Citation
The functional basis of parent attitudes toward schools

Material Information

Title:
The functional basis of parent attitudes toward schools
Creator:
Goldberg, David E
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xviii, 289 leaves : ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Parents -- Attitudes -- United States ( lcsh )
Educational evaluation -- United States ( lcsh )
Home and school -- United States ( lcsh )
Functionalism (Psychology) ( lcsh )
Education -- Public opinion -- United States ( lcsh )
Education -- Public opinion ( fast )
Educational evaluation ( fast )
Functionalism (Psychology) ( fast )
Home and school ( fast )
Parents -- Attitudes ( fast )
United States ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 268-289).
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by David E. Goldberg.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
61133922 ( OCLC )
ocm61133922
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1999d G64 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
THE FUNCTIONAL BASIS OF PARENT ATTITUDES TOWARD SCHOOLS
by
David E. Goldberg
BA., Hobart College, 1964
M.A., New York University, 1968
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
1999


1999 by David E. Goldberg
All rights reserved.


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
David E. Goldberg
has been approved
by

Rodney Muth
Sanders
v/r/rt
Date


Goldberg, David E. (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and Innovation)
The Functional Basis of Parent Attitudes Toward Schools
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Alan Davis
ABSTRACT
Opinions about public school quality are sharply divided between elite
opinion leaders on one side and school persons along with parents on the other.
Parent opinion about school quality has been traditionally disregarded as inaccurate
by both local and national educational opinion leadership. Surveys about local
schools have consistently found strong support for the quality of local schools while
the more distant critics find the nations schools seriously deficient. The emergence
of large-scale parent opinion polling has elevated parent opinion to a more prominent
place in the evaluation of school quality. A central question about the school quality
debate concerns the purposes that attitudes toward schools play for parents and
opinion leaders.
Functionalism provides a theoretical basis for the study of the purposes of
parent opinions about schools. Hereks Attitude Functions Inventory (AFI) was
designed to study the motivations (functions) that holding attitudes serve. The study
was designed to determine which of four functions are served by parent attitudes of
school quality: experiential-schematic, social-expressive, value-expressive, or
defensive. The AFI was modified to measure parent attitudes. Parents were selected
for an AFI-based interview through a parent satisfaction survey administered to a
school district. Thirty two of the most and least satisfied parents in the district were
invited to participate. The design was balanced for ethnic and student school success
IV


criteria. Other disaggregations included grade level, special education status, and
functional complexity.
Using a chi-square test and interview analysis, the study found that parent
opinions principally serve experiential-schematic and value-expressive functions.
Satisfied parents generally sought to maintain a schema for the understanding of their
childs school experience. Less satisfied parents relied upon attitude functions that
supported expressions of values. Parents of older children were found to rely upon
the expressive functions of value-expressive, social-expressive, and defensive.
Parents with more complex functional approachesthose using two functionsrelied
upon value-expressive functions.
Suggestions for function-relevant school communication practices were
offered as well as insights into the meaning of functionalist analysis for the national
school quality debate.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidates thesis. I recommend
its publication.
Signed
Alan Davis
v


DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis to my parents George and Esther Goldberg for their unwavering
support and love of learning.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A heartfelt acknowledgement to my family who waited patiently for a decade for this
project to end.
A very special thank you to my advisor, Alan Davis for his patient, persistent and
generously strong support.
I am grateful the scholars at the University of Colorado at Denver and Boulder who
provided a stimulating and challenging doctoral program where ideas mattered and
quality of intellect was a guiding principle.
I sincerely acknowledge all the parents participating in this study who unhesitatingly
gave their time and shared their concerns in the conversations reported here. Your
care for your children and their education set a high standard that I hope I was able to
capture in this thesis.
Warm thanks to my interview transcript raters Linda Brackins, Yvonne Hauke,
Gregory Laughlin, and David Mirich for their help generous help with a complex
task.


CONTENTS
Figures..........................................................xvi
Tables...........................................................xvii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................1
Listening To Parents.....................................5
The Relationship Between Parent
Opinion and School Leadership......................6
Opinions in a Locally Controlled Institution.......9
The Concept of Attitude and Functionalism...............11
The Psychological Foundations
of Attitude Formation: Functionalism..............12
Herek and Neofunctionalism........................15
Parent Satisfaction for Contrasting Identity Groups.19
Purpose.................................................22
Research Questions......................................23
Design and Methodology of the Study.....................24
Benefits of the Study...................................25
Limitations.............................................25
Plan of the Study
28


Conclusion
28
2. LITERATURE REVIEW..............................................30
The Concepts of Attitude and Function.....................32
The Value of Parent Opinion to School Leadership..........32
School Surveys............................................39
The Original School Surveys: School Inspections......39
Opinion Surveys About the Schools....................41
The Results of Early Opinion Surveys
About the Schools....................................43
National Public Opinion Polls
About the Schools....................................48
Summary of the Introduction of
Parent Opinion Surveys...............................51
The Origin of Functionalism...............................52
Functionalism and Attitudes...............................54
Functionalist Attitude Theory.............................57
The Decline of Early Attitude Functionalism..........58
Herek and Operationalization of
Neofunctionalist Theory..............................63
The Creation of the Attitude Functions Index.........68
Studies Validating AFI Designs and Adaptations.......69
Introduction to Recent Neo functionalist Attitude Research.71
Person Variations....................................72
IX


Person Variations: Self-Monitoring and
Attitude Confirmation................................73
Person and Domain Variations:
Message Matching and Persuasion......................78
Person, Domain, and Situation Contexts:
Functions and Values.................................79
Person, Domain, and Situation Contexts:
Behavioral ConfirmationVarying Attitude
Functions to Shape Interpersonal Outcomes............86
Domain Variations: Attitude Functions Across
Attitude Objects.....................................89
Summary of Functional Psychology..........................93
Summary of Literature Review..............................95
3. METHODOLOGY....................................................97
Attitude Functions Inventory Interview Sample Selection...98
The Parent Satisfaction Survey.......................99
The School Satisfaction Index.......................100
The School Success Scales...........................102
Elementary: Kindergarten-5..........................105
Secondary Grades: 6-12..............................106
All Grades..........................................106
Parent Awareness of School Performance..............106
Ethnic and Special Education Identification.........107
x


Elimination of Participants...........................108
The Attitude Functions Inventory for Parent Attitudes.....108
Scales Confirming the Essay Analysis..................109
Validating the Original AFI...........................110
Adaptation of AFI Questions for School Attitudes..........111
The Adaptation of the AFT to Evaluative
Attitudes Toward Schools: Explanation
of the Interview Codes................................113
The Coding Process..........................................129
Checklist Rules for Identifying Functions with Examples...130
Coding and Conversation.....................................135
Pilot Interviews............................................136
Reliability Analysis........................................136
Interrater Reliability................................137
Limitations of the Interrater Reliability Analysis..139
The Reliability of the Final AFI Coding Process.............140
Interview Procedures........................................141
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods to
Study Attitude Functions....................................142
Sources of Bias.............................................147
Sources of Bias Related to the Parent
Satisfaction Survey...................................147


Sources of Bias Related to the AFI Interview........148
Sources of Bias Related to the
Parent Satisfaction Survey and AFI Interview........150
Bias Control..............................................151
Bias Control Related to the Parent Satisfaction
Survey..............................................151
Bias Control Related to the AFI Interview...........152
Results Analysis..........................................154
Research Questions........................................157
4. RESULTS .......................................................160
Sample Identity Verification..............................162
Satisfaction Verification ..........................163
Student Success Verification........................163
Ethnic Identity.....................................164
Grade Level Identification..........................164
Special Education Status............................165
Number of Functions Used............................165
Parent Status Summary...............................166
Research Question 1.......................................166
Primary and Secondary Attitude Functions............170
Introduction to the Parent Interview Analysis.............172


Parent Interviews Illustrating the
Experiential-Schematic Function............................173
Summary of Interviews Illustrating the
Experiential-Schematic Function......................178
Parent Interviews Illustrating the
Social-Expressive Function.................................179
Summary of Interviews Illustrating the
Social-Expressive Function...........................183
Parent Interviews Illustrating the
Value-Expressive Function..................................183
Summary of Interviews Illustrating the
Value-Expressive Function............................186
Parent Interviews Illustrating the Defensive Function......187
Summary of Interviews illustrating the
Defensive Function...................................191
Summary of Parent Interview Analyses.......................191
Research Question 2........................................192
Research Question 3........................................194
Research Question 4........................................202
Research Question 5........................................207
Summary of Results.........................................209
5. DISCUSSION......................................................214
Key Findings...............................................215
Methodological Influences Upon Findings....................216


Experiential-Schematic Functions....................217
Value-Expressive Functions..........................221
Defensive Functions.................................227
Social-Expressive Functions.........................229
Summary of Attitude Functions.............................230
The Challenges of Measuring Parent Attitude Functions....231
Parent Selection....................................231
Identification of Disaggregated Groups..............234
The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist Analysis
of School Opinion.........................................235
The Significance of the Study of the Functions of
Parent Attitudes Toward Schools: Understandings Leading
to Functionally Appropriate Practices.....................238
Counterintuitive Attitudes..........................239
The Centrality of Quality Communication.............239
Understanding the Underlying Issues.................240
Answering the Underlying Issues.....................242
Responding to Criticism from a Functionalist
Perspective.........................................244
Future Directions for Research About Parent Opinions......250
School District Practices Reflecting
Functionalist Understandings..............................251
Questions Awaiting Study..................................256


Conclusion
257
APPENDIX............................................259
A. PARENT SURVEY OF SCHOOL SATISFACTION:
INTRODUCTORY SCRIPT......................259
B. PHONE SCRIPT FOR PARENT SURVEY OF
SCHOOL SATISFACTION-APRIL 1998...........260
C. AFI SURVEY INTRODUCTORY REMARKS..........263
D. AFI INTERVIEW CODING CHECKLIST...........265
E. FUNCTIONALIST INTERVIEW RATING
VERIFICATION.............................267
REFERENCES..........................................268
xv


FIGURES
Figure
2.1 Convergent Vs Divergent Attitude Theories
61
xvi


TABLES
Table
1.1 Comparison of Early Attitude Functions With Hereks
Reformulation.....................................................18
1.2 School Ratings for Gallup Survey of Public Attitudes
Toward the Public Schools 1993-1996...............................20
2.1 Potential Sources of Attitude Functions...........................67
3.1 Sampling Matrix for the AFI Interview.............................98
3.2 Point Value for Each Question Counted Toward
the Parent Satisfaction Index.....................................103
3.3 Principal Component Matrix: Parent Satisfaction factor Loadings...104
3.4 Comparison of the Original With the Modified AFI..................114
3.5 Primary Trait Scoring Reliability:
Candidate Versus Raters Primary Traits...........................140
3.6 Chi Square Interaction Analyses Performed
for the Research Questions........................................158
4.1 Chi-square Distribution for Primary and Secondary Functions.......167
4.2 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by Number of Functions Used.......................................170
4.3 Count of Functional Pairings for Parents Using Two Functions......171
4.4 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by School Success.................................................193


4.5 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by Satisfaction Level .................................................195
4.6 Chi-square Distribution of Evaluative and Expressive Functions.........195
4.7 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function by School Success
by Satisfaction Level .................................................197
4.8 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function by
Satisfaction Level by Student Success..................................198
4.9 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by Satisfaction Level by Number of Functions Used.....................201
4.10 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function by Ethnic Identity.... 204
4.11 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by Satisfaction Level by Ethnic Identity.............................205
4.12 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function by School Success
by Ethnic Identity...................................................205
4.13 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function by Grade Level
by Ethnic Identity...................................................206
4.14 Chi-square Distribution of the Primary Function
by Student Grade Level...............................................207
4.15 Summary of Chi-square Distributions with
Crosstabulated Frequency Distributions...............................212
5.1 Attitude Functions and Parent Attitude Engagement Outline...............254
xvm


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Few institutions touch the lives of more citizens and produce as many deeply
felt opinions as our public schools. Nightly, 44 million school children bring their
grade school experiences home to their parents. The parents of our nations students
possess unique insights and understandings about the effects of educational practices
upon their children. Yet, despite the breadth and depth of parent understanding about
the schools, the richness of their opinions has not been consistently respected. Parent
support for the public schools has been interpreted as acceptance and support for low
performance standards. There is a clear message that American parents, due to their
low standards for schools, have put this nation at risk. The United States was never
a nation at risk educationally, nor did the quality of our schools ever endanger the
nation (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; see also Berliner,
1996; Berliner & Biddle, 1995). Historically, the opinions of our school systems
principal customers have been disregarded when issues of quality arose. What
purposes do parent opinions about school quality serve? The study of the purposes
of parent attitudes toward local schools can illuminate the nature of the parent-school
relationship and provide a personal context for the school quality debate.
1


