An Investigation of Personality Variables As Factors Affecting Responses to Styles of Theatrical Set Designs

AN INVESTIGATION OF PERSONALITY VARIABLES AS FACTORS AFFECTING RESPONSES TO STYLES OF THEATRICAL SET DESIGNS

W. Joseph Stell

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

August 1975

Dqc^gral Committee sor lo.

WALTER JOSEPH STELL, III

Pages 202-203, "Eysenck Personality Inventory", copyright 1963 by Edu cational and Industrial Testing Ser vice , not microfilmed at request of author. Available for consultation Bowling Green State University Library or from Educational and Industrial Testing Service, Box 7234, San Diego, California 92107.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS iC

ABSTRACT

This was an exploratory investigation studying relationships be tween audience members’ personality characteristics and their percep tion of theatrical set designs. Theoretical foundations for the study were based upon personality theory formulations of Kelly, Bieri, and Eysenck and upon theories of visual aesthetics formulated by Burt, Knapp, Bryson, Driver, and others. Bieri* s Role Concept Repertory Test and the Eysenck Personality Inventory were used to identify high-, medium-, and low-complex, extravert, neutrovert, and introvert, high-, medium-, and low-neurotic subject groups; and the groups were further divided by sex. Under graduate student subjects in theatre appreciation classes at the University of Georgia were exposed to nine slides of stage settings which had been selected by experts to exemplify three levels of style (realistic, stylized, and abstract) and three levels of element domi nance (color, form, and texture). A 15-item semantic differential, developed specifically for this study, elicited a variety of emotional responses to the settings. The dependent measures were subjected to multivariate analysis of variance. Post-significance examinations utilized multiple discriminant analysis. Results indicated that (1) personality characteristics interacted (extraversión x neuroticism, complexity x sex, and extraversión x complexity) to produce significantly differing response patterns; (2) the emotional content of settings is perceived more strongly by those persons characterized as introvert and/or high-complex; (3) stimulus style and element dominance affected perception of activity and subject preference for settings; and (4) mid-range groups of subjects must be regarded as independent subject groups, rather than intermediate groups. ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The road to a doctoral degree is long and difficult, lightened only by those willing to lend support. For financial support, I wish to express my appreciation to Dr. F. Lee Miesle, the Department of Speech, and the Graduate School of Bowling Green State University; and to Dr. Leighton M. Ballew, the Department of Drama and Theatre, and the University of Georgia. For their advice concerning statistical computa tion, my thanks to Dr. Rolf E. Bargmann and Col. John Mackert, Depart ment of Statistics, University of Georgia. My deepest appreciation goes to Dr. David W. Addington, my major professor, for his unceasing encour agement, enthusiasm, and advice; and, for their support, to the members of ray doctoral committee: Dr. Charles Boughton, Dr. Allen Kepke, Dr. Briant H. Lee, and Dr. Robert Reed. The course of a doctorate often is an ordeal less for the candi date than for those most closely associated with him—his family. I have been extremely fortunate, wife Agnes not only supported me with her love and encouragement, and held together our family in times of my absence—either mental or physical—but also undertook an immense amount of the tedious clerical dissertation chores—typing, sorting, compiling, keypunching, and endless writing of numbers, tfy daughter Heather, with her joy of life, unfailingly brought sunshine into even the most dismal of studies. To them I offer my heartfelt gratitude and love. And last, but not least, thanks to a black, furry cocker spaniel^ the only other night-owl in the family, who kept me company many a late night~particu lar ly when I accompanied my work with a snack. iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page LIST OF TABLES...... vii LIST OF FIGURES...... xi CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM...... 1 Background to the study...... 1 Related Literature...... 8 Empirical studies in theatrical scene design...... 8 Studies in the psychology of aesthetics ..... 17 Statement of the problem...... 28 II. METHODOLOGY...... 33 Design of the study...... 33 Overview of the design...... 33 Independent variables ...... 34 Stimulus variables: Styles of settings and dominant design elements .... 34 Subject variables: Extraversión/ introversion and neuroticism...... 43 Subject variables: Cognitive complexity- simplicity...... 49 Subject variable: Sex...... 52 Dependent variables ...... 53 Preparation...... 55 Procedure ...... 58 IV

Page Results ...... 59 Experimental procedures ...... 65 Subject selection...... 66 Conduct of the investigation...... 71 Statistical treatment of data...... 78 Factor analyses...... 80 Multivariate analysis of variance ...... 81 Discriminant function analysis...... 82 III. RESULTS...... 84 Factor analysis...... 85 Analyses of variance and post-significance examinations: Module I...... 90 Factor I, neuroticism x extraversión (C x D interaction) effect...... '95 Sturdy-Frail, neuroticism (C main) effect .... 99 Like-dislike, element x neuroticism (B x C interaction) effect...... 99 Analyses of variance and post-significance examinations: Module II...... 106 Factor I, complexity x sex (C x D interaction) effect...... 110 Factor II, element x sex (B x D interaction) effect...... 114 Factor II, complexity x sex (C x D interaction) effect...... 116 Like-dislike, sex (D main) effect...... 119 Like-dislike, element x sex (B x D interaction) effect...... 122 V

Page Analyses of variance and post-significance examinations: Module III...... 127 Factor I, extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction) effect...... 131 Factor II, extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction) effect...... 13$ Like-dislike, extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction) effect...... 138 IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION...... 144 Discussion of results ...... 144 Factor I: "mood evaluation"...... 144 Factor II: "activity"...... 1$3 Sturdy-frail...... 160 Like-dislike...... 162 Mid-range subject responses ...... 171 Conclusion...... 17$ BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 181 APPENDIX A. CATEGORICAL LISTING OF $4 SETTING SLIDES USED FOR SLIDE SORT...... 191 APPENDIX B. INSTRUCTION SHEET AND TEST FORM FOR SLIDE SORT ... 197 APPENDIX C. INSTRUCTION SHEET AND QUESTIONNAIRE FORM A FOR EYSENCK PERSONALITYI NVENTORY...... 201 APPENDIX D. INSTRUCTION SHEET AND TEST FORM FOR REP TEST .... 204 APPENDIX E. INSTRUCTION SHEET AND ADJECTIVE SCALE TEST FORM FOR FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY...... 207 APPENDIX F. TABLES 21, 22, AND 23: ROTATED FACTOR MATRICES FOR ART 300 TEST, SPEECH CLASSES TEST, AND COMBINED DATA...... 210 vi

Page APPENDIX G. SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST FORM FOR MAIN INVESTIGATION...... 214 APPENDIX H. PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR DRAMA 300 INSTRUCTORS...... 216 APPENDIX I. TABLES 24-32: POST HOC MUDAID RESULTS FOR PERSONALITY CELLS IN MODULE I...... 219 APPENDIX J. TABLES 33-38: POST HOC MUDAID RESULTS FOR PERSONALITY CEILS IN MODULE II...... 229 APPENDIX K. TABLES 39-47: POST HOC MUDAID RESULTS FOR PERSONALITY CELTS IN MODULE III...... 236 vii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page 1. Salient scale and factor array: Factor analyses of 4-0 adjective scale items measuring responses to settings...... GA- 2. Salient scale and factor array: Factor analysis of 15 semantic differential items measuring responses to settings...... 86 3. Correlation matrix of 15 dependent variables, obtained from MUDAID...... 88 4. 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 multivariate analysis of variance (MUDAID) (style x element x extraversión x neuroticism) ...... 92 5. Post hoc discrimination data for significant extraversión x neuroticism (C x D interaction) effect, Factor I ...... 96 6. Post hoc discrimination data for significant neuroticism (c main) effect, Sturdy-frail...... 100 7. Post hoc discrimination data for significant element x neuroticism (B x C interaction) effect, Like-dislike .... 101 8. Ordered cell means for significant main effects in individual personality cell multivariate analyses of variance, Module I...... 105 9. 3 x 3 x 3 x 2 multivariate analysis of variance (MUDAID) (style x element x complexity x sex)...... 107 10. Post hoc discrimination data for significant complexity x sex (C x D interaction) effect, Factor I...... 112 11. Post hoc discrimination data for significant element x sex (B x D interaction) effect, Factor II...... 115 12. Post hoc discrimination data for significant complexity x sex (C x D interaction) effect, Factor II...... 118 13. Post hoc discrimination data for significant sex (D main) effect, Like-dislike...... 121 vili

Page 14. Post hoc discrimination data for significant element x sex (B x D interaction) effect, Like-dislike ...... 123 15. Ordered cell means for significant main effects in individual personality cell multivariate analyses of variance, Module II...... 126 16. 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 multivariate analysis of variance (MUDAID) (style x element x extraversión x complexity)...... 128 17. Post hoc discrimination data for significant extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction) effect, Factor I...... 132 18. Post hoc discrimination data for significant extraversión x complexity (G xD interaction) effect, Factor II...... 136 19. Post hoc discrimination data for significant extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction) effect, Like-dislike. ... 139 20. Ordered cell means for significant main effects in individual personality cell multivariate analyses of variance, Module IH ...... 142 21. Rotated factor matrix: Art 300 test ...... 211 22. Rotated factor matrix: speech classes test...... 212 23. Rotated factor matrix: combined data...... 213 24. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell high-neurotic/extravert. . . 220 25. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell high-neurotie/neutrovert . . 221 26. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell high-neurotic/introvert. . . 222 27. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell medium-neurotic/ extravert...... 223 28. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell medium-neurotic/ neutrovert ...... • 224 ix

Page 29. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell medium-neurotic/ introvert...... 225 30. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell low-neurotie/extravert ... 226 31. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell low-neurotic/neutrovert. . . 227 32. Post hoe 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell low-neurotic/introvert . . . 228 33. Post hoe 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell high-complex/female. .... 230 34. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell high-complex/male...... 231 35. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell medium-complex/female. ... 232 36. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell medium-complex/male...... 233 37. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell low-complex/female ...... 234 38. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell low-complex/male ...... 235 39. Post hoe 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell exfcravert/high-complex ... 237 40. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell extravert/medium-complex . . 238 41. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell exfcravert/low-complex. . . . 239 42. PosT hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell neutrovert/high-complex. . . 240 43. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell neutrovert/medium-complex. . 241 X

Page 44. Post hoe 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell neutrovert/low-complex . . . 242 45. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell introvert/high-complex . . . 243 46. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell introvert/medium-complex . . 244 47. Post hoc 3x3 multivariate analysis of variance (style x element) for personality cell introvert/low-complex. . . . 245 xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page 1. Design: Module 1...... 35 2. Design: Module II...... 36 3. Design: Module III...... 37 4. Realistic settings ...... 44 5. Stylized settings...... 45 6. Abstract settings...... 46 7. Setting examples used for factor analytic study...... 57 8. Complexity score distribution...... 69 9. Cell distribution: Module II...... 70 10. Extraversión score distribution...... 72 11. Neuroticism score distribution ...... 73 12. Cell distribution: Module I...... 74 13. Cell distribution: Module III ...... 75 14. Cell centroids: Factor I, extraversión x neuroticism (C x D interaction)...... 98 15. Cell centroids: Like-dislike, element x neuroticism (B x C interaction) ...... 103 16. Cell centroids: Factor I, complexity x sex (C x D interaction)...... 113 17. Cell centroids: Factor II, element x sex (B x D interaction)...... 117 18. Cell centroids: Factor II, complexity x sex (C x D interaction)...... 120 19. Cell centroids: Like-dislike, element x sex (B x D interaction) ...... 124 xii

Page 20. Cell centroids: Factor I, extraversión x complexity (G x D interaction) ...... 134 21. Cell centroids: Factor II, extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction)...... 137 22. Cell centroids: Like-dislike, extraversión x complexity (C x D interaction)...... 140 1

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

I, Background to the Study

Modern theorists appear to be almost universal in expressing the belief that theatre is a means of communication between the artist and the audience. Some writers, such as Oscar Brockett, suggest that the communication is of a more literal and intellectual nature, ”A play illuminates and comments on human experience at the same time that it appears to create it.” Theodore Shank represents another viewpoint when he states that The aim of dramatic artists is to create from any and all materials which serve their purpose virtual action comprising a semblance or illusion of life which is presented as an immediate audible or visible presence and embodies their colla borative conception of emotive life. Whatever the viewpoint, the concept that theatre is communicative appears pervasive. As a facet of the total theatrical art, scene design is also considered to have communication as a goal. William Ritman comments, "A designer must interpret, take the vision of a director or author and put it into some kind of plastic term that makes the vision or concept not only more easy for the audience to understand, but

^Oscar G. Brockett, The Theatre: An Introduction (2nd ed.j New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969), 10. 2 Theodore Shank, The Art of Dramatic Art (Belmont, Calif.: Dickenson Publishing Co., 1969), 55. 2

hopefully enlarges it, makes the author’s vision more clear or bigger. Concepts of exactly what form this communication should take vary some what among designers. Jo Mielziner states that ’’the designer must create signposts and symbols, clues and innuendos, that will communicate instantly to the audience and provide a key to the personalities on the stage.On the other hand, Kenneth Rowell asserts, ’’When the curtain goes up on a production the audience should be able to grasp instantly the style-atmosphere of what is being presented.” In a more lyrical mode, Robert Edmond Jones proposes that, ”A setting is not just a beautiful thing, a collection of beautiful things. It is a presence, a mood, a warm wind fanning the drama to flame. It echoes, it enhances, it animates. It is an expectancy, a foreboding, a tension.” Others suggest, more prosaically, that the primary import of a setting is an indication of the time and place of the action of the play. Increasingly, however, the emphasis has moved away from depiction of time and place—perhaps because the filmic art can present scenic reality so much more immediately and convincingly than can theatrical

^’’Interview with William Ritman, July 25, 1970,” in Clyde V. Kuemmerle, ”An Investigation of Selected Contemporary American Scene Designers (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1970), 248. ^•Jo Mielziner, Designing for the Theatre (New York: Bramhall House, 1965), 18. ^Kenneth Rowell, Stage Design (New York: Reinhold Book Corp., 1968), 8. ^Robert Edmond Jones, The Dramatic Imagination (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1965), 26. 3 scenery. As David Hays states, "I think we’ll be developing scenery or stage atmospheres which have more to do with the mood and intent of the moment, and less to do with the place. This is the direction plays are 7 going in, and we’re helping as we get more technically able.” Welker expresses much the same thought, "During the more than half a century since Appia, the emotional function of scenery has become generally accepted as second in importance only to its function as a machine for g organizing the action of the play." In one of the most recently pub lished books on theatrical scene design, Howard Bay expresses very strongly the current thought, "The point of scenic design is to squeeze into inanimate matter the maximum emotional charge and thus underscore 9 the meaning of the event." At the same time that the emotional quality of scenery has become dominant, the style of scenery has moved away from realism. It is not unreasonable to assume that there is some connection in the two trends— that the movement away from realistic scenery has been, at least in part, initiated by attempts to make the scenery more expressive of the emotional values of the play. By its nature, scenic design is closely aligned with the visual arts of painting, drawing, sculpture, and

^"Interview with David Hays, July 23, 1970," Kuemmerle, "Contemporary American Scene Designers," 214. g David Welker, Theatrical Set Design: The Basic Techniques (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969), 166. ^Howard Bay, Stage Design (New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1974), 201. 4

architecture, and shares with them a reliance upon strictly visual elements and symbols for the purposes of communication and expression. "The basic communicative qualities of scene design are the same as in any other visual art—color, line, and form create the same emotional response on the stage as they do in a poster or display design.” 10 The depiction of reality sets bounderies which the use of the design elements eannot exceed and, theoretically, limits the expressiveness of the setting. By increasing the emphasis upon the use of design elements for their inherent expressive connotations—and thereby moving away from realism into stylization or abstraction—the designer should be able to incorporate more emotional expressiveness into a setting. This theory of development of scenic stylization and abstraction is supported by Burris-Meyer and Cole: ’’Since 1930 there has been a gradual swing away from realism toward the use of design elements (that is, form, area, color, brush strokes, texture) for more active dramatic expression: attempts to express the emotional tonality of the play in the design elements.” 11 Other writers on stage scenery reinforce this concept of the rationale behind stylization. For instance, Andrzej Sadowski of the Warsaw Opera, Poland, puts it this way: Contemporary stage design leans more and more towards formal elements, operates by distortion and abstraction, and finally aims at a decor with the purpose, not of defining the time and

10W. Oren Parker and Harvey K. Smith, Scene Design and Stage Lighting (3rd ed.; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974), 28-9.

11 Harold Burris-Meyer and Edward C. Cole, Scenery for the Theatre (rev. ed.; Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971), 36. 5

place of the action, but of suggesting the atmosphere and com pleting the expression of the play.'2 Friederich and Fraser comment, "In stylization the sole object is always to make the audienee feel the spirit of the play." 13J Selden and Rezzuto also express the same basic ideas The nonrealistic setting attempts to picture an underlying idea, emotion, or mood of a play. The designer attempts to create a psychological rather than a naturalistic environment, to imply by its outward form some inner characteristic of the play. By taking an abstract idea at the heart of the play and by using form, color, line, or proportion, he translates that idea into material objects that he arranges as the environment.'4- The difficulty with designing in this manner is the development of criteria for the expressive use of the design elements. Traditionally, the designer has relied primarily upon his own instincts and feelings, as Donald Oenslager points out: The designer’s own feeling for the play will determine the direc tion away from imitating reality which the production will follow. He will be guided by his own compass of intuition toward a deter mined feeling or mood for the production. By invoking in himself a feeling he has once experienced, he proceeds to dramatize that feeling for others who have experienced a similar feeling. The designer translates this feeling onto the stage in theatrical terms of color, form, lines and light so that an audience will realize clearly as the curtain rises that this scene before it * 1

19Andrzej Sadowski, quoted in Stage Design Throughout the World Since 1950. Rene Hainaux and Yves-Bonnat, eds. (New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1964), 13.

13Willard J. Friederich and John H. Fraser, Scenery Design for the Amateur Stage (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950), 17. 1 / Samuel Selden and Tom Rezzuto, Essentials of Stage Scenery (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972), 7. 6

is no ordinary eyewitness scene, but something deeply felt, seen for the first time on any stage. As a guide for creating settings which are successful in evoking the desired emotional response in an audience, this reliance upon feeling seems extremely hazardous. Yet, as David Welker indicates, There are no universally-agreed-on principles or rules with regard to the visual expression of mood. ... In the absence of objective principles, he /the designer/ must again apply the criterion of his own taste, constructing in imagination as accurately as possible what the reaction of an audience is likely to be, as it watches a particular play performed in an environment of a particular design. And he can apply whatever principles experience suggests, even though they are, at this point in our knowledge, still an imperfect guide. ° Experience comes into such prominence largely because of the lack of studies of audience reaction to scenic designs. Scenic design is almost invariably dealt with from the point of view of the designer. Whenever the audience is mentioned, as in the two statements quoted above, the impression is conveyed that the audience is likely to react as a unit to the design. Yet psychological studies, such as those detailed in the related literature section of this chapter, have in dicated clearly that individual responses to perceptual stimuli, such as stage settings, for instance, are likely to differ according to in herent personality characteristics. The expectation of a universal response to a setting is unlikely in the extreme. On the other hand,

^Donald Oenslager, "Design in the Theatre Today,” in Scene Design for Stage and Screen, Orville K. Larson, ed. (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press, 1961), 96. 16 °Welker, Theatrical Set Design. 168. 7

it is unlikely that entirely different responses from each individual audience member will occur. As will be found in the forthcoming related literature section of this chapter, studies in the psychology of aesthetics suggest that persons identified as representing similar ’’types” of personalities are likely to respond to visual art forms similarly. Extraverts and introverts, for instance, appear to exhibit group differences in responding to visual art forms, at least in their preferences for art. This seems particularly true when introversion- extraversion is combined with neurotic tendencies. Frequently, it appears that differences in reactions of extraverts and introverts divide into preferences for representational as opposed to abstract art, or expressive as opposed to objective art. If such personality variables can affect preferential responses to art, it is also possible that they can affect emotional reactions to realistic as opposed to stylized or abstract settings, and that the audience member who prefers represen tational art might very well respond differently to a theoretically more emotionally expressive abstract design than the person who prefers ab stract art in the first place. It is quite possible that in designing abstractly, in an attempt to be more expressive of emotion, the designer has adopted a visual style to which a large portion of the audience simply cannot appropriately respond. Another personality variable which would appear to have some bearing on this particular question is cognitive complexity, although relatively few studies have thus far linked this variable with aesthetic responses. Yet the few studies that have been undertaken tend to show 8 much the same preference divisions as exhibited in the extraversión studies—representation vs abstract art. In addition, cognitively complex persons are generally considered to be better able to respond to abstract ideas and concepts, and it seems possible that this ability could carry over into responses to abstract visual forms as well. In an area where audience response has thus far been dealt with primarily in a broad, generalized, non-experimental manner, studies which can provide more specific information concerning audience responses are much needed. This study is designed to investigate the possible relationships between the personality variables of extraversión, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity, and realistic, stylized, and abstract scenic designs.

II. Related Literature

Empirical Studies in Theatrical Scene Design Only in recent years has a body of literature concerning empirical studies in the theatre begun to accumulate. Even so, the number of research studies dealing specifically with scene design can practically be counted on the fingers of one hand. Only two studies use actual scene designs as stimuli in either slide form or actual productions; and only one of those attempts to investigate audience response in terms of personality variables. All other studies deal with stage settings by implication or indirection. For example, an early study by Robert T. Ross, although primarily devoted to an investigation of audience reac tions to colored lights, did in one of the experiments utilize 9 photographs of theatrical settings. 17 Five photographs of settings from productions at Yale Theatre were shown to subjects under five different colored lights at a series of testing sessions. In addition, the sub jects were shown the color alone and the five photographs alone. In each session the subjects were asked to respond with mood names to the stimuli presented. Although responses to the setting photographs alone, the color alone, and the setting shown under the color were seen to differ, the variability was so great that generalizations were impossi ble without subjectively reading into the data meanings which were per haps not intended. In addition, the emphasis was on the effect of the colored light, and no attempt was made to analyze differences in respon ses to the settings alone. More recently, L. S. Gordon carried out a series of studies invol ving the prediction of group responses to line drawings on the basis of rated values of visual rhythm, complexity, similarity, and preference. 18 Initially, random abstract line drawings were used, but later studies incorporated recognizable shapes with and without perspective, some of which resembled simple theatrical setting designs. Although significant

^Robert R. Ross, "Studies in the Psychology of the Theatre, I: Preliminary Studies of Audience Reaction to Color," Psychological Record. II, No. 5 (1938), 126-90. 1ALawrence Stover Gordon, "Physical Determinants of the Judged Rhythm of Shapes," (Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Iowa, 1965); "Judged Complexity of Random and Regular Shapes," University of Iowa, 1968 (Mimeographed); and "Some Variables of Shape Affecting Responses to Set Designs," University of Iowa, n.d. (Mimeographed). 10 correlation was found between predicted response values and obtained response values, direct application of the results to actual settings Is questionable since the study dealt only with limited aspects of the single design element, linear shape. It would appear probable that the addition of color, texture, mass, and space would confound any findings based upon a single design element—particularly in terms of audience response prediction. Of peripheral interest is a portion of an extensive study by Addington, Kepke, Bahs, and Smith involving a series of productions of Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee’s The Night Thoreau Spent in Jail. As one aspect of that study, a group of experts rated the production elements of mise en scene, directing and acting. 19 Appropriateness, aesthetic appeal, and overall quality were rated. The research report concentrated upon the reliability of performance ratings. In the case of the mise en scene the findings indicated that ratings of craftsman ship were more reliable than ratings of aesthetic values, with the average reliability for a single rater being .24, suggesting that no more than about 6% of that rating could be attributable to the inherent qualities of the mise en scene. Indications are that for minimal re liability of ratings of any performance aspect, at least six highly qualified raters are required.

19David W. Addington, Allen N. Kepke, Clarence W. Bahs, and R. Wayne Smith, "A Further Investigation of Evaluative Practices in the Theatre,” Bowling Green State University, 1974 (Mimeographed). 11

In 1969, Warren Pickett made the only study thus far published that investigates differences in responses to stage settings which might be 20 attributable to differences in personality or temperament. Subjects in the investigation were dichotomized into experimental groups on the basis of scores on the "Introversion-Extraversion Scale" of the Bern- reuter Personality Inventory, using the 98th percentile on either end of the scale as cut-off points. Visual stimuli were in the form of 12 black-and-white drawings of settings categorized by expert judges into groups representative of the historical theatrical styles of Baroque, Romantic, and Formal. The subjects were asked to rate each of the drawings according to preference on a seven-interval rating scale. Differences in preferences were found to be significant beyond the .05 level, and indicate strongly that extraverts have different style pref erences than do introverts, even though the results were not in expected directions. In order of preference, the extraverts liked the Romantic setting the most, then the Baroque, and the Formal last; while the introverts preferred the Baroque style the most, then the Formal, and the Romantic the least. The most extreme difference observed was toward the Romantic style which was preferred most by the extraverts and least by the introverts. It is unfortunate for the strength of the investigation that neuroticism was not included as a variable, since it has been found to

^^Warren Pickett, "Style and Temperament," Empirical Research in Theatre. I, No. 1 (1971), 58-60. 12

interact strongly with extraversion-introversion in a number of studies of aesthetic preference. Shapiro and Alexander, for instance, found no significant difference between extraverts and introverts in preferences for paintings with or without people until the extraversion-introversion population was divided by a neuroticism moderator, at which time interaction was discovered and significant differences obtained. 21 Low- neurotic extraverts preferred paintings with people in them, while low- neurotic introverts preferred peopleless paintings. In the high- neurotie population the relationship was reveresed. Another weakness of Pickett’s study, as far as theatrical relevance is concerned, was the choice of historical styles presented in the form of black-and-white drawings. Contemporary stage settings can only rarely be categorized according to historical styles; and an actual setting differs considerably from a black-and-white line drawing. For these reasons, while Pickett’s study suggests a direction that investigations of responses to stage settings might take, the results are only minimally applicable to a production context. Apparently, the study was primarily concerned with style in general, and only incidentally used drawings of theatrical set designs as stimuli. The only quantitative investigation which directly and exclusively studied general audience responses to produced stage settings was that

21 Kenneth J. Shapiro and Irving E. Alexander, "Extraversion- Introversion, Affiliation, and Anxiety,” Journal of Personality. 37 (1969), 387-406. 13

22 of Caldwell. This investigation set out first to develop a semantic differential for measuring responses to stage settings. Two prelimi nary investigations were carried out using forty adjective scales adapted 23 primarily from Tucker. J The first investigation measured responses to seven simple line drawings. Factor analysis produced five "dimensions": Dimension I having the adjective scales "bitter-sweet,” ’’violent-gentle," "ferocious-peaceful," and "ugly-beautiful;" Dimension II with the scales "unique-commonplace" and "unusual-usual;" Dimension III, "obvious-subtle" and "clear-hazy;" Dimension IV, "vibrant-still;" and Dimension V, "skinny-fat." The second preliminary investigation measured responses to three slides of actual stage settings. Factor analysis of the results produced "dimensions" which only partially corresponded with those of the first investigation. The main investigation used the scales from the first preliminary investigation as a semantic differential coupled with five Likert-type questions relating to liking or disliking the play and the setting, and the appropriateness and meaningfulness of the setting. This instrument was used to measure responses from a large number of niave subjects and a small number of expert subjects to, settings for nine plays produced at Bowling Green State University during the academic year 1970-71.

22George R. Caldwell, "A Quantitative Investigation of Audience Response to Theatrical Settings," (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1974). 23From an investigation of abstract paintings conducted by W. R. Tucker, reported in Charles E. Osgood, George J. Succi, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967), 292. u

Multivariate analysis of variance was applied to the results and signi ficant differences were found between responses to the different settings and between the responses of the naive and the expert groups of subjects. In general, the responses of the naive group tended to cluster near the "meaningless" or "neutral" position on the scales or to extend moderately toward the positive polar direction of the scales. Expert subjects tended to be more extreme in their reactions and also more frequently negative in direction. There was, however, a significant correlation between the two groups in preference choices of the settings. Analysis of the semantic differential revealed significant differences between the responses to the nine productions for Dimensions I, II, III, and V. Close examination of the dimensions and the individual scales produced for each of the settings semantic dimensions which illustrated the difference in perceptions of the settings. There is, however, some question as to the validity of the semantic differential employed in the investigation, since the number of subjects responding in each of the preliminary investigations (46 subjects in pre liminary investigation I, and 44 subjects in preliminary investigation II) was considerably smaller than the recommended minimum number of sub jects to be used in the development of such an instrument (at the very least 100 subjects plus one subject for each scale used). In addition, examination of the 40 adjective scales employed reveals that relatively few of the scales measure the emotion/mood/atmosphere quality of scene design. Of the 40 scales in the preliminary investigations, only the "pleasant-unpleasant," "serious-humorous," "happy-sad," "emotional- 15 rational," "ferocious-peaceful," and "calming-exciting" would appear to be related directly to that aspect of settings, with some emotion/mood values possible being found in "vibrant-still," "active-passive," "tense- relaxed," "violent-gentle," "dynamic-static," "masculine-feminine," "hard-soft," and "hot-cold." This last group of scales, however, tends to be more ambiguous regarding emotional values. Since emotional expressiveness has been found to be so important in contemporary ideas of the functions of scene design, an instrument which could provide a stronger measure of this quality would seem to be indicated. Another aspect of the investigation which makes generalizing from the results difficult was the use of productions from a single university theatre season as the stimuli. Although evaluating responses to settings in production is obviously valid and necessary since it is the only way in which a setting can be seen in actual context, the limited range of settings available in any one season in a given area makes it difficult, if not impossible, to discover within the designs communalities which might give rise to similar responses. Whereas it is impossible to gener alize from responses to individual settings, it might very well be possi ble to generalize from responses to types or styles of settings, if sig nificant common factors or trends were discovered within those responses. After all, as Kaplan states, "Science is a search for constancies, for invariants. It is the enterprise of making those identifications in experience which prove to be most significant for the control or 16

2A appreciation of the experience yet to come.” Stronger control over the setting variable should result in data more open to generalization. In that respect, it is of particular interest to the purposes of the present investigation to note that the settings chosen as stimuli for Caldwell’s second preliminary investigation appear, from their des criptions, to fall exactly into the style categories of Realistic, Stylized, and Abstract. Analysis of the data from the investigation revealed that responses to the Abstract setting were significantly dif ferent from the Stylized and the Realistic settings on Caldwell’s first dimension. Responses in Dimension II for each of the three settings were significantly different from each other. In Dimension III responses to the Realistic setting were significantly different from the Abstract and Stylized settings. Responses in Dimension IV to the Abstract setting were significantly different from the Stylized and Realistic settings. In Dimension V responses to the Stylized setting were significantly dif ferent from the Realistic, but neither was significantly different from the Abstract. The results are intriguing, and suggest the possibility that differences in style might affect differences in response, but this possibility is not verifiable since only one example of each style was used in the investigation and other variables were not controlled. Further research into this aspect of stylization could prove most

24 Abraham Kaplan, The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science (Scranton, Penna.: Chandler Publishing Company, 1964), 85. 17 revealing, and of more relevance to contemporary scene design than the historical styles chosen by Pickett. Although Caldwell divided his audience into naive and expert sub jects for the purposes of the study, no attempt was made to incorporate psychological or personality variables into the study. This, of course, does not lessen the value of the study, but it does suggest that more specific research into personality variables within audience members could produce significant results not found in a study of a collective audience. It is possible, for instance, that the clustering of responses from the naive group near the "neutral” position on the S.D. could have resulted not merely from a tendency to be neutral or moderate, but from the counterbalancing effect of extreme responses from individuals, or groups of individuals, of differing psychological temperament. That this is possible is suggested by studies in other areas of visual aesthetics.

Studies in the Psychology of Aesthetics There is a great body of literature dealing with the psychology of aesthetics. Of relevance to this particular investigation are those studies which investigate patterns of response to visual stimuli— perceptive types, and those which study the relationship of personality to aesthetics. Although a number of researchers have investigated emotional re sponses to various design elements and, incidentally, have achieved results which correspond favorably with the psychological connotations 18

25 of design elements listed in many scene design books, one early and influential series of studies of attitudes to color, conducted by Edward Bullough, concluded that there were four principal types of re- 26 sponders to color: associative, objective, physiological, and character. The associative type of viewer responded on the basis of the concrete literal meaning of the stimulus—a color was liked or disliked because of the specific objects, persons, or situations which it brought to the mind of the viewer. The objective viewer was concerned with the imper sonal plastic qualities of the work—the variations in hue, value, and/ or intensity of the color—and often had preconceived standards of pre ference. The physiological type of perceiver related the colors to his own mood and feeling, and liked or disliked on the basis of his emotional

25^For studies in the feeling value of lines, see for instance, Helge Lundholm, "The Affective Tone of Lines: Experimental Researcher," The Psychological Review. 28, No. 1 (1921), 43-60; A. T. Poffenberger and B. F. Barrows, "The Feeling Value of Lines," Journal of Applied Psychology. VIII, No. 2 (1924), 187-205; and Kate Hevner, "Experimental Studies of the Affective Value of Colors and Lines," Journal of Applied Psychology. XIX, No. 4 (1935), 385-98. Studies in the emotional associ ations of color include H. S. Odbert, T. F. Karwoski, and Eckerson, "Studies in Synaesthetic Thinking: I. Musical and Verbal Associations of Color and Mood," Journal of General Psychology. 26 (1942), 153-73; Lois B. Wexner, "The Degree to Which Color (Hues) are Associated with Mood- Tones," Journal of Applied Psychology. 30, No. 6 (1954), 432-5; D. C. Murray and H. L. Deabler, "Colors and Mood-Tones," Journal of Applied Psychology. 41, No. 5 (1957), 279-83; Benjamin Wright and Lee Rainwater, "The Meanings of Color," Journal of General Psychology. 67 (1962), 89-99; as well as the study by Ross, already cited (see note 17, page 9). ^^Edward Bullough, "The 'Perceptive Problem’ in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Single Colors," British Journal of Psychology. 2 (1905), 406-63; and "Recent Work in Experimental Aesthetics," British Journal of Psychology. 12 (1921), 76-99. 19 and/or physiological response to the color. Most aesthetically aware was the character type of viewer, who empathized with a color because he felt it had personality or character qualities which he appreciated. In a similar experiment using college students as subjects, Bradford found essentially the same four perceptive types as Bullough and, in addition, found that the types were almost equally frequent in both arts students and sciences students. 27 Further confirmation of Bullough*s types is to be found in Valentine’s color preference studies, 28 as well as in studies by Valentine employing picture postcard reproductions of 29 paintings. More recently, Clements and Smith factor analyzed the re actions of 300 art appreciation students to slides of famous modern and traditional paintings. The response patterns which emerged corresponded strikingly to Bullough’s perceptive types, with an exception in the emer gence of a pattern of response indicating an interest in novelty and design, the new, striking, and different—the converse of Bullough’s objective type. 30 In their study, Clements and Smith point out the similarity between this novel art-design type and one pole of the bi-polar factor which

27E. J. G. Bradford, "A Note on the Relation and Aesthetic Value of the Perceptive Types in Color Appreciation," American Journal of Psychology. 24 (1913), 546-54. 28C. W. Valentine, The Experimental Psychology of Beauty (London: Metheun, 1962), 29-33.

