.0770 I.OQOO _-0.1*9* _ -0.3055 -0.0317 . 0.1)61 I 721 1 72)“ C 72) -- 1- 72) - (- 72) 1 0) C 72) I 72) I 72) ' I 72) __ 5*0.005 ,5-0.011 . _ 5-0.C91 5-0.176 .5-0.260 S-0.001 ■ - 5-0.077 „5-O.OC5 5-0.39*. . 5 - 0 * 1 7 9 VAA37 0.2729 -0.2570 __ 0.3107 0.3633 0.0762 -0.1*96 1.0000 .. 0.6721___ 0**189. _ o.ooct ( 72) ' I 72) I 72) I 72) ‘ ( 72V ( 0) I 72) t 7?) I 72) v.i'V 5-0.010 .5-0.015. _5-0.00* - 5-0.001 .5-0.262 5-0.077 —5-0.001 5-C.00150.001. .5-0 .**7. .VAR 38 . 0.215*. -0.3197 _ 0.2359 0.2086 0.060* . -0.3045 0.6721 . 1.0000, z. 0.1569. „—0.0-51., ( 72) I 72) 1 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) 1 72) I O) I 72) ( 72) .5-0.03*. .5-0.003, _S-0.015, 5-0.039., . 5-0.307... S-0.005 — 5-0.001. _S-0.001_J-0.091. _5-u.213. . VAA39. . 0.3552. .-0.0*99 _. 0.3571 0.2120 0.22 06 . -0.0317 , 0.6985 0.15*9... 1.0000 .. 0.0209. ( 72) I 721 ( 721 ( 72) t 72) ( 72) 1 72) ( 72) t O) I 7<> .5-0.001 5-0.280. S-0.C01 ... 5-0.037. 5-0.031 5-0.39* - 5-0.001 . 5-0.391 S-0.001. , 5 - 0 . 9 3 2 .

_ . VAR40 0.0*29. .. 0.0*93 __ —0.0**7 -0.1256 -0.0893 .. 0.1101 O.OOCn -0.0*51 ___ 0.0205. 1 . 0 0 0 0 ( 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 72) 1 72) t 72) ( 72) I 72) I 72) t 0 ) S-0.360 5-0.360 .5-0.355 - 5-0.1*7 5-0.278 5-0.179. —,5-0.*97 . 5-0.213 S-C.632 . 5 - 0 . 0 0 1 .. VAA*1 __ 0.3013 . 0.0209 . 0.07*7 0.2502 6. U-62 -0.1956 0.0605 . -0.0893 0.19*3 . . 0.13»9

( 72) * ( o * 72) ( 72) 1 72) 1 72) 91 ( 72) I 72)

II I 72) I 72) I 72) ______5-0.005. • _5-0.266 S-0.017 s-g.ovs 5-0.050 .5-0.251 . 5-0.228. .5-0*098. _ 5-0.137. _ VAR*2 ____ 0.0902 -0.17*3 0.1521 _ 0.108* 0.0120 -0.08*2 0.3*58 _ 0.0658. _ 0 . 0 3 —9 0.0470 . t 72) 1 72) 1 72) 1 77) ( 72) C 72) I 72) I 72) ■ I 72) I 72) ______3-0.226 . .5-0.069. . 5-0.101 5-0.162 5-0.657 . 5-0.236 5-0.001 S-0.237 . 5-0.373.. . S-0.3** VAX*). 0.1622 . 0.0323 0.0886 0.0-60 -0.1387 •0.3*20 -0.0*88 0.02*9 -0.03*0 _ 0.27*1. I 72) ( 72) ' ( 72) 1 72) ( 72) t 72) ( 72) I 72)' I 72) ' ( 72) LO 3-0.39* Ut 5-0.087. . 5-0.230 5-0.211 5-0.123 5-0.002 . 5-0.362 5-0.618 s-0.382; .3-0.009 . O* VAX** 0.0017 . 0.0393 0.0201 0.1273 -0.2170 -0.0765 0.0528 -0.1550 -0.0569 . -0.125T, C 72)' ( 72) I 72) 1 72) ( 72) . ( 72) ( 72) ( 22) I 72) I 72) ______5-0.*9*_ ,$±0.372__ 5-0 .-3* ,, $-0.1*3 .$-0.03* ; 5-0.261 _ 5-0.330 5-0.097_ .S-Of 317.__S-0.1*6_