The contentious debate about school quality spans a wide spectrum of
opinion. Frank Smiths suggestion that we "Declare education a disaster and get on
with our lives (1995, p. 584), contrasts with the conclusion of the Sandia Report
showing that our school indicators are steady and there has been no precipitous drop
in performance indicators. In fact, we have rarely done better since the mid-1960s
(Bracey, 1997a; Carson, Huelskamp, & Woodall, 1991).
After pondering contrary conclusions from various data sources, Dennis
Doyle concluded that The questions are not empirical but normative.... research
can answer questions that ask how much? But those that ask, 'How much is
enough? can be answered only in the domains of philosophy and politics (1993, p.
628). Bracey terms this a stiff resistance to data (1997c, p. 122). American
parents consistently express majority approval of their neighborhood schools (Gallup
1994, 1995, 1996) in spite of a steady stream of critical reviews, essays, and news
reports. Bracey clearly demonstrates that school critics enjoy grazing among
international assessments of academic performance to glean negative tidbits and
ignore the good news (Bracey, 1997a).1
Clearly, the empirical data upon which the authors of A Nation at Risk based
their conclusions were selected to support their conclusion. The commission that 1
1. In many cases, major differences in international rankings are based upon insignificant test score
differences. Rankings exaggerate differences in precisely the way critics desire. Insignificant score
differences are obliterated if scores are ranked (Bracey, 1997a, 1997b).
2


wrote the report was asked to document a previously drawn conclusion (Bracey,
1997). And if A Nation At Risk was a monumental lie [which] became a very
popular fantasy (Bracey, 1997a, p. 133), why are such attitudes sustained despite
clear evidence to the contrary (Carson, Huelscamp, & Woodall, 1991; National
Center for Education Statistics, 1994; Schneider & Houston, 1993; Viadero, 1995)?
Paul Starobin describes the central place of ideology in driving positions on public
policy when he described the combat-intellectual milieu (August 24, 1997). The
quality of American public schools is under attack and those with more complete sets
of facts tend to avoid the confrontations necessary to counteract the anti-public
school bias among media commentators (Berliner, 1997). Values combat
concerning school quality has not been characterized by fully balanced positions.
Complete sets of facts offer complete support for polarized viewpoints. Facts are fit
into schemas that support desired conclusions (Berliner, 1997).
Selective bias toward bad news about unwelcome educational outcomes may
spring from ideological and political predispositions. The basis of the negative
predispositions is rarely declared before rueful ruminations about our (allegedly)
ruinous schools. Persistent refutations (such as those cited here) do not address the
root causes of poorly substantiated attitudes about the countrys schools. Public
policy initiatives based upon polemically derived observations seek to initiate
changes that may weaken the institution the initiatives purportedly intend to improve
(Berliner & Biddle, 1995, chap. 5). Two examples were the Colorado school
3


voucher initiatives in 1992 and 1998. Both failed by nearly a 2 to 1 vote each time.
Each election campaign showed the disconnect between the minority who wants to
deconstruct the public schools and a public that distrusts both the evidence against
the public schools and the intentions of the voucher supporters. Twenty-two
unsuccessful statewide school voucher ballot initiatives have occurred in the United
States since 1966. Most were defeated by substantial majorities (Colorados Good
News, 1998). The voters did not share the motivations of the school critics driving
the voucher plans.
Concern over distorted evaluations of American education can lead to a
yearning for a world that does not exist. There is abundant evidence that the
yearning for the Good Old School Days of education is more based upon
psychological needs than historical facts (Bracey, 1997a). The implicit ideal that
attitudes should be formed in a depersonalized vacuum is unrealistic. The
observation of educational (or any) phenomena is an interaction between observed
and observer (Kennedy, 1984). If this is denied then there is an implication that a
perfect observer draws her/his conclusions without any interaction with prior beliefs.
Participants, observers, and parents never form opinions in a vacuum. Attitudes
toward public education usually reflect deeper convictions and motivations.
Opinions about American Education are often symbolic. For instance, the back to
basics movements throughout this century were (and still are) based upon analyses
that had little to do with actual practices in typical schools (Smith, 1963). The
4


current family values discussion is another example of symbolic expression
sometimes related to school issues. Symbolic political expression often is not
congruent with common understandings concerning the mission and
accomplishments of education in the United States.
The persistent and accusations about the low quality of the nations public
schools in conjunction with the questioning of parent acceptance of local schools
raises questions about the basis of public opinion about the schools. What is the
purpose and function of views so distorted that they create non-existent crises? Why
are the favorable opinions about American schools by parents of school children so
heavily discounted?
Listening To Parents
The inclusion of parent opinion of school performance in the formula for
determining school quality has been formalized into law in several states.2 For
example, Colorado school accountability regulations require the inclusion of each
school district accountability committee in the appraisal of school performance
(Colo. Rev. Stat. 22-7-205(1), 22-7-104(1)). The committee must include parents.
2. The accountability movement formalized into education law across the U. S. represents the
inclusion of parent and community input into local education decisions. Whether or not educators,
politicians, or media commentators think their opinions are valid, parent opinions now carry
enhanced stature in many states across the nation.
5


The inclusion of parents as important stakeholders represented the evolution of the
evaluation of social institutions from hierarchical and quantitative methods to a richer
and deeper understanding of the contributions of the clients of the schools. Practices
that are more inclusionary imply that diverse voices have a contribution to make in
the conversation about institutional quality. The empowerment of public school
clients represents a slow trend toward the willingness to listen to and understand the
impacts of public services upon the public services clients. Acceptance of manifold
voices and ideas concerning the quality of American education implies an ability to
listen in new ways with enlightened means of understanding. The democratization of
the hierarchy can only gain meaning if all participants listen to and understand each
other.
Clearly, if parents highly value what is being consistently devalued then there
is a disconnect in rhetoric and dialog. New ways of listening should support the
meaningful inclusion of parents in the school quality debate. The acceptance of the
parent contribution to the conversation about school quality has not been traditionally
forthcoming.
The Relationship between Parent Opinion
and School Leadership
Historically, parent attitudes toward schools were not uniformly accepted as
valid. Periodicals concerned with the schools and public opinion did not report any
6


general surveys about parent satisfaction with the schools (Child Welfare. 1922-1943
and Public Opinion. 1889-1904). Educational leadership of the time did not
consistently respect parent opinion about school quality. Both Reese (1978) and
Burton (1952) reported views of parents opinions as unwelcome and uninformed.
Hand (1948) thought it was the schools role to overhaul mistaken parent opinions.
If Hands comment is viewed in the context of the misrepresentations of
American education discussed earlier, then a confused attitude environment appears:
According to persistent school leaders and public commentators, parents allegedly
know little of the true quality of their students education. The educational
establishment discounts parent attitudes while the non-educational establishment
discounts the educational establishments achievement. Each group states that the
others opinion of school quality is not quality thinking. The debate centers on which
groups opinions are most uninformed.
An excellent example is Lehmann and Springs (1996) report about the
debates concerning academic standards at the National Educational Summit in 1996.
Participants at the colloquium about standards pointed to political polarization as
barriers. Parents were seen as a barrier because of their Complacency, fear, or lack
of awareness (p. 19). Conference participant, David Kearns, specifically mentioned
parent satisfaction with their local schools. He directly implied that their attitudes
l
j
i
7
!


should be changed.3 The conference invited generally agreeing voices and then
proceeded to their opinions. These views appeared so partisan that two issues of
Educational Researcher addressed the politically tainted discussions at the Summit
(Good, 1996a, 1996b).4 For example, Natriellos rebuke (1996), Diverting Attention
from the Condition of American Schools, made the point that the intent of Summit
was not to address problems in the schools.
In light of this distrustful disengagement about opinions about school quality,
a useful question is, What purpose do these varying opinions serve? When public
opinions about schools have been studied, the underlying causes for attitudes have
not been consistently probed. Ideology is an easy answer, but ideological
conclusions tend to look at groups, not individuals (Levine, 1965).
While Gallup and others have found generally positive results in large-scale
surveys of public satisfaction with school practices5, there has been limited study of
the motivations for the opinions (Crosby & Proud 1953; Gallup, 1987, 1993, 1994,
1995, 1996; Henderson & Hand, 1952; National Education Association, 1958a;
3. It is probable that many critics who decry the way parents lower school standards are parents
themselves. To them, parents are willing to accept less than the best These critics are apparently not
acting as parents when they insist on higher standards.
4. The participants to the conference appear to have been invited based upon their predispositions to
support a partisan view. The minutes and papers from the sessions show a uniform predisposition to
assess blame in line with the approach taken in A Nation at Risk. It is an inescapable irony that
partisanship was highlighted as a barrier to progress.
5. Generally positive findings are those that have more than 60% of respondents expressing overall
satisfaction with public school education.
8


National Opinion Research Center, 1944; Rose, Gallup, & Elam, 1997; Shelly,
1965). The Gallup surveys are not designed to ask why opinions are held. This
deficit results in a voting approach to parent interaction with school issues.
Essentially one dimensional, parent satisfaction polls aimed at summative
judgements provide little insight into the personal basis for judgements about school
quality made by parents. Lacking this understanding, policy makers attempting to
use parent satisfaction surveys have a limited basis for their understanding of
parental concerns reflected in the polls. This is regrettable because the field of
attitude research has had several decades of fruitful work centered on attitude
formation (Eagly, 1992; McGuire, 1985). In essence, a rich understanding of the
nature of parent opinions about schools has been overlooked.
Opinions in a Locally Controlled Institution
The U.S. education system is locally controlled. Local boards of education
make vital decisions about school operation and direction (Campbell, Bridges, &
Nystrand, 1977). Boards of education have parents as primary constituents. The
means used to form opinions about local schools will determine the quality of
education provided to the community. While schools exist in a national context and
national findings do texture public attitudes toward schools, parent attitudes toward
local schools are based upon personal considerations much closer to home and the
9


neighborhood school. Attempts to tie local decisions to national attitudes and
contexts are difficult to support (Chisman, 1976). Despite the consistent drone of
negative opinion about schools, local parents still give local schools passing grades.
Gallup (1993,1994,1995,1996) has consistently found that opinions about
schools in local neighborhoods are more favorable than opinions about schools that
are more distant. Additionally, opinions of citizens without students in the schools
are always less favorable than those of parents with children in schools (National
Education Association, 1985a, 1985b). Gallup (1993,1994, 1995, 1996)has found
differing summative evaluations emerge for local schools when parent groups are
disaggregated by ethnicity, gender, or other social affiliations. The disaggregated
survey results suggest that summative quality judgements are related to personal
motivation. Dissimilar groups experience the schools in contrasting ways. For
example, the differences in evaluation of a local school by parents of successful and
unsuccessful students may appear transparent making it easy to overlook the why of
parent opinion when the what is so obvious. Presumed knowledge about parent
attitudes has led to a devaluation of the potential contribution of these stakeholders to
the discussion of school quality.
The opportunity to include parents summative qualitative opinions in the
discussion about school quality has not been fully realized. Ail parties to the U. S.
educational system sacrifice wider understandings when they fail to honor attitudes
outside their interests. A rich source of insightful dialog for school districts awaits
10


discovery when a deeper understanding is developed concerning the purposes that
drive evaluative attitudes toward the schools. The functionalist analysis of attitude
formation offers insights that bridge the differences in the contradictory and
paradoxical diversity of school attitudes.
The Concept of Attitude and Functionalism
The sharp polarization of attitudes toward education raises the question: What
motivates critics of education to select only the most negative aspects of any
educational datum, parents to ignore data as irrelevant and school leaders to distrust
both? Rather than be concerned with whether the observer is 100% impartial, it is
informative to study the basis for opinion formation. The issue arises whether we
consider the opinions of a national panel or an individual parent concerning then-
child (ren)s school. While national organizations filter information to align with the
beliefs of their constituents (Bracey, 1993), what are the bases for the formation of
individual parent attitudes?
It is easier to leam the what of parent opinions than the why. Studying the
purposes of parent attitudes toward their children's school serve can answer the why
of parent opinions toward school. The study of the function of parent opinions is
based upon the premise that understanding the content of the opinion is inadequate to
understanding the opinion holder. The functionalist approach to attitude retention
examines the purposes beliefs play for the individual (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, &
I


White, 1956). The theory moves beyond the simple content of the opinion to the
function that holding the opinion plays for the parent. According to functionalist
thinking, only the understanding of both the content and the purpose of the attitude
can lead to a full grasp of the opinion.
The Psychological Foundations of Attitude
Formation: Functionalism
Functionalism, as applied to attitude formation, is an approach that addresses
the needs that holding and expressing an opinion serve for the individual (Oskamp,
1977). The question is not how did an individual came to a conclusion based on the
facts in front of them, but what needs does believing their conclusions serve?
Psychological explanations about attitude formation have a long history.
While assumptions about implicit social and psychological needs were evident from
early attitude and persuasion theory (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953) extensive
theorizing concerning the functions of attitudes did not emerge until the mid
twentieth century. The functionalist discussion of the motivational basis of attitudes
was the product of two independent attitude research approaches. The first began
with the work of Smith, Bruner, and White (1956); Katz and associates produced the
second analysis (Katz, McClintock, & Samoff, 1957; Samoff & Katz, 1954; Katz &
Stotland, 1959). Both groups proposed functional descriptions of attitudes keyed to
personal psychology. Functionalist analysis provided a context for understanding the
12


personal uses of holding attitudes. Emerging in an era when studies of persuasion
theory were common, the functionalist approach identified the motivations for
holding specific opinions. Most important was the concept that attitude change
occurs when attempts to change opinions match the functional basis of the attitude
one is trying to change (Eagly & Chaken 1993).
Functionalist theory holds that the role an attitude plays for the individual is
as important as the attitude itself. For all of us, attitudes are among our most prized
possessions especially when they are related to deeply held values (Prentice, 1987).
Building upon this concept, functionalist theorists concluded that there was a finite
set of functions served by the attitudes held by individuals. While initial theories
differed in extent, the major functions included: Understanding, Need Satisfaction,
Ego-Defense, and Value Expression. Each of these is defined below:6
1. Understanding. Organizing patterns of evaluations and mental structures
that offer consistency, clarity, and stability to experiences. Knowledge was a term
used in the same conceptual frame as understanding.
2. Need Satisfaction. The utilitarian function of attitudes; this approach
results from experience with rewards and punishments. Also termed Social
Adjustive. this attitude function helps satisfy personal needs and assist in goal
achievement.
6. In order to provide for clarity, attitude functions are capitalized throughout this thesis.
13


3. Ego-Defense. A function that protects and enhances self-esteem. These
attitudes provide coping mechanisms for tensions generated by intrapsychic conflicts
caused by painful experiences.
4. Value Expression. Beliefs and verbalizations that help establish
self-identity. These needs portray basic values and create the declarers social milieu
by communicating core beliefs publicly.
The functionalist approach to attitude formation had a spotty history of
development due to difficulties in operationalizing its concepts. It was never
developed into a systematic theory that could specify which functions would occur in
predictable situations. Katz (1989), writing 29 years after he published his original
work in the field, acknowledged the weak empirical base of the theory: ...
functionalism lacked a ready and rigorous methodology for the complexity of the
problems it attacked... it called for a large scale research program (p. xii).
Following a three-decade lull, interest in the functionalist approach to the study of
attitude formation has been renewed with many studies broadening and respecifying
the constructs of functionalism. During the past decade, substantial progress has
been reported in advancing the operationalization of attitude functions (Tesser &
Shaffer, 1990).
14


Herek and Neofunctionalism
The need for a comprehensive operationalization of functionalist concepts
was advanced by Gregory Hereks work in studying attitudes towards stigmatized
groups. He redefined core concepts and demonstrated a sound research methodology
supporting the presence of personality factors that reflect attitude functions (Herek,
1986, 1987). Herek's work has been cited in several summaries of advances in the
field of functionalism (Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Olsen &
Zanna, 1993; Oskamp, 1991; Shavitt, 1989; Snyder & DeBono, 1989; Tesser&
Schaffer, 1990). His contribution has been a refinement of the definition of key
attitude functions combined with sound research methodology supporting the
presence of motivational factors that reflect attitude functions (Herek, 1986, 1987).
Hereks reformulation of the four central attitude functions based upon a
comprehensive operationalization of functionalist concepts, added to the
reemergence of functionalist empirical studies (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Olson &
Zanna, 1993; Rosenzweig & Porter, 1990). Herek termed this reemergence
Neofunctionalism. His work supported the development of robust methods of
function verification. Herek broadly conceptualized attitude functions as either
serving Evaluative or Expressive needs. His research approach lead to a revised
taxonomy of the original attitude functions:
1. Experiential-Schematic. Similar to the original Knowledge-
Understanding function combined with elements of need satisfaction based upon
15


experience. An evaluative function deriving its meaning from the uses of the attitude
object for the person holding it. While modem functionalist theory considered this
aspect as primary (the key to all other functions), little overlap between function
definitions exists because of the narrowed domains of the other functions. This
function uses what has been learned in the past to provide guidance and
understanding for future evaluative responses. It provides a vital schema so that each
encounter with a potential attitude generating phenomena will not require a
reconstruction of beliefs. This function will be most evident among people who seek
to understand first. Herek termed functions related to the Experiential-Schematic
function Evaluative in nature.
2. Defensive. Similar to the original Ego-Defensive function (Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993). Involves projections of personal conflicts onto external persons or
entities. Current experiences by themselves are not relevant to understanding those
who employ Defensive functions. Attitudes based upon this function provide
frameworks and vehicles for expression of inter-psychic conflicts and anxieties.
Defensive attitudes can be hostile and will involve discomfort with attitude objects as
well as attempts to avoid them. Defensive functions are difficult to identify because
the nature of the function has concealment as a differentiating characteristic (Snyder
& DeBono, 1989).
16