29Ihid., 123-38.

^Robert D. Clements and Sue W. Smith, ’’Bullough’s Perceptive Types Reconsidered,’’ Journal of Aesthetic Education. 2, No. 4 (1968), 109-16. 20

Eysenck found in his preference studies and termed the 'K'-factor. Two factors emerged in Eysenck’s studies: the first, the ’T’-factor was a general aesthetic, good taste factor; the second, bi-polar ’K’-factor tended to separate subjects who preferred modern, impressionistic, colorful pictures from those preferring the older, more conventional, and less colorful pictures. 31 Peel, pursuing the same line of research, tested responses to landscapes and still-life paintings and also emerged with a general aesthetic factor and a second bi-polar factor. 32 In this particular study, however, the bi-polar factor appeared to indicate a ’Realism’/’Technique' preference aspect which was divided from a ’Spon taneity’ aspect. Peel termed this bi-polar factor the "Technical Factor". In a later series of investigations, Pickford pursued the same basic line of study, but with greater emphasis on the emotional aspects of art. Using a wide variety of photographs and paintings as stimuli, Pickford factor analyzed the responses and emerged with a gen eral factor mainly represented by Emotional Expression and Aesthetic Design, and a second, bi-polar factor which contrasted responses to

J31 H. J. Eysenck, "The General Factor in Aesthetic Judgments," British Journal of Psychology. 31 (1940), 94-102; and "'Type’-Factors in Aesthetic Judgments," British Journal of Psychology. 31 (1941), 262-70. ^^E. A. Peel, "On Identifying Aesthetic Types," British Journal of Psychology. 35 (1945), 61-9; and "A New Method for Analysing Aesthetic Preferences: Some Theoretical Considerations," Psychometrica. II (1946), 129-37. ^^Ralph W. Pickford, "’Aesthetic' and 'Technical' Factors in Artistic Appreciation," British Journal of Psychology. 38 (1948), 135-41 and "Form and Expression in Art," Scottish Art Review. 2 (1948), 7-11. 21

Sentimentality and Representational Accuracy with responses to Atmospheric Effect and Symbolic Expression. Pickford felt that this bi-polar factor corresponded more closely to Peel’s "Technical Factor" than to Eysenck’s ’K’-factor. In another series of experiments, Pickford factor analyzed responses to a series of paintings by Van Gogh and, on this occasion, emerged with three factors: (1) a general factor most strongly repre sented by emotional expression, harmony of design, harmony of coloring, and dynamic expression; (2) a bi-polar factor contrasting expressive distortion, harmony of coloring, emotional expressiveness and dynamic expression against photographic accuracy, impressionistic effect, and liking by the subject of the experiment; and (3) a bi-polar factor which contrasted photographic accuracy and harmony of design with expressive distortion and impressionistic effect. 34* In spite of considerable vari ation, there does appear to be in all of these bi-polar factors a core of responses which contrasts a preference for representational and/or photographic art with a preference for more expressive, impressionistic, and/or abstracted art. In his research on ’type-factors’ in aesthetic judgments, Eysenck ran a series of correlations to his ’K’-factor (modern, impressionistic work vs. older, more conventional modes) and, among others, found that it correlated with extraversion-introversion.This finding tended to

^^alph W. Pickford, Psychology and Visual Aesthetics (London: Hutchinson Educational, 1972), 138-9. ^Eysenck, Type’-Factors." 22 support the results of an earlier research by Burt who investigated the aesthetic preferences of persons divided according to the variables of stable-unstable and extravert-introvert. 36 Burt's findings indicated that the majority of unstable extraverts liked emotional, dramatic or romantic scenes and preferred human subjects to landscapes or still-life pictures. The majority of stable extraverts expressed their preferences in terms of representation, function or ability, and liked realistic pictures best. The unstable introverts liked impressionistic or roman tic art, and wanted a picture to arouse emotions in themselves rather than to represent emotions, while they also wanted a picture to realize some private day dream. The stable introverts tended towards an intel lectual attitude to art and liked live or black and white better than color, while they were interested in landscapes rather than portraits. While the similarities may be only surface and have not been experimen tally investigated, it is worth noting that the responses of the stable extravert bear some resemblance to Bullough's associative type of per ceiver, while the unstable introvert exhibits much the same response patterns as the physiological type. Unfortunately, although Burt's results are interesting, no confidence levels were reported for the findings. A more recent study by Cardinet, however, provided findings which reinforce those of Burt. Subjects who were characterized by means of

^^Sir Cyril Burt, "The Factorial Analysis of Emotional Traits," Character and Personality. 7 (June, 1939), 285-99. 23 the Thurstone Temperament Schedule responded to 195 pairs of pictures and, among other results, findings indicated that introverts preferred modern and more abstract paintings, stable introverts liked peaceful scenes and disliked any overt appeal to their feelings, emotionality was generally manifested by a liking for paintings expressing a definite mood, sociable persons rejected pictures with rigid forms, and liking for paintings with straight line strokes indicated an assertive social attitude. 37 Robert Knapp has conducted three other studies in which extraversion-introversion played a major role. Using abstract paintings as stimuli, Knapp and Green reported results which indicated that pref erence for geometrical abstract paintings might be identified with extra version, while preference for non-geometrical abstract paintings tended to be associated with introversion. 38 Later, Knapp and Wulff reported data suggesting that preference for abstract painting, as opposed to representational painting, is related to general neuroticism and to vocational interests of an introversive character. 39 Knapp also explored the relationship between personality variables and four styles of paintings: fantastic, geometric, expressionistic, and realistic.

37jean Cardinet, "Preferences Esthétiques et Personnalité," Année Psychologique. 58 (1958), 45-69; reported in Pickford, Psychology and Visual Aesthetics. 221-2. ^Robert H. Knapp and Samuel Green, "Preferences for Styles of Abstract Art and Their Personality Correlates," Journal of Projective Techniques. 24, No. 4 (i960), 396-402.

■39"Robert H. Knapp and Alan Wulff, "Preferences for Abstract and Representational Art," Journal of Social Psychology. 60 (1963), 255-62. 24

He interpreted the results as showing that individuals preferring real istic art were ’practical,’ ’worldly,’ ’uncomplicated’ and ’naive;’ those preferring geometric paintings were ’intellectual,’ ’systematic,’ ’theoretical’ and ’inhibited;’ and those preferring expressionistic paintings were ‘subjective,’ ’imaginative,’ ’impractical,’ and ’sensi- 40 tive.’ He further commented that there was a statistically signi ficant positive correlation between preferences for realistic art and extraversión, and that the polarity of extraversion-introversion is best measured by the preference for realistic rather than expressive art, not by a preference for geometrical in contrast to non-geometrical abstract art. D. P. Rakshit studied the relationship between color preference and extraversion-introversion, and concluded that generally, extraverts preferred deeper colors, excluding violet and yellow, while neutroverts and introverts preferred lighter colors, excluding green, yellow, and red/1

Studying another aspect of aesthetic perception, Oeser explored 42 the relationship of personality to color and form sensitivities.

^Robert H. Knapp, "An Experimental Study of a Triadic Hypothesis Concerning the Sources of Aesthetic Imagery," Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment. 28 (1964), 49-54.

*41 D. P. Rakshit, "Colour Preference of Extraverted and Introverted Individuals," Indian Journal of Psychology. 21 (1946), 89-92.

^0. A. Oeser, "Some Experiments on the Abstraction of Form and Colour, Part I—Tachistoscope Experiments; Part II—Rorschach Tests," British Journal of Psychology. 22 (1932), 200-15, and 287-323. 25

Through experimentation he divided subjects into form dominant and color dominant to determine whether form or color was more influential in the ability to identify a figure presented for minimal exposure periods. Subsequent research using the Rorschach Technique showed that the color dominant subjects were more influenced by feeling, and were better able to interpret the Rorschach ink blots as wholes, while they gave more kinaesthetic responses and were all ’extraversive'. The form dominant subjects interpreted the blots on the basis of form, selected small, clear details, and were more ’introversive’. The studies cited above provide strong evidence that subjects grouped according to extraversion-introversion, particularly when coupled with neuroticism or emotional instability, exhibit fairly consistent differences in aesthetic preferences; although some of the results were not supported in the findings of subsequent research. Roubertoux, Charlier, and Chaquiboff, for instance, failed to find any correlation between introversion and a preference for either abstract or figural 43 art; while Child found that extraversion-introversion was not a factor in preference measurements of naive subjects compared with expert judges of aesthetic value.44 Interest in cognitive complexity has led other researchers to explore the relationship of that variable to aesthetic preference or

^R. Roubertoux, M. Charlier, and J. Chaquiboff, "Preference for Non-objective Art: Personal and Psychosocial Determiners," British Journal of Psychology. 62, No. 1 (1971), 105-10.

^T. L. Child, "Personal Preferences as an Expression of Aesthetic Sensitivity," Journal of Personality. 30 (1962), 496-512. 26 perception. Bryson and Driver, for example, found a complex relation ship between conceptual structure, introversion, and preference for

I c visual stimulus complexity. Using randomly generated polygons as stimuli, the researchers found no difference between the preferences of extraverts that could be attributed to differences in cognitive structure; both complex extravert and simple extravert subjects preferred moderate levels of stimulus complexity. For the introverts, however, there was a strong effect attributable to classification as simple or complex in conceptual style. The complex introverts preferred the simplest stimuli, while the simple introverts preferred the most complex. These findings were replicated in a second task using a different set of stimuli and a different method of indicating preferences, offering some measure of confidence in their reliability. In order to explain this finding the researchers suggest the possibility that cognitively complex persons may elaborate the inputs they receive, causing them to perceive a stimulus as more complex than would a cognitively simple person. Earlier, Barron singled out simplicity-complexity as the defining characteristic of the Barron-Welsh Scale,and then used the multiple dimensions of simplicity/symmetricality-complexity/asymmetrieality to

^5jeff R. Bryson and Michael J. Driver, "Cognitive Complexity, Introversion, and Preference for Complexity," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 23, No. 3 (1972), 320-27.

^Frank Barron, "Personality Style and Perceptual Choice," Journal of Personality. 20 (1952), 385-401; and "Complexity-Simplicity as a Personality Dimension," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 48 (1953), 163-72. 27

47 differentiate between artists and non-artists. More recent findings by Eisenman and Rappaport, however, indicate that subjects react favor ably to symmetry regardless of whether they are high or low in complexity 48 preference. Eisenman and Rappaport’s findings did, on the other hand, support the hypothesis by Dember and Earl that subjects have a preferred level of complexity and preference for other levels of complexity de- creases as the distance from the subject’s preferred level increases. 49 Another study by Tuddenham, Moyles, and Block found that Simplicity- complexity and Symmetry-asymmetry appeared to be of equivalent and usually small importance in determining figure preference and suggested the need for caution in attributing preferences to the single simplicity- complexity attribute of the stimulus figures, or by extension, to the psychological simplicity-complexity of test-takers. 50 On the other hand, a more recent study by Osborne and Farley found a significant relationship between rated visual complexity in abstract

47Frank Barron and George S. Welsh, "Artistic Perception as a Possible Factor in Personality Style: Its Measurement by a Figure Pref erence Test," Journal of Psychology. 33 (April, 1952), 199-203. y> ft ^Russell Eisenman and Joan Rappaport, "Complexity Preference and Semantic Differential Ratings of Complexity-Simplcity and Symmetry- Asymmetry," Psychonomic Science. 7, No. 4 (1967), 147-8.

49W. N. Dember and R. W. Earl, "Analysis of Exploratory, Mani pulatory and Curiosity Behavior," Psychological Review. 64, No. 2 (1957), 91-6. 50 R. D. Tuddenham, E. W. Moyles, and J. Block, "Simplicity/ Complexity or Symmetry/Asymmetry? A Reanalysis of the Barron-Welsh Art Scale," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 20, No. 3 (1965), 685-90. 28 art and aesthetic preference. 51 High complexity was preferred by both graduate art students and graduate educational psychology students. No significant sex differences were found, nor was any relationship found between aesthetic preference and the Extraversión scale of the Eysenck Personality Inventory or the Sensation Seeking Scale. Additional veri fication of the dimension of complexity-simplicity as an indicator or artists and nonartists has been found in studies of the personality correlates of complexity-simpleity in which cognitive complexity has 52 been linked with creativity.

III. Statement of the Problem

The studies cited in the previous section point to the apparent relationship between personality variables and aesthetic perception or preference—particularly along the dimensions of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity-simplicity. It is apparent from an examination of the studies that far more emphasis was plaeed on the relationship of personality variables to aesthetic preference than on the relationship of personality to aesthetic perception. Yet, it is with the very question of aesthetic perception, and particularly in the

John W. Osborne and Frank H. Farley, "The Relationship Between Aesthetic Preference and Visual Complexity in Abstract Art,” Psychonomic Science. 19, No. 2 (1970), 69-70.

52B. S. Tuckman, "Integrative Complexity: Its Measurement and Re lation to Creativity," Educational and Psychological Measurement. 26 (1966), 369-82; and Michael S. Grove and Russell Eisenman, "Personality Correlates of Complexity-Simplicity," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 31 (1970), 391. 29 area of emotional response to visual stimuli, that the theatrical scene designer must be concerned. The studies of aesthetic preference clearly indicate that personality variables can and do affect aesthetic choices, and it would seem likely that many of the same variables would also affect emotional responses to such visual stimuli as stage settings—a supposi tion which gains support from studies such as Oeser’s in which sensitiv ity to form or color was found to be related to extraversion-introversion. As pointed out earlier, modern scene designers have created more and more stylized settings in an attempt to provide more expressive visual communication and, in many instances, have moved into the realm of pure abstraction. Yet, the studies cited here have shown that a large segment of the population strongly prefers realistic and representational art forms. If we can ignore the crucial relationship of the setting to the style of the play, the question then arises whether by moving into more stylized and abstract forms the scene designer is defeating his own purpose in-so-far-as that portion of the population is concerned—whether by designing in a non-realistic style, the designer is alienating and failing to communicate with those persons who characteristically prefer realistic art forms. For instance, will the stable extravert respond more strongly to a realistic setting than to an abstract, or even a stylized setting? On the other hand, will the stable introvert respond more strongly to the abstract setting? Will unstable introverts respond more emotionally than the other personality types? If so, to which style of setting—realistic, stylized, or abstract? Since a hypothesis could be formed that an abstract setting is conceptually more complex than a 30 realistic setting, will a cognitively complex person respond more strongly to an abstract setting, while a cognitively simple person reacts more strongly to a realistic or stylized setting? For that matter, will differences in styles of scenery—realistic, stylized, and abstract—create significant differences in the response of audience members, regardless of personality factors, and, if so, will the stylized and abstract settings produce stronger emotional responses than realistic settings? Such questions as these have led this researcher to consider the possibility of determining relationships between an audience member’s personality characteristics along the dimensions of extraversion- introversion, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity-simplcity, and the kinds of responses he exhibits to realistic, stylized, and abstract styles of theatrical stage scenery. As an introduction to the idea of cognitive complexity, Bieri provided a hypothetical illustration of response variations which also seem to be appropriate as an introduction to this investigation: Given objectively equivalent stimulus conditions, two persons may manifest markedly different degrees of response versatility. For one tourist, a castle perched upon a hill is just another ruin, while for another it is a particular type of architectural style, situated in a strategic setting, and embodying the social and political structure of a certain period of history.” To which might be added, that a third person might exhibit a strong emotional reaction to the same stimulus—seeing it primarily as

^Quoted in Donald W. Fiske and Salvatore R. Maddi, Functions of Varied Experience (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1961), 355. 31 frightening, foreboding, or melancholy, while a fourth person might view it in purely compositional terms—line, color, mass, texture, proportion, and balance. Since so many of the questions relative to this study are largely unresearched at the present time, the investigation is designed to be exploratory in nature and will attempt to provide tentative answers to some rather broad general questions in hopes that the results will open doors to more detailed investigations and might suggest specific hypo theses which could be tested in future experiments. The basic question to which answers will be sought might be stated: When presented with visual stimuli in the form of realistic, stylized, or abstract stage settings, will persons embodying the personality characteristics of extraversion-introversion. neuroticism, and cognitive complexity- simplicity react in significantly different response patterns? Other questions which might be considered to be subdivisions of the main question are: A. Will an average audience exhibit significantly different patterns of response to stage settings characterized as realistic, stylized, and abstract? B. Will color,,form, or texture dominance in the setting designs carry through the differing styles of design and result in different responses from the viewers? G. Will persons exhibiting personality characteristics of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism, and/or cognitive complexity- simplicity respond differently either in dimension or degree, to the same stage setting? 32

D, Will such differences, if any, interact with the different styles of setting stimulus presented? E. Will there be significant interaction within either the personality variables, the design variables, or both? This study attempts to'isolate scenic style variables and person ality variables in such a way as to make them susceptible of measure ment, to ascertain relationships between and among those variables by experimental and statistical methods, and to explain any relationships which appear to emerge. 33

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the design of the investigation, the procedures used in conducting the research, and the statistical treatments employed for data analysis.

I, Design of the Study

Overview of the Design The basic design of the investigation is a four-way factorial. Three factorial modules were designed incorporating the same independent stimulus variables tested against different independent subject variables Identical data was collected for each of the three modules, but the data was sorted into different cells according to several personality variables. In each of the three modules the stimulus variables, repre senting experimental treatments, consisted of three levels each of scene design style (realistic/stylized/abstract) and elements of design (color/ form/texture). Module I was a3x3*3x3 factorial in which the stimulus variables were tested against three levels of extraversión (extravert/neutrovert/introvert) and three levels of neuroticism (high/ medium/low). Module II was a3x3x3x2 factorial in which the same stimulus variables were tested against three levels of cognitive com plexity (high/medium/low) and two levels of sex differentiation (female/ male). Module III was a3x3x3x3 factorial designed to explore possible interaction. It tested the stimulus variables against the 34 three levels of extraversión used in Module I and the three levels of cognitive complexity used in Module II. In each of the three modules, the dependent variables consisted of 15-item semantic differentials identical for each of the nine stage settings which formed the stimulus variables. The three modules are illustrated in Figures 1, 2, and 3. Separate multivariate analyses of variance were performed on each of the modular components of the fundamental design.

Independent Variables Six independent variables were used in the study, in factorial combinations illustrated in Figures 1 through 3. Two were "stimulus” variables: styles of settings and dominant design elements of settings; the remaining four were "subject" variables: extraversion-introversion. neuroticism, cognitive complexity, and sex.

1. Stimulus Variables: Styles of Settings and Dominant Design Elements. Because the present study was concerned with the effect dif ferent styles of scenic design might have upon subjects of varying per sonality characteristics, the stimulus objects had to exhibit recognizably different styles. Burris-Meyer and Cole define the style of a setting as, "a function of the architectural detail, the lines, the forms, and colors, and the juxtaposition of parts in the design." Yet, writers on scenic design provide differing views on the specific categories of style. Friederich and Fraser, for example, list the following styles:

'^'Burris-Meyer said Cole, Scenery for the Theatre. 36. 35

FIGURE 1

Design: Module I

A1 A2 A3

Bj B2 B3 Bi B2 B3 Bj B2 B3 D1

Ci d2

C3 D2

A. Style: 1. Realistic C. Neuroticism: 1. High 2. Stylized 2. Medium 3. Abstract 3. Low B. Element: 1. Color D. Extraversión: 1. Extravert 2. Form 2. Neutrovert 3. Texture 3. Introvert 36

FIGURE 2

Design: Module II

A1 A2 A3

Bl b2 B3 Bl b2 b3 Bl b2 b3

D1 Ci1 1 ■ H D2

1 D1 C-2» d2

C»3 d2

A. Style: 1. Realistic C. Cognitive 1. High 2. Stylized Complexity: 2. Medium 3. Abstract 3. Low B. Element: 1. Color D. Sex: 1. Female 2. Form 2. Male 3. Texture 37

FIGURE 3

Design: Module III

A1 A2 A3

Bi b2 b3 Bl b2 b3 Bl b2 b3 Dl

Cl d2

c2 d2

'Di

C3 d2

E>3

A. Style: 1. Realistic C. Extraversión: 1. Extravert 2. Stylized 2. Neutrovert 3. Abstract 3. Introvert B. Element: 1. Color D. Cognitive 1. High 2. Form Complexity: 2. Medium 3. Texture 3. Low 38

Realism, Naturalism, Simplified Realism, Stylism, Expressionism, Thea- tricalism, Constructivism, and Formalism; 55 and Gillette names Naturalism, Realism, Pictorial Realism, Suggestive Realism, Stylization, Formalism, 56 Expressionism, and Constructivism. Selden and Rezzuto, on the other hand, list only four styles of settings: The Fully Realistic Setting, The Suggestively Realistic Setting, The Nonrealistic Setting, and The Architectural or Formalistic Setting; 57 while Parker and Smith simply comment that "in between the two extremes of the representational and nonrepresentational styles lie as many degrees of realism, abstraction, $8 or complete nonobjectivity as the designer dares to define." Yet, an analysis of the various categories suggests that there are, in fact, three basic styles of settings: (1) those which closely adhere to reality— "realism" in its various forms; (2) those in which reality has been transformed by the designer in an attempt to be more expressive; and (3) those settings in which there has been no attempt to create a form that bears any resemblance to nature or man-made objects. Parker and Smith suggest the same basic style categories when they comment: Most styles, except for complete nonobjectivity, stem from realism. That is to say, the natural source of the abstracted design form

55Friederich and Fraser, Scenery Design. 8-25. ^A. S. Gillette, An Introduction to Scenic Design (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967), 149-78.

57Selden and Rezzuto, Essentials. 6-15.

5 8Parker and Smith, Scene Design. 72. 39

is recognizable although it may have been distorted or abstracted in a decorative or stylized manner.*“ For the purposes of this investigation, therefore, the styles of settings were divided into the categories of Realistic, Stylized, and Abstract, and operationally defined as follows: Realistic: All elements and objects are employed in a manner con gruent to an illusion of actual life in an actual place. Selec tivity and simplification may be employed, but not the extremes of exaggeration or distortion. This category includes such styles of design as "Fragmentary Realism," "Simplified Realism," and "Suggested Realism." Stylized: One or more elements in the design are exaggerated, dis torted and/or simplified beyond the recognizable bounderies of realism. Although elements derived from reality are employed, they have clearly been visually altered by the designer. This category includes such styles as "Fantasy," "Theatricalism," "Expressionism," and "Symbolism." Abstract: The elements are non-representational. The design receives its impact from the interrelationship of design elements (color, form, line, texture, etc.), rather than from the inter relationship of recognizable or realistic elements. Recognizable forms may be employed, but they are so clearly out of normal con text as to disassociate them entirely from reality. In order to obtain a meaningful estimate of the possible effects of style, it was necessary to test that variable against other inherent characteristics of stage settings. Previous research has indicated that design elements such as line and color can produce a variety of responses in subjects.60 At the same time, in a study cited in Chapter I, Oeser investigated subjects classified as color dominant and form dominant and

59Parker and Smith, Scene Design. 72. 60„ , _ _ , - See note 25, page 18. 40

found a relationship to extraversion-introversion. These studies suggested that design elements constitute a second independent variable of settings, with color and form being two dominant aspects of that variable. For this study, the third element to be incorporated within that variable was texture. The decision to include this element was based largely upon the observation that texture has become an increas ingly important aspect of stage scenery within the last decade. As Kenneth Rowell points out, A school of designers has come into prominence which dispenses with certain, though not all, of the usual materials associated with the making of stage scenery. ’Cheap scene paint’ is eschewed and many materials new in the building of scenery are used instead. Emphasis is placed on ’real’ materials—iron, steel and aluminum— and much use is made of new materials—polystyrene, fibre-glass and other plastics--and the texture of the materials attains a vital importance.6162 The settings were, therefore, divided into categories representing dominance by one of the three elements, color, form, or texture. Element dominance was judged on the basis that the element was sufficiently strong, over-powering, attention-getting, or pervasive as to act as the principal determinant of mood or atmosphere in the design. Color domi nance might be achieved through inherent color, paint, or lighting. Form dominance might be created through the outline, contours, and/or shape of the units in the setting, or through the basic arrangement of the units in the overall design. Texture dominance was defined as

61 0. A. Oeser, "Abstraction of Form and Colour."

Rowell, Stage Design. 36. 41 the surface texture(s), or the overall pattern and/or decorative surface treatment of the units and objects. There presently exists no instrument capable of measuring styles of settings or element dominance in settings; however, previous research in aesthetics has established the practice of using a panel of expert judges to select art works according to theoretical and qualitative standards. Such a panel was used to make final selection of the stimulus objects for this study. Preliminary selection of the 35mm slides of settings was made by Z y the researcher from a group of approximately 1000 examples. * Criteria for selection were: that the slide be of an actual stage setting under production conditions, that the slide be in color, that the slide include the full setting, and that the setting portrayed should, in the opinion of the researcher, exemplify the variables under consideration. In this preliminary selection six slides were selected in each of the following

^See, for example, Cyril Burt, "The Psychology of Art," Chapter 15 of How the Mind Works (Iondon: Alden and Unwin, 1933); Cardinet, "Pre ferences," (see note 37, page 23): Judith Cattell, Josephine Glascock, and M. F. Washburn, "Experiments on a Possible Test of Aesthetic Judgment of Pictures," American Journal of Psychology. XXIX, No. 3 (1918), 333-6; I. uL. --Child, !’Personality Correlates of Esthetic Judgment in College Students," Journal of Personality. 33 (1965), 476-511, and "Personal Preferences" (see note 44, page 26); Heather Dewar, "A Comparison of Tests of Artistic Appreciation," British Journal of Educational Psychol ogy. VIII, No. 1 (February, 1938), 29-49; Knapp, "A Triadic Hypothesis" (see note 40, page 24); Peel, "Identifying Aesthetic Types" (see note 32, page 20); or Pickett, "Style and Temperament" (see note 20, page 11). Z / ¡Slides were selected from the slide sets Theatre U.S.A. and The Designs of Josef Svoboda prepared by KaiDib Films, International (Glen dale, California), from the production files of the University Theatre, University of Georgia, and from the personal files of the researcher. 42 categories: Realistic, Color-dominant; Realistic, Form-dominant; Realistic, Texture-dominant; Stylized, Color-dominant; Stylized, Form dominant; Stylized, Texture-dominant; Abstract, Color-dominant, Abstract, Form-dominant; and Abstract, Texture-dominant. The group of settings comprising this initial selection are listed in Appendix A. The resulting group of 54- slides was then presented to a panel of seven expert judges, each of whom evaluated the slides independently. All of the judges were faculty members in university theatre departments— six from the University of Georgia, and one from Bowling Green State University. Of the seven judges, four hold the Doctor of Philosophy degree in theatre, while another is a member of United Scenic Artists of America, the professional union for theatrical designers. On the panel were four directors, two scenic designers, and one costumer, each of whom had been professionally employed in the theatre for an average of 13 years and had worked on an average of 78 productions. Upon receiving the group of 54 slides arranged in random order, each of the judges was instructed: (1) to sort the slides into three equal piles, each repre sentative of one of the three categories of style as established by the operational definitions cited above; and then (2), within each of the style categories, to sort and rank their first, second, and third choices of slides best exemplifying color dominance, fonn dominance, and texture dominance (see Appendix B). Using as a criterion a minimum of 60% agree ment among the judges, one slide best exemplifying each of the nine cate gories was selected, as follows: 1. Realistic, Color-dominant: Goodbye Charlie. W. Joseph Stell, 43

designer, Bowling Green State University. 2. Realistic, Form-dominant: The Chalk Garden. Vern Adix, designer, University of Utah. 3. Realistic, Texture-dominant: Ardele, Richard Gullickson, designer, University of Georgia. 4. Stylized, Color-dominant: Cornus. Liz Whitney Quizzard, designer, Goucher College. 5. Stylized, Form-dominant: Carmen. Josef Svoboda, designer, Metropolitan Opera. 6. Stylized, Texture-dominant: Misalliance. Eric Levenson, designer, Wellesley College. 7. Abstract, Color-dominant: King Lear. Richard G. Mason, designer, University of Hawaii. 8. Abstract, Form-dominant: Macbeth. George W. McKinney, designer, Eastern New Mexico University. 9. Abstract, Texture-dominant: Carmen. Josef Svoboda, designer, Metropolitan Opera. Copies of the setting photographs are exhibited in Figures 4, 5, and 6. Subjects’ exposure to these nine slides constituted the three levels each of the style and element-dominance variables in the investi gation (Factors A and B in each of the three modules of the design—see Figures 1, 2, and 3, pages 35, 36, and 37).

2. Subject Variables: Extraversion/lntroversion and Neuroticism. Categorization of the subjects according to extraversión and neuroticism was accomplished by use of Form A of the Eysenck Personality Inventory 44 FIGURE 4

Realistic Settings

Realistic: Texture Dominant 45

FIGURE 5

Stylized Settings

Stylized: Color Dominant

Stylized: Form'Dominant

Stylized: Texture Dominant 46 FIGURE 6

Abstract Settings

Abstract: Texture Dominant 47

(EPI), which is designed to measure personality in terms of the two.' conceptually independent dimensions»of “extraversion-introversion (E) 'L • ' 65 ■ and neuroticism-stability (N). The test consists of 57 questions to

r * i t 4 * i /4*' which each subject answers "yes."/or "nò"./ The questions.were selected on the basis of item and factor analyses and are broken down as follows: 24 questions measuring extraversion-introveráion; 24 questions measuring neuroticism-stability; and 9 response distortion (Lie) questions, which are included to detect attempts to falsify answers. The test and its accompanying set of instructions are reproduced in Appendix G. The EPI was developed by Eysenck as the result of a long series of studies into the theoretical background and experimental validation of ■ *1 ■ ¿6 the concepts of extraversión and neuroticism, which Eysenck defines as follows:

6-*The independence of these two dimensions has been repeatedly demonstrated in such studies as A. :W. Bendig, "Extraversión, Neuroticism, and Student Achievement in Introductory Psychology," Journal of Educa tional Research. 53 (I960), 263-7; Cyril Burt, "The Factorial Study of Temperament Traits," British Journal of Psychology. Statistical Section, 1 (1948), 178-203; H. J. Eysenck, "The Questionnaire Measurement of Neuroticism and Extraversión," Revista Di Psicología. 50 (1956),. 113-40; S. B. G? Eysenck and H. J. Eysenck, "The Validity of Questionnaires and Rating Assessments of Extraversión and Neuroticism and Their Factorial Validity," British Journal of Psychology. 54 (1963), 51-62; and F. H. Farley, "On the Independence of Extraversión and Neuroticism," Journal of Clinical' Psychology. 2 (1967); 154-6. ; 66H. J. Eysenck, Dimensions of Personality (New York: Macmillan, 1947); The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria (New York: Praeger,' 1957); The Structure of Human Personality (London: Methuen, I960); The Biolog ical Basis of Personality (Springfield. Illinois: Thomas, 1967); H. J. Eysenck and S. B. G. Eysenck, Personality Structure and Measurement (San Diego, Calif.: Robert A. Knapp, Publishers, 1968); and H. J. Eysenck and S. Rachman, The Causes and Cures of Neurosis (San Diego, Calif.: Robert A.'Knapp, Publishers, 1965). 48

Extraversión as opposed to introversion, refers to the outgoing, uninhibited, impulsive, and sociable inclinations of a person. Neuroticism refers to the general emotional overregponsiveness, and liability to neurotic breakdown under stress.®' The EPI is designed to measure extraversión and neuroticism according to those definitions. The test is a refinement of the earlier Maudsley 68 Personality Inventory providing a more careful selection of questions, rewording of questions to make them more understandable by a wider range of subjects, and inclusion of the Lie Scale. Evaluations of the ÉPI expend from such commendatory statémeñts as the one-by Cline: ' "For ’ • < those who wish to measure the dimension of neuroticism-stability and/or • i • > * . • r- . ■ f*. extroversion-introversion; the EPI is probably the best instrument now -s ' - •' • /« • T A • A rS* 4« available and certainly is backed by.''superior research,” to moré re- «’ *> , served comments such as the one by Lanyon: !*There are some deficiencies with the American norms, and the lie scale should be used only with caution. As measures of the two major factors of personality, the EPI 70 scales are as good as any." As an indication of the wide acceptance

67 H. J. Eysenck and Sybil B. G. Eysenck, Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory (San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1968), 5. ^H. J. Eysenck, The Maudsley Personality Inventory (San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1962). • 69 : ’ Victor B. Cline, untitled review in The Seventh Mental Measure ments Yearbook. Oscar Kfisen Buros, ed., I (Highland Park, New Jersey: The Gryphon Press, 1972), 163.’ ' ■ 70 Richard I. Lanyon, untitled review, Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. 164. 49 of the EPI as a personality measure, Buros lists over 100 studies which utilized this particular instrument as an investigatory device. 71 On Monday and Tuesday, September 23 and 24, 1974, (the second week of the Fall quarter) the EPI, together with the Rep Test to be discussed in the next section, was administered to a total sample of 205 subjects, of whom 101 were female, 80 male, and 24 provided no personal informa tion whatsoever. Details of subject selection are discussed in this . report under the appropriate heading. The tests were scored using scoring sheets provided with the test forms. Scores ranged from 2 to 21 on the extraversión (E) scale, and from 2 to 21 on the neuroticism (N) scale. These scores compared 72 favorably with raw scores and percentile norms provided by Eysenck. The mean of 13.4 for the extraversión scale was well within the 99% confidence interval of Eysenck’s reported mean of 13.1 J and, similarly, the mean of 11.09 on the neuroticism scale was within the 99% confidence interval of Eysenck’s mean of 10.9. Score distributions for these two scales are displayed in Figures 10 and 11 in the section of this report dealing with experimental procedures.