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINIEO IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 8E CONFUTED) “ 1 MITE UP STACE i C3/2C/7* PACE 3* FllE* NONAME (CREATION DATE * 03/30/74) V ...... - " “ -"i'VIT*' SDH CORRELAT I 0 X CO eT p“r

. . VAA31 ... VAR32 . . VAR33 . VAR3A VAA3S VAR36 VAA37 _ . VAR36 VAA3V VAR40______¥A*«_____ 0.00A9 __ ,*0.1610 0.0767 __ 0.2029 -0.13J9 ... 0.02P7 __ 0.2758 __ 0.2028 __ -0.2198 __ .-0,0673...______( 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) ( 72) I 77) ( 72) I 72) (. 72) I 72) . .S-0.484 . .S-0.088 . _ 3*0.261 . 5-0.044 S-0.12B „ S*0.40S S*0.01P . ..S"0.044 __ S-0.032__S-0.267______

(COEFFICIENT / ICASES)'/~SICN1F1CAXCE) (A VAtUE OF 99.0000 IS FAINTED IF* A COFFFICI ENT CANNtiT~BF COl'PUTtD) ' MITE UP STACE 1 03/30/7* PACE ‘ 40 ' PILE MMAKE (CREATION DATE ■ 03/90/7*1 \ ' PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

,VAR41 VAR*? VAR* 3. .VAR** VAR43. VAR01_ _-0.l*06. _—0.0966. ^ 0.066*. .. 0.27*5 _ . 0.183* , C 721 ( 721 I 721 I 72) I • 72) ,5*0.119 _ _S*0.205_ ,5*0.290 ,5*0.010 . 5*0.062 , VAR02__ 0.163* _ 0.1929 „-0.l235 0.0796 . 0.13*7. I 721 I 721 I 72) I 72) ( 72) _S *0.085. .9 * 0 .0 3 2 . .5*0.131. 5*0.753 ,5*0.130 VAROl -0.2096 . 0.0082 -0.0326 , 0.0655 0.2767 ( 721 t 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) S*0.039 5*0.473 . 5 * 0 . 3 9 3 .5*0.292 5 * 0.009 VARO*. 0.0899 -0.0712 -0.0679 . 0.2160 0.03*1 "I 721' t 72)’ ( 72) I 72) I 7?) ---- .S*0.226 S*0.276 5*0.231 .5*0.03* 5*0.366 _VAR 05_____ ■-0.0719. _ 0.0206 _-0.0732 0.1V39 0.2796 I 721 ( 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) 5-0.27*. . .5*0.431 __ 5*0.271 . 5*0.050.. 5 * 0 .0 0 9 , _ VARO* _____ -0.0986 . 0.076* -0.1*16 0.030* 0.20*3 I 721 I 72) t 72) C 72) ( 72) .5*0.20*. .5*0.262,. 5*0.117 5*0.337 5*0.0*3 VAR07. -0.2067 0.03*5_ 0.021* 0.153* 0.3032 I 721 " l 72) *1 72) ( 72) ( 72) .S*0.0*1 . 5*0.367 _S*0.*29 . S*0.bV9 5*0.005’ VARO*. -0.024* . . 0.0779 -0.0167 0.0710 0.0607 ( 721 I 72) I 72) C 72) I 72) _S*0.*20_ _S*0.271, Sf0.s*5 , 5*0.275_ .5*0.230 . _ VAR 09 __ -0.02*4 -0.03*6 0.0612 0.1102 0.11(6 I 721 I 72) I 72) I 72) I 72) S-0.420 5*0.366 S*0.2*V S*C.176 5-0.165 VARIO ____ -0.0*63 ___ 0.0525 -0.1753 0.0799 0.2036 I 72) ( 72) ’ I 72) t 72) C 72) 5*0.350 5*0.331 5*0.070 5-0.252 5*0.0*3 Va) Va VARll „ .-0.0682 . 0.0966 . .-0.0090 .. 0.1666 0.3*31 00 t 72) t 72) I 72) I 72) ( 72) t .. 5*0.265 5*0.210 S-0.470 , 5*0.061 5*0.001

ICO EFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE! (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT 6E COflPUUO) 1 IAITE UP STAGE 1 03/30/74 ►AM 41 * FILE MONAME (CAEAT 10)1 DATE « 03/30/741 > E * V l Ol"COIItUl 101 C 0 EF FI C 1 EN T s