3. Social Expressive. Approaches that fulfill the need to fit into social and
interpersonal structures. It involves high public self-consciousness and concern over
oneself as a social stimulus.
4. Value Expressive. Focuses upon behavior and expression that are honest
reflections of one's core values and assumptions. Persons holding Value-Expressive
attitudes show less concern shown for the social impact of opinion expression.
Defensive, Social-Expressive, and Value-Expressive functions were termed
Expressive by Herek.
The comparison between traditional functions as identified by Katz (1960)
and Smith et al. (1956) and Hereks reformulation is presented in Table 1.1. The
terms used for functions often appeared overlapping or conflicting. The merging
traditions that formed the functionalist analysis of attitudes discussed in Chapter 2
(see Figure 1, p. 61) are reflected in the four functions. The four redefined functions
designated by Herek were the basis of his Attitude Functions Inventory (AFI). The
AFI was designed to efficiently measure attitude functions.
Recent Functionalist research incorporated Hereks success in building a solid
empirical approach to the neofunctionalist study of attitude motivation. Hereks
schematization of the sources of attitude functions (see table 2.1) helped prompt and
frame further research. Subsequently functionalist research has consistently found
that dissimilar attitude objects will arouse different attitude functions within the
respondent (Oskamp, 1991). For example, questions about affirmative action will
17


not tap the same set of functions as will a question about sports teams or favorite
foods (Anderson & Kristiansen, 1990; Herek, 1987;). Similar attitudes will not
predictably serve the same function (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Individual
experiences and predispositions always intersect the realities of attitude-producing
experiences (Shavitt, 1989; Snyder DeBono, 1989). Summative opinions represent
an interaction between the needs of the respondent and the attitude object.
Evaluative responses cannot be isolated from personal psychology. When weighing
the meaning of school ratings, it is important to focus upon the full context of the
opinion being explored for the respondent. Many considerations enter into the
equation that emerges as a summative evaluation of a school.
The empirically measurable quality of a school is often not the primary
consideration in the formation of opinions concerning its quality. While this is
obvious when distorted views are broadcast across the nation, it is less apparent when
examining parent opinion. A useful approach to understanding parent attitude
formation is the study of attitude variation among parent groups. The framework
provided by the functionalist analysis of attitude formation offers an opportunity to
examine the interaction of group variables in order to facilitate the understanding of
the motivational basis of parent attitude formation. The ability to disaggregate
survey or interview data presents an opportunity to probe the elements of identity
which interact with attitude maintenance.
18


Table 1.1
Comparison of Early Attitude Functions with Hereks Reformulation
Original Functions3
Hereks Functions
Evaluative:
Understanding
Experiential-Schematic
Expressive:
Need Satisfaction
Social Expressive
Ego-Defensive
Defensive
Value Expression
Value Expressive
3 Original Functions were identified within the writing of Smith, Bruner, and White,
1956; Katz, 1960; Katz, McClintock, & Samoff, 1957; Katz & Stotland, 1959;
Samofif & Katz, 1954.
Parent Satisfaction for Contrasting Identity Groups
An analysis of the Gallup Survey of Public Attitudes Toward the Public
Schools (1993, 1994, 1995,1996) illustrates the contribution of identity and
experience to summative attitudes. The results of the surveys are disaggregated by
gender, race, political party, education level, geographic region, occupation, religion,
19


income, community size, family size, age, childs academic standing, grade level and
attendance at public schools. Dissimilar identity groups have differing summative
views of the neighborhood schools their students attend. A review of the school
satisfaction of contrasting groups of parents illustrates the effect of school
experiences as well as parental motivation and background upon Gallup results.
Table 1.2 illustrates the trend in recent years for parents of students with
differing academic success. It is a summary of the Gallup Survey of Public
Attitudes Toward the Public Schools for the years 1993 through 1996. The table
shows that summative judgements about schools have a strong element of personal
need and family experience.
Can the differential in satisfaction levels be directly attributed to varying student
success levels? Do parent attitudes appear to serve experiential-schematic functions
when the student is successful and defensive needs when the student is not? While
parents of low achieving students may argue that their appraisals are based upon
experience and not the need to criticize the school that is failing their student,
challenging questions persist. First, what is the interaction between student
experience with a school and a parents attitude toward the school? Second, what
motivations support parent conclusions about school quality? The quality of a school
as measured by parent opinion stems from the personal needs of the parent as they
develop over the history of their (and their students) experiences with the school.
20


Table 1.2
School Ratings for Gallup Survey of Public Attitudes Toward the Public Schools
1993-1996
Using the A.B.C.D.F. scale, what grade would you give the school your oldest
child attends?
Percentages choosing A or B vs. D or F by Academic Standing of Student for 1993-
1996
Year Grade given to the local school Above Average Average or below Grade given to the local school Above Average Average or below
1993 A+B 83% 60% D+F 4% 12%
1994 A+B 82% 55% D+F 2% 13%
1995 A+B 63% 54% D+F 9% 14%
1996 A+B 74% 58% D+F 7% 14%
A general result noted by Gallup (1993, 1994, 1995,1996) is the
differentiation in parent satisfaction trends between elementary and high school
levels. Parents are more satisfied when they rate the schools of elementary children.
Functionalist analysis offers the possibility of understanding the nature of that
difference. Specifically, the interaction between parent satisfaction and the migration
between functions as children get older exposes a depth of insight not typically
21


available from survey research results.7 The methodology used in this study offers
the opportunity to gain new insights from the application of neofunctionalist
empiricism. The transformation of parent attitude motivations from younger to older
students offers to inform further dialog about the meaning of school quality to
parents over the total school career of their children.
There is robust support for the concept that attitudes do serve psychological
functions and that the specific functions served are based on a complex mixture of
needs, values, and situations. The functions underlying parent attitudes toward
schools should be studied for the insights they offer concerning the nature of
summative evaluations of school quality.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to discover the functions that attitudes toward
school serve for parents and to determine whether these functions vary according to
ethnicity, academic success, satisfaction of the parent, and the grade level of the
student. The modified AFI interview technique developed and introduced in this
study is used to demonstrate the practicality of a novel form of in-depth interviewing
from the functionalist perspective. The interview process sought to engage
stakeholders with firsthand knowledge of schools in order to observe the interaction
7. A literature review found no studies of parent attitude motivation from a functionalist viewpoint
22


of school phenomena with attitude formation about school quality. The exploratory
nature of the methodology employed in this study provides an heuristic impetus to
employ alternative methods for the investigation of parent opinions about the
schools. The findings from this investigation will be applied to an analysis of the
disengagement of school critics from daily school experiences of parents and school
persons. Suggestions will be made about the application of functionalist concepts to
communication practices in the schools.
Research Questions
1. Which dominant functions motivate parent attitudes toward their students
school independent of student success, parent satisfaction, and ethnic identity?
2. What systematic differences can be identified in the functions served by
attitudes towards their childs school for parents of (a) high achieving and (b) low
achieving students?
3. What systematic differences can be found in the functions served by
attitudes towards their childs school for parents who are (a) highly satisfied and (b)
highly dissatisfied with the performance of the school?
4. Which differences in the functions can be found in attitudes toward school
held by Latino parents and parents of European ancestry?
23


5. Which differences in the functions can be identified in attitudes toward
school between parents of lower and higher grade level students?
Design and Methodology of the Study
In order to answer the research questions, Hereks Attitude Functions
Inventory (AFI) was modified to address school quality questions. Parents from a
suburban district were surveyed concerning their satisfaction with their childs
school. The results of the survey were used to identify the most and least satisfied
parents. A sample was drawn based upon parent satisfaction, student ethnic identity
and school success. Verification for membership in two additional function-relevant
groups was ascertained during the interviews: special education parents and parents
who used more than one attitude function were also identified dining the study.
Thirty-two parents were interviewed with the modified AFI. A scoring reliability
study was carried out to verify the ability of the modified AFI to identify functions
consistently by use of an interview coding checklist. This mixed-methods approach
permitted greater interaction with parents who were able to construct personal
meanings for themselves and the interviewer while conversing within a Functionalist
framework.
The primary and secondary functions for each parent subgroup were
aggregated to answer the research questions using chi-square tests. Parent interviews
were also examined for the operational meaning each function had for parent
24


attitudes. The interaction between functional approaches and subgroup identity was
further studied in respect to satisfaction with the local schools.
Benefits of the Study
This study was based upon a unique way of studying and understanding
parent opinion about schools. The method of studying parent attitudes by using a
modified Attitude Functions Inventory demonstrated that parent opinions could be
more fully understood using an interactive interview based upon empirically derived
questions. The use of the AFT permitted the examination of parent attitudes in a
manner not previously addressed. Specifically, substantive understandings
concerning the purposes of parent attitude formation and maintenance in line with
functionalist theory were determined.
The methodological and substantive functionalist findings reported here
contributed insights about the motivational basis of the standards used by parents in
judging schools. School-to-parent communication can be enhanced by a grasp of the
fundamental role of school opinion for the parent. Finally, functionalist analysis of
opinions provides an expanded basis for the acceptance and understanding of parent
opinions about school quality.
25


Limitations
The original Attitude Functions Index was based upon essay analysis as well
as the results of the administration of several psychological scales. The context of
this study did not permit the administration of psychological tests to parents.
Consequently, the modified AFI was created by the substitution of language about
schools for the original language about stigmatized groups found on the AFI. The
original AFI relied upon a continuous scale for each of ten questions. Because a
dialog was used in place of a survey with an ordinal scale, the categorical nature of
the interview results precluded any measures of degree, central tendency, or
distributional statistics.
The participants in this study were very different from the original group that
tested the original AFI. All the participants in this study were mature adults.
Hereks original study involved college undergraduates. The novelty and complexity
of the concepts in the interviews presented a challenging verbal environment for the
laypersons unused to probing interviews.
The parents who did not respond to the parent satisfaction survey were
excluded from the study as were parents who struggled with understanding and
speaking English. The interviews using the modified AFI reported in this study had
32 participants while the original studies by Herek used hundreds of students.
Surveys of public opinion will attract specific types of individuals to respond.
Those who are comfortable declaring their attitudes to others will respond. Persons
26


who want to use their opinions to gain social acceptance will avoid strongly
judgmental statements. They would believe that a strong evaluative choice might
annoy someone. Others may see questions by strangers as threats. Functionalist
theory predicts that each functional approach (Experiential-Schematic, Value-
Expressive, Social-Expressive, and Defensive) will have quite different reactions to
an invitation to respond to a survey. Specifically, there could be a participation bias
that attracts primarily parents with specific functional profiles. The survey and
interview approach used here unintentionally filtered specific parents who were using
specific motivational constellations.
This study focused upon the four attitude functions addressed in the AFI. It is
possible that attitudes toward schools may be based upon other functions but the
replication of Hereks work required this limitation.
The interview group was selected from parents taking part in a parent
satisfaction survey. Parents not taking part in the first survey were eliminated from
the AFI interviews. This introduces a bias but of unknown effect.
Interviews, with one exception, were carried out over the telephone. This
eliminated homes that could not be reached by telephone. The unreachable homes
represent a specific group of unknown characteristics that was eliminated from the
sample. The anonymity of the interviewer diminished the rapport between
interviewer and parent participant. The raters utilized for the interrater reliability
study were all educators. This practice may have introduced a level of bias in the
27


reliability study because of the socialization processes for educators. The verbal
abilities and awareness level of the rater group may not have produced generalizable
findings. The raters agreements with the candidates own coding results may be an
artifact of their shared backgrounds.
Plan of the Study
Five chapters plus a Reference List and Appendix will be used as follows:
Chapter 1- Introduction to the problem
Chapter 2- Literature review
Chapter 3- Methodology
Chapter 4- Results
Chapter 5- Discussion
References
Appendix
Conclusion
Public opinion about the public schools exhibits strong disagreements about
the quality of the schools. Parents, the primary customers of the public schools, have
had their opinions of school quality disregarded as inaccurate reflections of the true
effectiveness of the schools. The study introduced here was intended to encourage a
deeper understanding of the basis for parent opinions about the schools.
Understanding the role that attitudes toward schools play for those holding those
28


attitudes is illuminating not only for local issues but also for a deeper appreciation of
the national discussions of public school quality. Functionalism offers a method for
studying and understanding the purposes that attitudes toward schools serve.
Herek (1987) developed a method of studying attitude functions across a
spectrum of attitude areas that was adapted for this study. The Attitude Functions
Inventory developed by Herek was adapted to study parent attitude formation.
Interviews were held with parents to probe the functional basis of their attitudes
toward schools. The study demonstrated a mixed-methods approach designed to
probe the basis of attitudes toward schools. By doing so, it facilitated insights based
upon a theory never before applied to parents qualitative assessment of their
childrens school. The understandings emerging from the parent interviews produced
a set of suggestions for the improvement of communication with the school
community.
29


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study of functional basis of parents attitudes toward their childrens
schools draws on three sources: Studies of the relationship between school policy
leaders and parents, methodological literature dealing with the survey approach to the
determination of satisfaction with the public schools, and the study of attitude
motivation derived from neofunctionalist empiricism. The introduction of periodic
large-scale parent polling about school quality has emerged within the past 40 years
during an era of increasing parent involvement with school governance. Before this
era, large-scale evaluations were centered on professional practice surveys. Parents
did not have the professional or political stature to be included in summative
evaluations of the schools. Attempts to understand parent opinions relied on
stereotypes of parents limited knowledge and concerns about control. The typical
debate about parent opinion survey opinions concerned representativeness and
accuracy. Parent and public opinion polling have focused upon evaluative opinions
concerned with the what of opinions, with less regard for the why or what for. Fewer
questions arose concerning the motivations for the opinions parents and publics held.
Functionalist approaches applied a motivational lens to the study of attitude
formation.
30