3. Subject Variable: Cognitive Complexity-simplicity. Scores on .. - , ? . I Í « the complexity-simplicity continuum were obtained’’ by using a version of ’ v -.,/rv .. . * •••..- V ■ " - ? I• /, * '. . 71 « , ' •’ ' Seventh Mental Measurements^ Yearbook. 160-2. \ > 72 ’ Eysenck and Eysenck, Manual of «the* EPI. 8-9. 50 the Role Concept Repertory Test de• v- is' ed by Bieri and others, 73 and sub- sequently modified slightly by Gourd. 74 The • t* est consisted of a 10 x 10 grid or matrix, each column of which was labeled with the role title of a person ^selected to be representative of the meaningful persons in the *' 75 v x ': judge’s social environment." During*the administration of the test, the subjects were instructed to insert above each column the name or initials of a person fitting that),role label. '^Adjacent to .the grid was a set of ten six-step Likert scales, each identified by a pair of bi polar adjectives (constructs). Each of the persons listed across the top of the-grid was rated by the subjects on each of the"ten Likert scales, and a number from 1 to 6 was inserted in the appropriate grid block under the person’s name. The test and its accompanying set of instructions are reproduced in Appendix D. In the original Rep Test formulated by Kelly in 1955, each subject was asked to consider three role persons simultaneously and to form his own constructs by indicating in what way two of the role persons were 76 alike and different from the third. A later version of the test, developed by Bieri in 1966, abandoned the procedure of considering role

7^James Bieri, et. al., Clinical and Social Judgment: The Discrim ination of Behavioral Information (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966), 190-1. 74E. William Gourd, Jr., "Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity and In formation Processing in Theatre Audiences: An Experimental Study" (Un published Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1973), 42-8 ^Bieri, Clinical and Social Judgment. 190. 76Ibid.. 189. 51 models in triads and used constructs provided by the examiner as opposed to constructs formulated by the subject. Studies by Tripodi and Bieri (1963), Kieferle and Sechrest (1961), and Jaspars (1964) were cited as evidence that comparable complexity indices can be derived from constructs 77 provided by the examiner as well as those formulated by the subject. The procedure of considering role models in triads was relinquished by Bieri because the triad method was excessively tedious and time consuming for the subject. In addition, research by Torgerson (1958) and Jaspars (1964) indicated that the change would not significantly alter the re- su1i4t. s. 78 In the interests of clarity, pertinence, and ease of execution, Gourd made three minor modifications to Bieri*s 1966 version of the Rep Test: ' ' - 1 » ? t 1. Bieri*s test'placed the role titles at right angles to the. grid, such that it seems to have .been-necessary for the subject to turn-her' test paper in order^.to/read'a given title. The current test positioned those titles at\a 45-degree angle to the grid, thereby making it possible to cómplete;thé entire test without manipulation. ■ ’ 2. Bieri*s test employed a six-step Likert rating scale, numbered from +3 to -3j the current .test retained the-.six-step scale, but numbered it from**! to 6. The "minuses**’and'’’pluses**’were considered potentially confusing to the subjects and possibly prejudicial to their ratings. 3. The role title "Boss" was changed to "Any teacher" because the latter label seemed more appropriate to the students used as sub jects. Perhaps unfortunately, it also was judged to carry the same sort of authoritarian value as the title "Boss."?9

77Bieri, Clinical and Social Judgment. J91-2. 78Ibid.. 193. 79 Gourd, "Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity," 47. « '

The Rep Test used in this investigation was identical to Gourd’s 1973 modification. The Rep-Tests were administered at the same time and as part of the same packet of tests as the EPI discussed in the previous section. Bieri has described the scoring procedure for the' test: Cognitive complexity is measured by comparing each rating in a row with the rating directly below it (i.e., for the same person) in the other rows on the matrix. In comparing any two construct rows, a score of one is given for,every exact agreement of ratings on any one person. This matching procedure is carried out for all possible comparisons, and the scores for each comparison are added to give one total score. Since there are 45 possible row comparisons'in a 10 x 10 matrix, the highest possible score is 450. A score'of 450 would Indicate that the judge gave the same rating . on all-bipolar constructs to all of the role types. This judge would be relatively cognitively simple because he is using his construct dimensions in an identical manner to construe all the individuals on the grid. On the other hand, a person with a score-as low as 100 is presumed to be relatively cognitively complex because he uses constructs differently in discriminating among people. u The Rep Tests used in the present investigation were scored in an iden tical manner. Scores ranged from 83 to 281. The score distributions are displayed in Figure 8 in the section dealing with experimental procedures.

4. Subject Variable: Sex. Relatively little extant research in aesthetics explores response differences between males and females; and , the decision to include sex as an independent variable in this; study was based largely on the researcher’s feeling that further investigation of ♦ this variable is needed. A few studies! however, have achieved results

^Bieri, Clinical and Social Judgment.1190-1. 53 which supported the belief that inclusion of sex as a variablé might prove to be fruitful. For instance, Gourd, in his study investigation relation ships between audience members’ perceptions of dramatic productions and cognitive complexity-simplicity,' found that subject sex interacted with stimulus complexity-simplicity to produce significantly differing re- _ »v- ’ 7 ■ ‘ ' J ■ ' sponse patterns. In addition, Oeser, in his studies of .visual form dominance'vs. color dominance, foundsthat’men tended to be more 'influenced ? « I * : 82"*' 'f--i ' ' • ■ by form and women more by color, ’a result supported by later experimen- go ' • '»-*• ** < tation by Qarruthers. Because of the academic and logistical condi- * ♦ r t j ' * Z tions governing subject selection, it was not felt possible' to fully equalize the numbers of male and female subjects employed in the inves tigation; however, the total sample of approximately 125 was considered sufficiently large to achieve a random and approximately equal distri bution of males and females.

Dependent Variables A principal aim of this study was to gather from subjects a broad spectrum of ’’sentiment,’’ or "feeling,’’ responses to the stage settings; therefore, some rating scale method of accumulating such responses seemed appropriate. Nunnally has written that when a researcher seeks to scale individuals with respect to ‘sentiments, it is appropriate to use rating

81"Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity, 104-12. 82 "Abstraction of Form and Colour."

83'Margaret Carruthers, "Colour-Form Dominance and Memory for Colour," (Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Glasgow, 1970); 54

g / scales. * One of the most commonly used type of numerical rating scales in attitude and sentiment research is the semantic differential. The differential has received much attention since its development in 1957 by Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum. 85 Suffice it to indicate here that the differential is viewed by many contemporary researchers as a valuable tool for quantifying various aesthetic concepts and that, despite some criticisms of the instrument, empiricists continue to seek refinements in its use. Although a number of differentials have been developed for research in theatre concepts, S6 and for visual art concepts, gV' only Caldwell created a differential specifically designed for use with stage settings.8

Unfortunately, as pointed out in Chapter I, the procedures to develop

^Jum C. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), 519. ^Measurement of Meaning (see note 23, page 13). ^6See, for instance, Raymond G. Smith, "A Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts,’1 Speech Monographs; XXVIII. No. 1 (1961), >1-8; Brian K. Hansen and Ernest G. Bormann,y|JA,New Look at a Semantic’¡Dif-^ ferential for, the Theatre," Speech Monographs. XXXVI, No. 2 (1969),*' -.163-70; and R. Wayne Smith, "A Study, of. the Actor-Character Relationship in Theatre Production," (Unpublished)Ph‘.D.-'dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1970). '• gn 5 • * *■• * •• *'• • * - * ■ * See, for instance, Kenneth Beittel; ’^Factor, Analysis of ¡Three Dimensions of the Art Judgment1 Complex:vCriteria, Art* Objects, and Judges," The Journal of Experimental Education. 32, No. 2 (1963), 171; M. Choynowski, "Dimensions of Painting," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 25 (1967), 128; as well as the study of paintings'by Tucker, already cited (see note 23, page 13).

88"Audience Response to Theatrical Settings" (see note 22, page 13). . ’55 that instrument left its validity somewhat in question. In addition, relatively few of the adjective scales employed measure.the emotion/ mood/atmosphere quality of scene design. As a result, it appeared necessary to this research to develop a semantic differential which could provide a stronger measure of the "feeling" quality of scenery.

Preparation. In developing this.new differential, the researcher felt that.it would be better to start fresh rather than attempt to modify any of the’ existing differentials. Accordingly, 88 bi-polar pairs of adjectives which seemed to represent a full range of feelings were se- 89 lected from a contemporary publication on synonyms and related words. This list was shortened to a total of 40 adjective pairs after the elim ination of pairs which appeared to offer mere duplication, seemed vague or imprecise, or were considered to be inappropriate to the thrust of this research. Comparison of the shortened list with Osgood’s Thesaurus study indicated that the selected adjective pairs extended across the 90 full range of factors discovered in that study. Seven of the selected pairs were identical, or extremely similar, to scales loading heavily on the "Evaluation" factor; five adjective pairs matched scales loading on the "Potency" factor; three pairs matched scales in the "Oriented Activ ity" factor; two pairs were found in the "Stability" factor; two in the "Receptivity" factor; and two fell into the "Unass.igned" category.

8^S. I. Hayakawa, Modern Guide to Synonyms and Related Words (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968). 90'M easu* rement of Meaning. 52-64. 56

Comparison of the adjective pairs with Tucker’s scales identified an • 91 . additional three pairs which matched scales in his "Activity” factor; and comparison with Smith’s differential found another pair loading on 92 his "Seriousness;*,1 factor. The remaining 14 adjective pairs were not found in any of the studies consulted. In order to further refine the adjective pairs into a concise and powerful instrument, a factor analytic investigation of the pairs as re sponses to. visual concepts was undertaken. Selected as the visual con cepts were three slides of stage settings which had been ranked by the panel,of judges as being the second best examples of form dominance in each of the three style categories.-* Specifically, the settings were:

* , I • * * f ' - Realistic—The Hostage. W. Joseph Stell, designer, University of Georgia; ‘ ' • • -, ■- ’’ V**’ '. .... Stylized—The Master Builder.'Todd Lee, désigner, Harvard University; f '' • .•••-' ’• < „A ’ ; ‘ ' and Abstract—When.We Dead Awaken. .SteveniRubin, designer, Yale Reper- tory Theatre. These settings are shown in'Figure 7. The 40 pairs of adjectives were sef'iip as seven-step bi-polar - , . . ’ / ■» ’. j -s * '*«• 5 . ‘ * adjective scales and randomly-arranged on a test sheet.-»Test booklets were prepared containing three adjective-scale test sheets (one for each of the three visual concepts) and a cover sheet With instructions for completing the test. Appendix E contains examples of the test sheet and cover sheet.

I 91 Osgood, Succi, and Tannenbaum, Measurement of Meaning. 69.

92"A. Semantic' Differential for the Theatre." 57 FIGURE 7

Setting Examples Used for Factor Analytic Study

Realistic

Stylized

Abstract 58

Procedure. The factor Analytic study.was conducted in two phases. In the first phase the ad j ective-scale test was ’administered' to a section of Art 300^(Appreciation of the Visual,Arts\ at the University of.Georgia / a. on Thursday; September 26, 1974. The class was composed of 103 students, v'- ’. ‘ of whom 46 were males, 56 were females, and one subject did not indicate either age or sex. The average age was 19.8, and the students were enrolled in major fields of academic study’ranging throughout the College of Arts and Sciences. The subjects could be considered to have only a general or naive knowledge of either theatre or art. The test was conducted in an audio-visual classroom in the Visual Arts Building. The room had large capacity seating.and was equipped with projectors, wall-size screen, and cllmmer-controlled lighting. The test booklets were passed out after a short pause to allow late-comers to arrive, the instructions were read aloud, time was provided for questions, and then the lighting was lowered and the setting slides projected onto the screen. Each slide was kept on the screen long enough for all the subjects to complete the form. After all three slides were shown, the < lights were raised, the booklets were collected, and any further questions were answered—the foremost question being, ’’What shows were the' settings for?" The subjects were then thanked for their cooperation in’the in vestigation, and the researcher left. The entire process required approximately 20 minutes. As a second phase to the factor analytic study, the researcher administered the same test to 11 classes in the Speech Communications Department. Nine of the classes were Speech 108 (Fundamentals of Speech 59

Communication), an introductary speech course taught as a service course in the Collège of Arts and Sciences; and two of the classes were more specialized speech courses: Speech 351 (Persuasion) and Speech 466 (Psychology of Speech Communication). The test was administered to eight classes on Thursday, October '3y 1974, and to the remaining three classes on Thursday, October 10, 1974. The total subject population was 169, or whom 68 were males and 101 were females. The average age was 19.4 and,'as in the first phase of the testing, the major fields of academic concentration ranged throughout the College of Arts and Sciences, with a few subjects actually being enrolled in other colleges in the university. Each of the testing sessions was conducted in the classroom in which the class was ordinarily held, most of which had only minimal audio visual equipment. The researcher, therefore, came equipped with a pro jector and a special low-wattage lamp designed to provide working light for the subjects without washing out the projected slides. The re searcher arranged to arrive at each classroom sufficiently early to set up the necessary equipment prior to class time. The actual test was con ducted in exactly the same manner as in the first phase of the testing, except in this testing series the slides werë presented fin a variety of ■ '.J random sequënces in order to offset any possible bias due to’sèquencing. * ’ ■. " * ' • Here again, the completion time for the testing averaged 20 minutes..

. • t Results. In order to determine trie ’.reliability of the test responses, the results fix>mKboth phases of testing were coded and submitted 60 to factor analysis separately. As Tucker points out, Individual scales cannot be depended upon to maintain a high degree of intercorrelation. ... the degree of intercorrelation among the same set of scales can be expected to exhibit variation and is dependent upon such features as the specific concept, sub jects, and time. ... It cannot be emphasized strongly enough . . . that the burden of demonstrating instrument reliability rests with the researcher. Assumptions of reliability—either on the part of the researcher or his reading audience—stand in direct violation of the most fundamental tenet of scientific method: the rejection of the a priori and the consequent reliance on the a posteriori.93 The specific procedure employed ..was - principal factors, orthogonal rotation to simple■. structu» re ur?s ing the■ v? ar1 im' a. x crite• rion, achieved through the BMD08M computer pro'*g r• am^9 4* The results from b/ oth .factor analyses

, *• . , r - • » t were compared to' determine if scale’ loadings were similar. The data from both testing sessions was then recombined and resubmitted to factor analysis. ' The rotated factor matrix for the Art 300 test data revealed eight dimensions with the 40 scales for the three visual concepts. The rotated factor matrix for the Speech classes test data provided seven dimensions. Good scale reliability was suggested by the similarity of the factor structures. For instance, 14 identical scales loaded heavily on Factor I in both testings; five identical scales loaded heavily on Factor II in

^Raymond K. Tucker, "Reliability of Semantic Differential Scales: The Role of Factor Analysis," Western Speech. XXXV, No. 3 (1971), 187-9.

9^BMD08M program of the Health Sciences Computing Facility, UCLA, revised January 1, 1973, in Biomedical Computer Programs, ed. by W. J. Dixon (3rd ed.; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973), 255-83. 61

both tests; two identical scales loaded heavily on Factor III; one on Factor IV; one on Factor V; and one on Factor VII. Not unexpectedly, the rotated factor matrix for the combined data revealed similar loadings, although only six factors appeared in this analysis. Complete data from these analyses may be found in Tables 21, 22, and 23, Appendix F. High loadings were numerous in all three analyses. Since the primary purpose of this preliminary Investigation was to construct a concise instrument capable of administration to large groups of subjects rapidly, a criteria for scale selection had to be established. Some guidelines for acceptance of factor loadings with respect to strength and purity have been suggested in research reported by Caldwell, by Smith, by Clevenger, et. al.. by Hansen and Bormann, and by Gourd. Basing his selection upon criteria outlined by Nunnally, Caldwell set his minimum acceptable loading at .70, with a minimum purity difference of .40. 95 Smith’s criterion for acceptance was a loading of .60 or 96 better balanced by a minimum purity difference of .35. Clevenger, Clark, and Lazier set their limits at ,65 minimal loading and a .30 purity difference, which they asserted were "rather more generous than usual," 97 Hansen and Bormann reported three criteria for scale selection: loadings of .70 or greater; loadings of between .35 and .70; loadings

Audience Response to Theatrical Settings," 68. 96»Actor-Character Relationships," 71. 97 Theodore Clevenger, Jr., Margaret Leitner Clark, and Gilbert N. Lazier, "Stability of Factor Structure in Smith’s Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts," Quarterly Journal of Speech. LII, No. 3 (1967), 243 62 which exceeded by at least twice the loading of the same scale on any other factor. 98 Gourd, because of the exploratory nature of his study, established a minimum high loading of .45 coupled with the requirement that the high loading be at least twice a given scale1s loading on any other factor. 99 The variety of criteria for scale selection reported above appears to bear out Clevenger, Clark, and Lazier* s assertion that "any specification of particular values for upper and lower limits of factor loadings is entirely arbitrary. Although the present study was also exploratory, the need for a parsimonious instrument required somewhat more restrictive criteria than that selected by Gourd. Conse quently, the minimum acceptable loading was set at .65, with a minimum purity difference of not less than .35« The factor matrix formed from the combined data offered the most power and was, therefore, the basic consideration in scale selection; although a secondary criterion for selection was that each selected scale had to load .65 or above on the same factor in each of the other two factor analyses with a reasonably high purity difference—although not necessarily as high as .35. Applying the above criteria for loading and purity, seven sets of bi-polar adjectives qualified for the first factor: "cheerful-gloomy,*’ "happy-sad," "jubilant-mournful," "exhilarating-depressing," "joyous- somber," "pleasant-unpleasant," and "sweet-bitter." Five scales

98"A New Look," 167. 99«cognitive Complexity-Simplicity," 76-7.

100"stability of Factor Structure," 243- 63 qualified for the second factor: "frantic-serene," "tense-relaxed," "nervous-placid," "restless-restful," and "Ferocious-peaceful." The fourth factor yielded only a single scale, "humorous-serious;" as did the fifth factor, which provided the scale, "sturdy-frail." No other factors yielded scales sufficiently strong to meet the criteria. Table 1 provides specific data on the selected scales. Since acceptable statistical procedure dictates that a factor be 101 composed of at least three scales, the semantic differential con structed from the above scales could be considered to represent only two factors. The scales "humorous-serious" and "sturdy-frail" met the criteria for inclusion and might be said to indicate possible dimensions of response to stage settings but, in the absence of other salient scales, can only be considered as interesting scales rather than as additional factors. Examination of the scales included in Factor I, and comparison with other semantic differentials, suggests that it is generally evaluative in nature, although the scales do appear to be more emotionally oriented than on most other "evaluative" factors. This factor might best be classified as "Mood Evaluation." Factor XI is clearly representative of activity or agitation. The Individual scales are, of course, self- explanatory. In addition to the 14 scales indicated above, the final differential included the scale "like-dislike," which was added to the instrument in

101 Nunnally, Psychometric Theory. 360. TABLE 1 Salient Scale and Factor Array: Factor Analyses of 40 Adjective Scale Items Measuring Responses to Settings — Combined Data Speech Tests Art 300 Tests Factor Scale Designation A B c A B C A B C 10. +cheerful-gloomy- .852 .696 .761 .847 .740 .760 .860 .746 .780 29. +happy-sad- .793 .590 .745 .738 .443 .720 .833 .615 .789 2. +j ub ilant-mouraful- •754 .601 .622 .718 .521 .631 .766 .583 .651 I. 13. ♦exhilarating-depressing .747 .370 .728 .758 .358 .742 .780 .544 .713 4. -somb er-j 0 you s+ .730 .592 .591 .728 •493 .636 .723 .588 .551 8. -unpleas ant-pleasant+ .728 .487 .682 .777 .554 .704 .685 .395 .746 9. ♦sweet-bitter- .674 .364 .599 .674 .353 .585 .656 .322 .616 % of total variance 26.4 25.3 27.4 19. ♦frantic-serene- .793 .660 .655 .811 .673 .689 .742 .549 .635 18. -relaxed-tense+ .778 .612 .690 .801 .679 .687 .771 .537 .716 II. 17. -plac id-nervous+ .768 ,648 .626 .775 • 648 .634 .743 .500 ♦656 34. ♦re stle ss-rest fui- .765 .650 .627 .761 .588 .650 .788 •733 .630 40. ♦ferocious-peaceful- .736 .460 .670 .742 •471 .690 .760 .533 .694 % of total variance 13.6 13.9 13-4 III. 37. ♦humorous-serious- .728 .419 .646 .770 .559 .663 .671 .241 .658 % of total variance 6.4 6.3 6.6 IV. 5. ♦sturdy-frail- .738 .485 .655 .816 .753 .677 .756 .503 .678 % of total variance 4.2 4.3 4*5 Column nA" = Rotated Factor Loading Column ”B" = Purity Difference Column nC” = Estimated Comraunalities 65 order to allow comparisons with previous aesthetic preference research, and to obtain correlations between "like-dislike” and other response variables» Any such correlations might provide insight into those aspects of emotional response which are associated with a liking for stage settings and, by possible extension, for visual stimuli in general» On the completed testing instrument, the 14 bi-polar adjective scales were arranged in random order, with the like-dislike scale being last. In addition, the positive-negative order of each scale, as in dicated by the factor analyses, was alternated. Test booklets were pre pared consisting of nine test forms and an instruction cover sheet identical to the one used in the adjective scalds test booklet. A sample of the test form may be found in Appendix G.

II» Experimental Procedures

The following sections detail the initial and final selections of subjects for the investigation, mechanical and logistical procedures followed in the conduct of the study, and administration of the person ality questionnaires and the dependent variable tests. Procedures re garding the administration and results of the selection process used to establish the nine treatment conditions (visual concepts) were discussed on pages 34-43» Procedures regarding the administration and results of the factor analytic study used to establish the dependent variables were discussed on pages 53-65. 66

Subject Selection All of the subjects involved in this study were students enrolled in nine sections of Drama (Introduction to World Drama and Theatre) at the University of Georgia during the Fall quarter of the academic year 1974-75. Prior to the beginning of the Fall quarter, the researcher had obtained from the Head of the Department of Drama and Theatre and from the professor in charge of the Drama 300 program permission to conduct research in those classes. In addition, since the investigation would require testing during actual class time, the necessary time allotment was scheduled into the course syllabus for that quarter. The study was scheduled to be accomplished in two steps: (1) the administration of the personality questionnaires, which was to be done soon after the quarter began; and (2) the showing of the design slides and adminis tration of the S.D., which was scheduled to occur near the end of the quarter during the time the classes would be commencing their study of theatrical scene designing. Since the researcher wished to disassociate the personality testing from the design-slide testing in the minds of the subjects, the person ality questionnaires were to be administered by the instructors in the individual'„classes. During a planning session for the Drama 300 in structors, five of whom were faculty members and four of whom were doc toral students serving as teaching assistants, the researcher explained the purpose of the investigation, distributed sample questionnaires (including the EPI and the Rep Test), and provided Instruction in the administration of the tests. The instructors were requested to 67

encourage the students to cooperate both by completing the forms and by providing their social security numbers on the forms (necessary for matching with the later tests), but were not to make an issue of strong objections on the part of any student. Appendix H contains a copy of the instruction sheet issued to the Drama 300 instructors. All of the instructors administered the personality test on either Monday or Tuesday, September 23-24, 1974, and the completed test forms were returned to the researcher. It was reported that the questionnaires required approximately 30 minutes to complete. A total of 205 students completed this initial testing. Subsequent phases of subject selection involved the elimination of subjects on the basis of several logistical and experimental criteria. The first group of subjects to be eliminated from inclusion in final data analyses were those who had failed to complete all parts of the questionnaire, or who had responded with obviously faked or other wise unusable information. Another, smaller, group of subjects was stricken from final consideration when their tests revealed excessively high scores on the EPI "Lie” scale. A third group of subjects was elim inated because they failed to provide a social security number on the questionnaire forms, making it impossible to match their responses from the two separate testing sessions. The last, and largest, group of sub jects to be eliminated from consideration consisted of those individuals who, for one reason or another, failed to appear at both testing ses sions. An inevitable result of an investigation such as this in which two testing sessions are held with an extensive span of time between is 68 that not all of the people appearing at the first session will reappear at the second session, and such was the case in this instance. It seems quite likely that heavy rainfall which occurred on both days of the final testing sessions contributed .’greatly to the disappointingly large degree of absenteeism which occurred on both occasions. After all the eliminations, however, a total of 123 subjects remained, which was con sidered ample for the purposes of this investigation. After the total group of subjects had been selected, It remained to distribute them according to the personality cells (Factors C and D) in the three test modules (see Figures 1,2, and 3). Little or no cri teria has been established regarding upper or lower limits for scores indicative of cognitive complexity or simplicity. Most investigators appear to be guided only by the arbitrary appearance of relatively high and relatively low scores. Gourd chose to base his final selection upon 102 the upper and lower quartile,, divisions in the scores, and such a pro cedure seemed equally applicable to this study. The total score distri bution is shown in Figure 8. Since responses to setting style and elements of design were of equal importance to personality variables In this study, however, the middle range of scores was not eliminated, but instead was set up as an individual cell for analysis. The final distri bution for Module II is shown in Figure 9* Eiysenck suggests that, in general, scores indicating high extra version and high neuroticism are those above the 70th percentiles and

102"Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity,n 48 69 FIGURE 8

Complexity Score Distribution

83 140 (2) 216 84 142 220 87 143 224 (2) 90 145 (2) 225 93 146 234 94 148 239 97 150 (2) 247 99 (3) 151 (3) 253 101 (3) 152 (3) 265 103 154 (3) 281 104 (2) 155 105 (3) 156 (6) 106 157 107 (2) 158 108 (2) 161 (2) 109 (2) 162 110 (2) 163 112 165 113 166 114 (5) 167 (2) 115 (2). 169 (3)--25th centile 116 (5)—75th centile 172 (2) 118 (2) 173 (3) 119 (2) 174 120 (6) 175 121 176 122 (2) 177 (2) X = 143.4 123 (3) 178 126 (2) 182 s = 14.06 127 (2) 184 (2) 128 (4) 186 (2) 129 (2) 188 130 (2) 189 131 (3) 190 132 192 133 (3) 193 135 (2) 194 136 (3) 195 137 (2) 200 138 (2) 203 139 (2) 212 70

FIGURE 9

Cell Distribution; Module II

Cell Identification Score Range Number of Subjects Cj Female, High-complex 90-116 U C^2 Male, High-complex 83-116 13 C2D^ Female, Medium-complex 118-165 35 C2D2 Male, Medium-complex 120-167 29 C^D^ Female, Low-complex 169-265 18 C.^ Male, Low-complex 169-281 14 71 that low extraversión (introversion) and low neuroticism are indicated 103 by scores below the 30th percentile. Comparison of the scores re vealed differences of only one or two points between the upper and lower 30 percentiles on the Percentile Norms for American College Students 104 provided by Eysenck and the upper and lower quartile scores recorded for this study. For the sake of consistency, therefore, the upper and lower quartile divisions were adopted as indices for the distribution of extraversión and neuroticism. Figures 10 and 11 provide the total score distributions for extraversión and neuroticism; and the final cell dis tributions for Modules I and III are shown in Figures 12 and 13.

Conduct of the Investigation At the time the personality questionnaires were administered, no indication was given to the subjects that the test was in any way con nected with any subsequent activity. The instructors were, in fact, requested to explain the tests as an attempt by the Department of Drama and Theatre to determine if there were any universal behavioral or per sonality factors which might characterize students who elect the Drama Appreciation course (as opposed to the Art Appreciation or Music Appre ciation courses), and around which the course might better be oriented. Since no mention was made of any further research, the extended span of time between the administration of the personality questionnaires and

103Manual for the EPI. 7.

10^Ibld.. 8. 72

FIGURE 10

Extraversion Score Distribution 21 20 (A) 19 (7) 18 (9) 17 (9) 16 (19)— 75th centile 15 (20) 14 (13) 13 (U) 12 (21) 11 (9)—25th contile 10 (15) 9 (6) 8 (6) 7 (9) 5 (2) 2 (2) Eysenck. "Percentile Norms"* M = 13.2 M ~ 13.1 s = 3-31 s = 4.1 99% confidence interval = 12.28 - 13.92

^Eysenck and Eysenck, Manual for the E.P.I.. 8 73

FIGURE 11

Neuroticism Score Distribution 21 (2) 20 (3) 19 (3) 18 (6) 17 (3) 16 (8) 15 (12) 14 (7)—75th centile 13 (15) 12 (19) 11 (9) 10 (19) 9 (13) 8 (9)__25th centile 7 (15) 6 (11) 5 (4) 4 (2) 3 (5) 2 Eysenck. "Percentile Norms"*

M = 11.09 M = 10.9 -■ s = 4.16 s = 4.7 99% confidence interval = 9.97 - 11.83

*Eysenck and Eìysenck, Manual for the E.P.I.. 8 74

FIGURE 12

Cell Distribution; Module I

Number Cell Identification Score Range of Subject; C^ High-neurotic, Extravert extraversión 16-20 9 neuroticism 14-20 C^D^ High-neurotic, Neutrovert extraversión 11-15 11 neuroticism 14-21 C^D^ High-neurotic, Introvert extraversión 5-10 11 neuroticism 14-20 Cj D^ M ed ium-neuro tic, Extravert extraversión 16-21 20 neuroticism 3-13 C^D^ Medium-neurotic, Neutrovert extraversión 11-15 25 neuroticism 8-13 C_D Medium-neurotic, Introvert extraversión 2-10 16 2 3 neuroticism 8-13 C^D^ Low-neurotic, Extravert extraversión 16-20 9 neuroticism 3-7 C^Dg Low-neurotic, Neutrovert extraversión 11-15 17 neuroticism 2-7 C^D^ Low-neurotic, Introvert extraversión 7-10 5 neuroticism 4-7 75

FIGURE 13

Cell Distribution: Module III

Number Cell Identification Score Range of Subj ects

C1D1 Extravert, High-complex extraversión 16-21 8 complexity 99-114

C1D2 Extravert, Medium-complex extraversión 16-20 21 complexity 119-167

C1D3 Extravert, Low-complex extraversión 16-19 9 complexity 169-281

C2D1 Neutrovert, High-complex extraversión 11-15 9 complexity 83-116

C2D2 Neutrovert , Medium-complex extraversión 11-15 28 complexity 118-167

C2D3 Neutrovert,, Low-complex extraversión 11-15 16 complexity 169-265

C3D1 Introvert, High-complex extraversión 2-10 10 complexity 84-115

C3D2 Introvert, Medium-complex extraversión 7-10 15 complexity 119-156 C,D, Introvert, Low-complex extraversión 7-10 7 3 3 complexity 173-220 76

the administration of the main test (approximately nine weeks), the com pletely different nature of the two tests, and the fact that the first test was administered by the individual instructors while the main test was administered by the researcher, were presumed sufficient to prevent subjects from connecting the two activities. The main test had been scheduled into the Drama 300 course time table for the days of November 19-20, 1974* Approximately one week before the test was scheduled to be administered, the researcher sent a note to each of the instructors reminding them of the planned testing session and requesting that they not forewarn their classes about the test, but that they make every other possible effort to insure maximum attendance at the session. It was necessary to schedule the testing sessions for two consecutive days since In three instances two sections of the course were being taught simultaneously. Consequently, six sections of Drama 300 were tested on November 19, 1974, and the remaining three sections were tested on the following day. All sections of the course were taught in a modern classroom building, and each of the classrooms was furnished with a large projec tion screen. None of the rooms, however, had any provision for minimal working light for the students while films or slides were being projected. The researcher, therefore, secured the same light source that had been used in the preliminary factor analytic study and brought that light to gether with the projector and slides to each of the classrooms at the time of the testing. 77

All of the classes to be tested on November 19th were conducted in the same classroom in consecutive periods. The researcher was able, therefore, to set up the projector and reading light prior to the first class that day and to leave the equipment up until all of the classes had been tested. The three classes to be tested on November 20th were taught in two different classrooms and, as a result, it was necessary to set up the equipment prior to class time and then remove the equipment after each testing session. At each session, the individual class instructor introduced the researcher shortly after the beginning of the class period (allowing approximately five minutes for latecomers to arrive). The researcher then introduced the test as a study of audience response to stage set tings In an attempt to gain more specific information which might aid the scenic designer in making a stage setting more communicative or expressive. The test forms were passed out and explained. The point was stressed that no response was incorrect and that even a "neutral” response could provide useful information. After an opportunity had been provided for any questions on the test form or procedure, the lights were lowered and the slides projected one-by-one onto the screen. The slides were projected in a randomized order to equalize any response bias caused by slide sequence, and the order was different for each class. No slide was changed until all members of the class had com pleted the test sheet for that slide. Latecomers did not participate in the test unless they arrived during the showing of the first slide and their completion of the test would not unduly delay the remainder of 78 the class. In all of the testing sessions, the test required approxi mately 30 minutes to complete. After the test had been completed, and the test forms collected, the researcher answered any questions about the project. Although the question roost frequently asked concerned the identity of the settings shown during the test, other students evidenced an interest in the pur pose and expected outcome of the research project itself. Except for the fact that the responses to the slides were to be correlated with the responses on the personality tests, no information was withheld from the students at that time. At the discretion of the individual instruc tor, the researcher either left the class after the question-answer period had been completed, or remained in the class and participated in a general discussion of scene design styles, designers, trends and developments. In either case, the students were thanked for their par ticipation in the study and invited to contact the researcher at his office if they were interested in discussing the investigation further.