VAR41 . VAR42 VAR43 VAR 44 VAR4S __ VAR 12 _ ___ -0.1598 0.0474,_-0.0524 0.0256 . 0.1039. 1 72) t 72) C 72) C 72) ( 72) ------— ___ S-0.090, _S-0.346 _ 5-0.331 . S-0.415 S-0.193 , VAR 13__ . .-0.2203. _-0.0934 -0.2640 -0.1814 ■ 0.0270 t 72) ( 72) ( 72) C 72) ( 72) ------— S-0.031 _ 5*0.217, 5*0.013. .,5—0.064 5*0.411 „ ..VAR14 .___ 0.1494 0.3326 -0.0144 0.1651 .. 0.0»S7 1 72) t 72) t 72) f 72) 1 72) .. __ S-0.105. . . S*0.002 _ 5-0.452 S*0.ua3 .. . 1*0.765 __ VAR13. -0.2646 . >0.0135 __ 0.1650 -0.1460 -0.0006 ( 72) t 72) ( 72) 1 72) t 72) _ S-0.012 5*0.449, . 5*0.043 S-0.110 S-0.44* . VAX 14. ___ 0.0615 0.1125 .. 0.0944 0.0V03 0.1573 ( 72) 1 72) t 72) C 7?) ( 12) ,5*0.304 S*0.173 _ 5*0.214 .5-0.225 S-O.UV3 VAR17 .>0.0214 >0.0447. -0.1493 -0.1924 0.0596 ( 72) ( 72) I 72) 1 72) ( 72) ___ S-0.424 ,5*0.249 _ 5*0,105 .. 5*0.052 . 5*0.310 VAR14 -0.0719 —0.02C9 -0.0501 0.2171 -0.0137 * ( 72) 7 2 )"' t 72) ~ ' 1 72) ‘ C 7?) __ 5*0.274 5*0.431 _ 5*0.333 5*0.033 5*0.455 VAX19. -0.2642 . >0.0414 -0.1445 . 0.0911 0.0114 1 72) ( 72) ' ( 72) ( 72) ( 721 5*0.012. 5*0.247 5*0.113__ $■0,223 ,5*0.462 . VAR 20 >0.0274 .,-0.0411 _ 0.0967 -0.0048 0.0500 1 72) t 72) ( 72) ( 72) f 72) ----- .....___ 5*0.410. ,_5*0.366 __ 5*0.209 _ 5*0.464 .. 5*0.334 VAR 21 0.0321 -0.0066 0.1423_ 0.0111 „ 0.0256 U) 1 72) t 72) 1' 72) 1 72) 1 72) VA ... ___ 5*0*394 ,. 5*0,474.. 5-0.116, 5*0.463 , 5*0.915 40 VAR22 0.0648 0.0735 _ 0.2639 0.1115 >0.0460 "I 721 t 721 ( 72) C 721 < 72) S;0.239_ ,3*0.270 5*0.013 • 5-0.176 _S*0.Z36

(COEFFICIENT / ICASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) IA VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT EC CONPUTtD)

1 MUTE UF STAGE 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 FACE 42 1_ "fl’it NOSIME (CAUTION DATE a 03/30m)

-

, VAA41 94*42 ... VAK43 VAK44 VAX43 VIA 23 __ 0.0101 -0.2194. .0.0817 -0.1089 -0.0803 1 721 ( 721 ( 721 1 721 1 721 *4 3*0.466 3*0.032 3*0.248 3*0.181 3*0.231

VAA24 . 0.0548 -0.0298 0.1349 ,-0.1)968 0.1U23 ...... 1 72) 1 72) C 72) 1 72) C 721 .,3*0.324 .,3*0.402 _ 3*0.129 3*0.209 3*0.196 * ' . VAR2S __ .. 0.1108 . 0.1592 , . 0.0060 . 0.0543 _. 0.3504 .. ( 72) ( 721 I 72) I 721 < 72) 3*0.177 „3*0.091 . . 3*0.460 .,3*0.325 S *0.001