The originators of functionalist theories about attitude motivation and their
successors, the neofunctionalists, devised approaches for learning the motivations
(often unconscious) that individuals have for holding opinions. The purpose for
maintaining an opinion was termed its function. Herek (1987) created an Attitude
Functions Inventory to efficiently measure the functions of attitudes for the
individuals holding them. Several studies of the functionalist basis of opinions
clearly indicate that attitude functions can be measured reliably. Understandings
derived from these studies have applications to a variety of belief systems and inform
the consideration of the role of parent opinion in the evaluation of local schools.
This literature review will create the context for the study of the functional
basis of parent opinions by reviewing the traditional attitudes toward parent opinions
of the schools. The introduction of large-scale school surveys will be examined for
their relevance to parent attitudes towards the schools. The origin of Functionalism
will be discussed and the nature of Functionalisms contribution to attitude study
indicated. A review of the relationship of AFI studies to the modification of
functionalist theory constructs and subsequent experimental results will illustrate
Hereks place in the functionalist tradition. Significant studies contributing to the
validation and extension of the functionalist theory will be examined.
31


The Concepts of Attitude and Function
Attitudes are psychological tendencies that are expressed by evaluating a
particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor and which produce motivated
behavior (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Shaw & Wright, 1967). Evaluation is the key to
understanding the concept of attitudes (Ostrom, 1989). Embedded within the
evaluative approach is the concept of readiness to act in a manner appropriate to the
attitude held (Oskamp 1991). Opinions are the expression of attitudes.
Attitude objects (or domains) are the phenomena about which attitudes are
formed.
Attitude functions are the motivations and needs underlying the maintenance
of an attitude.
Values are relatively abstract goals and enduring beliefs that a specific mode
of conduct or state of existence is personally and socially worth achieving (Rokeach,
1968).
The Value of Parent Opinion to School Leadership
The history of parent attitudes toward the public schools mirrors the
development of public education and its governance structures (Butts & Cremin,
1953). Historically, local, state, and national policy had minimal structured input
from parents of school children unless they happened to be elected to a board of
32


education. The attitudes that mattered in the governance system were those of the
elected or appointed officials leading the schools and well as intellectual leaders in
the colleges and universities (Morrison and Commager, 1950). The elitist attitude
toward educational leadership has a long history in the United States. In 1779,
Jefferson proposed to train an intellectual elite to lead the country:
It becomes expedient for promoting the publick happiness that those persons,
whom nather hath endowed with genius and virtue, should be rendered by
liberal education worthy to receive, and able to guard the sacred deposit of
rights and liberties of their fellow citizens, and that they should be called to
that charge without regard to wealth, birth or other accidental condition or
circumstance. (Noble, 1938, p. 516)
This echo of Platos Republic (trans. 1974) reflected the hierarchical divisions
in school governance patterns embedded in our school leadership traditions. This
regard (or disregard) for public involvement with public education reverberated
through the early education movements in this country. Referring to the drive for
public education between 1830 and 1860, Nobel (1938) wrote,
This [development of American schools] was not a proletarian uprising but a
humanitarian movement in which the better class of people show concern for
the ignorant masses_____On this issue, the masses were indifferent and the
majority of the propertied class was frequently hostile, (p. 176).
In terms of the classist regard for public educations clients, it appears that
Jeffersons ideal had been implemented across the country.
It was not until the 1930s that parent groups and their opinions were noted
with more than annoyance in the historical record (Butts & Cremin, 1953). The
33


importance of the potential contribution of parent involvement with school policy
was not realized during the first half of the twentieth century. Analysis of the
contents of the PTA journal Child Welfare for the years 1915 through 1934, the
magazine Public Opinion for the years 1889 through 1904 and Nations Schools
(1928-1934) found that parents were expected to support the schoolmen who led the
schools. Child Welfare, the national PTA journal, informed parents how to raise
better children and explained child development in lay terms.1 Educational leaders
of the time were much less interested in openly learning qualitative standards from
parents concerning school practices. The model parent was a quiet supporter of the
schools. Reese (1978) concluded, The theme of cooperation increasingly espoused
by educators often meant parent submission (p. 13).
The long running series Delinquent Parents in Child Welfare reinforced
the rhetoric that both juveniles and parents were to be seen and not heard. Parents
were expected to support schools by producing students ready to learn and were not
seen as qualified to judge the quality of schools. There were no surveys of either
parent satisfaction or policy opinion cited in these periodicals. The role of parents 1
1. The subordinate role of women in the home was generalized to the schools. Women were
expected to be in charge of child rearing practices in the home. This role was being challenged during
the early 20th century by the suffrage movement It symbolize the emerging role of women in
34


in the schools mirrored the traditional role for women in the home: they were to be
supportive and silent. The result of the elitist attitude toward school clients resulted
in a uniform distrust of their opinions.
The general disparagement of parent opinion has been consistently found in
historical descriptions of parent involvement with (and opinions about) the schools.
Reese describes the historical interplay between parent groups and schools as a series
of cooperative endeavors amidst continuing tension concerning the status of parents
to question school practices (1978). As Reese related, Professional educators have
always disliked parent meddling and interference in school affairs .... School
officials in some cities [while supporting some parent ideas] disliked any parent
intervention in urban education (p. 13). Reece points out that as the schools became
increasingly professionalized and centralized, leadership became remote from the lay
public.
Echoing Reece, William Burton (1952) while commenting upon the origin of
criticisms of American education characterized parent criticism as .practically
always honest and sincere- but nearly always have no factual basis (p. 82). The
operating the schools (Current, Williams, and Hoffman, 1981; Hoffman, 1981; Rothman, 1978). For
schools, parental (female) disempowerment was a subset of societal disempowerment.
35


attitude that parents are not informed enough to form summative opinions about local
schools was repeated recently by Tacheny (1997, p. 50) when she mentioned that
Treating a [parent] poll as an evaluation of a public service is the greatest misuse of
this instrument. This is because how do you know? is never asked. Both the need
for acceptance and distrust of parent opinion is summed up by Hand (1948):
Since cooperation is based on understanding, it follows that teachers need to
know as much as possible about the educational attitudes of the parents. Even
though some [opinions] are quite mistaken, or otherwise unacceptable, and
hence need overhauling, [emphasis added] these parent attitudes are principal
among the considerations which determine whether the school enterprise is to
be regarded as a success or as a failure and whether it is to be strengthened by
generous support or weakened by community neglect (p. 20).
This skeptical support is part of a consistent body of evidence that there has
been misgivings about parent opinions of school quality and distrust of parent input
that might override current decision making structures. This is amply epitomized by
Casanova (1996) who provided a succinct and accurate portrayal of the reluctance to
include parents in policy-evaluative roles.
Casanova (1996) summarized cautions about parent involvement as a
reaction to the National Education Summit of the nations governors and corporate
leaders in Palisades, New York (1996). Reacting to Governor Thompsons remarks
that The solutions to our problems lie within our families, our neighbors, and our
communities (p. 32), Casanova remarked that Parent involvement and state and
36


local control have their limits (p. 32). The use of federal power to integrate the
schools of Little Rock, Arkansas was used as an example that local districts can not
be trusted to honor basic civil rights. The article evidenced a divisive attitude toward
parental input. Teachers are seen as the target of criticism if parents are put in
charge. Maintaining that We can not romanticize parent involvement and proclaim
its virtues without also acknowledging its excesses (p. 31). The discussion of
potential and real excesses of parent involvement included ideologies that may
dominate schools, objection to specific curricula and teaching practices, lack of trust
in the teachers, and competitive relations that lack mutual trust. Parental
participation was characterized as a polarizing prospect. Casanova also mentions
Ogawas (1996) requests for bridges to parents and buffers to protect the school
from interference with the professional discretion of teachers and principals (as cited
in Casanova, 1996, p. 31). The tone of professional distance from clients and
skepticism about parental participation is evident. Burton, Hand, Tacheny, and
Casanova span the decades with messages that appear in harmony. They share
serious questions about the appropriate role of parent opinions in judging the schools.
It is clear that the shared vision of an educated student population had little room for
the education of parents.
In sharp contrast are the inclusionary voices willing to address the task of
bringing the community into the schools. Fuller and Olsen (1998) and Epstein (1995)
37


provided precisely structured discussions for every level of parent involvement.
These authors see parent roles as part of a multileveled involvement process. The
issue of meaningful interactive communication involves structured training and focus
for both community and school (Fuller & Olsen, pp. 137-142). The implication is
that just as school leadership roles are filled by a staff which has undergone years of
formal training and experience, so too should parents and school be inducted into the
complexities of shared governance and positive interaction. These approaches are an
effective answer to the traditional concerns voiced by Casanova. The range of
publication dates cited in this section illustrates that there a long-standing hesitancy
to include parent opinions in policy-making constituencies.
Throughout the discussion of the stature of parent evaluation of school
quality is the subtext that parent contributions are best made at home and that the
schools are the province of the professional experts. Parent opinion issues are often
mixed with governance issues. The emergence of the school attitude survey was a
symbolic as well as practical way for parents and public to gain attention for their
concerns. Although generally conducted by the institutions being rated, parent
opinion surveys, by their polling approach, gave enhanced political standing to parent
concerns.
I
38


School Surveys
The emergence of large-scale study of opinions about the schools began in
earnest during the 1950s. A combination of theoretical understandings of the value
of sampling, the emergence of the technical means for tabulating results and an
empowerment of public services clients (in this case, parents), lead to an increased
acceptance of the value of public and parent opinions about the quality of schools.
The initiation of parent surveys concerning school quality was a departure from
school surveys of the past and symbolized the increasing inclusion of parent
attitudes into thinking about school quality.
The Original School Surveys: School Inspections
School surveys, investigations of school performance and efficiency, were a
part of a larger movement of social surveying-organized research studies into every
aspect of community life (Taylor, 1919). Marc Antoine Jullien de Paris devised the
first national and international survey of school practices in 1817. This was the first
known instrument to compare and evaluate school systems (De Landsheere, 1988).
School surveys were part of a larger movement to scientific examination and
management of social and business institutions. Fredrick Taylors approach to
39


bureaucratic organization was applied to all aspects of organizational life (Connell,
1980). The examination of schools was an outcome of the scientific management
movement.
At the end of the 19th century, Rice visited 36 cities and towns in the U. S.
interviewing teachers and learning about teaching methods. His subsequent spelling
survey testing 16,000 students became a popular cause that fostered two subsequent
large-scale surveys in 1908 and 1911 (Rice, 1913; see also Cremin, 1961).2 The
ability to ascertain student achievement level by using descriptive statistics that
appeared scientific and reliable encouraged further large-scale studies. Boise, Idaho
and Montelair/East Orange New Jersey initiated system-wide surveys in 1910. Many
were to follow across the nation including Baltimore (1911), New York (1912),
Portland (1913), and Cleveland (1915-1916). The Cleveland survey took 25 volumes
to report and covered not only education but also other aspects of life in the school
district (Connell, 1980). The surveying movement became very popular in a short
time as demonstrated by the systemizing efforts of Sears (1925) who codified the
practice by producing a textbook for practitioners. The survey movement had strong
growth in the 1920s and 1930s with more than three thousand completed. The
2. Rices data was a very early verification of grade level equivalents using spelling levels.
40


movement symbolized how the emerging science of educational research was being
applied to school-related phenomena thereby encouraging the further examination of
previously unstudied topics (Wilds & Lottich, 1970). It is a curious comment upon
our educational system that the surveys were originated using outside experts to
investigate local school quality. The element of trust and objectivity appeared to be a
concern in the early part of the 20th century. The same concern with fairness
produced the large-scale introduction of standardized tests across the U.S. Current
state testing systems with their emphasis on uniform assessments scored by private
firms repeat the theme that the most accurate measures of student performance
emerge when disinterested organizations examine student achievement.
Opinion Surveys About the Schools.
The introduction of large-scale opinion surveys about school topics extended
scientific measurements about schools to attitudes toward schools. The introduction
of school attitude surveys symbolized the inclusion of a wider opinion base and
increased stature for parents and public. General surveys of public opinion in the
early 20th century were occupied with political and policy concerns (Cantril, 1951).
Surveys of public and parent opinions about school quality gained momentum during
the mid-century. The examination of previously unstudied areas, such as public
opinion of schools, stemmed from the convergence of several cultural strands related
41


to both scientific and political changes. It is no coincidence that progressivism and
emerging public empowerment occurred simultaneously. As De Landsheere (1988)
observed, the charisma of the progressive movement with its combination of
empirical research and a social and political philosophy merging the free enterprise,
liberal spirit with humanist socialism(p. 9), supported an innovative progressivism
in the schools (see Dewey, 1963).
School districts moved toward more inclusive practices encouraged by the
scientific approach to measurement of social phenomena and the emergence of civil
and political rights movements.3 The school survey movement had relied upon
external evaluators to form summative judgements about schools. The addition of
public opinion polls symbolized a shift in power and focus for school policy makers
toward a recognition of a wider basis forjudging school quality. Surveying was not a
substitute for educational measurement but a reformulation of the relationship of
schools to its stakeholders. In the context of periodic demands for reform (Burton,
1952; Henderson & Hand, 1952), the inclusion of parents and public in summative
judgements moved control of the dialog closer to the clients of the schools. Political
3. The accountability movement in the United States symbolized this evolution. At first, merely a
reflection of Taylor-like management concerns by traditional leadership, it evolved to a wider
stakeholder-driven movement (for example, see Barbee and Bouck, 1974; Lessinger and Tyler,
1971).
42


leadership could not continue to downplay the observations and interests of parent
groups. Opinion polling relating to schools was a mass movement of public service
clientele into a more direct connection with public policy formation. The substantive
results from early polls reported in this chapter were less remarkable than the national
movement for inclusion of all constituents into discussions of school quality.
The Results of Early Public Opinion Surveys
About the Schools
The initial findings reporting public satisfaction with the schools emerged
when large school districts and states attempted to uncover previously unknown
thinking. Historically, this occurred at a time when attitude theory and research was
gaining momentum (Converse, 1987; McGuire, 1985; Sudman & Bradbum, 1987).
Concerns with public opinion during World War II, periodic school reform initiatives
(Cuban, 1990) and an emerging technology of measurement lead national and state
entities to complete major surveys. The National Opinion Research Center was
founded in 1941 and published the results of their first poll of parents and public
concerning schools in 1944. They found eight of ten parents satisfied with the
education their students were receiving. The American Institute of Public Opinion
(Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947) found similarly high ratings of parent satisfaction.
Encouraged by these results, the first step toward deliberately encouraging school
surveys was taken by Hand (1948) when he produced a guide for conducting school
43