III. Statistical Treatment of Data

Multivariate data analyses were executed throughout the study. Indeed, the very design of the study was based upon a multivariate con cept—that responses to a stimulus (in this case stage settings) may be the function of many variables, both within the stimulus and within the person responding. Most behavioral research has moved beyond the stage of univariate or bivariate investigation in which the effect of a single independent variable upon a single dependent variable is measured. As 79

Kelly indicates, "Modern communication theory and other modern behavioral 105 theories are based on complex models of human behavior." Such com plexity requires the use of statistical methods which provide clearer, more complete discrimination and analysis than can be obtained with uni variate techniques. DI Salvo and Hilyard very clearly point out the limitations of univariate analysis: By analyzing his data with a univariate analysis of variance model, /the investigator/ runs the risk of sacrificing the structural relationships among his dependent variables which could possibly have helped hlnumaxlmize the differences between his experimental conditions.10® Multivariate techniques allow investigation of entire systems of variables operating in concert, and can thereby uncover not only the influence of the variables upon the behavior of the subjects being studied, but also the effect of the variables upon one another. Understandably, Cattell considers multivariate methods of analysis essential to exploratory studies of behavior: The multivariate methods have a special, indeed indispensable function at the first, exploratory stages, to find the under lying influences ("relevant variables") and concepts and the valid ways of measuring them. Once found they can also be used as the concepts in bivariate experiments with manipulative control. • . • Multivariate procedures, however, belong as well to the very last (and to some extent the applied) stages in a field, in that they lead to a final comprehensiveness in

^Francis J. Kelly, "Multivariate Design Considerations," in Philip Emmert and William D. Brooks, Methods of Research in Communication (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1970), 52. 1 ^Vincent Di Salvo and Delmer Hilyard, "A Multivariate Analysis of Variance Investigation of Small Group Behavior" (paper presented in the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, 1971), 1-2. 80

determining the relative importance and Interaction of the totality of theoretical concepts of influence in some complex phenomenon•™

Factor Analyses "Factor analysis has become the generic term for a variety of pro cedures developed for the purpose of analyzing the intercorrelations 108 within a set of variables." This statistical technique provided the preliminary analyses of the dependent variables. Characterized by Tatsuoka as "a multivariate technique par excellence," 109 factor analysis was first used to identify the number and nature of the underlying variables among the adjective scales originally chosen as measures of responses to settings (see pages 59-65). Results from these factor analyses were used to set up the semantic differential which provided the dependent variables for the main test. Verification of this use of factor analysis is provided by Cooley and Lohnes: "Another situation in which factor analysis may be used is that in which we wish to reduce the dimensionality of a set of variables by taking advantage of their inter correlations ." o

107Raymond B. Cattell, ed., Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology (Chicago: Rand, McNally and Company, 1966), 64. 1^William W. Cooley and Paul R. Lohnes, Multivariate Data Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971), 129

109^Maurice M. Tatsuoka, Maltivarlate Analysis (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971), 2. 110 Multivariate Data Analysis. 131. 81

Factor analysis was also used on the data from the main test. Here the purpose was to reconfirm the factor identification of the scales used in the semantic differential and thereby to establish scale reliability for the main test. Once again, the specific procedure em ployed was principal factors, orthogonal rotation to simple structure using the varimax criterion, achieved through the BMD08M computer program. 111

Multivariate Analysis of Variance Data from the main test was subjected to multivariate analysis of variance according to the factorial modules indicated in Figures 1,2, and 3. In addition, the variable clusters identified by the factor analysis were subjected to multivariate analysis. A fixed-effects model necessitated the choice of error term as the within-groups SSCP (the multivariate counterpart of the univariate within-groups sum of squares), and the analysis was carried out by using the nMUDAID,* computer pro- 112 gram. Because of the exploratory nature of this study, an alpha level of .05 was established as indicating a possible trend, while an alpha level of .01 was established as the minimum criterion for signi- gicance. The F-ratio and/or Chi-square statistic derived from Wilks’ (1932) likelihood ratio criterion was selected as the test of signifi cance in the multivariate model, In accordance with Jones' assertion

111 See note 94, page 60. 112Designed by Rolf E. Bargmann, Department of Statistics, Uni versity of Georgia, 1971. 82

that "the likelihood ratio criterion probably should be preferred in current empirical usage," 113 since "when more than one population root is large, i.e., when there are several prominent orthogonal dimensions of between-groups differences, the power of the likelihood ratio criterion reaches its maximum." 114 Wilks1 criterion also served as a basis for post-significance examinations which utilize discriminant function analysis, to be discussed in the next section.

Discriminant Function Analysis In multivariate studies with relatively large numbers of groups and with relatively large numbers of dependent variables, it is desir able to use a method of post-significance examination which will pro vide a basis for interpretation of differences between or among those groups by focusing not on group means, or on single variables, but on the entire system of dependent variables from which the significance derived. Discriminant function analysis provides such a means of examination by determining the coefficients of the linear combination of variables which best discriminate between groups of subjects, in the sense that the be tween-groups sum of squares is a maximum with respect to the

113 I$rle V. Jones, "Analysis of Variance in its Multivariate Developments," in Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology ed. by Raymond B. Cattell, 250. 114 Ibid.. 249- 83

within-groups sum of squares. The combination of variables obtained In this is called a discriminant function. Multiplying each subject's raw score on each variable in the set by the corresponding discriminant function coefficient, and summing those pro ducts, results in a discriminant function score for each subject on the set of variables. Within each group, the mean of the subjects' discrim inant function scores represents the group discriminant function score, or group centroid—the multivariate analogue to a univariate group mean. Once the group centroids have been calculated for each hypothesis in the investigation's design, the researcher may then plot them along the dimension represented by the discriminant function for a pictorial view of the differences among the groups.

11 5R. Darrell Bock and Ernest A. Haggard, "The Use of Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Research," in Handbook of Measure ment and Assessment in Behavioral Sciences, ed. by Dean K. Whitla (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co,, 1968), 117. 84

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter contains four major subdivisions, the first of which will report the results of the factor analysis computed to reconfirm the factor identification of the scales used in the semantic differential and thereby to establish scale reliability for the main test. The dis cussion of factor analysis will include further identification and characterization of the factors and comparison of the factor analysis results with a correlation matrix obtained from the multivariate analysis of variance (MUDAID). The three remaining subdivisions of the chapter will report re sults from multivariate analyses of variance of sets of scores from each of the three modules of the design (each module Incorporating the same set of dependent variables). As each MUDAID table is presented, results of post-significance examinations, by means of discriminant analysis, of significant main and interaction effects will also be reported. Discrim ination data tables will present four components of data: (1) estimated combined means for the dependent variables in the relevant set, as a method of examining raw-score information and making preanalysis com parisons among all cells; (2) weights of discriminant function, as a method of indicating those dependent variables within each set which appear to have contributed maximally to the separations between groups; (3) correlations between discriminant function and original variables, to provide a more exact index of the contribution of each response 85 variable to a given discrimination; and (4) cell centroids, which represent the multivariate analogue to cell means in univariate analysis, and which are the final indicators of the relative positions of the sub jects in each cell with respect to the relevant variables. Since, in most cases, the large numbers of cell centroids involved suggests a need for further clarification, the centroids for interaction effects will also be displayed in graphic form. Interpretation of the results will be reserved for Chapter IV.

I, Factor Analysis

A comparison of the factor analysis results displayed in Table 2 with the scale arrays shown in Table 1 (page 64) shows that the factor composition obtained from both factor analyses was virtually identical. The only significant change found in the factor analysis of the main test data was the loading of the scale "humorous-serious” onto the first factor; in the preliminary investigation this scale had represented a separate dimension of meaning. Further confirmation of the scale clusters was obtained from the correlation matrix "E" provided by the

»'Multivariate Analysis Methods: Multivariate Analysis of Regular Two-Way Classification," Unpublished report, University of Georgia, January, 1971, 20. (Mimeographed.), Rolf E. Bargmann states, "/The/ discriminant function is a mathematical artifact. Only in the rarest of circumstances would these z-scores have any physical signi ficance. . . . However, the correlation of each original variable, versus this artificial variable, would indicate how close each variable is to this best discriminator. This correlation is thus an index which shows to what extent each Variable contributes to the discrimination." TABLE 2 Salient Scale and Factor Arrays Factor Analysis of 15 Semantic Differential Items Measuring Responses to Settings (Three Factors Extracted; All Salient)

Scale Rotated Purity Estimated Factor Designation Factor Loading Difference Comraunality

I 1, + cheerful-gloomy - .839 .578 .780 2. + happy-sad - . .845 .597 .781 3. + jubilant-mournful - .853 .736 .744 4. + exhilarating-depressing - .807 .536 .725 5. + joyous-somber - .845 .749 .723 6. + pleasant-unpleasant - .725 .332 .707 7. + sweet-bitter - .714 .326 .660 13. + humorous-serious - .772 .540 .653 II 8. - frantic-serene + .881 .830 .779 9. - tense-relaxed + .756 .347 .743 10. - nervous-placid + .854 .636 .778 11. - restless-restful + .863 .747 .763 12. - ferocious-peaceful + .860 .655 .784 III 14. + sturdy-frail - .852 .796 .730

% of Total Variance: Factor I: 37.5 Factor II: 26.9 Factor III: 8*0

Scale 15 (+ like-dislike -) loaded .465 on Factor I; .139 on Factor II; and .538 on Factor III; with an Estimated Comraunality of .524. O' 87

117 MUDAID analysis (Table 3). In this matrix, also, "humorous-serious" is positively correlated with the original scales of Factor I, although the correlations are not as high as those found between the original scales of that factor. With the exception of the "humorous-serious" loading onto Factor I, the results of these analyses provided strong confirmation of the factor composition used In the semantic differential; therefore, the variable clusters displayed In Table 2 were employed in the multivariate analyses of the main test data. Factor I, which has previously been characterized as "mood eval uation," bears a strong resemblance to Caldwell's Dimension III obtained in his second preliminary investigation, which employed slides of stage 118 settings as the concept/stimulus. That dimension was composed of the scales "happy-sad" and "pleasant-unpleasant." In addition, Factor II, characterized as an "activity" dimension, bears a resemblance to Caldwell* s 119 Dimension I of the same investigation. The similarity of these factor/ dimensions, obtained from the same type of visual stimuli, would appear to provide additional confirmation of the reliability of the factor arrays as indicators of response patterns to stage settings. Further examination of the correlation matrix reveals that variable "tense-relaxed" in Factor II exhibits a high negative

117Matrix E is the "matrix of sums and squares and products for error. ... THE ONLY VALID ESTIMATE OF CORRELATIONS BETWEEN RESPONSE VARIABLES." Bargmann, "Multivariate Analysis Methods," 9-10. i *1 q "Audience Response to Theatrical Settings," 81. (See note 22, page 13.) 119Ibid. 88

TABLE 3 Correlation Matrix of 15 Dependent Variables, obtained from MTJDAID

£l h !6 P-j Cheerful-Gloomy 1.00 .69 .59 .56 .56 .63 ?2 Happy-Sad .69 1.00 .62 .55 .55 .58 P^ Jubilant-Mournful .59 .62 1.00 .56 .56 .48 P^ Exhilarating-Depressing .56 .55 .56 1.00 .52 .55 P^ Joyous-Somber .56 .55 .56 .52 1.00 .48 P^ Pleasant-Unpleasant .63 .58 .48 .55 .48 1.00 P? Sweet-Bitter .55 .56 .53 .50 .43 .52 Pg Frantic-Serene -.28 -.24 -.16 -.13 -.13 -.35 Tense-Relaxed -.48 -.49 -.35 -.28 -.33 -.49 Pl ¿Nervous-Placid -.38 -.34 -.27 -.25 -.27 -.44 P^ Restless-Restful -.33 -.31 -.23 -.16 -♦18 -.35 P^Ferociou s-Peac eful -.39 -.36 -.26 -.19 -.22 -.41 P^ ^Humorous-Serious .37 .41 .46 .33 .45 .30 P1^Sturdy-Frail .05 .08 .01 .10 .00 .05 P1^Like-Dislike .35 .29 .30 .48 .25 .46 89

TABLE 3 (cont.)

% £8 £2 F10 £n p12 £n £ia £15 .55 -.28 -.48 -.38 -.33 -.39 .37 .05 .35 .56 -.24 -.49 -.34 -.31 -.36 .41 .08 .29 .53 -.16 -.35 -.27 -.23 -.26 .46 .01 .30 .50 -.13 -.28 -.25 -.16 -.19 .33 .10 .48 .43 -.13 -.33 -.27 -.18 -.22 .45 .00 .25 .52 -.35 -.49 -.44 -.35 -.41 .30 .05 .46 1.00 -.33 -.43 -.41 -.37 -.42 .35 .00 .33 -.33 1*00 .52 .65 .63 .63 -.07 -.05 -.19 -.43 -.52 1.00 .62 .57 .61 -.24 .02 -.24 -.41 .65 .62 1*00 *66 .65 -.18 -.05 -.22 -.37 .63 .57 .66 1.00 .61 -.12 -.08 -.20 -.42 .63 .61 .65 .61 1.00 -.13 .00 -.18 .35 -.07 -.24 -.18 -.12 -.13 1.00 -.09 .07 *00 -.05 .02 -.05 -.08 .00 -.09 1.00 .16 .33 -.19 -.24 -.22 -.20 -.18 .07 .16 1.00 90

correlation to variables P-j "cheerful-gloomy," P2 "happy-sad," and "pleasant-unpleasant," in Factor I, suggesting a degree of bi-polarity between these variables which did not appear in the factor analyses. A similar, but slightly weaker negative correlation occurs between variable "nervous-placid" on Factor II, and variable P^ "pleasant- unpleasant" on Factor I. In addition, the "like-dislike" variable, which loaded almost equally onto Factors I and III in the factor analysis, was found in the correlation matrix to be most highly correlated with variables P^ "exhilarating-depressing" and P& "pleasant-unpleasant" of Factor I.

II. Analyses of Variance and Post-Significance Examinations: Module I

Tables 4 through 8 display the results of multivariate analyses of variance of data from Module I of the investigation* s design, as well as results of post-significance examinations of significant main and inter action effects. Significant Style x Element (A x B interaction) effects in each of the analyses were not examined. The effects of the Style and Element factors could only be considered significant if no interaction occurred. The significant interaction effect between the two factors indicated marked differences in subjects' responses to the nine indi vidual settings—responses which could not be attributed to either Style or Element, but to varying combinations of the two. Since the focus of this study related to possible main effects of the factor Style, further investigation of the interaction effect did not appear fruitful. The 91 remaining value of the Style and Element factors was presumed to rest with the possibility of their interactions with the other factors of Extraversión and Neuroticism, and in the subsequent modules, with Complexity and Sex. Although post-significance examinations were carried out only in terms of clusters of dependent variables corresponding to speoific fac tors isolated by the factor analyses, each MUDAID table includes analysis of the entire system of dependent variables within the relevant design module. This was done primarily to illustrate trends in the data which, in many instances, were realized more strongly in the analyses of the variable clusters. Table 4 indicates that, considering the entire system of 15 scales, and in addition to the Style x Element (A x B interaction) effect already discussed, significant differences appeared in the interaction of Neu roticism and Extraversión (C x D Interaction effect). When each factor of the system was analyzed separately, the same effect was observed in Factor I, but failed to appear in the other analyses. The probability level was higher in Factor I than the level Indicated by gross analysis of the entire variable system, suggesting greater power exerted by the separate variable cluster. In the analysis of the variable Sturdy- Frail, significant differences appeared between the three levels of sub ject Neuroticism (C main effect), while In the analysis of the variable Like-Dislike significant differences appeared in the interaction of Element and Neuroticism (B x C interaction effect). 92

TABLE 4 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MUDAID) (Style x Element x Extraversión x Neuroticism)

Ehtire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 471.90 30 0.000006 B main (Element) 440.80 30 0.000000 C main (Neuroticism) 53.45 30 0.00529 D main (Extraversión) 63.07 30 0.000385 A x B 888.10 60 0.000000 A x C 72.53 60 0.129 (N.S.) A x D 61.39 60 0.426 (N.S.) B x C 59.35 60 0.499 (N.S.) B x D 50.72 60 0.798 (N.S.) C x D 81.81 60 0.0322

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Sauare d.f. Significanceì level A main 322.70 16 0.000000 B main 331.50 16 0.000000 C main 21.96 16 0.144 (N.S.) D main 41.76 16 0.000429 A x B 636.40 32 0.000000 A x C 40.55 32 0.143 (N.S.) A x D 24.07 32 0.842 (n.s.) B x C 23.74 32 0.854 (N.S.) B x D 26.20 32 0.755 (N.S.) C x D 56.83 32 0.00441

Continued next page 93

TABLE 4 (cont.)

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significancet level A main 287.00 10 0.000000 B main 152.70 10 0.000000 C main 16.78 10 0.0794 (N.S.) D main 12.39 10 0.260 (N.S.) A x B 191.90 20 0.000000 A x C 25.21 20 0.193 (N.S.) A x D 17.37 20 0.629 (N.S.) B x C 20.20 20 0.445 (N.S.) B x D 13.15 20 0.871 (N.S.) C x D 15.33 20 0.757 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significancei level A main 8.236 2, 1097 <0.005 B main 53.910 2, 1097 <0.005 C main 6.502 2, 1097 <0.005 D main 0.311 2, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 27.070 4, 1097 <0.005 A x C 1.041 4, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) A x D 0.477 4, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) B x C 1.498 4, 1097 >0.100 (N.S.) B x D 1.254 4, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) C x D 2.068 4, 1097 >0.050 (N.S.)

Continued next page 94

TABLE 4 (cont.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 7.942 2, 1097 <0.005 B main 18.640 2, 1097 <0.005 C main 0.887 2, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) D main 1.664 2, 1097 >0.100 (N.S.) AxB 14.940 4, 1097 <0.005 A x C 1.263 4, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) A x D 1.496 4, 1097 >0.100 (N.S.) B x C 3.850 4, 1097 <0.005 B x D 1.461 4, 1097 >0.100 (N.S.) CxD 0.993 4, 1097 >0.250 (N.S.) 95

Factor I, Neuroticism x Extraversión (C x D Interaction) Effect;

FP r• + Cheerful-Gloomy - P : + Happy-Sad - 2 35 + Jubilant-Mournful - V + Exhilarating-Depressing - V + Joyous-Somber - V + Pleasant-Unpleasant - V + Sweet-Bitter - P,„: + Humorous-Serious 13 Discriminant analysis of Factor I Neuroticism x Extraversión interaction (Table 5) shows relatively high absolute values for the weights of dis criminant function corresponding to six of the dependent variables in the factor, indicating that these variables contributed maximally to the separations among the groups. Four of the variables, "happy-sad," 11 joyous-somber," "pleasant-unpleasant," and "sweet-bitter," exhibited positive loadings, while the remaining two variables, "jubilant- mournful" and "humorous-serious," were negatively loaded. This dimension of perception, then, appears to be dominated by a concept or attribute (which the subjects attached to their evaluations of the nine settings) which encompasses the constructs "happy," "joyous," "pleasant," "sweet," "mournful," and "serious," with the dominant attributes of the dimension being described almost equally well by "happy," "joyous," and "serious." The correlation index suggests that the best discriminators are "joyous," "happy," "pleasant," and "sweet," while "serious" exhibits a moderate negative correlation, and "mournful" does not correlate at all. The 96

TABLE 5 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Extraversion x Neuroticism (C x D interaction) Effect, Factor I. (Refer to MDDAID Table 4.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P13 1 1 4.778 4.272 4.568 4.383 4.519 4.049 4.358 5.321 1 2 4.293 4.044 4.359 3.901 4.381 3.646 4.166 4.729 1 3 4.173 3.654 4.185 3.914 4.123 3.333 3.901 5.222 2 1 4.657 4.192 4.475 4.212 4.747 A, 020 4.343 5.030 2 2 4.249 3.951 4.329 4.142 4.578 3.862 4.164 5.102 2 3 4.298 4.040 4.305 3.980 4.649 3.755 4.219 5.132 3 1 4.495 4.152 4.283 4.162 4.525 4.000 4.162 4.798 3 2 4.681 4.340 4.319 4.306 4.875 4.167 4.444 5.132 3 3 4.622 4.422 4.800 4.756 5.000 4.333 4.644 5.444

Weights of Discriminant Function -.0955 .3035 -.2342 -.0997 .3574 .1133 .1192 -.3634 Correlations between Discriminant Function and Original Variables .255 .428 .061 .152 .448 .422 .338 -.220

Cell Centroids 1 1 (Extravert x High-neurotic): -.0075 1 2 (Extravert x Medium-neurotic): .1642 1 3 (Extravert x Low-neurotic): -.2414 2 1 (Neutrovert x High-neurotic): .2010 2 2 (Neutrovert x Medium-neurotic): .0820 2 3 (Neutrovert x Low-neurotic): .1349 3 1 (introvert x High-neurotic): .2352 3 2 (introvert x Medium-neurotic): .3081 3 3 (Introvert x Low-neurotic): .1552 97 ambivalence implied by the combination of negative and positive loadings makes labeling the dimension somewhat difficult; however, an intuitive combination of the constructs suggests that the dimension might be con sidered to represent "restrained happiness." Cell centroids in this analysis correspond to the cells delin eated by the interactions of each of the three levels of Neuroticism with each of the three levels of Extraversión, and are displayed in graphic form in Figure 14. The scale of from -.30 to +.40 is arbitrary, including only those values encompassed by the spectrum of centroid values, and represents the relevant portion of the standardized scale derived through the mathematics of discriminant analysis from the ori ginal 7-point semantic differential scales. Points have been plotted along that scale Indicative of the perceptions of the subjects in each of the personality cells. The .40 end of the scale represents the greatest "degree of perception" of subjects along the dimension of "re strained happiness" previously discussed. Figure 14 illustrates relative perceptual positions of groups of subjects. As an example, the observer may consider the positions of the positions of the Extravert (D^) group of cells in relation to the positions of the Introvert (D^) cells. The Introverts, as a group, responded stronger and more positively along the dimension than did the Extraverts, although the basic pattern of re sponse was similar. The responses most nearly alike in the two groups were those of the Medium-neurotic Extraverts with a cell centroid of .1642 and the Low-neurotic Introverts with a cell centroid of .1552. The greatest difference occurred between the Medium-neurotic Introverts (.3081) FIGURE U Cell Centroids: Factor I, Extraversion x Neuroticism (C x D interaction)

C-j ~ High-neurotic = Extravert C2 = Medium-neurotic D2 = Neutrovert = Low-neurotic = Introvert 99

and the Low-neurotic Extraverts (-.2414). It is also worth noting that in every case the Medium-neurotic groups exhibited as strong a response difference from either of the extreme Neurotic groups as did the two extremes from one another. As a matter of fact, in each Extraversión group, the Medium-neurotic cell exhibited a greater difference from one of the extreme cells than did the two extremes from each other. In two of the three groups (Extraverts and Introverts) the Medium-neurotic group response was higher on this dimension of "restrained happiness" than was either extreme group. Sturdy-Frail, Neuroticism (C Main) Effect; P. í + Sturdy-Frail - 14 Discriminant analysis of this single variable shows a moderately high loading on the positive end of the scale (Table 6); and examination of both estimated means and cell centroids reveals that the Low-neurotic subjects perceived the nine settings as possessing the greatest degree of sturdiness, while the High-neurotic subjects perceived the least 120 amount of sturdiness. The responses of the Medium-neurotic group are to be found almost centrally located between the two extreme groups. Like-Dislike. Element x Neuroticism (B x G Interaction.) Effect: P^: + Like-Dislike - Discriminant analysis of the Element x Neuroticism interaction (Table 7) shows a low positive loading on the discriminant function for this scale,

12°For this scale, a score of "1" represented the greatest sturdi ness and a score of "7" represented the greatest frailty. A central score of "4” represented "neutrality" or "meaninglessness." 100

TABLE 6 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Neuroticism (C main) Effect, Sturdy-Frail. (Refer to MDDAID Table 4.)

Estimated Combined Means Level Variable

P14 1 (High) 3.650 2 (Medium) 3.421 3 (Low) 3.122

Weight of Discriminant Function .1792 Correlation between Discriminant Function and Original Variable •448

Cell Centroids High-neurotic: .6582 Medium-neurotic: .6144 Low-neurotic! .5654 101

TABLE 7 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Element x Neuroticism (B x C interaction) Effect, Like-Dislike. (Refer to MDDAID Table 4.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P15 1 1 3.355 1 2 3.968 1 3 3.043 2 1 2.836 2 2 3.689 2 3 3.277 3 1 2.707 3 2 3.489 3 3 3.699

Weight of Discriminant Function .0501 Correlation between Discriminant Function and Original Variable .234

Cell Centroids 1 1 (High-neurotic x Color) : .1682 1 2 (High-neurotic x Form) : .1989 1 3 (High-neurotic x Texture): .1525 2 1 (Medium-neurotic x Color): .1421 2 2 (Medium-neurotic x Form) : .1849 2 3 (Medium-neurotic x Texture): .1643 3 1 (Low-neurotic x Color): .1356 3 2 ( Low-neurotic x Form) : .1749 3 3 (Low-neurotic x Texture): .1854 102 and only a moderate correlation coefficient. Cell centroids for this analysis are displayed In graphic form in Figure 15. Here again, the scale is arbitrary and reflects only those values encompassed by the spectrum of centroid values. The interaction of the two factors may be clearly observed by noting that, while all three Neurotic groups were more influenced by Color than Form in their liking for the settings, the Low-neurotic subjects (Cj) evidenced least liking for the Texture- dominant settings, and the other two groups exhibited the least liking 121 for the Form-dominant settings. It might also be noted that the Low- neurotics and the Medium-neurotics were most influenced by Color in their liking of the settings, while the High-neurotics were most influenced by Texture. In addition, the three groups were most nearly alike in their responses to the Form-dominant settings. Tables 24 through 32 (Appendix I) display the results of multi variate analyses of variance run on each personality cell individually. In these cases the only results worth noting are those instances in which significant Style (A main) or Element (Bhmain) effects occurred In con junction with non-significant A x B interaction. In no instance did this occur in either the Entire System analyses or in the Factor I analyses; however, several cases were observed in Factor II. Analysis of the High- neurotic Extraverts revealed significant A and B main effects, while a significant A main effect was found by the analysis of the High-neurotic

121 For this scale, a score of ”1" represented the greatest liking and a score of ”7” represented the greatest disliking. FIGURE 15 Cell Centroids: Like-Dislike, Element x Neuroticism (B x C interaction)

- Color = High-neurotic - = Form = Medium-neurotic------B^ = Texture C^ = Low-neurotic 104

Introverts. Several other instances of significant main effects were found for the Sturdy-Frail variable. Significant B main effects were exhibited by the Medium-neurotic Introverts, the Low-neurotic Extraverts, and the Low-neurotic Introverts. Analyses of the Like-Dislike variable also produced several instances of significant main effects: the High- neurotic Introverts and the Medium-neurotic Introverts both exhibited significant A main effects, while a significant B main effect was dis covered by the Low-neurotic Extraverts. Table 8 displays the ordered cell means for each of the instances of significant main effects. Examination of the means displayed for Factor II, which has been characterized as an "activity" factor with a score of "1" indicating the highest degree of "activity" and a score of "7" representing the greatest "passiveness," reveals that in those instances where significant Style (A main) effects occurred, the Abstract settings were perceived as pos sessing the most activity, while the Realistic settings were perceived as the least active. In both instances, there was greater distance be tween the responses for the Realistic settings and the Stylized settings than between the Stylized and Abstract settings. In that instance where a significant Element (B main) effect occurred, the Form-dominant settings were perceived as the most active, while the Texture-dominant settings were seen as essentially neutral, or very slightly passive. Examinations of the means for the Sturdy-Frail variable Indicates that the element of Form was the most influential in the perception of sturdiness in the settings. The responses of the Medium-neurotic Intro verts and the Low-neurotic Introverts exhibit much greater difference TABLE 8 Ordered Cell Means for Significant Main Effects in Individual Personality Cell Multivariate Analyses of Variance, Module I (Refer to MUDAID Tables 24-32, Appendix I.)

Factor Variable Cell Levels ¿bgtxast Stziised Realistic Hi gh-neurot ic/Sxtr avert 2.851 3.148 4.777 Style High-neurotic/Introvert 3.060 3.618 4.618 II Form Color Texture Element Hi gh-neurot ic/Ext ravert 3.251 3.518 4.007 Form Color Texture Sturdy-Frail Medium-neurotic/Introvert 2.729 3.750 3.896 Element Low-neurot ic/Ext ravert 2.259 2.667 3.333 Low-neurotic/introvert 2.200 4.067 4.333 Stylized Realistic Abstract Style High-neurotic/lntrovert 2.758 2.970 4.333 Medium-neurotic/introvert 2.938 3.833« 3.542« Like-Dislike Color Texture Form Element Low-neurot ic/Ext ravert 2.704 3.222 3.815

* Note reversal of order.

Voi 106

between the perception of sturdiness in the Form-dominant and in the Color-dominant settings than between the Color-dominant and the Texture- dominant settings. Indeed, the Low-neurotic Introverts perceived the Color-dominant and Form-dominant settings as possessing slight degrees of frailty. On the other hand, the response differences of the Low- neurotic Extraverts were fairly evenly spread over the three elements, although the basic pattern of réponse was the same as the other two groups. The means for the Like-Dislike variable revealed less similarity in the patterns of response. In the two instances in which a significant Style effect occurred, the Stylized settings were best liked; however, the least liked style of setting varied. The High-neurotic Introverts expressed active dislike of the Abstract settings, while the Medium- neurotic Introverts liked all styles of settings, but indicated least liking for the Realistic settings. In the one instance where a signifi cant Element effect occurred, the responses of the Low-neurotic Extraverts indicated that their liking of settings was most influenced by the element of Color, next most influenced by Texture, and least influenced by Form, with the differences between responses being almost equally spaced.

Ill, Analyses of Variance and Post-Significance Examinations ; Module II

Multivariate analysis of variance of the entire system of 15 depen dent variables (Table 9) revealed a significant Style x Element (A x B interaction) effect which was also found in the subsequent factorial 107

TABLE 9

3 x 3 x 3 x 2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MUDAID) (Style x Element x Complexity x Sex)

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 470.10 30 0.000006 B main (Element) 440.50 30 0.000000 C main (Complexity) 63.39 30 0.000352 D main (Sex) F - 1.75 15, 1085 0.05 A x B 888.40 60 0.000000 A x C 54.76 60 0.667 (N.S.) A x D 34.74 30 0.252 (N.S.) B x C 60.25 60 0.467 (N.S.) B x D 46.06 30 0.0305 C x D 52.68 30 0.00644

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f » Significance level A main 321.60 16 0.000000 B main 331.50 16 0.000000 C main 36.16 16 0.00275 D main F = 0.79 8, 1092 0.250 (N.S.) A x B 635.80 32 0.000000 A x C 28.55 32 0.642 (N.S.) A x D 25.76 16 0.0575 (N.S.) B x C 26.41 32 0.745 (N.S.) B x D 22.69 16 0.122 (N.S.) C x D 30.66 16 0.0149

Continued next page 108

TABIE 9 (cont.)

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 285.80 10 0.000000 B main 153.40 10 0.000000 C main 21.26 10 0.0194 D main F = 3.85 5, 1095 0.005 A x B 193.30 20 0.000000 A x C 22.00 20 0.341 (N.S.) A x D 4.14 10 0.941 (N.S.) B x C 23.91 20 0.246 (N.S.) B x D 18.82 10 0.0426 CxD 18.27 10 0.0506

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 8.225 2, 1096 <0.005 B main 53.210 2, 1096 <0.005 C main 2.061 2, 1099 >0.100 (N.S.) D main 0.839 2, 1099 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 27.030 4, 1096 <0.005 A x C 0.590 4, 1096 >0.250 (N.S.) A x D 0.236 2, 1099 >0.250 (N.S.) B x C 1.726 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) B x D 0.109 2, 1099 >0.250 (N.S.) CxD 0.134 2, 1099 >0.250 (N.S.)