_ _ VMM 0.2925 0.0382 0.1102 -0.1U26 0.063* I 721 ' ( 721 t 721 < 721 1 721 .3-0.006 . 3*0.373. .3*0.17* „ 3*0.193 3*0.791 .94*27 ____ 0.142a. 0.3036 . 0.1019. -0 .0 6 9 6 0.0548 . f 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 ( 721 .5*0.116. _S*0.005, .S*O.W_. 3 * 0 .J 10 ,3*0.324. VAN23. 0.2322 0.1073 0.0256 -0.0193 —0.0064 I. 721 C 721 ( 72} ( 721 I 721 3*0.023 3*0.184. 3*0.413 3*0.436 3*0.479 _V4*29 __ 0.1377 0.2332 0.0337 _ -0.0363 . 0.1009 V 721 I 721 1 721 t 721 ( 721 _ _ 3*0.093 5*0.023. 3*0.327 . 3*0.381 3*0.200 . VAA30, 0.0412 -0.0036 -0.0597 -0.017o -0.1282 I 721 I 721 < 721 ( 721 I 721 5*0.366. _Sf0.488„ _S*0.309 _ ,3*0.442 3*0.1 4 2

_ 94*31. 0.3013 0.0902 0 .1 6 2 2 . 0.0017 0.0049 C 721 I* 721' I 721 I 721 t 721 .3*0.003. , 3*0.226., 3*0.987. 3-0.494 3*0.484 .VMM. „ 0.0209 „-0.1763 . 0.0323_ 0.0JV3 .-0.1010 Va> I 721 I 721 t 721 I 721 t 72) Os .3*0.431 3*0.069 3*0.394 3*0.372 3*0.088 O .94*33 __ 0.0747 0.1321 0.0886 0.0201 O.OT67 ( 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 I 721 3-0.266 3-0.101 3*0.230 3-0.434 3*0.761.,

(COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS FAINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE CONFUTED) 1 MITE UP STACE 1 0 3 /3 0 /7 4 PACE A3 PILE fttWAPE I CREATION DATE - 03/30/7A) V - >*e a ' r' s o n ‘ c o r r*e l a t i o n ‘ COEFP IC1ENTS

______VAR4X . VAR4Z VARAJ .VAR44 . VAR45 VAR3A ___ 0.2302 __ .0.1064 .. 0.0460 0.1273 . 0.2029. C 721 ( 721 ( 721 t 721 ( 721 . _ . ___ ... ,3*0.017 . . 3*0.182 _ 3*0.211 3*0.143 3*0.044 VAR35.. _ . 0.1362 . . 0.0130 -0.1307 -0.2170 -0.1359 I 721 t 721 C 721 I 721 < 721 ______3*0.095 _1*0.A57 __ 3*0.123 3*0.034 .3*0.128 VAR 34 .—0.1736 -0.0862 . -0.3*20 -0.0765 0.0287 ( 721 ( 721 t 721 I 721 t 72) 3*0.030 3*0.236 . 3*0.002 3*0.261 . 3*0.403 VAJL37 0.0803 0.3448_ —0.0486 0.0578 0.2758 I 721 I 721 t 721 ( 72) C 721 3-0.231 3*0.001 .. 3*0.342 3*0.330 3*0.010 VAR3I -0.0893 0.0838 0.0249 -0.1350 0.2028 ( 721 ( 721 ’ I 721 I 721 I 721 ____ 3*0.220 . 5*0.237 __3-0.418 5*0.097 . ..3-0.044 VAR39 ___ 0.1543 0.0389 . -0.0360 -0.0569 -0.2198 I 721 '< 721 ( 721 I 721 C - 72) ...... 1 ____ 3*0.098 _ 3*0.373 __ 3*0.382... , 3*0.317 . 3*0.032 VAR40_____ 0.1303 ___ 0.0480 0.27*1 . -0.1237 -0.0673 C 721 ( 721 C 721 ( 721 ‘ C 72) ..... 3*0.137 __ 3*0.344 . _ 3*0.009 .. .3*0.146 3*0.787 . .VARA1____ 1.0000 . 0.1184 . 0.1795 .. 0.1644 -0.1061 t 01 ( 721 ( 721 I 721 1 721 ______3*0.001 _3*0.1*1 ____ 3*0.066 _____3*0.064 . 5-u.irr _ VAR42_____ 0.1184 __ 1.0000 _ 0.0161 . 0.3310 0.4201 ( 721 (' 01 f 721 < 721 I 72) ...... 3*0.161. _ 3*0.001 3*0,447. „ . 3* 0.001 . 3*0.001 VAR41 0.1745 ._ 0.0161__ 1.0000 . .0.1462 . 0.0119. I 721 ( 721 ( Cl ( 72) I 72) ______3*0.046 _■ . 3*0.447 5*0,001.. .3*0.107 3*0.461 . VAR44 „ 0.1814 _ 0.3310 . 0.1482.. 1.0000 0.5320. I 721 I 721 I 721 ( 01 1 721 ■______3*0.064 3-0.001 __ 3*0.107_ 3* 0.001 3*0.001