opinion surveys. Hand was a strong advocate for the political importance of
accurately knowing the attitude of school constituents. It had become apparent that
opinion leaders could gain a better understand of public interests if there was a
technique to verify public opinions (Hand, pp. 13-24). For example, Bruce (1958)
reported the school board in Hot Springs, Arkansas used a survey to ascertain that
unhappiness with policy decisions was confined to a small minority and the
technique of parent sampling would provide much sounder bases for policy
decisions.
An important cultural milestone was attained when Life Magazine (a popular
weekly) published the results of a poll about the publics attitude toward the schools
(Roper, 1950). The respondents found the schools as a whole were doing a
satisfactory jobover 60% believed sobut felt specific improvements could be made
to local schools. In fact, fifty seven percent wanted no change in any school practice
whatsoever. The combination of major polling organization and a popular culture
magazine combining to publish a national poll was a watershed event. Other
institutions took note of the availability and acceptability of attitude information and
commenced their polling efforts.
The National Education Association reported upon school opinion polls
completed between 1950 and 1958 including Baltimore, Maryland; Bloomington,
Illinois; Fresno, California; Jacksonville, Illinois; Santiago, California; Warren, Ohio;
44


the states of California, Michigan, Texas, Utah and Washington. In general,
substantial majorities were satisfied with school practices (National Education
Association, 1958a, 1958b). While the surveys showed strong support for basic goals
of education there was also support for curricular improvement and extended
practical training in the schools.
The signs of a continuing elitist attitude toward parents and public appeared
soon after the major surveys of satisfaction were introduced. For example, analysis
of the Michigan poll cited above indicates that it was a robust measure of parent
sentiment about the schools (Capra 1957). A sample of over 45,000 elementary
parents was used. The questions concerned discipline, individual differences, and
teaching of the basic academic subjects. While all groups were generally satisfied
with their students education, there was a direct correlation between traditional
practices, strict rule-bound education, and socio-economic status. Lower SES parents
favored more traditional practices. While accepting the importance of parent input,
Capra echoed the common view held by writers of that time that criticism of
education was uninformed:
The dissatisfaction with reference to teaching was interpreted as due probably
to lack of understanding of the school on the part of lower socio-economic,
the least educated and non-PTA parents. The assumption is that these groups
are least familiar with modem education. They base their reactions mainly
upon their own experience when they attended school and/or upon
fragmentary knowledge picked up second hand thru [sic] hearsay or thru [sic]
reading propaganda. There is, of course, a possibility [italics added] that this
group is registering a real protest, (p. 41)
i
45


Appearing in the National Elementary Principal, this response illustrates the
mixture of class consciousness and self-satisfied professionalism that grew from the
governance system of American public schools and shows that parent opinion was
accepted skeptically when it was critical of the schools.
Reviews of the early large-scale surveys of school attitudes found generally
positive4 evaluations of school practices in an atmosphere of caution regarding the
worth of summative opinions held by parents (Bruce, 1958; Crosby, 1951; Crosby &
Proud 1953; Henderson & Hand, 1952; National Opinion Research Center, 1944;
National Education Association, 1958; Research Services, 1950, 1953, 1958; Shelly,
1965). For example, reporting two parent surveys conducted in five Illinois cities
and 69 communities, Hand & Sanford (1950) and Henderson & Hand, (1952) and
found substantial parent satisfaction with education in general but deepening levels of
concern when parents were asked about specific areas of concern in the latter survey.
The latter survey focused upon the adequacy of the school program to prepare
students for life adjustment challenges. When parents were presented with specific
student problems, they expressed frustration with the schools ability to provide a
4. Generally positive findings are those that have more than 60% of respondents expressing overall
satisfaction with public school education.
46


program that would help their student (Henderson & Hand, 1952, p.l 13). The survey
results imply that the mental processes used in forming specific attitudes toward
general questions are not the same as those that are activated when specific personal
growth issues about ones own child are probed. The theme that general satisfaction
remains robust despite a weakening when the surveyor mentioned specific problems
continues to the present.5
Public opinion polls began to be more accessible to public schools in the
1960s with the increasing availability of data processing equipment. Ease of
compilation and disaggregation enabled quick access to information never before
available to the schools. Sampling theory came to be accepted by school leadership.
The 1960s also saw an increase in empowerment trends at the public schools
(Wasserman, 1974). Schools had begun to come to terms with the increasing power
consciousness of parent and community groups (Campbell, Bridges & Nystrand,
1977; Roe & Drake, 1974). Clark (1964) outlined the narrowed communication
channels in place before the school empowerment movements in the 1960s. The
articulate power groups in each school and district were facing the inclusion of
additional voices in discussions of school quality and change. Initiation of parent
5. A survey sponsored by Public Agenda found that support for public school practices were far from
unanimous when the public was asked detailed questions about a long list of practices (Bradley, 1995,
47


empowerment and increasing technical ability to gather and report data merged to
insure a permanent role for parent opinion surveys about the schools.
National Public Opinion Polls About The Schools
The Gallup polls of attitudes toward public education conducted from 1969 to
the present represent a national standard for polling about public schools. Elam
(1973) reviewed the essential findings of the Gallup survey and the relevance of the
results to educational practices. He found general satisfaction with local schools
diminished as parents and public judged school farther from home. Extensive
confirmatory studies of the Gallup results have been undertaken and it has been
determined that local situations will qualify the general satisfaction of parents with
their students schools (Cottle, 1985; Johnson, 1988; Meyer, 1984).
Gallup has found a decreasing proportion of the public with factual
knowledge of local public schools. The National Education Association affirmed this
finding in 1985 (p. 15). The decreasing proportion of homes yielding public school
students had led to a division between the perceptions of parents and lay public
concerning the realities of school performance (Gallup, 1996, p. 89). Fewer of the
public had first hand knowledge of a major institution (National Education
p. 1; Johnson & Immerwahr, 1994).
48


Association, 1985, p. 20). Despite an increase in parents working outside the home
with decreased time to be involved with their childrens schools, Gallup polls
continue to show high approval of parent for their local schools and differences in the
opinions of subgroups within the national sample. The combination of high
satisfaction with diminishing ability to learn first hand about local schools suggests
that motives in addition to evaluative knowledge foimed the basis for summative
parental opinions.
Reviewing subgroup summaries in Table 1.2 (p. 20) it is clear that parents
bring different perspectives to school attitude surveys (Gallup, 1996). Gallup reports
disaggregations by gender, race, age, politics, education level, region, occupation,
religion, income community size, and family size. Disaggregated results often
indicate that satisfaction levels follow group interests. In some instances, the
differences are highly significant.6 This persistent finding indicates that varying
identity groups have contrasting experiences and reach different conclusions about
apparently similar attitude objects. The attitudes evolve from personal identity
(McGuire, 1985; Schlenker, 1982) and our experiences with the phenomena we are
6. For example, Gallup (1996) found a large discrepancy between the ratings given to local schools by
college graduates and high school dropouts with children in local public schools. Four percent of the
college graduates gave low grades (D or F) while 13% of high school dropouts gave low grades.
49


judging (Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Kiecolt, 1988;
Tesser & Leone, 1977).
A survey conducted by Public Agenda, a public interest group, represents
both a summation of parent polling and a clear indication of the direction major polls
may take in the future. They conducted a survey-focus group study to both learn
about and gain a voice in the school reform dialog. Their 1994 report of school
attitudes, First Things First: What Americans Expect from the Public Schools
indicates that parents genuinely trust local teachers and school principals. However,
serious concerns about safety and basic education occur when parents are probed
about specific concerns (Johnson & Immerwahr, 1994). The report also contains the
following message from Deborah Wadsworth, executive director of Public Agenda:
The purpose of this report is not to provide a.. .recipe for educational policy.
It is to ask leaders to stop, to listen, and to give the publics point of view the
same attention and respect, the same consideration, they naturally give to the
experts, (p. 38)
This statement should be considered in relationship to the list of sponsors of
the report. BellSouth Foundation, the Business Roundtable, Carnegie Corporation,
General Mills Foundation, and the Rockerfeller Foundation provide an indication of
the level of concern about the schools among high status foundations. A review of
the list of sponsors for this report reflects directly upon Zallers work in the area of
new idea origination and diffusion. Zaller (1984,1992) demonstrated that Elite
discourse affect [s] both the direction and organization of mass opinion (p.14). The
50


inclusion of business and social elite foundations under the imprint of the Wadsworth
statement symbolizes how much progress had been made in recognizing the
contribution of parent opinion.7
The results of another Public Agenda survey the following year,
Assignment Incomplete: The Unfinished Business of School Reform. (Johnson &
Immerwahr, 1995) were summed up in the headline of the article announcing the
study in Education Week. Public Backing for Schools Is Called Tenuous (Bradley,
1995). While parent evaluations were generally supportive, when questioned about
issues such as school safety, discipline, and basic skills curriculum, support
weakened as the specifics were discussed. Both reports from Public Agenda revisited
the same levels of concern as the Henderson and Hand report in 1952. Parent opinion
is in the mainstream of policy considerations. The challenge is to gain a deeper
understanding of how parent opinions are formed and maintained.
Summary of the Introduction of Parent Opinion Surveys
The infusion of parent and public opinion into the discussion of school quality
had to overcome many cultural and historical obstacles. Societal elites and school
7. Zaller also points out that the inclusion of any stakeholder group is also intended to shape their
thinking upon matters of vital concern to them (Zaller, 1992, p.13). I
I
i
I
1
51


leadership did not readily accept parent concerns as worthy of serious consideration.
The introduction of large-scale local and national school opinion surveys symbolized
the changes taking place in approaches to inclusionary governance practices of local
school districts. With substantial progress now realized for the inclusion of parent
opinion, a need arises for a deeper understanding of the motivations and attitudes that
parent opinions represent. An understanding of the formation of parent attitudes
toward schools is facilitated by an examination of the functionalist theory of attitude
motivations.
The Origin of Functionalism
Functional psychology traces its roots to the 19th century, specifically to
Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Spencer (1896) believed associative learning
had survival value. Darwins work about evolution (1923) posited that specific
behaviors were life sustaining and provided important functions for the organism.
John Dewey was credited with initiating Functionalism as a specific movement in
psychology with an article about the reflex arc published in 1896. He argued that
reflexes and other behaviors ought to be interpreted in terms of their significance for
adaptation and not treated as artificial scientific constructs. Dewey wanted
psychology to study the organism as a whole functioning in its own environment
(Boring, 1950; Bolles, 1993; Hickman & Alexander, 1998).
52


William James outlined his Functionalist psychology as opposed to the
European structuralist approach in Principles of Psychology f 1890V He posited that
the mind is continually interacting with the environment and continually engaged in
adjustment. The mind is dynamic and should not be studied as a series of static
conscious states. This resulted in a clear differentiation between James functionalist
beliefs and Ticheners structuralism (1898,1899, 1910).
Functionalism became a defined approach in psychology with James
Angells appointment to chair the department of psychology at the University of
Chicago. He clearly defined the domains of Functionalism (1903,1907). Harvey A.
Carr, Angells successor, saw mental activity as concerned with the acquisition,
fixation, retention organization and evaluation of experiences, and their subsequent
utilization in the guidance of conduct (Carr, 1925, p. 1). Carr saw ideas as having
utility value. Ideas, to Carr, were capable of arousing response patterns that had
adaptive value for the individual. He believed ideas paralleled sensory stimulus with
similar requirements for personal adjustment and reaction (Ch. VTH). He studied
how mental processes are utilized in determining conduct (Chaplin & Krawiec,
I960). This was a direct foreshadowing of Functionalisms contribution to attitude
theory.
53


Functionalism and Attitudes
The study of the functions of behavior and attitudes reflect an historic focus
within psychology concerning dynamic and purposeful nisus of individuals toward
personal or social aims (Pervin, 1996). The analysis of the purpose and use of human
thought found an avenue in the study of opinions. Lippmann (1922) saw opinions
reflecting the selectivity of personal experience. Opinions were seen as a way to
simplify complex events that were not wholly accessible to an individual.
McDougall (1908, 1921) viewed opinions as distinct manifestations of the deepest of
human needs altered by interactions with external realities faced throughout life.
Underlying McDougalFs system was the view that all human behavior was purposive
and tied to basic instinct. Growth was the interaction of learning with instinct.
Allport (1937) found personality to have a functional significance. The functional
autonomy of motives, according to Allport, provides the continuity of personality
that underlies our individuality. Allport maintained that personality has a
functional... significance (p. 49). His statement that Tersonality is the dynamic
organization within the individual of those psychophysical systems that determine his
unique adjustments to his environment (p. 48) emphasized the belief in the survival
value of personal adaptations from a functionalist perspective.
The study of the combination of social psychology and attitude research to
study opinion expression has a long tradition (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; McGuire,
54


1986). McGuires article about the vicissitudes of attitude constructs in the twentieth
century outlines the waxing and waning of interests about attitude research areas. As
McGuire discussed in his comprehensive review of attitude formation research
(1985), the field of attitude research was (and is) subject to the same fads of thought
as any other area of human interest. A unique feature of functionalist thinking is that
it persisted for a century through waves of psychological theories. The urge to
understand individual purpose would not disappear (Hovland, Janis & Kelley, 1953;
Samoff & Katz 1954). The functionalist approach to attitude formation was the
product of two independent attitude research approaches. Smith, Bruner, and White
(1956) and Katz (1960) and associates initiated the modem study of attitude
functions. They independently proposed functional descriptions of attitudes keyed to
personal psychology.
The core of the functionalist approach to attitudes is reflected in the question,
Of what use to a man are his opinions? (Smith, Bruner & White, 1956, p. 1). This
quotation began the study reported in Opinions and Personalities which reported an
analysis of attitudes using (for the time) an atypical case study of 10 men and their
attitudes toward the Soviet Union (Oskamp, 1977). Functionalist analysis provided a
framework for understanding the personal uses of holding attitudes. Emerging in an
era when studies of persuasion techniques were common, the functionalist approach
attempted to identify the motivations for holding specific opinions.
55