Continued next page 109

TABLE 9 (cont.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio Significance level A main 7.613 2, 1096 <0.005 B main 18.680 2, 1096 <0,005 C main 2.894 2, 1099 >0.050 (N.S.) D main 3.987 2, 1099 <0.050 A x B 14.720 4, 1096 <0.005 A x C 1.672 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) A x D 2.094 2, 1099 >0.100 (N.S.) B x C 2.087 4, 1096 >0.050 (N.S.) B x D 4.530 2, 1099 <0.025 C x D 2.267 2, 1099 >0.100 (N.S.) 110

MUDAIDs. For reasons previously discussed in Section II of this chapter, post-significance examinations were not conducted for this effect. Analysis of the entire system also revealed a significant Element x Sex (B x D interaction) effect which appeared again in the analyses of Fac tor II and the Like-Dislike variable, although in each subsequent in stance the alpha level was slightly lower than that found in the analysis of the entire system. Another significant effect which was revealed by the MUDAID analysis of the entire system was a Complexity x Sex (C x D interaction) effect. This significant effect was also found in the sub sequent analyses of Factors I and II, although the alpha level in the factorial analyses was again lower than that found in the analysis of the entire system. Only the Complexity x Sex (C x D interaction) effect was significant in the MUDAID of the variable system comprising Factor I. Factor I, Complexity x Sex (C x D Interaction) Effect: : + Cheerful-Gloomy - P^: + Happy-Sad - : + Jubilant-Mournful - P : + Exhilarating-Depressing - 4 P_: + Joyous-Somber - 5 P^: + Pleasant-Unpleasant - P?: + Sweet-Bitter - P^: + Humorous-Serious - Discriminant analysis shows a moderately high loading on the positive end of the scale "pleasant-unpleasant" and a moderately high loading on 111 the negative end of the scale "sweet-bitter” (Table 10). The next two highest loadings show the same reversal of polarity, with a negative loading on the scale "cheerful-gloomy" and a positive loading on "humorous-serious." The third highest loadings are relatively low, but Illustrate the same dichotomy—a negative loading on the scale "happy- sad" and a positive loading on "joyous-somber." The correlation index, which in this case displays predominantly negative correlations, shows that the best discriminators were "bitter," "gloomy," "sad," and "mourn ful." Although there is a certain amount of ambivalence indicated by the combination of polarities, it seems reasonable to label this as a "dimension of light melancholy," or perhaps even a "bittersweet" dimension. Examination of the graphic presentation of the cell centroids (Figure 16) illustrates the strong interaction effect existing between Complexity and Sex. The High- and Low-complex Female subjects perceived the settings almost identically, with cell centroids of -.1779 and -.1788 respectively. The biggest perceptual difference among the Female groups occurred between those extreme complexity cells and the Medium-complex Female subjects with a cell centroid of -.2846. This perceptual pattern is vastly different from that exhibited by the Male groups, where the greatest perceptual distance occurred between the High-complex subjects (-.4369) and the Low-complex group (-.1248). With a cell centroid of -.2165, the Medium-complex Males were relatively close to the High- and Low-complex Females in their perception of the settings along this di mension of "light melancholy." 112

TAB IE 10 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Complexity x Sex (C x D interaction) Effect, Factor I. (Refer to MDDAID Table 9.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 p6 P7 P13 1 1 4.500 4.111 4.389 4.405 4.651 4.063 4.206 5.071 1 2 4.559 4.232 4.505 4.175 4.673 3.908 4.352 5.156 1 3 4.327 3.981 4.290 4.130 4.475 3.877 4.049 5.012 2 1 4.581 4.239 4.393 4.239 4.427 3.726 4.504 4.897 2 2 4.320 3.954 4.290 3.919 4.606 3.734 4.151 4.961 2 3 4.198 3.976 4.198 4.111 4.524 3.992 4.143 5.175

Weights of Discriminant Function -.2231 -.1850 -.0931 .0482 .1312 .3466 -.3292 .2017 Correlations between Discriminant Function and Original Variables -.304 -.298 -.237 -.053 .018 .178 -.443 .118

Cell Centroids 1 1 (Female x High-complex): -.1779 1 2 (Female x Medium-complex): -.2846 1 3 (Female x Low-complex) : -.1788 2 1 (Male x High-complex): -.4369 2 2 (Male x Medium-complex): -.2165 2 3 (Male x Low-complex) -.1248 FIGURE 16 Cell Centroids: Factor I, Complexity x Sex (C x D Interaction)

C^ = High-complex D = Female ....— 1 C^ = Medium-complex D ~ Male — — — — 2 C = Low-complex 114

Two significant interaction effects were found in the analysis of Factor II: Element x Sex (B x D interaction) effect, and Complexity x Sex (CxD interaction) effect. Factor II, Element x Sex (B x D Interaction) Effect:

p8: + Serene-Frantic - P9: + Relaxed-Tense -

P10! + Placid-Nervous - P11! + Restful-Restless - P12! + Peaceful-Ferocious - Discriminant analysis of the significant Element x Sex interaction effect (Table 11) shows a dimension of perception which is dominated by a moderately high positive loading on the scale "relaxed-tense." The negative of the next highest loading scale, "serene-frantic," indicates that its referent is near the negative end of the original scale. Only one other scale, "peaceful-ferocious," has a sufficiently high loading to be considered, and in this case only because its positive polarity serves to substantiate the positive loading on the dominant scale. The correlation index confirms the dominance of "relaxed" with an almost un believably high coefficient of .905. The next best discriminator accord ing to the correlation index, however, is "peaceful," (.568) with both "placid" (.490) and "restless" (.430) following closely. "Frantic" exhibits only a moderately high coefficient of .212. The entire dimen sion, then, appears to be dominated by the construct "relaxed" and strongly associated with the constructs "peaceful," "placid," and "rest less," with some qualities of the attribute "frantic" also being indicated. 115

TABLE 11 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Element x Sex (B x D interaction) Effect, Factor II. (Refer to MUDAID Table 9.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P8 P9 P10 P11 P12 1 1 4.050 3.552 3.896 3.647 3.905 1 2 3.970 2.697 3.438 3.353 3.662 1 3 4.453 4.129 4.224 3.995 4.517 2 1 3.790 3.934 3.814 3.641 3.982 2 2 3.754 2.868 3.275 3.024 3.347 2 3 4.250 3.857 3.911 3.744 4.250

Weights of Discriminant Function -.3412 .5975 .0031 -.0254 .1392 Correlations betweeii Discriminant Function and Original Variables .212 .905 .490 .430 .568

Cell Centroids 1 1 (Female x Color): 1.2040 1 2 (Female x Form): .6917 1 3 (Female x Texture): 1.4880 2 1 (Male x Color): 1.5310 2 2 (Male x Form): .8324 2 3 (Male x Texture): 1.3630 116

Given that mixture of constructs, it seems appropriate to label the dimension, "uneasy relaxation." The graphic presentation of the cell centroids (Figure 17) indicates that both Females and Males were alike in their responses to the Form dominant settings. For both, Form contributed most to this "dimension of uneasy relaxation." On the other hand, the groups differed in their perception of the least Influential element. For the Females, Texture (1.488) proved to be the least influential element, while for the Males, Color (1.531) had the least effect. Factor II. Complexity x Sex (C x D Interaction) Effect:

P8‘ + Serene-Frantic - V + Relaxed-Tense - P10! + Placid-Nervous P11! + Restful-Restless - P12! + Peaceful-Ferocious - In the discriminant analysis of the Complexity x Sex interaction (Table 12), the scale "relaxed-tense" again appears to dominate the di mension; however, in this instance the loading is negative in polarity and is not nearly so high as in the previous analysis. The negative construct "tense" is associated with three positive constructs, "serene," "restful," and "placid," with the construct "serene" having a slightly higher loading than the other two. The correlation index, on the other hand, indicates that the best discriminators were "serene," "restful," "placid," and "peaceful," with only a negligible contri bution from "tense." the contradiction between the discriminant function FIGURE 17 Cell Centroids: Factor II, Element x Sex (B x D interaction)

= Color D = Female 1 1 B^ = Form ~ Male - Texture 118

TABIE 12 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Complexity x Sex (C x D interaction) Effect, Factor H. (Refer to MUDAID Table 9.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable p. p p_ P^ 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 4.325 3.516 3.841 3.810 3.976 1 2 4.013 3.324 3.695 3.486 3.959 1 3 4.309 3.679 4.167 3.901 4.204 2 1 4.111 3.444 3.658 3.333 3.957 2 2 3.857 3.583 3.668 3.386 3.807 2 3 3.921 3.595 3.675 3.770 3.881

Weights of Discriminant Function .1579 -..2743 .1041 .1067 .0743 Correlations between Discriminant Function and Original Variables .662 -.063 .503 .548 .449

Cell Centroids 1 1 (Female x High-complex): .8210 1 2 (Female x Medium-complex): .7731 1 3 (Female x Low-complex): .8342 2 1 (Male x High-complex): .7355 2 2 (Male x Medium-complex): .6527 2 3 (Male x Low-complex): .7066 119 weights and the correlation index causes some difficulty in evaluating the attributes of the dimension; however, if the dominant constructs from both indicators are considered together, it seems conceivable that the dimension is that of a "strained" or "forced composure." Examination of the cell centroids indicates a similar pattern of response for both Male and Female groups (Figure 18). In both groups the greatest difference occurs between the extreme complexity groups and the Medium-complex cells. Although in neither case was there a great deal of difference between the extreme groups, the High-complex Males (.7355) perceived a slightly greater degree of "strained composure" than did the Low-complex Males (.7066), while the Low-complex Females (.8342) expressed a slightly stronger response than did the High-complex Females (.8210). It may also be observed that the Females exhibited more intense responses along this dimension than did the Males. Analysis of the scale Like-Dislike as a separate variable revealed a significant Sex (D main) effect, and a significant Element x Sex (B x D interaction) effect. Like-Dislike. Sex (D Main) Effect; + Like-Dislike - In the discriminant analysis of the significant Sex effect (Table 13) a low negative discriminant function was found, which indicated that the construct "dislike" was most influential. Examination of the cell centroids uncovered only slight differences between the Male and Female groups, but did show the Females responding somewhat more negatively toward the settings than did the Males, FIGURE 18 Cell Centroids: Factor II, Complexity x Sex (C x D interaction)

C^ = High-complex = Female ...... —...... C^ - Medium-complex D^ .= Male------— — — Gj = Low-complex

w 121

TABLE 13 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Sex (D main) Effect, Like-Dislike. (Refer to MUDAID Table 9.)

Estimated Combined Means Level Variable P 15 1 (Female) 3.417 2 (Male) 3.202

Weight of Discriminant Function -.0043 Correlation between Discriminant Function and Original Variable -.013

Cell Centroids Female -.0443 Male -.0422 122

Like-Dislike. Element x Sex (B.x.D Interaction) Effect: P^: + Like-Dislike - Discriminant analysis of the Element x Sex interaction (Table 14) shows a low negative loading for the variable, although it is higher in this analysis than in the preceeding one. The correlation coefficient was moderately high. Examination of the cell centroids reveals relatively slight differences between the groups, but graphic presentation of the centroids clarifies the response patterns (Figure 19). Both groups exhibited somewhat similar patterns of response. For both groups the element Form was least influential along this dimension, and the element Color was most influential. Texture was a more central influence; how ever, the Males perceived Texture (-.1728) as more closely associated with Form (-.1744), whereas the Females perceived Texture (-.1606) nearer to Color (-.1573). Except for the influence of Texture, the Females exhibited a more negative response than did the Males. As in the case of Module I, multivariate analyses of variance were run for each individual personality cell. The results of these MUDAIDs are displayed in Tables 33-38 (Appendix J). Here again, no significant main effects appeared in either the analyses of the entire system or in the analyses of Factor I. The High-complex Male, however, did display significant main effects in Factor II, on the Sturdy-Frail variable, and again on the Like-Dislike variable. Low-complex Males were found to exhibit significant main effects on the Factor II analysis, and also on the Like-Dislike analysis; and analysis of the High-complex Females 123

TABLE U Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Element x Sex (B x D interaction) Effect. Like-Dislike. (Refer to MUDAID Table 9.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P15 1 1 3.139 1 2 3.900 1 3 3.204 2 1 2.689 2 2 3.479 2 3 3.446

Weight of Discriminant Function -.0516 Correlation between Discriminant Function and Original Variable .234

Cell Centroids 1 1 (Female x Color): -.1573 1 2 (Female x Form): -.1955 1 3 (Female x Texture): -.1606 2 1 (Male x Color) : -.1347 2 2 ( Male x Form) : -.1744 2 3 (Male x Texture): -.1728 FIGURE 19 Cell Centroids: Like-Dislike, Element x Sex (B x D interaction)

B = Color D. = Female 1 1 = Form Drt = Male 2 B^ = Texture 125 uncovered significant main effects on the Like-Dislike variable. Table 1 5 displays the ordered cell means for the significant main effects discovered. Examination of the means displayed for Factor XI revealed the same pattern of response already found in the analyses conducted for Module I (Table 8, page 105). For this "activity” factor, the Abstract settings were once again perceived as the most active and the Realistic settings as the least active, with the greatest distance occurring be tween the Realistic and the Stylized settings. Also, where a signi ficant Element effect occurred, the Form-dominant settings were once again perceived as the most active, while the Texture-dominant settings were regarded as essentially neutral or very slightly passive. Once again, Color occupied a central position. In the one Instance in which a significant Element effect occurred for the Sturdy-Frail variable, Form was perceived as having the strongest influence on sturdiness, and Texture as being the least influential, with the greatest difference occurring between the responses to Form and the responses to Color. Here again, the pattern is identical to that found in Module I. Less unanimity of response was found for the Like-Dislike variable. For the Style main effect, the predominant pattern indicated greatest liking for the Stylized settings and least liking for the Abstract set tings; however, the High-complex Males responded most negatively to the Realistic settings, exhibiting a response which fell onto the active dislike pole of the scores. On the other hand, while expressing a TABLE 15 Ordered Cell Means for Significant Main Effects in Individual Personality Cell Miltivariate Analyses of Variance, Module II (Refer to MUDAID Tables 33—38, Appendix J.)

Factor Variable Cell Levels Abstract Stylized Realistic High-complex/Male 3.225 3.554 4.323 Low-complex/Mal e 2.948 3.697 4.678 41 Form Color Texture Element High-complex/Male 3.251 3.518 4.007 Low-complex/Male 3.160 3.999 4.041 Form Color Texture Sturdy-Frail High-complex/Male 2.590 3.667 3.795 Stylized Realistic Abstract High-complex/Female 3.262 3.500 4.214 Style High-complex/Male 2.923 4.026# 3.821# Low-complex/Male 3.572# 2.857# 3.767 Color Texture Form High-complex/Female 3.571# 3.214s 4.190 Element High-complex/Male 2.872 3.590 3.821 Low-complex/Male 2.979 3.413 3.813

* Note reversal of order. ON)' 127

degree of liking for all three styles of settings, the Low-complex Males responded most positively to the Realistic settings. The pattern of responses for the Element main effect tended to re inforce the pattern discovered in Module I. In the majority of cases, lb the Color-dominant settings proved to be the most liked and the Form- dominant settings the least liked. The one exception to this pattern was in the case of the High-complex Females who exhibited the greatest liking for the Texture-dominant settings. In this instance, Color be came the second most influential element, while active disliking was expressed for the Form-dominant settings.

IV. Analyses of Variance and Post-Significance Examinations; Module III

As with the previous two modules, multivariate analysis of var iance of the entire system of 15 variables revealed a significant Style x Element (A x B interaction) effect which was also found in the sub sequent factorial MUDAIDs (Table 16). Here again, it did not appear fruitful to pursue post-significance examinations on this particular effect. A significant Extraversión x Complexity (CxD interaction) effect was also found in the analysis of the entire system. This same interaction effect was revealed by the analysés of Factor I, Factor II, and the Like-Dislike variable, although in none of the subsequent in stances was the alpha level quite as high as in the analysis of the entire system. These two interaction effects (A x B, and CxD) were 128

TABLE 16

3 x 3 x 3 x 3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MUDAID) (Style x Element x Extraversión x Complexity)

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 468.10 30 0.000006 B main (Element) 439.10 30 0.000000 C main (Extraversión) 67.07 30 0.000119 D main (Complexity) 63.68 30 0.000323 A x B 887.80 60 0.000000 A x C 61.56 60 0.420 (N.S.) A x D 55.49 60 0.641 (N.S.) B x C 51.47 60 0.775 (N.S.) B x D 61.12 60 0.436 (N.S.) C x D 126.00 60 0.000001

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 320.00 16 0.000000 B main 330.30 16 0.000000 C main 43.27 16 0.000254 D main 34.49 16 0.00466 A x B 636.20 32 0.000000 A x C 24.21 32 0.837 (N.S.) A x D 29.21 32 0.609 (N.S.) B x C 26.74 32 0.730 (N.S.) B x D 26.52 32 0.740 (N.S.) C x D 62.91 32 0.000891

Continued next page 129

TABLE 16 (cont.)

Factor II (P - 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 285.70 10 0.000000 B main 153.70 10 0.000000 C main 14.08 10 0.170 (N.S.) D main 22.50 10 0.01128 A x B 193.10 20 0.000000 A x C 17.40 20 0.627 (N.S.) A x D 21.87 20 0.347 (N.S.) B x C 13.32 20 0.863 (N.S.) B x D 24.51 20 0.221 (N.S.) CxD 35.54 20 0.0174

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significane e level A main 8.028 2, 1096 <0.005 B main 53.290 2, 1096 <0.005 C main 1.018 2, 1096 >0.250 (N.S.) D main 2.094 2, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 26.980 4, 1096 <0.005 A x C 0.471 4, 1096 >0.250 (N.S.) A x D 0.591 4, 1096 >0.250 (N.S.) B x C 1.191 4, 1096 >0.250 (N.S.) B x D 1.713 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) CxD 1.729 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.)

Continued next page 130

TABLE 16 (cont.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significanc e level A main 7.613 2, 1096 <0.005 B main 18.680 2, 1096 <0.005 C main 1.778 2, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) D main 2.556 2, 1096 >0.050 (N.S.) A x B 14.720 4, 1096 <0.005 A x C 1.498 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) A x D 1.672 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) B x C 1.551 4, 1096 >0.100 (N.S.) B x D 2.087 4, 1096 >0.050 (N.S.) C x D 5.655. 4, 1096 <0.005 131

the only significant effects discovered in any of the analyses of this module. Factor I, Extraversión x Complexity (C x.D Interaction) Effect: P^: + Cheerful-Gloomy - P^: + Happy-Sad - P-: + Jubilant-Mournful - P^: + Exhilarating-Depressing - P^: + Joyous-Somber - P^: + Pleasant-Unpleasant - P?: + Sweet-Bitter - P^: + Humorous-Serious - The discriminant function associated with this interaction (Table 17) exhibits its highest loading on the coefficient for the scale "jubilant- mournful" with a negative polarity, indicating that the attribute "mournful" exerted the strongest influence on this dimension of percep tion. The next two highest loadings were for "joyous-somber" and "pleasant-unpleasant," and the positive loadings indicated the close association of the constructs "joyous" and "pleasant" with the first construct, "mournful." The next highest loading is for the scale "cheerful-gloony," and repeats the negative loading of the dominant scale, as does the fifth highest loading scale "sweet-bitter." The combined attributes for this dimension ("mournful," "joyous," "pleas ant," "gloomy," and "bitter") constitute a rather ambivalent psycholog ical entity indicative of a general mood with almost equal aspects of gloom and cheerfulness. Reference to the correlation Index, however, 132

TABLE 17 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Extraversión x Complexity (C x D interaction) Effect, Factor I. (Refer to MDDAID Table 16.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable p P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 *13 1 1 4-542 4-097 4.458 3.972 4.083 3.486 4.333 4.806 1 2 4.605 4.012 4.580 4.580 4.778 4.111 4.309 5.037 1 3 4.478 4.378 4.167 4.378 4.700 4.044 4.400 5.056 2 1 4.434 4.026 4.360 3.974 4.513 3.672 4.122 5.079 2 2 4.280 4.056 4.332 3.948 4.580 3.708 4.236 5.040 2 3 4.793 4.311 4.615 4.378 4.941 4.274 4.504 4.104 3 1 4.074 3.852 4.284 4.123 4.198 3.790 4.012 4.926 3 2 4.326 3.993 4.257 4.111 4.653 3.986 4.139 5.229 3 3 4.397 4.111 4.190 4.143 4.524 3.968 4.079 4.952

Weights of Discriminant Function -.2771 -.0156 -.4164 .1093 .3861 .3007 -.1187 .0967 Correlations between Discriminant Function and Original Variables -.156 .092 -.136 .255 .438 .419 .013 .206

Cell Centroids 1 1 (High-complex x Extravert): -.1689 1 2 (High-complex x Neutrovert): .3119 1 3 (High-complex x Introvert): .4326 2 1 (Medium-complex x Extravert): .1768 2 2 (Medium-complex x Neutrovert): .2470 2 3 (Medium-complex x Introvert): .3140 3 1 (Low-complex x Extravert): .2389 3 2 (Low-complex x Neutrovert): .4258 3 3 (Low-complex x Introvert): .3606 133

tends to emphasize the positive loadings. Highest correlations, indi cating greatest degree of discrimination, occur for "joyous" and "pleas ant," and the next highest correlations are for "exhilarating" and "humorous." The negative aspects "gloomy" and "mournful" evidence only relatively low correlation coefficients, and "sweet-bitter" is of negli gible consequence on this index. All in all, it seems legitimate to characterize the system in terms primarily of the highest positive loadings, and to label it as a "dimension of moderate good humor." Examination of the cell centroids (Figure 20) reveals varying patterns of response among the groups. The High-complex subjects exhib ited the greatest range of response with the High-complex Extraverts (-.1689) experiencing a far more negative perception along this "good humor" dimension than did any of the other groups. At the same time, the High-complex Introverts reported a more positive perception (.4326) than did the other groups, so that the greatest difference among groups along this dimension was between the High-complex Introverts and the High-complex Extraverts. The pattern of response for the Medium-complex groups was essentially the same as for the High-complex groups, but the degree of difference between the groups was considerably less. For the Low-complex groups, however, the pattern differed, with the Low-complex Neutroverts providing a more positive response than either the Extra verts or Introverts. In fact, the response of the Low-complex Neutro verts (.4258) was only slightly lower than that of the High-complex Introverts (.4326), Indicating that they also perceived a strong degree of "good humor" in the nine settings. FIGURE 20 Cell Centroids: Factor I, Extraversión x Complexity (CxD interaction)

High-complex C = Extravert 1 Medium-complex C^ = Neutrovert 2 Low-complex Cj = Introvert 3 135

Factor II. Extraversion x Complexity (C x D Interaction) Effect: p • + Serene-Frantic - 8’ P * + Relaxed-Tense - 9* P • 10* + Placid-Nervous - p * 11 * + Restful-Restless - p *12* + Peaceful-Ferocious - The discriminant data for this interaction (Table 18) indicates that the attribute "restful" contributes most strongly to this dimension of perception. Associated with this highest loading scale were three other scales of almost equally high loadings: "relaxed-tense" (4.1483), "serene-frantic" (.1427), and "peaceful-ferocious" (-.1259). The cor relation index provides partial agreement, indicating that "restful" (.717) was indeed the dominant attribute, but suggesting that "serene" (.516) was the next most closely associated construct. "Nervous" and "ferocious" became relatively minor contributors to the dimension. Taking into account the dominant polarities, the dimension appears to be described by the constructs "restful," "serene," and "ferocious." Given those attributes, it seems reasonable to label this function as representing a "dimension of uneasy rest," or perhaps even a "dimension of expectancy." The graphic depiction of the cell centroids (Figure 21) reveals totally different patterns of response for the three extraversion- introversion groups. The strongest perception of this "dimension of expectancy" was recorded by the Low-complex Neutroverts (.5818), while the Medium-complex Neutroverts appeared to perceive the least 136

TABLE 18 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Extraversión x Complexity (C x D Interaction) Effect, Factor II. (Refer to MDDAID Table 16.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable P„ P p_ 8 9 10 11 12 1 1 4.250 3.444 3.792 3.569 3.861 1 2 4.284 3.568 3.568 3.556 4.000 1 3 4.144 3.433 3.889 3.633 4.022 2 1 3.995 3.333 3.603 3.492 3.831 2 2 3.916 3.548 3.792 3.320 3.956 2 3 3.919 3.393 3.607 3.593 3.852 3 1 4.222 3.901 3.963 4.012 4.062 3 2 4.292 3.549 4.118 3.944 4.181 3 3 3.683 3.540 3.556 3.397 3.794

Weights of Discriminant Function .1427 -.1483 -.0931 .3564 -.1259 Correlations between Discriminant Function and Original Variables .516 .030 .238 .717 .174

Cell Centroids 1 1 (High-complex x Extravert): .5282 1 2 (High-complex x Neutrovert): .5132 1 3 (High-complex x Introvert): .5084 2 1 (Medium-complex x Extravert): .5019 2 2 (Medium-complex x Neutrovert): .3643 2 3 (Medium-complex x Introvert): .5152 3 1 (Low-complex x Extravert): .5734 3 2 (Low-complex x Neutrovert): .5818 3 3 (Low-complex x Introvert): .4020 FIGURE 21 Cell Centroids: Factor II, Extraversión x Complexity (CxD interaction)

D^ = High-complex C^ = Extra vert D^ = Medium-complex C^ = Neutrovert = Low-complex C3 ~ Introvert 138

"expectancy" (.3643)* On the other hand, the High-complex Extraverts (.5282), the High-complex Introverts (.5084), the High-complex Neutro verts (.5132), and the Medium-complex Introverts (.5152) perceived very similar degrees of "expectancy" in the nine settings. Only in the case of the Low-complex subjects was a reasonably strong difference dis covered between the Extraverts and Introverts. Like-Dislike. Extraversión x Complexity (CxD Interaction) Effect: P : + Like-Dislike - 15 The discriminant analysis of this interaction (Table 19) indicates a relatively low positive loading for this variable, but a reasonably high correlation coefficient. Differences among cell centroids were not par ticularly strong; however, three entirely different patterns of response did emerge (Figure 22). For the High-complex subjects, the Neutrovert group exhibited the strongest liking for the settings (.5613)- Indeed, this response was the strongest of all the groups. In the Medium- complex group, the Introverts recorded the greatest liking (.5550); and the Extravert group expressed the strongest liking for the settings (.5297) among the Low-complex subjects. The greatest difference occur red between the High-complex Neutroverts and the Low-complex Introverts. For the Extravert subjects and the Introvert subjects, the greatest difference occurred between the Medium-complex groups with the Introverts indicating the most positive response; however this pattern reversed for the Low-complex groups where the Extraverts provided the highest response For Module III, multivariate analyses of variance were again con ducted for each personality cell and, as before, no significant main 139

TAB IE 19 Post hoc Discrimination Data for Significant Extraversión x Complexity (C x D interaction) Effect, Like-Dislike. (Refer to MDDAID Table 16.)

Estimated Combined Means Cell Variable

P15 1 1 3.333 1 2 3.753 1 3 3.533 2 1 2.942 2 2 3.176 2 3 3.711 3 1 3.543 3 2 3.444 3 3 2.730

Weight of Discriminant Function .1494 Correlation between Discriminant Function and Original Variable .404

Cell Centroids 1 1 (High-complex x Extravert): .4982 1 2 (High-complex x Neutrovert): .5613 1 3 (High-complex x Introvert): .5281 2 1 (Medium-complex x Extravert): .4397 2 2 (Medium-complex x Neutrovert); .4747 2 3 (Medium-complex x Introvert): .5550 3 1 (Low-complex x Extravert): .5297 3 2 (Low-complex x Neutrovert): .5149 3 3 (Low-complex x Introvert): .4079 FIGURE 22 Cell Centroids: Like-Dislike, Extraversión x Complexity (C x D interaction)

D High-complex C = Extravert 1 1 D Med ium- compìex Cg - Neutrovert 2 D Low-complex O? = Introvert 3 141 effects occurred either in the analyses of the entire system or in the analyses of Factor I (Tables 39-47, Appendix K). Analyses of Factor II, however, revealed significant Style effects for the High-complex Extra verts, the Low-complex Neutroverts, and the Low-complex Introverts. In addition, significant Element effects were found for the High-complex Extraverts, the High-complex Neutroverts, and the High-complex Intro verts. Analyses of the Sturdy-Frail variable provided only one instance of a significant main effect. In the case of the High-complex Introverts a significant Element effect occurred. Analyses of the Like-Dislike variable revealed significant Style effects for the High-complex and Medium-complex Introverts, and a significant Element effect for the Low-complex Extraverts. The ordered cell means (Table 20) for the significant main effects in Factor II exhibit the same patterns of response found for Modules I and II. Where significant Style effects occurred, the Abstract settings were again considered the most active, and the Realistic the least active. Only in the case of the Low-complex Introverts did greater dis tance occur between the Abstract and Stylized settings than between the Stylized and the Realistic settings. A greater number of significant Element effects appeared for Factor II in this module than in the pre vious two, but the pattern of response was identical in all but one case. Only the High-complex Introverts differed from the general concensus that Form-dominant settings possess the greatest activity and Texture- dominant settings are the most passive. The High-complex Introverts also perceived the Texture-dominant settings as relatively passive; TABLE 20 Ordered Cell Means for Significant Main Effects in Individual Personality Cell Multivariate Analyses of Variance, Module III (Refer to MUDAID Tables 39-47, Appendix K.)

Factor Variable Cell Levels Abstract Stylized Realistic Extravert/H igh-complex 3.125 3.574 4.650 Style Neutrovert/Low-complex 3.171 3.924 4.954 Introvert/Low-complex 2.236 3.409 4.428 II Form Color Texture E:xt rave rt/High-complex 3.400 3.816 4.133 Element N eut roveri /Hi gh-complex 3.444 3.607 4.333 Introvert/High-complex 3.693s 3.533* 4.246 Form Color Texture Sturdy-Frail Element Intro ve rt/H i gh-complex 2.333 3.667 4.067 Stylized Realistic Abstract Style Intro vert/Hi gh-complex 2.833 3.967s 3.800# I ntro vert/Medium-compl ex 3.356 3.400 4.378 Like-Dislike Color Texture Form Element Extravert/Low-compìex 3.259* 3.037# 4.333

* Note reversal of order U3 however, this group of subjects felt that the Color-dominant settings possessed the greatest activity instead of the Form-dominant settings. The High-complex Introverts were also the only group to provide a significant Element effect on the Sturdy-Frail variable. In this in stance, however, their responses agreed with the previous findings that Form-dominant settings contain the highest degree of sturdiness and that Texture-dominant settings are the most frail. The High-complex Introvert group is also to be found among those groups for which significant Style effects were discovered in the anal yses of the Like-Dislike variable. Here again, the responses of the High-complex Introverts differed from previous findings. The Medium- complex Introverts followed the established pattern of liking the Stylized settings the most, the Realistic settings the next, and dis liking the Abstract settings; however, the High-complex Introverts expressed the least liking for the Realistic settings, although they, too, liked best the Stylized settings. Only one group of subjects exhibited a significant response to the Element effect on the Like-Dislike variable. The pattern of re sponses for the Low-complex Extraverts differed from the responses of the majority of other groups; however it matched that of the High- complex Female group in liking the Texture-dominant settings the best and disliking the Form-dominant settings. For other groups, the Color- dominant settings had proven to be the best liked. 1U

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This chapter is organized into two sections, the first of which will discuss and interpret specific results of the study In terms of conceptualizations suggested hy earlier research. The second section will summarize with respect to the exploratory questions articulated in Chapter I of this report,

I. Discussion of Results

Since the results from the three differing modules of the study appear to be interrelated, it would seem more profitable to examine them on the basis of the individual factors of the investigation inasmuch as the factors represent distinct compartmentalizations of responses to theatrical settings. Discussion of overall results will be reserved for the final portion of this section.