(COEFFICIENT I (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 9 9 .0 0 0 0 IS PRINTED IF A COCFFICItNT CANNOT IE CONPUlCO) MITE UP STACE 1 03/30/74 PACE 44 FILE “ KOXAME " (CREATION DATE m 03/30/741 * ~ ...... ! - - ^ -Y e 'U S 0 X" CO A AE LA T Z "0 X C~0 E FF I C itV T "5 - - - ' ------

...... VAA41 . . . VAA42 . VAA43 VAA44 VAR4S , VIA45 ____ 0.1061__ 0.4201__ 0.011*„ . 0.3320 1.0000 . ( 72) I 72) t 72) t 72) ( 0) ______50.187._S;0.001 S»0.4*1.,„S*O.OOl . s-o.ooi.

(COEFFICIENT' / (CASES)T SICNI~F1CANCE) (A VALUE' OF TO.OOOO'lS'PAINTElTiVTMEAFl'cTiHT'CANroT 8 ? CMPUUOI REFERENCES Alderfer, C.P. An empirical test of a new theory of human n eed s. O rg a n is a tio n a l B ehavior and Human Performance. 1969»V» 1^2-17 Argyris, C. Personality and organization. New York* H arper, 1957* Argyris, C. Integrating the individual and the organization. New Yorki Wiley, 1965. Bales, R.F. Interaction process analysis. Cambridge, Mass. i AddiBon-Wesley, 1950. Bales, R.F.&'Hare, A.P. Diagnostic use of the interaction profile. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1965* 67. 239-258. Bales, R.F. & Strodtbeck, F.L. Phases in group problem­ solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1951, 56, 485-495. Bass, B.M, leadership, psychology, and organizational b e h a v io r. New Yorki H arper & Row, 19S0T Behllng, 0., Schriesheim, & Tolliver, J. Present ifcrends and new directions in theories of work effort. Unpublished manuscript. The Ohio State University, 1972. Bennis, W.G. Organizational development and the fate of bureaucracy. In L.L. CUmmings & W.E. Scott (Eds.), Readings in organizational behavior and human perfor­ mance . Homewood. 111. 1 Irwin Dorsey, i97i, Pp. 534-559.

Blake, R.R. & Mouton, Jane S. Group dynamic b—Key to decision making. Houston* Gulf,; 1961. Brown, R. Social psychology. New York* Free Press, 1965* Burns, T. & Stalker, G. The management of innovation. New York* Barnes & Noble, Social Science Paperbacks, 1961 . Burnstein, E, An analysis of group decisions involving risk. Human Relations. 1969* 22, 38I- 395.