The following discussion follows the central foci of neofunctionalist research.
Because of the wide range of attitude phenomena and broad scope of explanatory
constructs, functionalist research studies do not neatly fit into simple categorizations.
Many of the studies cited here combine diverse approaches and concepts within
single articles. Often, as in the case of self-monitoring studies, two constructs were
addressed simultaneously. In these case the studies were categorized by the primary
emphasis of the study as it related to the empirical necessities of this thesis.
In order to assist the reader, variants and complexities of functional terms in
research studies reported here have been modified to fit Hereks 1987 schema. The
translations are almost exact conceptual equivalents. For example, Snyders term
Social-Adaptive is very similar to Hereks Social-Expressive.
Functionalist literature encourages discovery of unique functions and
schematizations. Function categorizations are fluid because of the dynamic interplay
of theory and research which continually reconceptualizes newly discovered
interactions. Despite these minor terminology mismatches, the empirical base
reported here is consistent and reliable. Additionally, in the interest of clarity and
focus, the extensive foundational reference lexicon used by the authors cited here is
simplified. The knowledge base sustained in the following sections are internally
coherent, and do not rely upon a cascade of antecedent referential material, which, if
56


cited, would distract from the central focus. Functionalist concepts infiltrate and
illuminate several fruitful decades of attitude and social psychology research.
Functionalist Attitude Theory
Functionalist theory posits that an understanding of the role an attitude plays
for the person holding it is as important as understanding the attitude itself. Building
upon this concept, the early theorists concluded that there was a finite set of functions
underlying most attitudes (Katz, 1960,1968; Katz, McClintock & Samoff, 1957;
Katz, Samoff, & McClintock, 1956; Katz & Stotland, 1959; Samoff & Katz, 1954;
Smith, 1947; Smith, Bruner & White, 1956). While initial theories differed in extent,
the major functions included:
1. Understanding. Organizing patterns of evaluations and mental structures
that give consistency, clarity, and stability to experiences and frames of reference for
understanding. Knowledge was a term used in the same conceptual frame as
understanding.
2. Need-Satisfaction. The utilitarian function of attitudes, these approaches
result from experience with rewards and punishments. Termed Social-Expressive,
these attitudes help satisfy personal needs and assist in goal achievement.
57


3. Ego-Defensive. Attitudes that protect and enhance self-esteem. This use
of attitudes provides coping mechanisms for tensions generated by intrapsychic
conflicts caused by painful experiences.
4. Value-Expression. Beliefs and verbalizations that help establish
self-identity. These needs portray basic values and create the declarers social milieu
by communicating core beliefs publicly.
The Decline of Early Attitude Functionalism
The functionalist approach to attitude inquiry did not initially develop a
robust tradition of empirical research (Katz, 1989; Kiesler, Collins & Miller, 1969).
Operationalization of its concepts were challenging (Herek, 1986) and functionalist
concepts were seen an example of bootstrapping assuming the existence of a
construct in order to discover their existence by experimental means (Insko, 1967).
The initial interest in functionalist research waned as alternative approaches gained
ascendancy. Psychology was changing and functionalist psychology was seen as out
of step with cognitive approaches (Snyder, 1993). The avoidance of functionalist
research was the result of shifting interest and the empirical challenges it presented
researchers.
The changes in attitudinal research focus involved a movement to cognitive,
social and combinatorial models of attitude formation and away from a personal trait
58


approach. Examples of social theories include Sherif (1935) and Aschs (1955)
research on social influence; French & Raven (1959) and, Ravens (1965) analysis of
the basis of social power; Milgrams obedience paradigm (1963,1974); and
Kelmans typology of types of social influence (1958, 1961,1974).
Two examples of the combinatorial model are Fishbein and Ajzens (1975)
theory of reasoned action and the probabilogical model by McGuire (1960a, 1960b)
and Wyer (1970). These models were especially attractive because they posited that
relations among beliefs obey laws of mathematical probability. The concepts were
based upon formulae that were appealingly testable and concrete. By comparison,
attitude functionalism as originally proposed by Katz and Smith, Bruner, and White
were much less susceptible to operationalization. In addition, Functionalisms level
of abstraction was very broad.
Katz (1960) mastered a complex synthesis to devise his theory. He converged
several traditions and theories including the Psychoanalytic, Gestalt, consistency, and
self-actualization models. In this regard, it was a convergent theory combining many
approaches to study a single phenomenon (Herek, 1986). However, at the time the
functionalist model was proposed, there was a trend to divergent explanations
explaining many different phenomena by a single theory. Cognitive dissonance
theory is an example of an approach that attempted to explain a number of different
phenomena by a single model (Festinger, 1957). Early functionalist approaches were
59


narrowly focused at a time when there was a movement to broaden theory. Figure
2.1 depicts the shift in attitude theory from convergent to divergent emphases.
Figure 2.1 makes clear that the functionalist explanation required a very wide
set of generalizations to study any attitude whereas the cognitive dissonance theory
could apply a uniform and more compact theoretical approach to any attitude it
encountered. Another important aspect working against early functionalist theorists
was the shift to cognitive approaches and away from studies of personality traits. In
its complexity and emphasis on uniform personality traits, early attitude functionalist
theory found few adherents willing to address challenges the approach brought with
it. As symbolized by the arrows in Figure 2.1, Functionalism was approaching
attitudes from the wrong direction according to attitude empiricists of the time.
Functionalism also suffered from a limitation concerning hypothesis
formation: The theory did not easily generate testable hypotheses. For example, the
original Ego-Defensive function might produce attitudes toward persons that could
be either negative or positive. It was unable to produce clear hypotheses. Much of
the concern about generating hypotheses derived from the strong personality trait
basis for the theory. The trait-driven nature of the theory meant that functionalist
theory initially was bound by a personality based approach to all functions.
60


UOZ>UQiOUZH Qm>UC^OUZH
CONVERGENT VS DIVERGENT ATTITUDE
THEORIES
FUNCTIONALISM
ATTITUDE
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
Figure 2.1. Comparison of functionalism and cognitive dissonance attitude
theories in terms of their relationship to the attitudes they describe.
61


The four functions, by themselves, were post facto explanations. Initially,
there was no direct way to predict the relationships between attitudes and attitude
objects in terms of consistent functions. Early attempts at functionalist explanations
of attitudes did not encourage further experimental inquiries (Insko, 1967). There
was a clear concern, that verifiable hypotheses had only been advanced for the Ego-
Defensive function (Kiesler, Collins, & Miller, 1969). This concern was, in part,
driven by the difficulties stemming from a lack of clear methodologies for verifying
functions and lead to a conviction that the functional approach offered insufficient
probative support for its claims. While researchers in the 1960s and 1970s used
motivational concepts, functionalist research was generally dormant (Fishbein &
Ajzen; 1975; McConahay & Hough, 1975; Rokeach, 1968). However, by the end of
the 1980s there was a renewed interest in motivational explanations for attitudes.
Functionalism was a motivation-based model but required strong methodological
development if it was to be acceptable. In the intervening years, psychologically
based attitude scales were developed that were used by subsequent researchers to
assess aspects of the interaction of personality and attitude formation ( See Chapter
3, p. 109). Herek and others used these scales to design the types of approaches
that lead to a strong renewed interest in Functionalist theory (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993;
Snyder, 1993).
i
i


Herek and the Operationalization
of Nso functionalist Theory
While motivational studies of attitudes never were fully eclipsed, interest in
functionalist analysis of attitude formation was revived in the 1980s when theorists
refined methods of operationalizing its key concepts (Pratkanis, Breckler &
Greenwald, 1989). Herek along with Snyder, Shavitt and others discussed below,
helped the renewed interest in the broad field of functionalist attitude research with
their reformulation of functionalist theory and novel experimental designs. Herek
termed his conceptual focus neofunctionalist theory (Herek, 1986).8
Hereks research (1987) used essay content analysis to refine persistent
functional themes in college student essays about controversial topics. He then
administered a battery of personality and psychological tests to verify that the
attitudes identified in the essays had a basis and function in the students personality
structure. Nine of ten scale validity tests found significant correlations between his
test instruments and the themes that emerged from the essay analysis (p. 287).
8. Hereks publishing dates may cause confusion. The 1986 paper, The Instrumentality of Attitudes:
Toward a Neofunctional Theory, was based upon the work in the paper, Can Functions be Measured?
A New Perspective on the Functional Approach to Attitudes, published in 1987. All of the
experimental work for the 1987 paper came before the conceptual thinking reported in 1986. The
1986 paper is hilly based upon the work published in 1987. Within the 1986, paper Herek refers to
the 1987 paper as (Herek, 1986) because it was unpublished at the time.
63


Using a factor analysis upon trait and essay scales, Herek found the construct
validity of his revised attitude functions schema was robustly supported. He found
that attitude functions served two major domains--the Evaluative and the Expressive
aspects of attitude formation (1986).
The Evaluative domain related to the utilitarian aspects of an attitude object.
The rewards or punishments associated with the attitude object gives the individual a
schema or structure of understanding concerning physical and psychological benefits
and problems with the object. This is a learning, cognitive, experience based use of
attitudes. In contrast, Herek saw the Expressive domain of attitude functions as
serving the need to affirm core values, align with others either based on values or
affiliation needs, or to reduce intrapsychic conflicts. Based upon his
operationalization of attitude functions, Herek divided the Evaluative/Expressive
domains into four functions (1986, 1987) 9
1. Experiential-Schematic. This function is similar to the original knowledge
function combined with elements of need satisfaction based upon experience. An
9. Following these definition, the four functions may be indicated by either complete names or
initials: ES= Experiential-Schematic, SE=Social-Expressive, VE=Value-Expressive, and
D=Defensive.
64


I
evaluative function that derives its meaning from the uses of the attitude object for
the person holding it
2. Defensive. Similar to the Ego-Defensive function outlined on page 57.
Involves projections of personal conflicts onto external persons or entities.
Defensive attitudes can be hostile and will involve discomfort with attitude objects as
well as attempts to avoid them.
3. Social-Expressive. Approaches that fulfill the need to fit into social and
interpersonal structures during conversational interactions. It involves high public
self-consciousness and concern over oneself as a social stimulus and one's
relationships to others.
4. Value-Expressive. Approaches that Focus upon behaviors and expressions
that are honest reflections of ones underlying attitudes and feelings. Less concern is
shown for the social impact of expression. (A fuller explication of the operational
meanings of functions for this study will be found in Chapter 3 (pp. 112-127).
Expressive functions are divided into Social-Expressive (needs to be accepted
by a social group), Value Expressive (needs to self-define and align with reference
groups and values), and Defensive (needs to reduce threats to ones ego). Subsequent
research about self-monitoring persons indicated that the Social-Expressive/ Value-
Expressive dichotomy was reliably measurable.
i
i
i
i
I
i
65


Herek pointed out that while the original functionalists, Katz, Smith and their
colleagues saw functions as related to stable personality traits, The neofunctional
model allows attitude functions to vary across situations and attitude domains as
well (1986, p. 107). Attitude functions, according to Herek, were as triggered by
personal, attitude object (termed domain) and situational differences. Table 2.1
shows how he related functional approaches to the three functional arousal areas.
Attitudes toward objects as complex as schools and a childs school experience will
not fit neatly into specific cells on Table 2.1. A parents needs can resonate with
more than one situation or domain within the totality of the students school
experience. For example, a parent may have a strong concern for personal well
being of her student but finds the attitude object at school relates to personal values
(found in the Domain column). Further, the situation may develop conflicts within
the parent producing Defensive attitudes. In this example, the attitude function does
not fit within one row of Table 2.1. Only further study will reveal whether person,
domain or situational variable determine which functions will be used.
Satisfaction survey scales, unless they are very detailed, can not capture the
richness of an interactive interview technique that probes interrelationships between
person, domain, and situational variables for the individual. Herek's typology helped
guide the structure of the AFT interviews.
66


Table 2.1
Potential Sources of Attitude Functions
Person has... Attitude Object (Domain)... Situation...
Experiential- Specific strong concern for personal well being itself has been source of reward or punishment evokes memories of interaction with object
Experiential- Schematic strong concern for personal well- being is viewed as member of larger category that was source of reward or punishment evokes generalizations from past interactions related to personal well being
Anticipatory- Evaluative has strong concern for future well- being not encountered, but information available about it evokes anticipation of interaction with specific object
Value- Expressive strong ideology is relevant to values makes values salient
Social- Expressive strong need for affiliation is salient to important others makes group salient
Note. From The Instrumentality of Attitudes: Toward a Neofunctional Theory, by
G. M. Herek, 1986, Journal of Social Issues. 42 (2). p. 109. (Herek, 1987).
Reprinted with permission of the author.
67


The Creation of the Attitude Functions Inventory
In order to measure attitude functions more efficiently, Herek devised the
Attitude Functions Inventory (AFI). The AFI is a questionnaire based upon essay
analysis of attitude functions. The instrument was calibrated against nine
independent measures of personality traits and found to be a robust measure of
attitude functions (Herek, 1987).
Subsequent studies have used the AFI (or adapted forms) as an instrument to
study attitudes toward automobiles, air conditioners, equal rights, abortion (Anderson
and Kristiansen, 1990), political sophistication (Ing, 1992), attitudes toward gay
persons (Doyle, 1996), the relationship between values and functions (Murray,
Haddock & Zanna, 1996), and motivation toward volunteerism (Clary, Snyder,
Ridge, Miene & Haugen, 1994). The results have generally supported the AFI as an
appropriate measure of attitude functions (Anderson & Kristiansen, 1990) with the
caution that widely differing attitude domains will not have a uniform distribution of
attitude functions for the general population. In this regard, Herek (1987) cautioned
that a reanalysis of appropriate function scales must be completed if the AFI is used
for attitude objects different from his original study.
68