Factor!: "Efood Evaluation" Early In the Investigation, Factor I was characterized as "mood evaluation" on the basis of the scales which clustered together In the initial series of factor analyses. Subsequent discriminant analyses resulted in the factor being labeled variously as "restrained happi ness," "moderate good humor," and "light melancholy" (see pages 95-97, 110-111, and 131-133). Since the scales fairly clearly delineate a dimension for which one pole is represented by happiness, cheerfulness, etc., and the other by somberness, melancholy, etc., these subsequent 145 characterizations of the dimension appear to represent little more than direction and degree of response, as opposed to any great clarification or specificity of response meaning. It might be conjectured that the appearance of both negative and positive scales in the discriminant analyses indicates a reluctance on the part of modern college youth to express excessively strong emotion. An increased awareness of the im permanence and changeability of life, brought on by greater exposure to current events, may have caused a reluctance to manifest happiness un sullied by sorrow, or sadness unrelieved by some joy. One might also explain the differing polarities on the basis of within-group variability. Fairly high standard deviations were found for each cell, and it may be that these individually different responses, while not sufficiently strong to preclude significant differences be tween cells, were strong enough to affect the positive and negative attitudes of the scales as they appeared in the discriminant analyses. As indicated earlier, however, since the differing polarities of the scales appear only to modify the degree of the responses rather than to add meaning to the dimension, it would seem that audiences perceive stage settings as representing some degree of either happy/pleasant or sad/unpleasant. This finding correlates strongly with the Investigator's observation of student evaluations of stage settings over a period of more than ten years of teaching scene design. Extemporaneous comments regularly follow the same pattern of response, falling almost exclusively into the bi-polar categories of happy/pleasant and sad/unpleasant. 146

Because one of the principal goals of this investigation was to determine if subjects exhibiting differing personality traits would re spond differently to the emotional content of settings, this "mood eval uation” factor was of particular interest. Results suggest that person ality factors do indeed play a significant role in response to stage settings. Significant differences were found among the personality groups in the form of significant interactions between Extraversión vs. Neuroticism, Extraversión vs. Cognitive Complexity, and Cognitive Com plexity vs. Sex. For both modules wherein Extraversión was a variable, the interaction effect appears to have been caused by the middle range of subjects—those identified as Neutroverts. In both instances, the Introverts as a group responded more positively than did the Extraverts, with the mean difference between the groups for the Extraversión x Neu roticism effect being .2511 (see pages 95-99), and the mean difference for the Extraversión x Complexity effect being .2868 (see pages 131-134) In all instances, the responses were to the stage settings as a group. In no instance did any significant stimulus main effect appear, nor did any significant interaction appear between personality variables and stimulus variables. The implication is clear that the emotional content of stage settings constitutes a perceptual unit which is received in differing manners and degrees by persons of differing personality attributes. Stage settings are generally considered to convey emotion by implication or suggestion. Settings are designed by selecting and arranging those visual elements which presumably will arouse the desired eration within the audience members. Overt appeals to the emotions are not usually found in stage scenery, because the setting is a physical entity which forms a particularized spatial area in which actors must perform the action of the play. Overt appeals to the emo tions normally come through the actors1* portrayals of the characters and the action of the play. Presumably, then, stronger responses to the emotional content of stage settings might be expected from those per sonality types who respond more readily to implied, rather than overt, emotional elements. The extravert has been characterized as being motivated to acquire stimulation from the intensity of the external environment, while the introvert is motivated toward acquiring the internal stimulation which the objective stimulus may cause to be released. 122 Eysenck has reported behavioral descriptions of introverts and extraverts which support such a characterization, noting the tendency of the extravert to exhibit a high degree of behavioral activity, while the introvert exhibits a 123 higher degree of "cerebral" activity. In addition, significant neg ative correlations have been found between extraversion-introversion scores and the rated ease with which abstract and concrete nouns evoked mental images, indicating that high-imagery scores are more likely to be obtained by introverts; and introverts have been found to produce

zzCarl Gustave Jung, Psychological Types (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1923). 1 ^Dimensions of Personality, (see note 66, page 47.) ^Slalcolm W. Huckabee, "Introversion-extraversion and Imagery," Psychological Reports. 34, No. 2 (1974), 453-4. 148 quantitatively more fantasy than extraverts. 125 In Burt's early study (see page 22), he found that the unstable introverts seemed to enjoy a work of art far more for the emotions that it aroused in themselves than for the emotions it depicted. He also found that the stable introvert admired form (which can symbolize repressed emotions most effectively) far more than overt emotional expression. Burt further commented that the stable introvert's outward standpoint is cold and critical, but that, directly or indirectly, it is still plainly affected by repressed or unconscious feeling. Cardinet (see pages 22-23) also found that stable introverts disliked any overt appeals to their feelings, and that rela tionships existed between a preference for good form and introversion. The hypothesis might therefore be proposed that introverts would respond more strongly to stage settings on the emotional factor than would extraverts, since an attribute of introversion would appear to be an ability to construct stronger mental Images from basic stimuli and to perceive repressed, concealed, or implied emotional qualities. The The consistently stronger and more positive responses displayed by the introverts along the emotional dimensions found in this study would appear to give some substance to that hypothesis. A concomitant hypothesis is that the emotional stimuli in stage settings must perforce be moderately simplistic and universalistic in nature, since It is most often expressed through objects that serve

125Lucille Palmiere, "Intro-extra-version as an Organizing Prin ciple in Fantasy Production,” Journal of Analytical Psychology. 17, No. 2 (1972), 116-31. 149 additional, and frequently more physically practicable, purposes on the stage. If this is indeed true, then the strongest responses to the emotional stimuli in stage settings would be found among those subjects who would normally be expected to manifest a higher level of arousal to simple stimuli. Bryson and Driver have demonstrated that persons clas sified as cognitively complex manifest a higher level of arousal (as measured by the galvanic skin response) to a given stimulus than persons classified as simple. 126 Bryson and Driver later tested the hypothesis that cognitively complex introverts would exhibit greater arousal and preference for simpler stimuli than would cognitively simple introverts who would exhibit less arousal and would, therefore, prefer more complex stimuli. Since extraverts tend to focus on the external or sensory qualities of the stimulus, internal arousal would have little effect on their choices, and division on cognitive complexity would not result in significant differences in responses. This hypothesis was verified by their investigation (see page 26). In the present study, the High-complex Introverts did record the highest response to stage settings on Factor I (see pages 131-134), suggesting that the emotional stimuli are relatively simple and that the High-complex Introverts were able to elaborate the input from these stimuli more than the other subjects. On the other hand, the Medium- complex Introverts exhibited a lower response to the settings (.3140)

126Jeff B. Bryson and Michael J. Driver, "Conceptual Complexity and Internal Arousal," Psychonomic Science. 17, No. 2 (1969), 71-2. 150

than did the Low-complex Introverts (.3603). At the same time, the High-complex Extraverts provided by far the lowest response of all to the settings (-.1689). Even if it may be assumed that the negative polarity is indicative of direction of response rather than degree, the difference between the responses of the High- and Low-complex Extraverts (.0700) is almost exactly the same as the difference between the re sponses of the High- and Low-complex Introverts (.0720), The greater difference of responses between the High- and Medium-complex Introverts (.1186) further muddies the issue. 127 One answer may be to follow Claridge, and to make the somewhat simpler basic assumption that introverts as a group have higher levels of arousal than extraverts. Berlyne*s theory of "arousal jags" assumes that different determinants of arousal summate, so that individuals who are characterized by chronic high levels of arousal, or in whom arousal is quickly mobilized, will be inclined to seek less violent arousal jags than those in whom arousal is low or mobilized slowly. 128 Under that assumption, individuals who score highly on introversion should respond to and prefer simple stimuli rather than complex ones. This assumption concerning the relative simplicity of the emotional stimuli in the settings and the resultant stronger response from the introvert

127 G. S. Claridge, "Arousal and Inhibition as Determinants of the Performance of Neurotics," British Journal of Psychology. 52, No. 1 (1961), 53-63. 128D., E. Berlyne, Conflict. Arousal, and Curiosity (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1960). 151 group might either supplant or contribute to the earlier theory that introverts are constitutionally better able to respond to the implied emotion in settings than are extraverts. Given the presumably simple and implied emotional stimuli of stage settings, it seems reasonable that introverts provided the stronger response because of their greater ability to elaborate simple stimuli and their inherently higher levels of arousal. The Complexity x Sex interaction provides some degree of support for the simplicity of emotional stimuli theory. Here it was observed that the strongest response was recorded by the High-complex Males (-.4369), and the lowest response came from the Low-complex Males (-.1248) (see pages 110-113). The High- and Low-complex Females re sponded at almost exactly the same intermediate level (-.1779 and -.1788, respectively). Interpretation of the differences in response of the High-complex Males and the High-complex Females would appear to follow Parsons’; observation that as a group women are more inclined to behave in terms of the particular task or immediate situation in which they are involved, while men are apt to abstract similarities across situations and then to perform in a manner that is consistent with those abstractions. In Parsons’ words, women tend to be "particularistic” and men tend to be "universalistic" in their cognition. 129 Research tends to support that position and to show that females tend to be situation

129 Talcott Parsons, The Social System (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951). 152

specific, whereas males tend to be more general in their thinking and therefore more able to integrate a wide range of data. Specifically, females were found to be field dependent as compared to males who re lied more on Internally generated cues in dealing with a variety of 130 complex situations. Likewise, there is strong evidence that males are more universalistic in their thinking than females. For example, one might infer that persons with more highly integrated cognitive structures would see more relationships between different stimuli. Hall employed the Kelly Role-Construct Repertory Test procedure on several different occasions with a variety of different stimuli. She found that men showed clear evidence of generality, while showed none at all, with the males displaying remarkable consistency across a variety of realms including human, animal, and object. 131 Judging from the responses of the High-complex Males as compared to those of the High-complex Females to the emotional content of the nine stage settings. it might be conj ectured that the emotional stimuli are largely universalistic and abstract in nature and therefore constitute a perceptual dimension which is more strongly perceived by men than by

130See, for instance, H. A. Witkins, et. al., Psychological Dif ferentiation (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962); J. Silverman, "The Problems of Attention in Research and Theory in Schizophrenia,” Psychological Review. 71 (1964), 352-79; James Bieri, Wendy Bradburn, and M. David Galinsky, "Sex Differences in Perceptual Behavior," Journal of Personality. 26 (1958), 1-12; and T. F. Pettigrew, ”The Measurement and Correlation of Category Width as a Cognitive Variable,” Journal of Personality. 26 (1958), 532-44.

F. Hall, ’’The Generality of Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity,” (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1966). 153 women. The universal nature of the emotional content of scenery is logical and necessary in view of the designer* s goal of communicating with as large an audience as possible. As Vem Adix comments, Form and Color may be used to project emotions and ideas. . . . The designer must try to use his elements so they can be universally interpreted by his audience or his abstraction will become a confusing element that attracts more attention than it deserves.*’2 In general, it would appear that stage settings are perceived as containing a dimension of basic emotionality, and that the emotional stimuli which create this perceptual dimension are relatively simple and universal!stic in nature and are implied or suggested in the design of the setting rather than being overt or explicit in character. As a consequence, the emotional content of settings is perceived more strongly by those persons characterized by the personality attributes of intro version and high-complexity, with the strongest responses to stage settings along this factor being recorded by the High-complex Introverts and the High-complex Males.

Factor II: "Activity" The "Activity" factor was the only other true factor in the study and constitutes a major perceptual dimension in responses to stage settings. As described by the discriminant analyses, however, it seems not to be indicative of a high level of activity but to more nearly

132Vern Adix, Theatre Scenecraft: For the Backstage Technician and Artist (Anchorage, Kentucky: Children’s Theatre Press, 1956), 276. 154 reflect a quality of "tension,” "stress," or "expectancy." In actual fact, the discriminant analyses indicate that the passive/relaxed pole of the factor is predominant in the settings, and that the activity pole of the factor serves to create the uneasiness or tension which generally appears to disturb the relaxed or restful qualities of the settings. In examining the Extraversión x Complexity effect for this factor (see page 136), it can be observed that the High- and Medium-complex Introverts and Extraverts responded almost identically; however, the Low-complex Introverts perceived a greater of activity, or tension, (.4020) than did the Low-complex Extraverts (.5734). Previous research aids little in interpreting this result. If the quality of tension In the settings might also be considered to represent a form of visual con flict In the designs, then it would seem reasonable to expect arousal theory to be in effect. Graves comments that "conflict is the aesthetic conflict or visual tension between opposing or contrasting lines, direc- 133 tions, shapes, space intervals, testures, values, hues." Given those conditions, Individuals classified as high-complex should manifest higher levels of arousal to the stimuli than the low-complex subjects, according to Bryson and Driver (see page 149). In addition, Nidorf and Argabrlte’s 1970 experiment obtained results indicating that cognitively complex subjects tend to make more extreme judgments on rating scales

133 Maitland E. Graves, The Art of Color and Design (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951), 90. 155

134 than do cognitively simple subjects. * Since, in this case, extra version is also a factor, it would seem that there should be a distinct difference between the High- and Low-complex Introverts, even if no sig nificant difference" appeared between the Extravert groups, if Bryson and Driver’s findings are any Indication. If extraversion-introversion were the dominant factor, then, following Claridge, It would be reasonable to assume that the introverts, having higher levels of arousal than extra verts, would exhibit a generally stronger level of response (see page 150), In fact, none of those response patterns appeared. The stronger level of activity perception on the part of the Low-complex Introverts (as opposed to the low-complex Extraverts) would be expected, since introverts have been identified as having higher levels of arousal and being more responsive to internal characteristics than extraverts. The difficulty lies in the fact that it was the Low-complex subjects who displayed the differences in response rather than the High-complex group, or the Introvert group, where previous research leads the investigator to expect the differences to occur. In the absence of clarifying data, it can only be presumed that this quality of activity/tension is of such a nature that earlier suppositions concerning arousal do not consistently apply. Although it is reasonable to assume that the elements of design would be a strong contributing factor in the perception of activity/

134 Louis J. Nidorf and Allan H. Argabrite, "Cognitive Complexity and the Tendency to Make Extreme Judgments," Perceptual and Motor Skills. 31 (1970), 478. 156

tension in the settings, response to Elements as a main effect does not appear to have influenced responses in this interaction effect. The post hoc MUDAIDs on the individual personality cells revealed significant Element main effects for all the High-complex groups; yet, it was the Low-complex Introverts who perceived the greater activity in the settings. This group did manifest a significant response to Style as a main effect, and it is possible that this perception of Style may have had an effect on the strength of their responses, More detailed research into the possible relationship of Style and activity/tension might serve to clarify this relationship. Consideration of the Complexity x Sex interaction, however, sug gests that cognitive complexity may not be a major influence on this factor (see page 118). Here, the responses indicated that the Males as a group perceived a greater degree of activity/tension in the settings than did the Females, with the mean difference between the groups being .1112. It was pointed out earlier that men have been found to be more "universalistic” in their cognition than women, and it is possible that this greater reliance on internally generated cues and abstraction of similarities across situations influenced the greater perception of the visual conflict and tension cues in the settings. In support of this conjecture, it was only the two male groups—the High- and Low-complex Males—who demonstrated significant responses for the Style and Element main effects. Since such significant main effects could have occurred only if the subjects perceived similarities in Style and Element across the nine settings and responded consistently on each level of the 157

variables, this result would appear to support the theory that males tend to be more "universalistic” in their cognition. The quality of activity/tension created by the interaction and conflict of the visual elements of the settings is relatively abstract and, accordingly, may be more strongly perceived by males who, it would appear, recognize and respond more strongly to such generalized attributes. Within the Male and Female groups there was observed very little difference between the High- and Low-complex cells. Less than .02 separated the High-complex Females (.8210) from the Low-complex Females (.8324), and less than .03 separated the High-complex Males (.7355) and the Low-complex Males (.7066). For both sexes, it was the Medium- complex groups that perceived the greater activity/tension in the set tings. This phenomenon of the raid-range 'group of subjects exhibiting the strongest response was noted earlier when it was the Neutrovert group that recorded both the highest and lowest perception of activity in the Extraversión x Complexity effect (see Table 18, Figure 21). Since this finding is considered to be of extreme importance, it will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. Another possible explanation for the differing sex-group responses may lie in inherent responses to form vs. color. Oeser (see pages 24-25) and Carruthers (see page 53) suggest that men tend to be more Influenced by form than women, who respond more strongly to color. In those in dividual cells for which Element was a significant effect, Form was almost unanimously Identified as being the element most closely asso ciated with activity/tension—the only exception being the High-complex 158

Introverts who perceived color as the strongest influence on a perception of activity. Form-dominance in males combined with the strong influence of Form on the perception of activity/tension could be a factor in the stronger perception.of that quality by the Male group. A finding which militates against that supposition, however, comes from the Element x Sex effect (see page 117) where both Male and Female groups perceived the Form-dominant settings as being the most active, with the Female group perceiving the greatest degree of activity (.6917). It was in the responses to Color and Texture that the groups differed. The Females perceived the Color-dominant settings as being the second most active (1.2040), while the Texture-dominant settings were least active (1.4880). The Male group, on the other hand, rated the Texture- dominant settings second in activity (1.3630), although considerably lower in activity/tension than those in which Form was dominant. For the Males, Color dominance provided the lowest degree of activity (1.5310). It might also be noted that, whereas the Male group perceived the greater degree of activity in the settings when Sex was tested against Complexity, the Female group perceived the greater degree of activity on this Element x Sex effect, the mean difference between the two groups being .1142. Moreover, the Female group responded more strongly for both Color and Form on this activity/tension factor. Only for the Texture-dominant settings did the Males perceive a greater degree of activity than the Females. The contradictory nature of these findings makes interpretation almost impossible. Although it is reasonable to assume that form or 159 color dominance might be an influence on responses along the activity/ tension dimension, it is difficult to understand the exact relationship represented by the present findings. The Males did score lower on Color dominance than the Females, supporting slightly the female color- dominance theory advanced by Oeser and Carruthers, but both Males and Females scored almost equally strong on the Form-dominant settings. The only conclusion that can be drawn with any degree of confidence is that there does appear to exist differing response patterns between males and females when tested along an activity/tension dimension. It may be that the male tendency to be more "universalistic" in cognition was a factor influencing the responses and causing the Males to perceive a greater degree of activity in the settings than did the Females, but even this result was not verified in other analyses. All in all, this would appear to be a fruitful area for further research. In addition to indicating that Form is most strongly related to activity, the post hoc tests of the individual cells revealed that, for the personality cells perceiving Style as a significant effect, the Abstract settings were considered to be the most active, and the Realistic were perceived as most relaxed and serene. Upon consideration, this result makes good sense intuitively. Activity in settings is gener ally associated with rapid and/or opposing linear movement and with bright and/or contrasting colors. Realistic settings are, by defini tion, less free to utilize these visual effects than are Abstract set tings which are not limited to the recreation of reality. Greater free dom to employ and arrange elements would reasonably result in the 160

creation of designs with a greater degree of inherent activity. Diagonal lines, which are generally considered to be the most intrinsically active, for instance, are difficult to incorporate into realistic set tings since few diagonal lines are to be found in nature except when objects are in a condition of toppling, or nearly toppling. Abstract settings, not being bound by a need for verisimilitude, may employ diagonal lines in any proportion and degree and thereby achieve greater movement, conflict, and excitement. The same holds true for many other elements of design which contribute visually to the impression of activity. Realistic settings, therefore, which cannot employ these elements so freely, must inherently remain far more passive than Abstract settings, or even Stylized settings. The findings of the post hoc tests appear to verify this theory.

Sturdy-Frail The Sturdy-Frail variable may be representative of another dimen sion of perception, but, in this investigation, failed to correlate strongly enough with any of the other scales in the preliminary investi gation to provide a fully-developed factor. Included in the main test as a possible indicator of another perceptual dimension, it did provide a few significant findings. Foremost among those findings was a significant Neuroticism ef fect. The Neurotics exhibited slight, but nevertheless significant, differences of response to the settings along this particular variable. Given the understanding that the strongest perception of sturdiness is indicated by the lowest score on the seven-point scale, it Is interesting 161 to note that the low-neurotic subjects perceived the greatest degree of sturdiness in the settings (see page 100). Examination of the post hoc MUDAIDs for the individual personality cells reveals that, where significant Element effects occurred. Form was the element most closely associated with sturdiness. Intuitively, this is logical, since it might be expected that the major attributes of sturdiness would be solidity, massiveness, strong lines in a vertical or horizontal direction, and a quality of immobility—all of which may be conveyed primarily through form. Color, the element perceived as next most closely associated with sturdiness, would contribute through strong, definite, often primary colors, or colors which might be asso ciated with materials giving an impression of strength and solidity, i.e.. grey as in stone, brown as in wood, or red as in brick. Frailty, on the other hand, would likely be conveyed by delicate and/or fragile- appearing forms, with curved lines, or even a suggestion of falling or breaking. Extreme frailty could create a sense of uneasiness or fear. High-neurotics, with a higher potential for arousal, 135' may per ceive a greater degree of physical uneasiness in the settings, giving rise to their stronger response in the direction of frailty. In addition, Eysenck has indicated that high-neurotics tend to be touchy, nervous, anxious, below average in emotional control, and highly suggestible. 136

135R. Lynn and J. Butler, "Introversion and the Arousal Jag," British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. I (1962), 150-1.

1 ^Dimensions of Personality. 259-61. 162

Given such a collection of personality attributes, it seems feasible that the High-neurotic, who needs a greater amount of environmental stability in order to feel secure, may tend to perceive his surroundings and, by extension, stage settings, as more frail than would the Low- neurotic subject who is psychologically more stable. Although it Is not possible to interpret the relationship clearly, it may be worth noting the the personality groups able to perceive sig nificant Element effects on the Sturdy-Frail variable were those asso ciated with Low-neuroticism, Introversion, and High-complexity (Medium- neurotic Introvert, Low-neurotic Extravert, Low-neurotic Introvert, High complex Introvert, and High-complex Male). Without additional data, however, any further interpretation would be far too conjectural to be beneficial.

Like-Dislike The Like-Dislike variable was included to provide a means of com paring the results from this investigation with earlier studies in aesthetics, most of which were concerned with aesthetic preference. Unlike most earlier studies, however, subjects in this investigation were not required to rank the stimuli in order of preference, but merely to respond to each setting individually on the seven-interval Like-Dislike scale. It was entirely possible for a subject to respond equally positively or negatively on all settings; consequently, the results do not reveal the distinct differences in preference that would have occurred had comparative rankings of stimuli been required. 163

At the same time, the results from this study do exhibit similar ities to earlier research. For instance, Bryson and Driver discovered that extraverts preferred moderate levels of complexity regardless of classification as cognitively complex or simple; and that there were significant differences among introverts, with complex introverts pre ferring the simplest, and simple introverts the most complex stimuli (see page 26). In this study, the greatest liking for the settings as a whole was demonstrated by the Low-complex Introverts, while the High- complex Introverts revealed a rather low degree of liking, according to the Extraversión x Complexity effect for this variable (see page 139). The difference between the two groups was .1202, On the other hand, the extraverts exhibited a relatively low level of liking, with the dif ference between the High-complex Extraverts and the Low-complex Extra verts being only .0315. Given the not-unreasonable assumption that the stage settings represents a moderately high degree of complexity, this finding would seem to strengthen Bryson and Driver1s assertion that in troverts exhibit greater response differences than extraverts to visual stimuli, and that Low-complex Introverts would give higher preference to complex stimuli than would the High-complex group. Interpretation of the results would also be comparable. The dif ferences between the response patterns for the introverts and extraverts can be theorized to have occurred because of differences in the effec tive source of stimulation. Extraverts are believed to focus on the external or sensory qualities of the stimulus and would, therefore, be more likely to manifest a group preference response to a set of stimuli, 164 as was evident in this study. Introverts, on the other hand, are hypo thesized to he motivated by the internal arousal elicited by each stim ulus; for them the moderate arousal theories of preference serve as the better explanation. These theories suggest that the stimuli an organism 137 selects or prefers are those yielding a moderate level of arousal; 138 and that arousal increases with stimulus complexity. This results in a preference for the simpler stimuli on the part of the High-complex Introverts, as they manifest greater arousal, and preference for the more complex stimuli among the Low-complex Introverts, as they manifest less arousal. On the other hand, examination of the expressed preferences of individual personality cells for the different styles of scenery tends to suggest conflicting theories. Intuitively, it seems reasonable to assume that the Abstract settings would represent the highest level of

137Berlyne, Conflict. Arousal, and Curiosity (see note 128, page 150); D. E. Berlyne, "Conflict and Arousal," Scientific American. 215 (1966), 82-3; Dember and Earl, "Analysis of Exploratory, Manipulatory and Curiosity Behavior," (see note 49, page 27); Donald W. Fiske and Salvatore R. Maddi, "A Conceptual Framework," in Functions of Varied Experience, (see note 53, page 30); D. 0. Hebb, "Drives and the Con ceptual Nervous System," Psychological Review, 62 (1955), 243-54; and J. M. Hunt, "Motivation Inherent in Information Processing and Action," In Motivation and Social Interaction! Cognitive Determinants, ed. by 0. J. Harvey (New York: Ronald Press, 1963 ^®D. E. Berlyne, "Conflict and the Orientation Reaction," Journal of Experimental Psychology. 62 (1961), 476-83; D. E. Berlyne, et. al.. "Novelty, Complexity, Incongruity, Extrinsic Motivation, and the GSR," Journal of Experimental Psychology. 66, No. 6 (1963), 560-7; and Bryson and Driver, "Conceptual Complexity and Internal Arousal," (see note 126, page 149). 165

entropie complexity simply because of their abstract nature; the Stylized settings would be of a moderate level of complexity; and the Realistic settings would be the least complex since they conform to normal envi ronmental expectations and do not require cognition of meaning from non objective forais. Partial verification of this assumption is found in the fact that the majority of personality cells perceiving significant Style effects preferred the Stylized settings—presumably the ones represen ting an intermediate level of complexity, and thereby supporting the moderate arousal theory. Under this hypothesis, and the findings dis cussed earlier, the expectation would be that the High-complex Introverts would manifest disliking for Abstract settings, and that Realistic set tings, if not best liked, would at least be highly regarded. In actual ity, the results reveal just the opposite. The High-complex Introverts liked the Stylized settings best (2.833), the Abstract settings second (3.800), and the Realistic settings least (3*967). In addition, the same order of preference was manifested by the High-complex Males with the Stylized settings being best liked (2.923), the Abstract next best (3.821), and the Realistic settings actually disliked (4.026); and the same preferential order was exhibited by the Medium-neurotic Introverts. The only subjects to express greatest liking for the Realistic settings were the Low-complex Males, whose order of preference was Realistic (2.857), Stylized (3.572), and Abstract (3.767). No group indicated greatest liking for the Abstract settings. There are at least two possible theories to account for these re sults. The first, of course, is that the Abstract settings do not, in 166

fact, represent the highest level of entropie complexity. Although it might be conceivable that the Abstract settings could represent the simplest stimuli and the Realistic the most complex, this does not really seem reasonable. Complexity in visual stimuli is somewhat comparable to complexity of written material in the sense that the degree to which a passage of written material presents to a reader no new information, or no content with which the reader is not already familiar, is a gauge of the ease of comprehension, or, in another sense, of the relative ^sim plicity” of the passage. Similarly, in addition to basic quantitative complexity (number of points, number of turns, number of colors, etc.), a visual design may be considered complex in the degree to which it pre sents new, unusual, or ambiguous information to the viewer. "Non objective" abstract designs are inherently more ambiguous and unusual than are realistic designs, and, therefore, should represent a greater degree of complexity. The second possible interpretation is derived from research which offers different findings from those of Bryson and Driver cited above. Morano conducted experiments testing the preferences of high- and low- complex subjects for complex and simple designs and found that the high- complex group surpassed the low-complex group in mean preferences for complex designs, while the low-complex group was higher in mean pref- 139 erences for simple figures. The high-complex group also showed

Thomas Morano, "Complexity-Simplicity: An Investigation of Cognitive, Motivational and Personality Correlates," (Unpublished PhlD. dissertation, Fordham University, 1965). 167 significantly more preferences for designs characterized by a kinetic quality, while the low-complex group was significantly higher in pref erences for designs liked by people in general. Morano’s findings appear similar to those in this study, and suggest that the preference for complex designs by subjects characterized as high in cognitive com plexity is not a completely novel phenomenon. In this particular case, it may be conjectured that the Realistic settings were too "simple,” too straight-forward, too empty of ambiguity to offer sufficient Inter est (arousal) for the high-complex subjects. It seems likely that a stimulus centered theory of arousal may be in operation, and that Realis tic settings exist on the low-information level of the inverted U-shaped 140 function postulated by Streufert and Driver. among others. Relating preference to complexity, the inverted U-shaped function indicates that an,optimum level of preference for environmental complexity exists for each subject and that above or below that optimum level, preference ratings decrease in intensity. If the Realistic settings could be con sidered to be too low in complexity, while the Stylized settings reach

^Michael J. Driver and Siegfried Streufert, "The General Incon gruity-Adaptation Level (GIAL) Hypothesis: An Analysis and Integration of Cognitive Approaches to Motivation," Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, In stitute paper no. 114, 1964; Michael J. Driver and Siegfried Streufert, "The General Incongruity Adaptation Level (GIAL) Hypothesis-II. In congruity Motivation in Relation to Affect, Cognition, and Activation- Arousal Theory," Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, Institute paper no. 148, 1966; Siegfried Streufert and Michael J. Driver, "Impression Formation as a Measure of the Complexity of Conceptual Structure," Educational and Psychological Measurement. 27 (1967), 1025-39. 168 the optimum complexity level, and the Abstract ones exceed that level, this would explain the preference phenomena exhibited by the high-complex subjects. At the same time, the theory could explain the order of pref erence for the Low-complex Males if the Realistic settings represent the optimum level of complexity for that group, while both the Stylized and Abstract settings exceed the optimum preference level. Judging from the two significant interaction effects involving the Element variable (Element x Sex and Element x Neuroticism, pages 123 and 101), element dominance played a significant role in the subjects* com parative liking or disliking of the settings. In both Instances, the Color-dominant settings were most often the best liked and the Form- dominant settings most often the least liked. It was in response to the Texture-dominant settings that the greatest interaction occurred. Even in the case of the Males and Females where it might be expected that some differences would occur in the relative liking of Form-dominant as opposed to Color-dominant settings, both groups manifested almost iden tical response patterns to the two types of settings, although the Males exhibited a generally stronger liking response than did the Females—a finding which was supported in the significant Sex main effect where the combined mean for the Males was 3*202 as opposed to a combined mean of 3.417 for the Females (see page 121). Only for the Texture-dominant settings did the two groups display differing responses, with the Females, for the first time, expressing a stronger liking for the group of settings than did the Males. 169

The same basic response pattern may be found in the Element x Neuroticism effect. Here again, all the groups responded far more fa vorably toward the Color-dominant settings than toward the Form-dominant ones; the interaction effect again being observed in responses to the Texture-dominant settings. In this instance, the High-neurotics expres sed greater liking for the Texture-dominant settings than for even the Color-dominant ones, while the Low-neurotics liked them least of all. The Medium-neurotics exhibited an intermediate response* The post hoc tests of the Individual cells revealed the same basic preference pattern. Those cells perceiving a significant Element effect for this variable manifested a preference ranking most often listing Color first, Texture second, and Form last. This ranking altered only in the cases of the Low-complex Extraverts and the High-complex Females, both of which groups reversed the order of Color and Texture, indicating the strongest liking for Texture, followed by Color, and last by Form. These findings clearly indicate the importance of color in the favorable responses to visual stimuli, reinforcing an intuitive belief that color is a dominant element in art and design. A colorful setting generally makes a greater and more pleasurable impact than one dominated by form or texture. As Lee and Anstruther-Thomson comment: Color makes things easy to see. Color gives the eye a grip, so to speak, on shape, preventing its slipping off; we can look much longer at a colored object than an uncolored; and the coloring of architecture enables us to realize its details and Its ensemble much quicker and more easily. For the same reason colored objects always feel more familiar than uncolored ones, and the latter seem always to remain in a way strange and external; so that children, in coloring their picture books, are probably actuated not so much be the sensuous pleasure of color as such, 170

as by a desire to bring the objects represented into a closer and, so to speak, warmer relation with themselves. Even In those instances where Color was superseded in preference by Texture, it was never less than second in rank. It is also interesting to note that Form, the element which was. in almost every instance, least influential in the liking of the settings. was, at the same time, the element most influential in perception of activity and sturdiness in the settings. It might be possible to hypo thesize a relationship there, and some justification for such a hypoth esis might be found in the negative correlations between the Like-Dislike variable and the variables in the Activity factor (see pages 88-89), although the correlations are relatively low, the highest correlation being -.24 between Like-Dislike and "tense-relaxed." In addition, "pleasant-unpleasant," a variable which correlated highly with Like- Dislike (.46), also exhibited high negative correlations ranging from -.35 to -.49 with the variables on the Activity factor. There is some logic to a hypothesis which asserts that excessive activity/tension is unpleasant and therefore not very well liked, and that a visual element which contributes strongly to activity/tension in a setting or design might, as a result, contribute least to a positive response on a like- dislike variable. The possibilities here for further research appear quite tantalizing.

141Vernon Lee and G. Anstruther-Thomson, Beauty and Ugliness. 203, quoted In Walter Sargent, The Enjoyment and Use of Color (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1964), 20. 171

Mid-range Subject Responses Up to this point, the discussion has centered upon the response differences between and among the extreme personality groups—the Extra verts and Introverts, the High- and Low-complex groups, and the Highl and Low-neurotic groups. Since the vast majority of prior research has employed those particular groupings in investigation of personality and aesthetics, it has been possible to compare the results from this study with previous findings and to draw conclusions therefrom. The time has come, however, to discuss the particular phenomena represented by the response patterns of the mid-range groups—the Neutroverts, the Medium- complex subjects, and the Medium-neurotic subjects. At the time the personality cells were being established for this investigation, the initial impulse was to follow traditional patterns and to use only the extreme groups, thereby eliminating the middle groups of subjects. The decision to incorporate the central groups was predi cated upon a desire for as comprehensive a group of subjects as possible to respond to the setting variables. The expectation was that, insofar as the personality groups were concerned, the most extreme differences in responses would occur between the two extreme groups in each person ality variable, and that the responses of the middle groups would be at some intermediate level. That expectation was not fulfilled. In fact, for only one signi ficant effect did the responses of the middle consistently fall between the responses of the two extreme groups. This occurred for the Element x Neuroticism effect on the Like-Dislike variable (Table 7, Figure 15). 172

In this Instance only did the responses of the mid-range subjects In deed reflect an intermediate level of response. For all other interaction effects where mid-range group responses were involved, the responses of that group, or groups, were, in at least one instance, more extreme than either of the extreme groups. Note, for instance: 1. Extraversión x Neuroticism effect, Factor I (Table 5, Figure 14): The Medium-neurotic Extraverts provided a response which indicated a much stronger perception of the emotionality inherent in the settings than did either the High- or Low-neurotic Extraverts; and the same re sponse pattern occurred for the Introvert groups. For the Neutrovert groups, the Mediunt-neurotics responded lower than either the High- or low-neurotics, and, for that matter, lower than either the Medium- neurotic Extraverts or Introverts. 2. Complexity x Sex effect, Factor I (Table 10, Figure 16): The High-complex and Low-complex Females responded with almost identical scores (-.1779 and -.1788, respectively), while the Medium-complex Females recorded a response (-.2846) which far exceeded either of the extreme groups. 3. Extraversión x Complexity effect, Factor I (Table 17, Figure 20): The Low-complex Neutroverts manifested the highest response of any of ihe Low-complex groups, and were, in fact, exceeded only by the High- complex Introverts in level of response. At the same time, the Medium- complex Introverts exhibited a lower score than either the High- or Low- complex Introverts; and the Medium-complex Neutroverts also responded 173

lower than either of the extreme complexity groups. 4. Complexity x Sex effect, Factor II (Table 12, Figure 18): For both the Females and the Males the Medium-complex groups perceived a higher degree of activity (indicated by lower scores) than either the High- or Low-complex groups. 5. Extraversión x Complexity effect, Factor II (Table 18, Figure 21): The Medium-complex'Neutroverts displayed the lowest score (.3643) of all the groups, indicating that it perceived the highest level of activity/tension in the settings. Furthermore, the Low-complex Neutro verts exhibited the highest score (.5818) of all the groups. In addition, the Medium-complex Extraverts perceived a higher level of activity in the settings than either the High- or Low-complex Extraverts; and the Medium-complex Introverts perceived the lowest level of activity of all the Introvert groups. 6. Extraversión x Complexity effect, Like-Dislike variable (Table 19, Figure 22): The Medium-complex Extraverts exhibited a lower response (greater liking) than either the High- or Low-complex Extraverts; and the same basic response pattern was found for the Neutro vert groups. On the other hand, the Medium-complex Introverts recorded the highest response among the Introvert groups* Also, the highest response (greatest disliking) for all groups involved was manifested by the High-complex Neutroverts. Although the lack of prior research involving medium-range groups makes interpretation of the results virtually impossible, the implica tions of the extremely divergent response patterns exhibited by these 174

mid-range groups is far-reaching, and may very well represent the most important finding of this study. The very lack of studies involving middle-range groups is indicative of the importance of the finding. As mentioned earlier, the vast majority of studies dealing with extraversión introversion, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity examine only the re sponse differences between the extreme groups. These groups are ob tained by taking only those subjects who score above or below specific points on the total range of scores; i.e.. above the 75th percentile and below the 25th percentile, as in Gourd’s study (see note 74, page 50); above the 70th percentile and below the 30th percentile, as recommended by Eysenck in his Manual for the Eysenck Personality Inventory (see note 67, page 48); above or below one standard deviation from the mean; or even above the 98th percentile and below the 2nd percentile, as in the study by Pickett (see note 20, page 11). Those subjects scoring between the selected cut-off points are then eliminated from consider ation. The implied assumption is that there will be linear regression be tween the scores on whatever personality test is used and the projected scores on whatever experiment is to be run, and that, therefore, the subjects scoring In the middle on the personality test will also score somewhere in the middle on the experimental test. The results from the present study, however, suggest that such an assumption Is erroneous, that it is not possible to hypothesize a linear relationship—at least insofar as aesthetic stimuli as concerned; and that, by eliminating the 175

mid-range subjects from consideration, It is possible, even likely, that a number of significant response differences have also been eliminated. It would seem apparent, from the present investigation, that the mid-range subjects do not, in fact, constitute an intermediate group between the high and low groups. but must be considered as a relatively independent group of subjects whose responses cannot, at this time, be predicted from the responses of either of the extreme groups, or from the responses of the extreme groups taken together. Implicit in that conclusion is the inference that prior aesthetic research using person

ality variables must be reconsidered in light of this new evidence, and that many early investigations should perhaps be replicated with the mid range groups included as additional variables.