363 36** Campbell, D.T• Ethnocentrism of disciplines and the fish-scale model of omnicience. In M. Sherif & Carolyn W. Sherif, Interdisciplinary relationships in the social sciences. Chicagoi Aldine, 1969 * Pp» 328- 3%B~. Campbell, J.P ., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E., & Weick, K.EE. Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New Y ork 1 McGraw-Hill, 1970. Campion, J.E ., Jr. Effects of managerial style on subordinates* attitudes and performance in a simulated organizational setting. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1968 . Cartwright, D. Risk taking by individuals and groups* An assessment of research employing choice dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1971* 1971* 20, 361-378. Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. Issues and basic assumptions. In D. Cartwright & A. Zander (Eds.), Group dynamics * Research and theory. New York* Harper & Row, 1968 , Pp. 22-4-2. Clark, R.d. Group-induced shift toward risk* A critical appraisal. Psychological B ulletin. 1971* £6* 251-270. C och, L. & French, J.R.P., Jr. Overcoming resistance to ch an g e► Human R e la t io n s . 19**8, i* 5 1 2 -5 3 2 . Cohen, J. Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychological Bulletin. 1968, £ 0 * ^ 2 6 -^ 3 * Cooper, M.R. Satisfaction, perceived influence, and decision-riskiness* The effects of participation and commitment in decision-making groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1972. Cooper, M.R. & V/ood, M.T. Effects of member participation and commitment in group decision making on influence, satisfaction, arid decision-riskiness. Unpublished manuscript. The Ohio State University, 1973* Davis, J.H. Group performance. Reading, Mass.* Addison- V /esley, I 9 6 9 . Druckman, D. Dogmatism, prenegotiation experience, and simulated group representation as determinants of dyadic behavior in a bargaining situation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. I 9 6 7 , 6, 279-290. 365 Efran, J.S. Some personality determinants of memory for success and failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1963* Etzioni, A. A comparative analysis of complex organizations. Glencoe, Ill.i Free Press, 1961. Etzioni, A. Modern organizations.^Englewood C liffs, N.J.* Prentice-Hall, 1964. Evans, M.G. A leader's ability to differentiate the subordinate's perception of the.'leader artd the subordinate's performance. Personnel Psychology. 1973* 26(3)* 385-395. Evans, M.G. & Dermer, J. What does the least preferred coworker scale really measure? A cognitive interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 197^* in press. Fayol, H. General and industrial management. London* Pitman, 1949. Fiedler, F.E. Assumed sim ilarity measures as predictors of team effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 195V i i l t 381-3BB1 Fiedler, F.E. A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York* McGraw-Hill, 19^7* Fiedler, F.W. Predicting the effects of leadership training and experience from the contingency model* A clarification. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1973, 5Z<2), HO-T XT. Foa, U.G., M itchell, T.R., & Fiedler, F.E. Differentiation matching. Behavioural Science. 1971, 16. 130-1^2. Fox, W.M., H ill, W.A., & Guertin, W.H. Dimensional analysis of the least preferred co-worker scales. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1973* 52.* 192-195* Franklin, R.D. Youth's expectancies about internal versus external control of reinforcement related to N variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1973* French, J.R .P., Jr. Field experiments* Changing group productivity. In J.G. M iller (Ed.), Experiments in social process * A symposium on social psychology. New York* McGraw-Hill, 1950* o French, J.R.P., Jr., Israel, J., & As, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations. I960, 1J2, 3-19* A