Studies Validating AFT Designs and Adaptations
This study of parent attitude functions used an adapted form of the AFI. The
validity of modifying functions inventory-type instruments has been studied by
Shavitt (1985), Anderson and Kristiansen (1990), and Gastil (1992).
Shavitt (1985) devised a coding scheme that collected reactions toward
several objects including air conditioners, coffee, the flu, wedding rings, American
flags, the Republican party, personal appearance, and gay persons. The study
focused upon whether attitudes toward these objects would engage primarily one
function. For example, the American flag was projected to be primarily related to
Value-Expressive functions. Participants further validated the primary attitude
functions they maintained by rating the contribution of relevant factors. Shavitts
contribution to methodology was the use of a thought-listing approach that avoided
the inevitable influence that question wording would introduce if she had used a
printed questionnaire (Sudman, Bradbum & Schwartz, 1996). The method was an
effective way to probe functional thinking. The coding scheme used for participant
responses was found to be a robust methodology for identifying primary functions
used by individuals.
Anderson and Kristiansen (1990) rewrote the AFI to study attitudes toward
cars, air conditioners, gay rights, and abortion. The specific attitude objects were
69


chosen because they would serve diverse functions. Air conditioning and cars, for
example, were thought to employ Experiential-Schematic and Social-Expressive
functions while gay and abortion issues would relate to Value-Expressive and
Defensive functions. Factor analyses revealed that the revised AFI did measure
different functions for separate attitude objects. These studies supported Hereks
belief that the AFI could be modified to identify functions served by opinions about
diverse attitude objects. Also supported by both Anderson and Kristiansen (1990)
and Shavitt (1985) were the relationships between attitude objects and specific
functions. For example, wedding rings were strongly related to symbolic (Value-
Expressive) functions, while cars served Social-Expressive and Experiential-
Schematic needs.
Gastil (1992) probed the functions that support pro-democracy attitudes using
a triangulated design. Participants were selected for pro-democracy beliefs using a
screening device. Then participants wrote a paragraph explaining why they believed
in democracy. Following that, a list of sentences was presented in a form that
paralleled the AFI. Six possible attitude functions were probed. The students had to
express a level of agreement with each sentence. Finally, they were asked to judge
the persuasiveness of six pro-democracy arguments. The results were subjected to a
factor analysis that identified the four functions found on the AFI as a reasonable (but
not perfect) measure of pro-democracy attitude functions. Three essential points are
70


relevant to Gastils study. First, altering the attitude object will alter the types of
functions manifested by participants. The assumption that functions are uniform
across attitude domains has never been supported (Herek, 1986). Second, Gastil,
along with Anderson and Kristiansen (1990), Shavitt (1985), and Herek (1987) have
demonstrated the robustness of using a checklist inquiry method for probing attitude
functions. Third, adaptations of the AFT or AFI-type questionnaires and checklists
have produced generally reliable separations of attitude functions. This method
produces valid measures of functional thinking when proper precautions are taken to
validate the questions used in each study (Gastil, 1992).
Introduction to Recent Neofunctionalist Attitude Research
The following review of recent research generally follows the person, domain
and situation schema proposed by Herek (1986). Person variations are explored first
using the Snyder and DeBonos work on self-monitoring motivations. This work is
important both theoretically and empirically. The methodology used reliably
produced results that were directly attributable to theoretical formulations. The
succeeding work about message matching exemplifies the use of functional analysis
to examine and illustrate theoretical predictions, scilicetattitude functions are strong
motivators of behavior. The next two sections address the complexities of
functionalist analysis of values and observation confirmation. The values-function
71


relationship studies broaden the understanding of the Value-Expressive functional
area and raises challenging questions about the motivations behind appeals to values.
Equally illustrative of both functionalist methodology and theory are the succeeding
studies reporting the complex way individuals functional approaches produce the
interpersonal results they seek in others. The research review ends with three studies
that illustrate the application of functionalist analyses to societal concerns. Crossing
person, domain, and situational dimensions, these studies show how functionalist
analyses can apply theory to everyday situations.
Person Variations
The initial functional research (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956)
examined the psychological needs met by the maintenance of attitude functions. The
underlying assumption was that each individual employs a constellation of
motivations for holding attitudes. The corpus of functionalist research into variations
between people supports the concept that attitude functions interact with and provide
support for deeply held values and motivations (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
This review of recent work begins with self-monitoring studies. Self-
monitoring studies are used in functionalist analysis because they are based upon
reliable indicators of individual variations in personal motivations. Attitude
functionalism was initially abandoned because of the a posteriori nature of its
72


hypotheses. By identifying a function that is reliably measured and can easily fit into
a model of behavior, researchers can manipulate variables and achieve considerable
depth of understanding (Shavitt, 1989). Most important for experimental verification
of attitude functions is the necessity that attitudes serve multiple functions (Rajecki,
1982). The potential variability of functions for any specific attitude makes
verification of functionalist theories possible (Snyder & DeBono, 1989). All of the
studies of person-to-person variation supported that assumption. In order to clarify,
consider attitudes toward the American flag. The attitudes toward the flag may
symbolize a need to express ones belief in patriotism (Value-Expressive function) or
a need to openly show solidarity with ones country or social group (Social-
Expressive). Attitudes that have clear variability provide illustrations of the role that
functions play in attitude formation.
Person VariationsiSelf-Monitoring
and Attitude Confirmation
Snyder (1979, 1987), Snyder and DeBono (1985, 1987, 1989), and DeBono
(1987) have explored the functional dynamics of high and low self-monitoring
individuals. Self-monitoring refers to the awareness of attitude declarations that
individuals bring to public utterances. This categorization has been reliably
established using Snyders Self-Monitoring Scale (1974). High self-monitors
deliberately attempt to fit in to perceived social situations and reference groups.
73


I
They want to be the type of person they think each specific situation requires (Snyder
& DeBono, 1989). In Hereks neofunctionalist schema, they are termed Social-
Expressive. They want to learn from their present situation and adjust. In contrast
are low self-monitors who are individuals who use an internal frame of reference.
Their guiding principles emerge from personally held values that are not affected by
their social surroundings. This type of motivation follows the Value-Expressive
schema. Low self-monitors want their public behavior to be true to their underlying
feelings, beliefs and values (DeBono and Edmonds, 1989). There has been consistent
support for a contrast between the self-monitoring categories.
Snyder and Debono (1985) studied characteristic ways high and low self-
monitoring individuals reacted to magazine advertising appeals. Participants were
first categorized into high and low self-monitoring groups. When presented with two
types of advertisements, one appealing to external image in public and the other to
intrinsic value or performance of a product, there were major differences in
participants reactions. The high self-monitors had a strong preference for product
characteristics that had image appeal. The low self-monitors had positive reactions to
value and quality appeals. The functional group (high and low self-monitors)
reactions were consistent and supported a coherent schema for categorizing
functional approaches among individuals (p. 592).
I
j
i
j
74
I


DeBono (1987) confirmed that appeals to the functions served by different
types of self-monitoring approaches would have a strong effect if the appeal matches
the function. This confirmed the Snyder and DeBono (1985) study and added
important insights. Using a participant experimental condition that required the use
of a very creditable outside expert, it was found that attitudes could be changed if
subjects were convinced that their current attitudes did not serve the functions they
thought they did (p. 284). Specifically, the guest expert of high stature delivered two
messages: a Social-Expressive message that belief in institutionalizing persons with
severe mental incapacity showed caring, or that a belief in deinstitutionalizing
persons with severe mental incapacity showed courageous imagination (p. 282). It
was found that recall of salient points was stronger if the message matched the
students attitude orientation-high or low self-monitoring. Rapid access to the
schematicity of functions was found among low self-monitoring individuals.
Mellema and Bassili further developed this theme in 1995.
Appeals derived from the status of a guest lecturer changed minds but in a
manner that did not require complex cognitive processing, only consideration of the
status of the speaker when the message was not functionally relevant to the listener.
When the message was functionally relevant, the participants to the pro and con
arguments gave deeper consideration. This research confirmed there is a match
between the functional base of an attitude and the extent to which the communication
75


addresses that functional base as one determinant of the persuasiveness of a message
(p. 284).
The implication stemming from the AFI confirmatory discussion above and
DeBonos (1987) research is that individuals bring predispositions of object
evaluation to everyday attitude objects when the objects are relevant to Social-
Expressive and Value-Expressive attitude domains. The implication of the work on
function-message relationships was that communications become more persuasive if
they matched the message to the functional requirements of the recipient (Snyder &
DeBono 1985, 1989; DeBono, 1987). This finding raised several issues concerning
the purpose of maintaining high and low self-monitoring functions of Value-
Expressiveness and Social-Expressiveness. This issue was addressed by Mellema
and Bassili (1995) who introduced a response latency technique to verify their
suppositions about the purpose of the functions.
Mellema and Bassili (1995) studied the strength of self-monitoring by using
the speed of response (termed response latency) to a the Self-Monitoring Scale
(Snyder, 1974). They studied how people in the low and high self-monitoring
conditions would tie their values to their attitudes. They found that the speed with
which individuals can recall their attitudes and values predicts the alignment of their
values with their attitudes. High self-monitoring individuals were less likely to have
attitudes closely related to their values. Attitudes appeared to serve functions that
76


were closer to the Social-Adjustive needs of high self-monitoring individuals and
value-expressive needs of low self-monitors. In other words, The moderating effect
that self-monitoring has on the relationship between attitudes and values is, in turn,
moderated by the [self-awareness] of the self-monitoring construct [s] (p. 889). In
effect, we organize our thoughts to have a ready schema to decipher our world. The
schema then becomes both a filter for our interpretation of information and a
motivator for the maintenance of our beliefs. (See Snyders work upon confirmatory
analyses, below).
Sudman, Bradbum, and Schwartz (1996) warned that response latencies
should be used in conjunction with other measures to verify the full meaning of
response differentials between subjects. They suggested the use of, at least, one other
method in order to understand subject thinking and to provide convergent validity of
any conclusions from response latencies alone. They felt pauses alone do not provide
direct indications of thought. The full context of subject utterances must be
combined with the rapidity of those pauses.
The person-to-person variability studies reviewed above confirmed the
measurability of functional approaches related to Social-Expressiveness and Value-
Expressiveness. The methods used related message matching approaches where
consistency of functions were related to the types of messages accepted by
77


participants. The internal dynamics of the message matching processes are a
noteworthy enhancement of neofunctionalist thought.
Person and Domain Variations:
Message Matching and Persuasion
The self-monitoring studies cited above found that matching messages to
functional motivations of individuals increased the persuasiveness of the message.
This has been a consistent finding across all functions studied (Clary, Snyder, Ridge,
Miene, & Haugen, 1994; Shavitt, Lowrey & Han, 1992; Snyder, 1993).
Dominant function findings played a role in the Shavitt et al. (1992) study
of functional effects and self-monitoring. While the results of their study did support
the importance of self-monitoring characteristics, it was also found that attitude
objects related to a single function have a stronger effect upon participant attitudes
than attitude objects that appealed to more than one function. Matching a persons
strongest attitude function to functionally unambiguous objects had the greatest
effect. Attitude change occurred when there was a congruence between message,
attitude, and the function of the attitude for the recipient.
Methods of attitude change related to specific functions were studied by Clary
et al., 1994). The researchers first ascertained participants basic attitude functions
toward voluntarism by the use of a questionnaire. They were either given
functionally relevant or irrelevant messages concerning volunteer!sm. A follow-up
78


questionnaire found that the most persuasive message matched the participants
dominant function. Clary et al. (1994) concluded, The functional approach offers a
strategy for persuasioncreate messages that engage the psychological functions that
underlie peoples attitudes with respect to volunteerism and then target a (functional)
message to an individual for whom that function is important (p. 1144). This
verified previous persuasion studies and illustrates the strength of focusing upon
dominant functions.
Snyder (1993) illustrated the vital role that functionalist analysis can play for
volunteerism by describing an action research project that assisted an ongoing
support program. The functionalist approach helped to understand how to effectively
help in the recruitment, placement, and retention of volunteers in an AIDS support
program. Using, in part, the functional matching concepts discussed above, Omoto,
Snyder and Berghuis (1992) reported strong support for maintaining and sustaining
the volunteer program Snyder (1993) described.
Person. Domain, and Situation Contexts:
Functions and Values
The persistent appeal to values as a basis for personal belief systems and
attitudes suggests that values have a central place in our approach to everyday
experience. Tenacious adherence to values is a central motivator of low self-
monitors, those individuals who have a need to openly maintain their standards no
79


matter what the social consequences. Researchers have noted the similarity between
values and prized possessions (Abelson, 1986). Prentice (1987) studied the
similarities between possessions, attitudes, and values to determine if they resemble
each other at deeper levels. She asked participants if they would rate typical
possessions along symbolic to utilitarian (instrumental) dimensions. From her
initial studies, she was able to place most attitude objects along the symbolic-
utilitarian dimension. The subjects then sorted the possessions in terms of perceived
similarity in value. From this, participants were categorized according to how they
prized their possessions. Weeks later the subjects were given different persuasive
appeals to public issues and asked to judge their reaction to each. In line with
expectations, people who viewed valued objects symbolically responded more
affirmatively to the symbolic attitude appeals. Individuals who viewed possessions
instrumentally showed no preference. Prentice concluded that Individuals who
favor possessions, attitudes, and values that allow them to express their personal
identities may bring a similar approach to the evaluation of a host of other mental and
physical objects as well (p. 1001).
Following this analogous relationship to its logical conclusion, Abelson and
Prentice (1989) describe the opportunity and sunk costs of holding symbolic
attitudes. Opportunity costs relate to the beliefs we abandon when we change
fundamental beliefs. Sunk costs are those associated with belief abandonment. In
80


their analogical view, symbolic beliefs require deeper personal investment as does the
most prized possession. Loss of either is psychologically costly. Individuals will not
quickly give up valued ideas or possessions.
Value-Expressive functions offer a highly motivating and tenacious
organization for individuals approaching related attitude objects. Reflecting upon the
values-attitude controversies in Chapter I, it is apparent that both sides of the school
quality debate have much invested in their points of view.
The nature of purposeful and persistent values maintenance raised questions
when attitude researchers noted persistent appeals to the value of patriotism for
bigoted groups (Faludi, 1991). What was apparently defensive to an outside observer
was termed patriotic by a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The convenient
rationalization of an appeal to values gives a moral stature to socially unacceptable
behavior. The occurrence of value conflicts justifying intergroup rejection suggested
that values-based attitudes might represent easy rationalizations. The study of the
rhetorical use of values percolated through attitude research community and gained
the attention of attitude researchers (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Haddock,
Zanna, & Esses, 1993).
The nature of the discussion of Value-Expressive functions and related
personal values raised concerns that value expressions would not be consistently
based upon principled reasoning. Kristiansen and Zanna (1988) studied the
81


hypothesis that people will seek values to justify their beliefs. They studied the
effects that self-monitoring had upon the extent to which values were selected to
support attitudes about abortion and placement of nuclear weapons. As expected,
high self-monitors did not have strong value preferences while low self-monitors
selected values to justify their beliefs (p. 253). The finding was significant because
it supported other studies demonstrating that values were used as justification for
inter-group conflicts (Kristiansen, 1990). In effect, low self-monitors who declared
their conceptions of values regardless of the consequences appeared to cite values
that fit into their predispositions to believe.
Kristiansens focus upon the motivations for selecting convenient values to
defend identity positions was addressed in a study of gay men and lesbian groups in
England (1990). Kristiansen found that self-concept is closely tied to symbolic
attitudes. She found support for the claim that symbolic attitudes are rationalizations
of prejudicial attitudes in the form of appeals to values. Appeals to values were used
to exaggerate perceptions of intergroup differences.10 It is apparent that low self-
monitors would be more likely to be involved in discordant relations based upon their
characteristic attitude functions and use of values positions.
10. In the present study there were clear instances of strong opposition to bilingual education and
English as a second language classes based upon personally held values.
82


Full Text

PAGE 1

+)>3/%3#? #99%>*#5)3#@)9%A#5@9/+%%?9 @")B #+/8.,6 #3C!"8.,7 # "/@" @* )?" 8...