II. Conclusion

This study was undertaken to seek answers to some questions re garding the possible relationships between an audience member's person ality characteristics along the dimensions of extraversión-introversion, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity-simplicity, and the kinds of re sponses he exhibits to realistic, stylized, and abstract styles of I theatrical stage scenery. Multivariate analysis of variance, permitting simultaneous analysis of sets of multiple dependent measures, together I with discriminant analysis as a post-significance means of examining relationships among those dependent measures, provided opportunity to view the perceptual and information processing mechanism of theatre audience members as multi-dimensioned phenomena. The study follows a 176 similar, but somewhat simpler study by Gourd in applying the concept of dimensionality to theatre studies in a more global manner than has pre viously been considered. In this study, visual phenomena were considered, and the possibility now seems to exist to expand the concept of dimen sionality such that specific visual elements, complexity elements, emotional qualities, activity/tension qualities, and other such "dimen sions" may be viewed simultaneously as they operate in the perceptual or information-processing system of a particular group of audience members. This study suggests that multivariate conceptual models may be employed in investigations into the aesthetics of the theatre, thus opening the way to a "general systems" approach to the analysis of visual aesthetics in the theatre and, on a broader scale, to the overall analysis of behavior in the theatrical context. The research problem was presented in Chapter I as a series of exploratory questions which, for the most part, now appear to have been answered in a qualified negative, insofar as it Is reasonable to posit answers to such questions on the basis of one empirical study. The focal question of the investigation was articulated in this way: "When presented with visual stimuli in the form of realistic, stylized, or abstract stage settings, will persons embodying the person ality characteristics of extraversion-introversion, neuroticism, and cognitive complexity-simplicity react in significantly different re sponse patterns?" Results have indicated that such major differences as those indicated by that question, and the majority of the subordinate exploratory questions, do not exist as such, but that significant 177

interactive effects may be observed among the personality variables re sponding to the settings, as well as interactive effects between the elements of the setting designs and several of the personality variables. In addition, post-significance analysis revealed significant responses to both styles of settings and elements of design by a number of the individual personality cells. Such results lead to a belief that further investigation of perceptual and information processing mechan isms is likely to augment our knowledge of dramatic, theatric, and visual phenomena. Two sets of multiple dependent measures and two individual depen dent measures were variance-analyzed in the three modules of the inves tigation's design. A significant Neuroticism effect for the first individual dependent measure and a significant Sex effect for the second individual dependent measure were the only significant main effects for either the four .personality variables or two stimulus variables. Several significant interactions emerged, however. Three personality variable interactions appeared for the first set of dependent measures; two per sonality variable interactions and one stimulus variable x personality variable interaction appeared for the second set of dependent measures; and two stimulus variable x personality variable interactions plus one personality variable interaction appeared for the second of the two individual dependent measures. The dimensions of perception were characterized by the relation ships among the corresponding sets of standardized discriminant function weights. Examination of these for the three interactions found for the 178 first set of dependent measures supported an earlier hypothesis that that set of measures represented a dimension of "emotional response" or "mood evaluation." The three interactive effects—Extraversión x Neuroticism (C x D), Complexity x Sex (C x D), and Extraversión x Complexity (C x D)— which emerged from the three modules of the design suggest that differ ences in personality characteristics can influence response to the im plied emotion in stage settings, and that persons characterized as introvert, high-complex, male, and combinations thereof, are likely to exhibit the strongest responses to such emotional qualities in settings. Characterization of the second set of dependent measures by the discriminant function weights for the three corresponding interactions indicated that it represented a general dimension of "activity/tension," with the emphasis being on the tension quality and its opposite pole of "relaxation" and "restfulness." The three interactive effects—Element x Sex (B x D), Complexity x Sex (C x D), and Extraversión x Complexity (C x D)—which appeared in Modules II and III of the investigation, suggest that introversion, complexity, and sex can influence response patterns to the activity/tension quality in stage settings, although the results regarding introversion and complexity are somewhat contradictory in nature, suggesting a need for replication and for efforts to refine the dependent measures. Form also appeared as the element most closely related to the perception of activity in settings, and males appear better able to perceive this quality than females. Indications are that abstract settings manifest the highest level of activity, followed 179 by stylized settings, and then by realistic settings, which are gener ally felt to be moderately relaxed. The significant Neuroticism main effect appearing for the Sturdy- Frail dependent measure^indicates that the level of neuroticism is in versely related to the perception of sturdiness in stage settings. Additional post hoc analyses revealed that the element of form is most closely related to the perception of sturdiness. This variable appears to be representative of a dimension of perception which further investi gation and development of measuring instruments could more fully characterize. The three interaction effects—Element x Neuroticism (B x D), Element x Sex (B x D), and Extraversión x Complexity (G x D)—produced on the three modules of the design for the Like-Dislike variable suggest that variations of the arousal theory might be operative in preference responses for stage settings, and that introversion and low-complexity are dominant influences in expressed liking for stage settings in general, while introversion and high-complexity play the largest roles in liking for specific styles of settings. Color appears to be the element most positively affecting liking of stage settings, while form has the least, or possibly even a negative effect. There is some sug gestion that stylized settings are the most preferred by the largest group of subjects, and that abstract settings are least liked. The indication found here that differences in liking for settings may occur between the sexes, together with the other response differences found between the sexes, raises the possibility of additional investigations 180

exploring in greater depth relationships between aesthetic perception and sex-identity characteristics. Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the mid-range groups of subjects—Neutroverts, Medium-neurotics, and Medium-complex subjects— manifested responses of such degree and direction as to demonstrate that they do not constitute intermediate groups of subjects, but must instead be regarded as relatively independent. This phenomenon suggests that previous aesthetic research which eliminated this middle group of sub jects from consideration needs to be reevaluated and perhaps replicated with the addition of the mid-range subjects as personality variables. On the basis of the results obtained, it was impossible to make statements about the possible relationships between preferences for settings and responses toward the emotionality, activity, or sturdiness of settings, although a few correlations between specific variables were pointed out. Nor was it possible to interpret the response differences between the mid-range subjects and the extreme group. Perhaps, as greater numbers of salient dependent measures are developed, these relationships may begin to be more clearly illuminated. BIBLIOGRAPHY 182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addington, David W.; Kepke, Allen N.; Bahs, Clarence W.; and Smith, R. Wayne. "A Further Investigation of Evaluative Practices in the Theatre,” Bowling Green State University, 1974. (Mimeographed.) Adix, Vem. Theatre Scenecraft: For the Backstage Technician and Artist. Anchorage, Kentucky: Children’s Theatre Press, 1956. Bargmann, Rolf E. "Multivariate Analysis Methods: Multivariate Analysis of Regular Two-Way Classification," University of Georgia, January, 1971. (Mimeo graphed») Barron, Frank. "Complexity-Simplicity as a Personality Dimension." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 48 (1953), 163-72. ______. "Personality Style and Perceptual Choice." Journal of Personality. 20 (1952), 385-401. ______, and Welsh, George S. "Artistic Perception as a Possible Factor in Personality Style: Its Measurement by a Figure Preference Test," Journal of Psychology. 33 (April, 1952), 199-203. Bay, Howard. Stage Design. New York: Drama Book Specialists, 1974. Beittel, Kenneth. "Factor Analysis of Three Dimensions of the Art Judgment Complex: Criteria, Art Objects, and Judges." Journal of Experimental Education. 32, No, 2 (1963), 171. Bendig, A. W. "Extraversión, Neuroticism, and Student Achievement in Introductory Psychology." Journal of Educational Research. 53 Berlyne, D. E. "Conflict and Arousal." Scientific American. 215 (1966), 82-3. ______. "Conflict and the Orientation Reaction." Journal of Experimental Psychology. 62 (1961), 476-83. ______. Conflict. Arousal, and Curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., I960. ______; Craw, Margaret A.: Salapatek, P. H.; and Lewis, Judith L. "Novelty, Complexity, Incongruity, Extrinsic Motivation and the GSR." Journal of Experimental Psychology. 66, No. 6 (1963), 560-7. Bieri, James; Atkins, Alvin L.; Briar, Scott; Leaman, Robin L.; Miller, Henry; and Tripodi, Tony. Clinical and Social Judgment: The Discrim ination of Behavioral Information. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. 183

; Bradbum, Wendy M.; and Galinsky, M. David. "Sex Differ ences in Perceptual Behavior." Journal of Personality. 26 (1958), 1-12. Bock, R. Darrell; and Haggard, Ernest A. "The Use of Multivariate Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Research." Handbook of Measurement and Assessment in Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Dean K. Whitla. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Go., 1968. Bradford, E. J. G. "A Note on the Relation and Aesthetic Value of the Perceptive Types in Color Appreciation." American Journal of Psychology. 24 (1913), 546-54. Brockett, Oscar G. The Theatre: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1969. Bryson, Jeff B.; and Driver, Michael J. "Cognitive Complexity, Intro version, and Preference for Complexity." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 23, No. 3 (1972), 320-7. ______. "Conceptual Complexity and Internal Arousal." Psychonomic Science. 17, No. 2 (1969), 71-2. Bullough, Edward. "Recent Work In Experimental Aesthetics." British Journal of Psychology. 12 (1921), 76-99. . "The 'Perceptive Problem' in the Aesthetic Appreciation of Single Colors." British Journal of Psychology. 2 (1905), 406-63. Buros, Oscar Krisen, ed. The Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook. Vol. I. Highland Park, N. J.: The Gryphon Press, 1972. Burris-Meyer, Harold; and Cole, Edward C. Scenery for the Theatre. rev. ed. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1971. Burt, Sir Cyril. "The Factorial Analysis of Eknotional Traits." Character and Personality. 7 (June, 1939), 285-99. ______. "The Factorial Study of Temperament Traits." British Journal of Psychology. Statistical Section, 1 (1948), 178-203. ______. "The Psychology of Art." How the Mind Works. London: Alden and Unwin, 1933. Caldwell, George R. "A Quantitative Investigation of Audience Response to Theatrical Settings." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1974. 184

Carruthers, Margaret. "Colour-Form Dominance and Memory for Colour." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Glasgow, 1970. Cattell, Judith; Glascodk, Josephine; and Washburn, M.F. "Experiments on a Possible Test of Aesthetic Judgment of Pictures." American Journal of Psychology. XXIX, No. 3 (1918), 333-6. Cattell, Raymond B., ed. Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Rand, McNally, and Company, 1966. Child, I. L. "Personality Correlates of Esthetic Judgment in College Students." Journal of Personality. 33 (1965), 476-511. ______• "Personal Preferences as an Expression of Aesthetic Sensitivity." Journal of Personality. 30 (1962), 496-512. Choynowski, M. "Dimensions of Painting." Perceptual and Motor Skills. 25 (1967), 128. Claridge, G. S. "Arousal and Inhibition as Determinants of the Perfor mance of Neurotics." British Journal of Psychology. 52, No. 1 (1961), 53-63. Clements, Robert D.; and Steith, Sue W. "Bullough1 s Perceptive Types Re considered." Journal of Aesthetic Education. 2, No. 4 (1968), 109-16 Clevenger, Theodore, Jr.; Clark, Margaret Leitner; and Lazier, Gilbert N. "Stability of Factor Structure in Smith* s Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts." Quarterly Journal of Speech. LII, No. 3 (1967), 241-7. Cooley, William W.; and Lohnes, Paul R. Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971. Dember, W. N.; and Earl, R. W. "Analysis of Exploratory, Manipulatory and Curiosity Behavior." Psychological Review. 64, No. 2 (1957), 91-6. Dewar, Heather. "A Comparison of Tests of Artistic Appreciation." British Journal of Educational Psychology. VIII, No. 1 (1938), 29-49. Di Salvo, Vincent; and Hilyard, Delmer. "A Multivariate Analysis of Variance Investigation of Small Group Behavior." Paper delivered in the Speech Communication Association Convention, Chicago, 1971. Dixon, W. J. Biomedical Computer Programs. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1973. 185

Driver, Michael J.; and Streufert, Siegfried. "The General Incongruity- Adaptation Level (GIAL) Hypothesis: An Analysis and Integration of Cognitive Approaches to Motivation." Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, Institute Paper No. 114, 1964* ______. "The General Incongruity Adaptation Level (GIAL) Hypothesis- II. Incongruity Motivation in Relation to Affect, Cognition, and Activation-Arousal Theory." Institute for Research in the Behavioral, Economic, and Management Sciences, Purdue University, Institute Paper No. 148, 1966. Edwards, Allen L. Experimental Design in Psychological Research. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1968. Eisenman, Russell; and Rappaport, Joan. "Complexity Preference and Semantic Differential Ratings of Complexity-Simplicity and Symmetry- Asymmetry." Psychonomic Science. 7, No. 4 (1967), 147-8. Emmert, Philip; and Brooks, William D. Methods of Research in Communi cations. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1970. Eysenck, Hans Jurgen. Dimensions of Personality. New York: The Mac millan Company, 1947. . The Biological Basis of Personality. Springfield, Illinois: Thomas, 1967. « The Dynamics of Anxiety and Hysteria. New York: Praeger, 1957. . "The General Factor in Aesthetic Judgments." British Journal of Psychology. 31 (1940), 94-102. ______. The Maudsley Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1962. . "The Questionnaire Measurement of Neuroticism and Extra version." Revista Di Fsicologia. 50 (1956), 113-40. . The Structure of Human Personality. London: Methuen and Company, Ltd., I960. ______. "’Type’-Factors in Aesthetic Judgments." British Journal of Psychology. 31 (1941), 262-70. i and Eysenck, Sybil B. G. Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, Calif.: Educational and Industrial Testing Service, 1962. 186

______; and Eysenck, Sybil B. G. Personality Structure and Measure ment. San Diego, Calif.: Robert A. Knapp, Publishers, 19^8. ______; and Rachman, S. The Causes and Cures of Neurosis. San Diego, Calif.: Robert A. Knapp, Publishers, 1965. Eysenck, Sybil. B. G.; and Eysenck, Hans Jurgen. "The Validity of Questionnaires and Rating Assessments of Extraversión and Neuroticism and Their Factorial Validity." British Journal of Psychology. 54 (1963), 51-62. Farley, F. H. "On the Independence of Extraversión and Neuroticism." Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2 (1967), 154-6* Fiske, Donald W.; and Maddi, Salvatore R. Functions of Varied Experi ence. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1961. Friederich, Willard J.; and Fraser, John H. Scenery Design for the Amateur Stage. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1950. Gillette, Arnold S. An Introduction to Scenic Design. New York: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967. Gordon, Lawrence Stover. "Judged Complexity of Random and Regular Shapes." University of Iowa, 1968. (Mimeographed.) . "Physical Determinants of the Judged Rhythm of Shapes." Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Iowa, 1965. . "Some Variables of Shape Affecting Responses to Set Designs." University of Iowa, n.d. (Mimeographed.) Gourd, E. William, Jr. "Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity and Information Processing in Theatre Audiences: An Experimental Study." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1973. Graves, Maitland E. The Art of Color and Design. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, Inc., 1951. Grove, Michael S.; and Eisenman, Russell. "Personality Correlates of Complexity-Simplicity." Perceptual and Motor Skills. 31 (1970), 391. Hainaux, Rene; and Yves-Bonnat, eds. Stage Design Throughout the World Since 1950. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1964* Hall, M. F. "The Generality of Cognitive Complexity-Simplicity." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Vanderbilt University, 1966. 187

Hansen, Brian K.j and Bormann, Ernest G. "A New Look at a Semantic Differential for the Theatre." Speech Monographs. XXXVI, No. 2 (1969), 163-70. Harvey, 0. J., ed. Motivation and Social Interaction; Cognitive Deter minants. New York: Ronald Press, 1963* Hayakawa, S. I. Modern Guide to Synonyms and Related Words. New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1968. Hebb, D. 0. "Drives and the Conceptual Nervous System." Psychological Review. 62 (1955), 243-54. Hevner, Kate. "Experimental Studies of the Affective Value of Colors and Lines." Journal of Applied Psychology. XIX, No* 4 (1935), 385-98. Huckabee, Malcolm W. "Introversion-extraversion and Imagery." Psychological Reports. 34, No. 2 (1974), 453-4. Hunt, J. M. "Motivation Inherent in Information Processing and Action." Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants. Edited by 0. J. Harvey. New York: Ronald Press, 1963. Jones, Robert Edmond. The Dramatic Imagination. New York: Theatre Arts Books, 1965. Jung, Carl Gustave. Psychological Types. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1923. Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry: Methodology for Behavioral Science. Scranton, Penna.; Chandler Publishing Company, 1964* Knapp, Robert H. "An Experimental Study of a Triadic Hypothesis Con cerning the Sources of Aesthetic Imagery." Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment. 28 (1964),49-54. : and Green, Samuel. "Preferences for Styles of Abstract Art and Their Personality Correlates." Journal of Projective Techniques. 24, No. 4 (I960), 396-402. ; and Wulff, Alan. "Preferences for Abstract and Representa tional Art." Journal of Social Psychology. 60 (1963), 255-62. Kuemmerle, Clyde V. "An Investigation of Selected Contemporary American Scene Designers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1970. Lundholm, Helge. "The Affective Tone of Lines: Experimental Researcher." The Psychological Review. 28, No. 1 (1921), 43-60 188

Lynn, R.; and Butler, J. "Introversion and the Arousal Jag." British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. I (1962), 150-1. Mielziner, Jo. Designing for the Theatre. New York: Bramhall House, 1965. Morano, Nicholas Thomas. "Complexity-Simplicity: An Investigation of Cognitive, Motivational and Personality Correlates." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Fordham University, 1965. Murray, D. C.; and Deabler, H. L. "Colors and Mood-Tones." Journal of Applied Psychology. 41, No. 5 (1957), 279-83. Nidorf, Louis J.; and Argabrite, Allan H. "Cognitive Complexity and the Tendency to Make Extreme Judgments." Perceptual and Motor Skills. 31 (1970), 478. Nunnally, Jum C. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967. Odbert, H. S.; Karwoski, T. F.j and Eckerson. "Studies in Synaesthetic Thinking: I. Musical and Verbal Associations of Color and Mood." Journal of General Psychology. 26 (1942), 153-73. Oenslager, Donald. "Design in the Theatre Today." Scene Design for Stage and Screen. Edited by Orville K, Larson. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1961, Oeser, 0. A. "Some Experiments on the Abstraction of Form and Colour, Part I—Tachistoscope Experiments." British Journal of Psychology. 22 (1932), 200-15. _____ "Some Experiments on the Abstraction of Form and Color, Part II—Rorschach Tests." British Journal of Psychology. 22 (1932), 287-323. Osborne, John W.; and Farley, Frank H. "The Relationship Between Aesthetic Preference and Visual Complexity in Abstract Art." Psychonomic Science. 19, No. 2 (1970), 69-70. Osgood, Charles E.; Succi, George J.; and Tannenbaum Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1967. Palmiere, Lucille. "Intro-extra-version as an Organizing Principle in Fantasy Production." Journal of Analytical Psychology. 17, No. 2 (1972), 116-31. Parker, Oren W.; and Smith, Harvey K. Scene Design and Stage Lighting. 3rd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1974. 189

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1951. Peel, E. A. "A New Method for Analyzing Aesthetic Preferences: Some Theoretical Considerations." Psychometrica. II (1946), 129-37. . "On Identifying Aesthetic Types." British Journal of Psychology. 35 (1945), 61-9. Pettigrew, Thomas F. "The Measurement and Correlation of Category Width as a Cognitive Variable." Journal of Personality. 26 (1958), 532-44. Pickett, Warren. "Style and Temperament." Empirical Research in Theatre. I, No. 1 (1971), 58-60. Pickford, Ralph W. "'Aesthetic1 and 'Technical' Factors in Artistic Appreciation." British Journal of Psychology. 38 (1948), 135-41. ______, "Form and Expression in Art." Scottish Art Review. 2 (194^), 7-11. . Psychology and Visual Aesthetics. London: Hutchinson Educational, 1972. Poffenberger, A. T.; and Barrows, F. F. "The Feeling Value of Lines." Journal of Applied Psychology. VIII, No. 2 (1924), 187-205. Rakshit, D. P. "Colour Preference of Extravert ed and Introverted In dividuals." Indian Journal of Psychology. 21 (1946), 89-92. Ross, Robert T. "Studies in the Psychology of the Theatre, I: Pre liminary Studies of Audience Reaction to Color." Psychological Record. II, No. 5 (1938), 126-90. Roubertoux, R.; Charlier, M.; and Chaquiboff, J. "Preference for Non objective Art: Personal and Psychosocial Determiners." British Journal of Psychology. 62, No. 1 (1971), 105-10. Rowell, Kenneth. Stage Design. New York: Reinhold Book Corp., 1968. Sargent, Walter. The Enjoyment and Use of Color. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1964. Selden, Samuel; and Rezzuto, Tom. Essentials of Stage Scenery. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. Shank, Theodore, The Art of Dramatic Art. Belmont, Calif.: Dickenson Publishing Co., 1969. 190

Shapiro, Kenneth J.j and Alexander, Irving E. "Extraversion-Introversion, Affiliation, and Anxiety?’ Journal of Personality. 37 (1969), 387-406. Silverman, Julian. "The Problems of Attention in Research and Theory in Schizophrenia." Psychological Review. 71 (1964), 352-79. Smith, R. Wayne. "A Study of the Actor-Character Relationship in Theatre Production." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Bowling Green State University, 1970. Smith, Raymond G. "A Semantic Differential for Theatre Concepts." Speech Monographs. XXVIII, No. 1 (1961), 1-8. Streufert, Siegfried; and Driver, Michael J. "Impression Formation as a Measure of the Complexity of Conceptual Structure." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 27 (1967), 1025-39. Tatsuoka, Maurice M. Multivariate Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1971. Tucker, Raymond K. "Reliability of Semantic Differential Scales: The Role of Factor Analysis." Western Speech. XXXV, No. 3 (1971), 187-9. Tuckman, B. S. "Integrative Complexity: Its Measurement and Relation to Creativity." Educational and Psychological Measurement. 26 (1966), 369-82. Tuddenham, R. D.; Moyles, E. W.; and Block, J. "Simplicity/Complexity or Symmetry/Asymmetry? A Reanalysis of the Barron-Welsh Art Scale." Perceptual and Motor Skills. 20, No. 3 (1965), 685-90. Valentine, C. W. The Experimental Psychology of Beauty. London: Metheun and Co., Ltd., 1962. Welker, David. Theatrical Set Design: The Basic Techniques. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1969. Wexner, Lois B. "The Degree to Which Color (Hues) are Associated with Mood-Tones." Journal of Applied Psychology. 30, No. 6 (1954)> 432-5. Witkin, Herman A.; Dyke, R. B.; Patterson, H. F.; Goodnough, D. R.; and Karp, S. A. Psychological Differentiation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Wright, Benjamin; and Rainwater, Lee. "The Meanings of Color." Journal of General Psychology. 67 (1962), 89-99. HI

APPENDIX A

CATEGORICAL LISTING OF 54 SETTING SLIDES USED FOR SLIDE SORT 192

PRELIMINARY GROUP OF 54 SETTING EXAMPLES USED FOR SLIDE SORT BY PANEL OF EXPERTS

Realistic. Color-dominant

The House of Blue Leaves, designed by Christian Wittwer, University of Georgia

The Trojan Women, designed by Anthony Collins, University of Georgia

The Hostage, designed by Stephen Palestrant, New York University

Autumn Garden, designed by W. Joseph Stell, Bowling Green State University

Goodbye Charlie. designed by W. Joseph Stell, Bowling Green State University

Suspect, designed by W. Joseph Stell, Richmond Professional Institute

Realist io. Form-dominant

The Three Sisters, designed by Donald Cate, Rockford College

Desire Under the Elms, designed by George W. McKinney, Eastern New Mexico University

The Hostage, designed by W. Joseph Stell, University of Georgia

The Chalk Garden, designed by Vern Adix, University of Utah

The Enemy of the People, designed by Colin Winslow, Manitoba Theatre Centre 193

Realistic. Form-dominant (cont.)

Mary Lou, designed by Paul A. Camp, University of Georgia

Realistic, Texture-dominant

A Streetcar Named Desire, designed by Eric Levenson, Wellesley College

The Homecoming, designed by Robert McCleary, Harvard University

Sleuth, designed by Carl Toms, Music Box Theatre

Hello Dolly, designed by Barry McGee, California State University

Ondlne. designed by Don Powell, San Diego State University

Ardele. designed by Richard Gullickson, University of Georgia

Stylized, Color-dominant

A Flea, in Her Ear, designed by Jerry Williams, Alley Theatre

Mother Courage, designed by B. W. Van Loo, San Diego State University

Comus. designed by Liz Whitney Quizzard, Goucher College

The Madwoman of Chaillot. designed by Charles Schuman, Cerritos College

The Caucasian Chalk Circle, designed by W. Joseph Stell, University of Georgia 194

Stylized. Color-dominant (cont.)

A Comedy of Errors, designed by W. Joseph Stell, University of Georgia

Stylized. Form-dominant

Mother Courage, designed by B. W. Van Loo, San Diego State University

As You Like It. designed by Darwin R. Payne, Southern Illinois University

Richard II. designed by Jason Phillips, Seattle Repertory Theatre

Don Carlos. designed by John R. Rothgeb, University of Texas

Carmen, designed by Josef Svoboda, Metropolitan Opera

The Master Builder, designed by Todd Lee, Harvard University

Stylized, Texture-dominant

The Boys From Syracuse. designed by Neil Bierbower, Temple University

Turandot. designed by Davis West, San Diego Opera

A Flea in Her Ear, designed by Stuart Wurtzel, American Conservatory Theatre

The Threepenny Opera, designed by Josef Svoboda, Zurich National Theatre

Misalliance, designed by Eric Levenson, Wellesley College 195

Stylized, Texture-dominant (cont.)

Ariodante. designed by Ming Cho Lee, John F. Kennedy Center

Abstract, Color-dominant

The Firebird, designed by Josef Svoboda, Copenhagen Royal Opera

Tannhäuser, designed by Josef Svoboda, Covent Garden Theatre

King Lear, designed by Richard G. Mason, University of Hawaii

The Firebird, designed by Josef Svoboda, Copenhagen Royal Opera

Tannhäuser, designed by Josef Svoboda, Covent Garden Theatre

Abstract, Form-dominant

A Midsummer Night1s Dream, designed by D. Boylen, Temple University

The Breasts of Tiresias. designed by Gene Miller, Pomona College

The Tempest, designed by Don Powell, San Diego State University

Comus. designed by Liz Whitney Quizzard, Goucher College

When We Dead Awaken. designed by Steven Rubin, Yale Repertory Theatre

Macbeth, designed by George W. McKinney, Eastern New Mexico University 196

Abstract, Texture-dominant

Carmen, designed by Josef Svoboda, Metropolitan Opera

Krutnava. designed by Josef Svoboda, Prague National Theatre

Wipe-out Games, designed by Santo Loquasto, Kreeger Theatre

Boris Godunov, designed by Josef Svoboda, Hamburg State Opera

The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds, designed by Josef Svoboda, Tyl Theatre

The Would-be Gentleman, designed by Liz Whitney Quizzard, Goucher College APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTION SHEET AND TEST FORM FOR SLIDE SORT 198

DESIGN SORT INSTRUCTIONS

Accompanying this form is a collection of fifty-four (54) colored slides of scene designs which you are requested to categorize. This categorization should be done in two steps. Please complete the first step before proceeding to the second. Step 1: Please sort the slides into three (3) basic categories: Realistic, Stylized, and Abstract. Operational definitions of these categories have been established for the purposes of this experiment, and are given below. Please adhere to these definitions in your categorization, even though they may disagree with more theoretical/ hlstorical/critical definitions of the terms: Realistic: All elements and objects are employed in a manner congruent to an illusion of actual life in an actual place. Selectivity and simplification may be employed, but not to the extremes of exaggeration or distortion. This category includes such styles of design as ’’Fragmentary Realism," "Simplified Realism," and "Suggested Realism." Stylized: One or more elements in the design are exaggerated, distorted and/or simplified beyond the recognizable bounderies of realism. Although elements derived from reality are employed, they have clearly been visually altered by the designer. This category includes such styles as "Fantasy," "Theatricalism," "Expressionism," and Symbolism." Abstract: The elements are non-representational. The design receives its impact from the interrelationship of design elements (color, line, form, texture, etc.), rather than from the inter relationship of recognizable or realistic elements. Recognizable forms may be employed, but they are so clearly out of normal context as to disassociate them entirely from reality. By the time you complete the sorting, each of the above cate gories should contain eighteen (18) slides. Step 2: Within each of the above categories, please sort the designs and rank them as to dominance of Color, Shape/Form, or Texture/ Pattern. Dominance should be judged on the basis that the element is sufficiently strong, over-powering, attention-getting, or pervasive as to act as the principal determinant of mood/atmosphere in the design. Color: May be created through inherent color, paint or lighting. Shape/Form: The outline, contours and/or shape of the units, or the basic arrangement of the units in the overall design. 199

Texture/Pattern: The surface texture(s), or overall pattern/ decorative surface treatment of the units and objects. Rank at least three (3) designs in each category according to your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices of designs that best exemplify the expressive use of each element. Write the numbers of the slides (large numbers on the bottom of each slide) in rank order in the appropriate column of the form on the next page. Note that not all slides need to be ranked—just your first three choices for each category. For the purpose of documentation and reference, please fill in the blanks on the bottom of the form indicating: (1) the number of years you have been employed in theatrical pursuits—either professional or educational; (2) the approximate number of productions with which you have been directly associated; and (3) your principal area of com petency (directing, design, costuming, etc.). Thank you very much for your cooperation and help. REALISTIC STYLIZED ABSTRACT Color Shape/Form T exture/Pattern Color Shape/Form Texture/Pattern Color Shape/Form T exture/Pattern

Number of years employed in Theatre; ______Approximate number of productions: ______

Principal area of competency: . 2 0 0 APPENDIX C

INSTRUCTION SHEET

AND

QUESTIONNAIRE FORM A FOR EYSENCK PERSONALITY INVENTORY 202

EYSENCK PERSONALITY INVENTORY FORM A

By H. J. Eysenck and Sybil B. G. Eysenck

Name______Age------Sex------

Grade or Occupation______Date------

School or Firm Marital Status------.

INSTRUCTIONS

Here are some questions regarding the way you behave, feel and act. After each question is a space for answering "Yes/' or "No."

Try and decide whether "Yes," or "No" represents your usuaf way of acting or feeling. Then bfc-cken in the space under the col Section of Answer umn heeded "Yes" or "No." Column Correctly Marked Yes No Work quickly, and don't spend too much time over any question; we want your first reaction, not a long Yes No drawr.-out thought process. The whole questionnaire shouldn't take more than a few minutes. Be sure not to omit any questions. Now turn the page over and go ahead. Work quickly, and remember to answer every question. There are r.o right or wrong answers, and this isn't a test of intelligence or ability, but simply a measure of the way you behave.

PUBLISHED 3Y EDUCATIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL TESTING SERVICE BOX 7234. SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92107

PRINTCO IN U.S.A.

Uv EPI 001 203

E N L 1. Do you often long for excitement?...... Ye* Ko

31. Do Ideas run through your head so that you cannot Yes No 3. Do you often need undcrstsmling friends to choer you Yen Ko up?...... ( , sleep?...... :: 32. If there is something you want to know about, would Yes No 3, Are you usually carefree?...... Yen No you rather look it up in a book thin talk to someone ■bout it?...... 4, Do you find It very hard to take no for an answer? . . . Yea Ko 33. Do you get palpitations or thumping in your heart?. , . Yea No

5, Do you atop end think things over before doing any- Yes No J4. Do you like the kind of work that you need to p*y close Yes No thing?...... mention to?...... C. If you say you will do something do you always keep Yes No 36. Do you get attacks of ehiking or trembling?...... Yc* Ko your promise. no matter bow Inconvenient It might be to do ao?...... 36. Would you always declare everything at the customs. Yea No 7. Does your mood often go up and down? , ...... Yes No even if you knew that you ceuld never be found out? . ,

8. Do ynu generally do and say things quickly without Yes No 3?. Do you hate being with a crowd who play Jokes on one Yes No slopping (o think? ...... another?...... ;j

38. Arc you an Irritable person?...... Yea Ko 9. Devon ever lee, 'Just miserable* for no good reason? Yes No

3S. Do you like doing things in which you have to act Yea No 10. Would you do almost anything for a dare?...... Yes No quickly?......