366 French, J.R.P., Jr. & Raven, B. The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power. Ann Arbori University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research, 1959# Pp* 150-16?. Gelfand, D. The influence of self-esteem on rate of verbal conditioning and social matching behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1962, 85,, 159-165* G hiselli, E.E. Explorations in managerial talent. Pacific Palisades, California! Goodyear, 1971* Graen, G., Orris, J.B., & A lv a re s, K.M. C ontingency model of leadership effectiveness! Some experimental results. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1971# 55(5)# 196 - 201. Gulick, L. Notes on the theory of organization. In L. G ulick & L. Urwick (Eds.), Papers on the science of adm inistration. New Yorki Columbia University Institute of Public Administration, 1937# Pp. 3-^5* Hall, D.T. & Nougaim, K.E. An examination of Maslow's need hierarchy in an organization setting. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1968, 2, 12-35* Hall, J. & Williams, Martha S. Personality and group encounter stylet A multivariate analysis of traits and preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1971. l8(2T. 163-172. Hamner, W.C. & Harnett, D.L. The effects of information and aspiration level on bargaining behavior. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology. 197^# in press. Hays, W.L. S tatistics. New Yorki Holt, Rinehart, & W inston, 1963. “ Heller, F.A. & Yukl, G, Participation, managerial decision­ making, and situational variables. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 19?9# ##"' 227-2^1 • Herzberg, F. Work and the nature of man. Cleveland* W orld, 196erformance. Homewood, 111. * irwin-DSrsey, 19^8. P ruitt, D.G. Choice shifts in group discussiont An *. I. introductory review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1971# 20. 33*1—360. Quey, R.L. Functions and dynamics of work groups. American Psychologist. 1971f 26, 1077-1082. Rahen, C.S. Participation and member pov/er base in group decision making. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, 1973. Roethlisberger, F.J. & Dickson, Y/.J. Management and the worker. Cambridge* Harvard University Press, 1939. Rotter, J.B. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs. 1966, 80(1), Whole No. 6 0 9 . l- 2 o . Rotter, J.B. & Kulry, R.C. Internal versus external control of reinforcement and decision time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965* 2, 598- 60 *+. Schein, E.H. Organizational Psychology. Englewood C liffs, N.J . 1 Prentice-Hall, 1970. Schelling, T.C. The strategy of conflict, Boston* Harvard University Press, i 96 0 . Schneider, B. & Alderfer, C.P. Three studies of measures of need satisfaction in organizations. Administrative Science Q uarterly. 1973» 18(*+) * *+89-505. Seashore, S. Group cohesiveness in the industrial work group. Arbor, Mich.* Institute for Social Research, 195^. Shaw, M.E. A note concerning homogeneity of members and group problem solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, i 9 6 0 , 60, *+*+8-*+50. Shaw, M.E. Group dynamics * The psychology of small group behavior. New York* McGraw-Hill, 1971• Sherif, M. & Sherif. C.W. An outline of social psychology (Revised E dition), New York* Harper & Row, 19j>6. Siegel, S. & Fouraker, L.E. Bargaining and group decision making* Experiments in b ilateral monopoly. New Yorks McGraw-Hill, I960. Smith, G.L. Developing an interface between engineering and the social sciences. Proposal to the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, 1973* Steiner, I.D. Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. Behavioral Science. 1966, ,11, 273-283* Steiner, I.D, Group process and productivity. New Yorki Academic Press, 1972. Stewart, D. & Love, W, A general canonical correlation index. Psychological Bulletin. 1968, 70. 161-163* Stogdill, R.M, & Coons, A.E, Leader behaviori Its description and measurement. The Ohio State University, Bureau of Business Research, Business Research Monograph No. 88, 1957* Stone, A.R. The interdisciplinary research team. Behavioral Science. 1969* £(3)# 351-365* Strauss, G. Some notes on power-equalization. In H.J. Leavitt (Ed.) The social science of organization. Englewood C liffs, N.J.* Prentice-Hall, 1963, Pp. 41-84. Tannenbaum, A.S. (Eds), Control in organizations. New Yorki McGraw-Hill, 1968. Thompson, J.D. Organizations in action. New Yorki McGraw- H ill, 1967* T irst, E.L. & B am fo rth , K.W, Some s o c i a l and p s y c h o lo g ic a l consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Human R elations. 1951# *+» 1-38* Veldman, D.J. FORTRAN programming for the behavioral sciences. New Yorki Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1967* Vidmar, N. Effects of representational roles and mediators on negotiation effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1971# 17(1J. ^8^58. Vidmar, N. & McGrath, J.E. Forces affecting success in negotiation groups. Behavioral Schlece. 1970, 15, 15 5 -1 6 3 . Vinokur, A. & Burnstein, E, Effects of partially shared pursuasive arguments 6n group-induced shifts 1 A g ro u p - problem-solving approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974, 22(3). 305-315* 372 Vroora, V.H. Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1959, 52. 322-327. Vroom, V.H. Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Englewood C liffs, N.J.* Prentice-Hall, I960. Vroom, V.H. Work and m otivation. New York* Wiley, 1964. Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W, Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh* University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973* Weber, M. Bureaucracy. In H.H. Gerth & C.W. Mills (Eds.), From May Weber* Essays in Sociology. New York* Welck, K.E. The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Mass.* Addison-Wesley, 1969. W einstein, A.G. & Holzbach, R.L., Jr. Impact of individual differences, reward distribution, and task structure on productivity in a simulated work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1973, 52(3), 196-301. Wherry, R.J. Hierarchical factor solutions without rotation. Psychometrika. 1959, 24, 45-51• Whyte, W.H., Jr. The organization man. New York* Simon and Schuster, 19J 6 . Wood, M.T. Some determinants and consequences of power distribution in decision-making groups. Unpublished doctor dissertation, University of Illinois, 1970. Wood, M.T. Effects of decision processes and task situations on influence perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1972, 2, **17-427. Wood, M.T. Participation, influence, and satisfaction in group decision making. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 1972, 2, 389-399. Wood, M.T. Power relationships and group decision making in organizations. Psychological Bulletin. 1973, 79(5). 280-293. W olf, G. & Cartwright, B. Rules for coding dummy variables in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin. 1964. 81(3), 173-179. — Z iller, R.C. Individuation and socialization* A theory of assim ilation in large organizations. Human Relations. 1964, 1Z, 341-360.