11. Do you suddenly feel shy when you want to talk to an Yes No attractive stranger?...... 40. Do you worry about awful things that might happen? . . Yea No

12. Once In n while do you lose your temper and gel Yee No angry?...... 41. Are you slow and unhurried in the way you move? , , , Ye* No

13. Do you often do things on the spur of the moment? . . . Yea No 42. Have you ever been late for an appointment or work? . Yea No 14. Do you often worry about things you should not have Yea No done or said?...... J- u 43. Do yew have many nightmares ?...... Yen No 15. Generally do you prefer reading to meellig people? . . Yee No

44. Do you like talking to people ao much that you would Yes No 16. Are your lee 11 ng* rather easily hurt?...... Yea No never miss a chance of talking to a stranger 7......

46, Are you troubled by aches six! pains?...... Yea No IT. Do you like going out r. lot?...... Yea No

IS, Do you occasionally have thoughts and Ideas that you Yes No 46. Would you be very unhappy if you could not see lots Yes No would not like other people to know about?...... of people most of the time ?......

IB. Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and Yes No 47. Would you call yourself a nervous person? ...... Ye* No sometimes very sluggish? ......

20. Do you prefer to hnve lew tut special friends 7...... Yea No 48. Of all the peoplu you know are cltere some whom you Yea No definitely do not like ?...... ;■ -J

21. Do you d'ydreum e lot? ...... Yea No 46. Would you asv you were fairly self-confident?...... Yes No

22. When people shout at you, da you shout hack?...... Yes No 50. Are you easily hurt when people find fault with you or Yes No your work 7...... u 23. Are you often troubled about feelings of guilt?...... Yes No 51. Do you find ft hard to realty enjoy yourself at a live- Yea No ly party7...... 24. Arc all your hnbltr good and desirable ones?...... Yea No 82. Are you troubled with feelings of Inferiority?...... Yea No 26. Gan you usually Jet yourself go and enjoy yourself a Yea No lot at a gay party?...... > 53. Can you easily get some life Into a rather dull party?, Yea No 26. Would you call yuuraell tease or 'highly-struts;*? . . . Yas No

54. Do you sometimes talk about things you know nothing Yea No 27, l>, other people thick of you as being very lively? . . . Yes No about?...... J:

29. After you have done something lir.portnnt. do you often Yes No 66, Do you worry about your health?...... Yas No come away feeling you could have done better ?,,... 1'

£9. Are you mostly quiet when you arc with other people? Yes No 66, Do you like playing pranks on others?...... Yea No

36, Do you eometJntca gossip? Yes No 3?. Do you suffer from sleeplessness ?...... Yes No

PLEASE CNEGti TO SEE THAT YGG HAVE ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS. APPENDIX D

INSTRUCTION SHEET AND TEST FORM FOR REP TEST STUDENT IIUI BER (SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER)______;______SEX______

-I-N-S--T-R--U--C-T--IO--N--S- On the attached questionnaire you are asked tu rate yourself and nine other pîrsons against a set of scales. If you will turn the page for a moment, you will see that across the top of tie grid, ten persons (Including yourself) are identified by their .relationships to you. Please write in the name or initials of a person v?ho fits each category—this i3 simply for your convenience in remembering who you are rating. (If, for example, you have a "Friend of same sex" whose name ig Gloria Knudsen, write "Gloria" or "GK" in that space; follow the same procedure for the other spaces.)

AS YOU PROCEED, nLEAfE THINK OF TEN DIFFERENT PERSONS: EACH COLUMN SHOULD REPRESENT A DIFFERENT PERSON. To the right of the grid are the ten scales that you will use to rate each person. Each scale is numbered from 1 to 6. Depending upon which end of the scale you're looking at, the numbers 1 and 6 mean "very"; the numbers 2 and 5 mean "moderately";) the numbers 3 and 4 lean "slightly." In each block of the grid, put a number from 1 to 6, depending upon where you think " each person belongs on each of the scales. EXAMPLE:

Outgoing Shy

In Ills example, I have decided that: I am very outgoing (1) a person vzhom I dislike (whose initials are Y.Q.) is moderately shy (5) my mother is slightly outgoing (3)

Please rate each of the ten persons on each scale in a similar manner, making your own judgments about each person's position on each scale.

(If you do not have a pother, a father, or both, think of a person who most closely approximates the parent's role.)

APPENDIX E

INSTRUCTION SHEET AND ADJECTIVE SCALE TEST FORM FOR FACTOR ANALYTIC STUDY 208

STUDENT NUMBER (SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER)______SEX______On the following pages you will find lists of adjective scales, each descriptive of the aesthetic values of theatrical settings, examples of which will be presented in slide form. Each scale is composed of an adjective and its antonym separated by a seven-point equal-interval rating scale. Please mark the point on each scale which you consider to be closest to your response to the specific setting. There are no "correct” or "incorrect" ratings. If you feel that the scale is ambiguous, or if you feel that you cannot appropri ately respond to the setting with the scale, please put a mark in the middle of the scale. A mark at either end of the scale means extremely; UGLY ; X ;__ ; :____ ; :__ :___: BEAUTIFUL = extremely ugly

A mark second from either end means quite: UGLY :__ : X :___:___:___:___:___ : BEAUTIFUL - quite ugly

A check in the position third from either end means slightly: UGLY :___:__ : X :___ :___:__ :____: BEAUTIFUL = slightly ugly

UGLY : : :___ : X :__ :__ :____: BEAUTIFUL - neither ugly nor beautiful, or scale is unrelated to setting

The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which end of the scale seems most characteristic of the setting you are judging. Do not check more than one position for each scale. Be sure you check every scale. Please do not omit any. Rely on immediate judgment. Work as rapidly as possible. 209

domineering deferential jubilant mournful repulsive attractive somber joyous sturdy frail benevolent malevolent sparkling dull unpleasant pleasant sweet bitter cheerful gloomy exciting calming massive minescule exhilarating depressing friendly hostile lethargic lively chaotic ordered placid nervous relaxed tense frantic serene stable precarious yielding relentless farcical pathetic impulsive cautious stimulating boring tragic comic zesty insipid vibrant still assuring foreboding happy sad hateful loving quiet noisy static dynamic informal formal restless restful melancholy gay docile willful humorous serious mundane magical cool warm ferocious peaceful 9JP

APPENDIX F

TABLES 21, 22, AND 23: ROTATED FACTOR MATRICES FOR ART 300 TEST SPEECH CLASSES TEST AND COMBINED DATA 211

TABLE 21 Rotated Factor Matrix: Art 300 Test

Scale Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 h2 1. .025 .076 -.221 .132 .538 -.272 .060 .129 .458 2. .766 .014 .032 .128 -.080 • 037 —.068 .183 .651 3. -.622 .196 .355 -.074 .039 -.057 .042 .362 .695 4. -.723 -.032 -.135 .043 .016 .014 .021 -.078 .551 5. .159 .000 .059 .756 .253 .078 .025 .072 .678 6. .488 -.097 .016 .207 -.021 .545 -.222 .071 .643 7. .616 -.073 -.468 -.122 .158 -.153 -.229 -.202 .762 8. -.685 .290 .286 -.061 -.071 -.102 .119 .175 .746 9. .656 -.334 -.157 -.034 -.020 .204 -.020 -.077 .616 10. .860 -.114 .014 .090 -.066 .037 -.104 -.037 .780 11. .419 .506 -.067 -.169 .345 -.145 .024 -.092 .615 12. -.069 .085 .083 .182 .776 .027 -.100 -.073 .670 13. .780 -.032 -.113 -.043 .236 .075 -.107 -.124 .713 14. .623 -.459 .016 .051 -.136 .069 -.134 .009 .644 15. -.701 -.123 .084 -.037 -.061 .167 .021 -.071 .553 16. -.195 .517 .339 — .404 .120 .162 -.009 .116 .639 17. -.009 -.743 .077 .187 -.043 .030 -.003 -.243 .656 18. .163 -.771 .234 -.112 .039 .072 .018 -.138 .716 19. -.111 .742 .193 -.098 .117 .063 .046 -.039 .635 20. .335 -.499 -.036 .522 .064 .025 .227 -.052 .695 21. .205 -.239 .112 -.367 -.187 .454 .222 -.040 .539 22. .269 -.160 -.026 -.058 .241 .005 -.586 .195 .543 23. .098 .209 .248 -.212 .165 -.063 -.493 -.404 .598 24. .569 .049 -.288 -.018 .401 -.153 -.238 -.258 .718 25. -.592 .134 -.320 -.151 .265 .022 .057 -.152 .591 26. .617 .145 .044- .143 .049 -.409 -.018 -.240 .653 27. .590 .270 .081 -.118 .211 -.389 -.100 -.189 .684 28. .646 -.470 .032 .023 -.095 .004 -.052 .102 .663 29. .833 -.218 .094 .100 .061 -.058 —.144 .019 .789 30. -.533 .497 .080 .122 .083 -.070 .096 -.212 .620 31. -.278 -.514 -.372 -.068 .078 .233 .014 .117 .561 32. -.403 -.013 .178 .110 -.102 .576 .164 -.136 .594 33. -.137 .048 .713 .029 -.047 .190 .143 -.136 .609 34. -.043 .788 .010 .021 -.023 -.050 .004 -.055 .630 35. -.731 .027 -.136 -.097 .021 .147 .157 -.030 .611 36. -.199 -.377 .164 -.163 -.127 .174 .060 -.329 .395 37. .430 -.032 .671 -.068 .008 -.080 -.074 .058 .658 38. -.373 .076 .280 .257 -.143 .161 .486 -.008 .573 39. -.209 -.056 .135 -.176 .337 .005 .647 .132 .647 40. -.227 .760 .108 .097 .029 -.095 -.009 -.179 .694 212

TABLE 22 Rotated Factor Matrix: Speech Classes Test

Scale Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 h2

1. .062 -.092 -.195 -.274 .511 .065 -.144 .413 2. .718 -.048 .197 -.168 .093 .175 .078 .631 3. -.651 -.137 .218 .037 -.204 .169 -.169 .592 4. -.728 .073 -.175 -.004 -.109 -.235 .028 .636 5. .063 -.037 .037 -.816 -.025 -.027 .055 .677 6. .447 .221 -.040 -.152 -.048 -.035 -.165 .304 7. .627 .047 -.260 .135 .477 -.082 .067 .721 8. -.777 -.223 .085 .070 -.117 .085 -.130 .704 9. .674 .321 -.065 .057 .093 -.105 -.017 .585 10. .847 .056 .107 .043 .136 .072 .015 .760 11. .430 -.462 .101 -.071 .456 -.022 -.017 .624 12. -.026 -.053 -.086 -.633 .419 -.046 .056 .593 13. .758 .005 -.023 .007 .400 -.055 .055 .742 14. .680 .390 .096 .009 -.121 -.012 -.090 .647 15. -.575 .177 -.163 -.011 -.278 -.216 .053 .516 16. -.257 -.330 .407 .279 .229 -.152 .025 .496 17. .056 .775 .020 -.127 -.014 -.100 .057 .634 18. .114 .801 .122 .055 -.089 -.074 .001 .687 19. -.046 -.811 .138 .001 -.014 .027 -.088 .689 20. .181 .515 -.068 -.461 -.156 .039 .045 .545 21. .173 .088 .165 .158 -.137 -.346 -.505 .484 22. .380 .103 .254 -.008 .052 .059 .543 .522 23. .085 -.063 .454 .161 .498 .041 .178 .525 24. .476 .021 -.069 .052 • 624 -.140 .108 .657 25. -.456 -.107 -.514 .073 .060 -.187 .076 .534 26. .442 -.205 .213 -.014 .386 .044 -.039 .436 27. .348 -.299 .322 -.023 .562 .117 -.126 .662 28. .540 .401 .109 -.054 .090 .242 -.263 .604 29. .738 .125 .295 -.054 .189 .153 -.102 .720 30. -.560 -.435 .122 -.060 -.132 -.106 .200 .591 31. -.174 .382 -.560 -.038 -.123 -.198 .051 .549 32. -.176 .068 -.080 .151 -.630 -.220 -.010 .511 33. -.178 -.036 .551 -.047 -.180 -.310 .187 .504 34. -.103 -.761 .173 -.107 .059 .023 .121 .650 35. -.611 -.066 -.284 .012 -.182 -.345 .059 .615 36. -.132 .134 .052 -.060 -.131 -.703 -.131 .571 37. .211 -.125 .770 .024 -.029 -.081 -.026 .663 38. -.228 -.220 .157 -.276 -.528 -.254 -.183 .579 39. -.272 -.298 .041 -.049 -.259 -.063 .356 .365 40. -.271 -.742 .191 -.092 .051 -.008 .132 .690 213

TABLE 23 Rotated Factor Matrix: Combined Data

Scale Factor 1 2 3 4 5 6 h2

1. .003 .108 -.236 -.317 .402 -.156 .354 2. .754 .025 .136 -.056 .085 -.153 .622 3. -.624 .152 .276 .212 -.095 -.154 .567 4. -.730 -.066 -.136 .117 .045 .138 .591 5. .168 -.021 .065 .253 .738 -.098 .655 6. .532 -.176 -.026 .114 ♦057 .158 .356 7. .584 -.037 -.369 -.499 ♦013 .038 .730 8. -.728 .241 .166 .198 -.100 -.128 .682 9. .674 -.310 -.114 -.111 -.057 .141 .599 10. .852 -.075 .055 -.156 -.019 -.029 .761 11. .391 .512 -.004 -.398 .167 -.005 .602 12. -.077 .067 -.037 -.285 .698 .052 .583 13. .747 .006 -.091 -.377 ♦104 .087 .728 14. .681 -.413 .063 .017 -.088 .055 .650 15. -.638 -.170 -.046 .219 -.016 .212 .532 16. -.164 .444 .346 -.226 -♦194 .156 .501 17. .053 -.768 .061 .004 .120 .119 .626 18. .136 -.778 .178 -.043 -.068 .166 .690 19. -.078 .793 .133 .036 .001 .017 .655 20. .290 -.529 -.019 .249 .408 -.047 .596 21. .252 -.101 .109 .149 -.304 .480 .432 22. .271 -.164 .170 -.328 .051 -.111 .253 23. .053 .140 .354 -.606 -.046 ♦039 .519 24. .472 .035 -.188 -.603 .185 .046 .660 25. -.552 .126 -.443 -.054 .060 .171 .553 26. .508 .193 .128 -.325 .129 -.154 .458 27. .424 .328 .191 -.503 .105 -.163 .615 28. .630 -.412 .061 -.047 -.058 -.122 .592 29. .793 -.147 .203 -.202 .050 -.095 .745 30. -.572 .444 .128 .091 .145 .046 .573 31. -.224 —.442 -.477 .121 .031 .211 .534 32. -.261 -.069 .035 •484 -.141 .351 .452 33. -.166 .052 .624 .130 .044 .276 .516 34. -.092 .765 ♦115 -.007 .107 -.083 .627 35. -.675 .056 -.216 .187 .019 .178 .619 36. -.150 -.198 .085 .084 .008 .614 .454 37. .309 .089 .728 -.075 -.051 .054 • 646 38. -.237 .152 .224 .593 .147 .200 .544 39. -.270 .186 .098 .222 .144 .166 .215 40. -.276 .736 .163 -.017 .147 -.057 .670 Vi

APPENDIX G

SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TEST FORM FOR MAIN INVESTIGATION 215

tense relaxed sad happy pleasant unpleasant gloomy- cheerful ferocious peaceful placid nervous joyous somber serene frantic

humorous serious mournful jubilant restless restful frail sturdy exhilarating depressing

bitter sweet

like : ; dislike APPENDIX H

PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE INSTRUCTION SHEET FOR DRAMA 300 INSTRUCTORS 217

TO i Drama 300 Instructors September 16, 1974 FROM: W. Joseph Stell SUBJECT: Personality Questionnaire for Drama 300 Students

In connection with a quantitative research project, the attached questionnaire should be administered to your Drama 300 class(es) on Tuesday. September 24th. Basically, the research is designed to investigate affective re actions of certain designated personality types to several styles of settings. Near the end of the quarter (November 19th or 20th) I will administer a setting-response test to your classes; however, the testing will be more effective if the students do not realize that the personality questionnaire is related to the setting-response test. Therefore, you are asked to administer the personality questionnaire to your own classes. There are two parts to the questionnaire: (1) a standardized personality inventory; and (2) a "rep" test. Each is accompanied by an instruction sheet which should fully explain the test. Please familiarize yourself with the instructions beforehand. In administering the test, read the instructions of the Rep Test first and then have the students complete the test; then read the instructions for the Personality Inventory and have that test com pleted. Ask them to work quickly—first responses are best. Any writing device may be used for the tests—pencil, pen, or felt-tip marker. When everyone is finished, collect all the forms and return them together with unused forms to me at my office or in ny mailbox. The test should take about 20 - 30 minutes to administer. As a "cover*' story, to explain why the test is being given, you may say that the Department of Drama & Theatre is conducting the study to determine if there are any universal behavioral or personality factors which might characterize students who elect Drama Apprecia tion course (as opposed to the Art Appreciation or Music Appreciation courses), and around which the course might better be oriented. Please stress that the data will be computer-analyzed to discover general overall characteristics, as opposed to any sort of detailed study of individual responses. The interest and thrust of the study is not on individual responses, but on group responses. Also, that individual responses on the questionnaire will in no way affect student grades for the course—the instructors will not even see the individual response scores, but will only be informed of overall statistical results. 218

Results of the personality survey will be available to the students after the end of the Fall Quarter, if anyone is Interested. They may obtain the results by contacting me: W. Joseph Stell, Department of Drama & Theatre, Fine Arts Building, Room 256, Telephone 542-2836. Please ask the students to put their student numbers (social security numbers) at the top of the test forms and their sex, but no other information. Do not volunteer the information, but if asked why the student numbers are necessary, you may say that it is simply on the off-chance that a follow-up study seems to be needed on the basis of information received on this study, but that such a follow-up is extremely unlikely. It is important to the subsequent investigation that the student numbers be available, but if any student objects strongly, then do not pursue the matter. Encourage cooperation, but don*t demand it. Thank you for your help and cooperation in this study.

Joe Stell APPENDIX I

TABLES 24 - 32: POST HOG MUDAID RESULTS FOR PERSONALITY CELLS IN MODULE I 220

TABLE 24 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell High-Neurotic/Extravert

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f, Significance level A main (Style) 67.77 30 0.000109 B main (Element) 63.44 30 0.000388 A x B 113.50 60 0.000044

Factor I (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 46.52 16 0.000083 B main 47.85 16 0.000051 A x B 75.56 32 0.000023

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 36.75 10 0.000063 B main 19.82 10 0.0311 A x B 28.23 20 0.105 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.666 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 12.350 2, 72 <0.005 A x B 6.510 4, 72 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.,f. Significance level A main 1.370 2, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 1.994 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 0.661 4, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) 221

TAB IE 25 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Hi gh-N euro tic/Neutro vert

Entire System (P = 1J>) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 65.57 30 0.000200 B main (Element) 71.40 30 0.000034 A x B 124.40 60 0.000002

Factor I (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 42.66 16 0.000320 B main 46.28 16 0.000089 A x B 82.31 32 0.000003

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 37.11 10 0.000054 B main ------Matrix is not Gramian—— A x B 38.01 20 0.00887

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.838 2, 90 <0.050 B main 9.624 2, 90 <0.005 A x B 2.825 4, 90 <0.050

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.167 2, 90 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.057 2, 90 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 0.556 4, 90 >0.250 (N.S.) 222

TABLE 26 post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell High-Neurotic/lntrovert

Entire System (P Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significante level A main (Style) 76.91 30 0.000006 B main (Element) 42.12 30 0.0718 (N.S.) A x B 145.00 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 58.06 16 0.000001 B main 23.90 16 0.0921 (N.S.) A x B 86.22 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 31.41 10 0.000506 B main 16.98 10 0.0750 (N.S.) A x B 29.78 20 0.0737 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.869 2, 90 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 7.066 2, 90 <0.005 A x B 4.516 4, 90 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significanee level A main 6.384 2, 90 <0.005 B main 2.183 2, 90 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 1.301 4, 90 >0.250 (N.S.) 223

TABLE 27 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Medium-M euro tic/Extra vert

Entire System (P Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 84.82 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 87.38 30 0.000000 A x B 201.90 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = «1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 51.85 16 0.000017 B main 75.93 16 0.000000 A x B 146.00 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 44.77 10 0.000002 B main ——Matrix Is not Gramian—- A x B 36.63 20 0.0130

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio a^fx Significance level A main 2.869 2, 172 >0.050 (N.S.) B main 6.543 2, 172 <0.005 A x B 4.919 4, 172 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.865 2, 172 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.557 2, 172 >0.050 (N.S.) A x B 5.079 4, 172 <0.005 224

TABLE 28 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Medium-Neurotic/Neutrovert

Entire System [P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f, Significance level A main (Style) 104.30 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 94.31 30 0.000000 A x B 213.80 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 60.23 16 0.000000 B main 76.37 16 0.000000 A x B 140.70 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 70.30 10 0.000000 B main 28.67 10 0.00141 A x B 55.96 20 0.000029

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.951 2, 216 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.541 2, 216 >0.050 (N.S.) A x B 10.070 4, 216 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 4.618 2, 216 <0.025 B main 14.390 2, 216 <0.005 A x B 5.824 4, 216 <0.005 225

TABLE 29 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Medium-Neurotic/lntrovert

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 94.67 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 75.44 30 0.000009 A x B 154.10 60 0.000000

Factor I (P - 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 68.42 16 0.000000 B main 55.15 16 0.000003 A x B 118.30 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = ¿1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 31.90 10 0.000417 B main 23.97 10 0.00770 A x B 44.27 20 0.00139

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.506 2, 135 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 8.270 2, 135 <0.005 A x B 1.701 4-, 135 >0.100 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.805 2, 135 <0.025 B main 0.530 2, 135 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 0.479 4, 135 >0.250 (N.S.) 226

TABLE 30 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Low-Neurotic/Extravert

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 46.67 30 0.028300 B main (Element) 51.56 30 0.009120 A x B 111.80 60 0.000067

Factor X (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 26.41 16 0.0490 B main 28.16 16 0,0306 A x B 64.52 32 0.000588

Factor II (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 29.15 10 0.00119 B main 25.64 10 0.00428 A x B 41.21 20 0.00354

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.794 2, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 4.115 2, 72 <0.025 A x B 1.715 4, 72 >0.100 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.840 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 5.035 2, 72 <0.010 A x B 1.348 4, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) 227

TABLE 31 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Low-Neurotic/Neutrovert

Entire System (P = 121 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 101.00 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 82.41 30 0.000000 A x B 130.30 60 0.000000

Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 64.59 16 0.000000 B main 57.21 16 .0.000002 A x B 92.41 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 53.79 10 0.000000 B main 24.79 10 0.00576 A x B 34.25 20 0.0245

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.043 2, 142 >0.050 (N.S.) B main 8.580 2, 142 <0.005 A x B 3.009 4, 142 <0.025

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio djX, Significance level A main 0.699 2, 142 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 6.057 2, 142 <0.005 A x B 4.056 4, 142 <0.010 228

TABLE 32 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Low-Neurotic/introvert

Entire System (F = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significanc e level A main (Style) 34.39 30 0.296 (N.S.) B main (Element) 31.85 30 0.408 (N.S.) A x B 54.66 60 0.710 (N.S.)

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 18.13 16 0.322 (N.S.) B main 24.09 16 0.0905 (N.S.) A x B 41.43 32 0.128 (N.S.)

Factor II (P - 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 17.91 10 0.0571 (N.S.) B main 17.05 10 0.0740 (N.S.) A x B 17.34 20 0.633 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance■ level A main 1.613 2, 36 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 7.664 2, 36 <0.005 A x B 1.034 4, 36 >0.250 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.080 2, 36 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.247 2, 36 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 0.830 4, 36 >0.250 (N.S.) APPENDIX J

TABLES 33 - 38: POST HOC MUDAID RESULTS FOR

PERSONALITY CELIS IN MODULE II 230

TABLE 33 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell High-Complex/Female

Entire System (P = 1j>) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 50.48 30 0.0113 B main (Element) 82.31 30 0.000001 A x B 152.80 60 0.000000

Factor I (P ~ 11 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 33.21 16 0.00697 B main 68.67 16 0.000000 A x B 103 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 24.92 10 0.00551 B main 37.31 10 0.000050 A x B 34.58 20 0.0225

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio tLt Significance level A main 0.063 2, 117 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 4.105 2, 117 <0.025 A x B 4.020 4, 117 <0.010

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significa]nee level A main 3.123 2, 117 <0.050 B main 3.102 2, 117 <0.050 A x B 1.112 4, 117 >0.250 (N.S.) 231

TABLE 34 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell High-Complex/Male

Entire System £P = 1/) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 61.22 30 0.000684 B main (Element) 55.87 30 0.00293 A x B 102.10 60 0.000608

Factor I (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 28.32 16 0.0291 B main 31.11 16 0.0131 A x B 74.03 32 0.000036

Factor II (P = ^1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 26.45 10 0.00319 B main 21.72 10 0.0166 A x B 29.14 20 0.0853 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation K-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.704 2, 108 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 7.169 2, 108 <0.005 A x B 0.520 4, 108 >0.250 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 4.080 2, 108 <0.025 B main 3.216 2, 108 <0.050 A x B 0.396 4, 108 >0.250 (N.S.) 232

TABLE 35 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Med ium-Complex/F emale

Entire System (P Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 157.90 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 155.60 30 0.000000 A x B 287.00 60 0.000000

Factor I (P Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 118.80 16 0.000000 B main 100.40 16 0.000000 A x B 200.80 32 0.000000

Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 78.93 10 0.000000 B main 44.53 10 0.000003 A x B 54.86 20 0.000043

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 8.348 2, 306 <0.005 B main 25.870 2, 306 <0.005 A x B 9.854 4, 306 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio dL.f. Significance level A main 5.050 2, 306 <0.010 B main 1.666 2, 306 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 3.314 A, 306 <0.025 233

TABLE 36 Post hoo 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Mediuro-Complex/Male

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 168.40 30 0.000000 B main (Element) —Matrix is not Gramian—— A x B 225.10 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 111.00 16 0.000000 B main —-Matrix is not Gramian— A x B 162.60 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 96.77 10 0.000000 B main 39.17 10 0.000024 A x B 71.62 20 0.000000

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.699 2, 250 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 15.740 2, 250 <0.005 A x B 6.919 4, 250 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 2.978 2, 250 <0.050 B main 9.521 2, 250 <0.005 A x B 8.161 4, 250 <0.005 234

TABLE 37 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Low-Co mplex/Female

Entire System (P x!5l Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 103.40 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 95.07 30 0.000000 A x B 200.90 60 0.000000

Factor 1 (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 63.36 16 0.000000 B main 72.14 16 0.000000 A x B 132.40 32 0.000000

Factor II (P - 5l Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 63.92 10 0.000000 B main —Matrix: is not Gramian—* A x B 54.18 20 0.000055

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significa:nee level A main 0.131 2, 152 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 6.081 2, 152 <0.005 A x B 8.667 4, 152 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significa:nee level A main 0.303 2, 152 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 11.850 2, 152 <0.005 A x B 4.592 4, 152 <0.005 235

TABLE 38 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Low-Complex/Male

Entire System (P =15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 74.48 30 0.000013 B main (Element) 63.30 30 0.000376 A x B 139.00 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = Jl Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 55.64 16 0.000003 B main 48.75 16 0.000037 A x B 101.30 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = S1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 36,06 10 0.000083 B main 29.34 10 0.00110 A x B 27.88 20 0.112 (H.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.909 2, 118 >0.100 (H.S.) B main 1.799 2, 118 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 2.5U 4, 118 <0.050

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.621 2, 118 <0.050 B main 2.723 2, 118 <0.050 A x B 1.896 4, 118 >0,100 (N.S.) APPENDIX K

TABLES 39-47: POST HOC MUDAID RESULTS FOR PERSONALITY CELLS IN MODULE III 237

TABLE 39 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Eixtravert/High-Complex

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 50.61 30 0.0117 B main (Element) 53.67 30 0.00555 A x B 85.15 60 0.0201

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 24.75 16 0.0752 (N.S.) B main 35.80 16 0.00316 A x B 55.24 32 0.00675

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 33.62 10 0.000217 B main 29.32 10 0.00112 A x B 27.47 20 0.123 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio djtf. Significance level A main 0.019 2, 63 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.138 2, 63 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 1.116 4, 63 >0.250 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.313 2, 63 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 2.190 2, 63 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 2.943 4, 63 <0.050 238

TAB IE 40 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Extravert/Medium-Complex

Entire System (P = 1jQ Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f, Significance level A main (Style) 93*57 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 96.45 30 0.000000 A x B 203.20 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 64.86 16 0.000000 B main 77.33 16 0.000000 A x B 149.50 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 47.57 10 0.000001 B main 30.11 10 0.000823 A x B 40.17 20 0.00476

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio dj(ft Significance level A main 4*339 2, 180 <0.025 B main 11.650 2, 180 <0.005 A x B 6.851 4, 180 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.287 2, 180 <0.050 B main 1.851 2, 180 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 2.830 4, 180 <0.050 239

TABLE 41 post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Extravert/Low-Complex

Entire System (P jLLSI Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 68.62 30 0.000085 B main (Element) 68.03 30 0.000101 A x B 132.30 60 0.000000

Factor I (F = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 40.12 16 0.000766 B main 43.16 16 0.000272 A x B 78.25 32 0.000010

Factor II (P Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 32.67 10 0.000312 B main 34*29 10 0.000167 A x B 45.24 20 0.00104

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 2.319 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 6.106 2, 72 <0.005 A x B 3.134 4, 72 <0.025

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.401 2, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 4*449 2, 72 <0.025 A x B 1.884 4, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) 240

TABLE 42 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Neutrovert/High-Complex

Entire System (P = 1£) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 35.98 30 0.214 (N.S.) B main (Element) 42.07 30 0.0736 (N.S.) A x B 88.47 60 0.0107

Factor I (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 24.84 16 0.0733 (N.S.) B main 32.99 16 0.00752 A x B 56.88 32 0.00446

Factor II (P - 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 14.94 10 0.135 (N.S.) B main 18.95 10 0.0410 A x B 29.12 20 0.0858 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.ft Significance level A main 0.261 2, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 0.342 2, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 1.701 4, 72 >0.100 (N.S.)

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 2.225 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 1.985 2, 72 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 1.211 4, 72 >0.250 (N.S.) 241

TABLE 43 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Meutrovert/Medium-Complex

Entire System (P = 1^1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 153.20 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 125.90 30 0.000000 A x B 240.30 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 95.65 16 0.000000 B main 82.08 16 0.000000 A x B 176.70 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = 5) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 87.59 10 0.000000 B main 37.89 10 0.000039 A x B 71.96 20 0.000000

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.699 2, 241 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 21.180 2, 241 <0.005 A x B 6.916 4, 2^1 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.428 2, 241 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 7.215 2, 241 <0.005 A x B 6.214 4, 24-1 <0.005 242

TABLE 44 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Neutrovert/Low-Complex

Entire System (P = 1£i Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 90.87 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 79.69 30 0.000002 A x B 141.20 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 46.58 16 0.000080 B main 67.47 16 0.000000 A x B 91.00 32 0.000000

Factor II (P = Al Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 59.73 10 0.000000 B main 16.08 10 0.0975 (N.S.) A x B 28.37 20 0.101 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.tLt Significance level A main 0.714 2, 135 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 0.824 2, 135 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 5.207 4, 135 <0.005

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d,lCa Significance level A main 2.319 2, 135 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 8.591 2, 135 <0.005 A x B 4.226 4, 135 <0.005 213

TABIE 45 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Introvert/High-Complex

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main (Style) 35.07 30 0.245 (N.S.) B main (Element) 61.74 30 0.000613 A x B 133.70 60 0.000000

Factor I (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 21.27 16 0.169 (N.S.) B main 43.56 16 0.000235 A x B 90.34 32 0.000000

Factor II (P =_5l Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 12.36 10 0.262 (N.S.) B main 28.26 10 0.00165 A x B 28.75 20 0.0931 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.140 2, 81 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 11.370 2, 81 <0.005 A x B 0.719 4, 81 >0.250 (N.S.)

Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 3.452 2, 81 <0.050 B main 0.860 2, 81 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 0.364 4, 81 >0.250 (N.S.) 244

TABLE 46 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Introvert/Medium-Complex

Entire System (P - 1£) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f, Significance level A main (Style) 103.40 30 0.000000 B main (Element) 51-34 30 0.00916 A x B 127.20 60 0.000001

Factor 1 (P = 81 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 83.08 16 0.000000 B main 32.72 16 0.00809 A x B 83.10 32 0.000002

Factor II (P = ^1 Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 49.44 10 0.000000 B main 17.54 10 0.0633 (N.S.) A x B 35.09 20 0.0197

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.777 2, 126 >0.100 (N.S.) B main 7.497 2, 126 <0.005 A x B 3.141 4, 126 <0.025

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d,.f. Significance level A main 4.329 2, 126 <0.025 B main 0.179 2, 126 >0.250 (N.S.) A x B 1.531 4, 126 >0.100 (N.S.) 245

TABLE 47 Post hoc 3x3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (Style x Element) for Personality Cell Introvert/Low-Complex

Entire System (P = 15) Source of Variation Chi-Square Significance level A main (Style) 54.97 30 0.00417 B main (Element) 32.18 30 0.372 (N.S.) A x B 99.88 60 0.00117

Factor I (P = 8) Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significance level A main 42.24 16 0.000382 B main 23.54 16 0.101 (N.S.) A x B 70.91 32 0.000097

Factor II (P = Source of Variation Chi-Square d.f. Significante level A main 19.99 10 0.0296 B main 11.99 10 0.286 (H.S.) A x B 26.63 20 0.145 (N.S.)

Sturdy-Frail Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 0.275 2, 54 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 4.145 2, 54 <0.050 A x B 3.149 4, 54 <0.025

Like-Dislike Source of Variation F-ratio d.f. Significance level A main 1.008 2, 54 >0.250 (N.S.) B main 1.735 2, 54 >0.100 (N.S.) A x B 1.883 4, 54 >0.100 (N.S.)