PAGE 2

8...@")B #" D

PAGE 3

@* @")B #@" 5 @

PAGE 4

B@")&*@)?"' > *#9 #*#@" # 95#/ %" 9" E (" "# >" +!E#>"&#>' "&'" F((""(" "#>* #>("" "

PAGE 5

%" (" "("(" 9 E? "* ""("("" *GG "(" 9(" E 9 #@"

PAGE 6

@)@/#%3 B)B" H

PAGE 7

#/I3%A?)@B))3 #! H #"!"#@" "/@" ""C A!"? !C"+! B?@"

PAGE 8

/%3)39 >" /+#*)5 35%@/%38 ?*< 5 %9?, %?/. /#>88 *> #>F>8= +!38< *9/B8. *== 5J=1 @9=6 9=< ?=< *9=7

PAGE 9

/=7 =?)5#5)5)K)A12 /#>1= K*%9?1= 99"1. %99"F91. %9"#968 5)%9" #961 3*%* #967 9 *%9"<8 %><= >#<6 >#<; @)#><7 +!%$ 3,1 /#>,7 9K#>@#,. 53#5;8 L*K;= M

PAGE 10

*KF9( #/;1 *@KF *;7 *@9/F >K;. *@9/F "/GK# >9%7, @KF#># #%H7. 9>*.1 9?5".< 1)+%@%?%BC.; #>""99.7 *99".. 99822 99982= )FI(<82< 9BF,(8=82, #B82, D *#9*82, )9)82; H 8

PAGE 11

)*827 #>"*#827 9/)#82. K%#>882 ##>J9#888 ##>)"" #9F) "/881 /*8=. /!5>)812 //"81< *"81, 5#81, 581; ?5#81. 5>#>/*862 "*868 /J"J" 9#>86= 9 86; 9 5* 99"86;

PAGE 12

9 5#>"867 9 5 *99"#>"8<2 /8<8 /5*9 9"8<8 /5#>"8<= 5#8<6 5J8<; 65)9?98,2 9K8,= 9K8,1 99K8,1 )8,6 B?"8,6 9)98,< 3>8,< *998,, 5J88,, *9#>8;2 *"#8;=

PAGE 13

*" )(9>8;1 9" )(9>8;7 *" 9()">8;. 9" 9()">871 *" K()">871 9" K()">87, *"@">87; 9" @">8.8 9*"#8.8 5J=8.= 5J18.6 5J6=2= 5J<=2; 95=2. <@9/99%3=86 I>=8< >=8,

PAGE 14

)(9>=8; K()">==8 @">==; 9()">==. 9#>=12 /*#>=18 *9=18 @B=16 /3# 9%=1< 99> *#9F? >#*=17 /"#=1. /J/=1. =62 #=6= 5/> *"=66 >@5#*%=<2 9@*5 >=<8 J#9=<,

PAGE 15

/=<; #**)3@M=<. #*#5)395K)C%>9/+%%?9#9>#/%3F 35%@/%5C9/5*=<. *+%3)9/5*>%5*#5)395K)C%> 9/+%%?9#9>#/%3(#*5?8..7=,2 /#>95K)C35%@/%5C5)#5I9=,1 @#>3)5K)A/%@3B/+)/I?9=,< )>3/%3#?93)5K)A5#3B K)5>/#%3=,; 5)>)5)3/)9=,7

PAGE 16

>B5)9 > =8/"K@"#

PAGE 17

# ?)9 88/)#>A+!E 587 8=95B9"*# *98..1(8..,=2 =8*9#>,; 189#>".7 1=*K)J/ *9821 11*/F*9?826 16/%A#>886 1<*95F /K5E*862 1,/9#* 5J8<7 68/(@*9>8,; 6=/(@*> 3>8;2 61/>**>8;8 66/(@*> 998.1

PAGE 18

6 9?"8.< 6,/(@)"")">8.< 6;/(@*>99 9?"8.; 67/(@*> 9?"998.7 6./(@*> 9?"3>=28 682/(@*>)=26 688/(@*> 9?")=2< 68=/(@*>99 )=2< 681/(@*>B?" )=2, 686/(@*> 9B?"=2; 68<9/(@ />@=8= <8#>*#)%=<6

PAGE 19

/+#*)58 35%@/%3 >"$ 366 E C # "!9" N!-" &3/))8.71O 8..,O 0 8..<'+E "A "P (

PAGE 20

>!9EQ@ "-&8..<<76'95 "(8.,2 & 8..;O/+!0A8..8' #"@ @N" !RPE !S+ PE-&8..1 ,=7' N-&8..;8=='# H"&B 8..68..<8..,'" H$ & 8..;'8 /#35! 8H! 5! !& 8..;8..;'

PAGE 21

!"& 8..;'##3#5!NTU" -& 8..;811' "&/+0A8..8O3 /)98..6O90+8..1OK8..<'P *9" N(-&#=68..;' #! "( & 8..;'K $ /$"> & 8..;' 9" &' *&' E* """! !"" & 0 8..<<'/ 81 V

PAGE 22

""8..=8..7 =8" ) "( """ 98.,,H&N/EB 3-8..7'""" /""# NB%9@& 8..;' $" "&'" "&I8.76' ": *"""# "" %#)>N! -"&' &98.,1'

PAGE 23

N"9 9 E H A "(PA "# "P ?* $"=> / &/5"9==(;(=2<&8'==(;(826&8'' ="$9 A !"

PAGE 24

!E" "" """! ""# "# $ /"" 3 5*% 9? + "*

PAGE 25

"&/A8.==(8.61 *%877.(8.26') 5&8.;7' &8.<='"E +&8.67'EN"-! +E" #"F # !E ( E") E! E #?9E&8..,' 3)98.., *$ *N/! -&8.'/@"I +

PAGE 26

1"" )59 &B8..,8..,'6>3E!&8..,'@"# /#99 NA""P-A "" !"&?"8.,<' AB""( "< "&/0*8.<1OB8.7;8..18..6 8..<8..,O+0+8.<=O3)#8.<7O 1 6"" !#35!
PAGE 27

3%5/8.66O5B0)8..;O9 8.,<'B"! )" H"H ?!! "" "! &)8..=OB8.7<' "! %?/ 9? !"&/ 0 38.;;' " !" A

PAGE 28

# &/8.;,'@ "" B&8..18..68..<8..,' #$ "&3 )#8.7<8.7<'B&8..18..68..<8..,' "" ""H "@> !"! "*! "! E"" $#9 # 82

PAGE 29

"" """ /#> $FA "" P5"822W " &'EA$ & 8..1' "P 9 S" "&I$8.,2O9 0

PAGE 30

A8.<,'" # *># >F> > ""&%! 8.;;'" ""P *" A" &+"V0I8.<1'" $ !9 A&8.<,'OI$ &I$/!098.<;O90I$8.<6OI$0 98.<.' >"

PAGE 31

) &)0/!8..1' >" >$ "&*8.7;' ""A HF39 )(@K))F, 8%$" I =39O #9 #H" ,"$ 81

PAGE 32

1)(@#( 6K) "$ ("E "$" I$&8.7.'=. !!!F !-&' >( @ "$&0 98..2' #

PAGE 33

+!3 "$ "B+!E!$ + &+! 8.7,8.7;'+!S!"" &/!098.7;O)0/!8..1O%0 48..1O%!8..8O9"8.7.O90@ 8.7.O0 98..2'+! "&+!8.7,8.7;' +!E "$ &)0/!8..1O%0 48..1O5$0*8..2'+! 3+!" "+!$ ")"")"+" F 8)(99I( 8<

PAGE 34

#""" HA &!'" """" "! +!)(9 )"" =@"9)(@"&)0 /!8..1'""H /"" @"#" !"( @"""H "@" &9 0@ 8.7.' 8,

PAGE 35

19)"# ""(" 6K)">" S"*K()" @"9()"K()" )"+! I$&8.,2' 9&8.<,'+!E88 /= &>8,8' +!#>"&#>' #> 5>+!E "+!E $&=8' 9 H &%!8..8'>"

PAGE 36

" �I8..2O+!8.7;O'9 "&)0/!8..1'" ( &9"8.7.O9@ 8.7.'9" H )""A "" A "" # "! " "" 87

PAGE 37

88 /)#>+!E5 %>1+!E> )""F )(9 )"F 399)" )(@"@" K)K)" 1%>9 A 8.<,OI$8.,2OI$/!098.<;OI$098.<.O 90I$8.<6 *9/B #B9"*#* 9&8..18..68..<8..,' "" 8.

PAGE 38

$$E" @"" "#" "!B 8= B9"* #*98..18.., "H" /"" "P@"( "PA $ > EP9 "P ""&E'

PAGE 39

8= 95B9"*#*9 8..1(8.., N# /@>" P*# "@>#998..1( 8.., C B #" #" #" B #" #" #" 8..1 #X 71W ,2W @X>6W 8=W 8..6 #X 7=W <=W 81W 8..< #X ,1W <6W @X> .W86W 8.., #X ;6W<7W @X>;W86W #B&8..18..68..<8..,' "* > 9

PAGE 40

""; " " !!" "" #>"" "(" "" !!" ;#"""

PAGE 41

" "" 9 5J 8A"E P =A" E&'"&' "P 1A" E&'&' P 6A ?)P

PAGE 42

"&#>'* "E # K(" "F ("#># "#> "!( """> (*" =6

PAGE 43

9 #>" """ #> "9" " H9(( > =<

PAGE 44

? #> /#> $#> #> " #># +!E""" """ " !)"#> 1=+! 9""

PAGE 45

" H""" %> &)(9K( )"9()"@"'" ""9 " #> +!E! "! "*!" #>"! "" "$ D"" =;

PAGE 46

$" ""$ EE *9 >"5?#F /8( /=(?" /1( /6(5 /<(@ 5 # / *" D=7

PAGE 47

> +!&8.7;'" #> ""+! ( "E" E" =.

PAGE 48

/+#*)5= ?)5#5)5)K)A E F9 "" (62 """ (""* "" "# E! "" *""" > >"

PAGE 49

" "" &'"" +!&8.7;'# >" "9" """ " (" "> >E #"#> +!E9 18

PAGE 50

/#> #" """ "&)0/!8..1O90A8.,;')"! &%8.7.') "" &%!8..8'% #H&' #" K" "&5! 8.,7' K*%9? ""& 0/ 8.<1'+ 1=

PAGE 51

" "&/8.<2' 98;;. VF " $ &38.17<8,' *E5&8.;6'" &'""" "5" 87127,23&8.17' T"#U % H&8;,' E VE 8.12 & 0/8.<1' 11

PAGE 52

"" $# *#H/A8.8<8.16 $*%877.8.263E 9 &8.=7(8.16'RE /A*#H "8) 5&8.;7'N -&81' N@*-/A H"* H" 8$A =2"$ 16

PAGE 53

F ""&' 5 "" &8.;7'#5N*" 9 TU! "-&81'5 $$ )5A &8.<=' #$ ("-&7=' &/A+8.78O+8.78O58.;7'> &' 8

PAGE 54

" &8..;<2' RTU"" R!PE"!+&8.67'F 9 !)" TU! "TU !&=2' !" "!$ /"&8..,'" ("" /"&8..,'$"" 3)9E" *3C!&8..,'5B"E! N -&1='/"!N*"" 1,

PAGE 55

D "-&1=' ?5!#! """" NA$"" "!-&18' "" H! "!* $$/" %E&8..,'N -& /"8..,18' !" + /" H "! >%&8..7')&8..<'

PAGE 56

""""" """ !#$ """ &>0%81;(86=' H "" ""/" ( (! "* "" # "" 17

PAGE 57

99" ( 8.<2#" "&' " N"-$ %99"F9 9"" ""($" &8.8.'#V*" "878; !"&@?8.77' 9"" >!E 1.

PAGE 58

$$&/ 8.72' #8.5"1,9 "+ "8,222 ("8.278.88&58.81O/8.,8'= """ ( :)%3V("8.82 &8.88'3C!&8.8=' *&8.81'/"&8.8<(8.8,'/""!=<" &/8.72'""" $9&8.=<' !"" 8.=28.12 =5E""""" 62

PAGE 59

"$ ( "&A0?8.;2' "H" =2 ($9/ $" %9"#9 (" "$ B" =2&/8.<8' 9" (" "" 68

PAGE 60

" #@?&8.77' "N"" -&.'""" &@8.,1' 9"" "1"" ""H $! H9" !& 8.<=O+0+8.<='" H"* 1"9$"# (!"" !(""& !8.;6O? 8.;8' 6=

PAGE 61

" %"" " 5)"*%9" #9 ""! !+ &/"8.7;OB8.7
PAGE 62

"+" "&+81(=6'> &8.<7' +9#!" #?$& !'E &58.<2' HG",2W"G" "H$ $"% !" 3)# 8.<28.<7 O O>/OV!"O9/OA%O 66

PAGE 63

/A H&3) #8.<78.<7'A" H"> &/8.<;'#"6<222 HA E ((?9)9 "A /" F !( (*# : !!TUTU TU &68'

PAGE 64

#3)* ( "# 5"(" "6" "& 8.<7O/8.<8O/0 *8.<1O+0+8.<=O3%5/8.66O 3)#8.<7O59"8.<28.<18.<7O9 8.,<'>"" ,. &'!!% +09&8.<2'+0+&8.<=' !" HA E" 6B" ",2W" 6,

PAGE 65

&+0+8.<=81'" E !" < 8.,2") !" "9 8.,2 &A8.;6'9 &/ 03 8.;;O50@!8.;6'/!&8.,6' "8.,2 < #"*# !& 8..< 6;

PAGE 66

" 3*%*#9 B8.,. ) &8.;1'"B"" + H)" B"! E&/8.7 !H&3) 8OV08..6' 67

PAGE 67

#8.7<=2'@! ""EB """!" 5"8=&=2' ""&B8..,'B $$@ ," H"" &B8.7B&8..,' > "&@>'81W" ( D H6. L

PAGE 68

H&/!?0)8.7.O)0/!8..1OI8.77O 0?8.;;' #"*# H !"( "8..6 >>FA#)*9 +" &V08..6' @A"*#F !"E" N-&17' 9> 5// B>5!>" "#" 4E! 4&8.768..='N) TU$-&86' <2

PAGE 69

A $ &') ; *#" #F 95&V0 8..<' )A!N* !9/-& 8..<'A"" ! *#" "++8.<=* 9*%9" "9 ;4! !"&48..=81' <8

PAGE 70

("$ !" A$ # %> >8. /@+99&87.,'"" """@E!"&8.=1' "" V@>" 87.,+ @ & 8.<2O 8..1O+!0#8..7' <=

PAGE 71

AV> )** 87.2K+ H VE E&87.787..8.82' >V #E" /+>&8.218.2;'+"# /#E"N $" $-&/8.=<8'/" "/ """+" H&/K'+ $&/0I .,2'>E <1

PAGE 72

># " &*"8..,' "?&8.==' "% "" @&8.278.=8'" @E""" B #&8.1;'" "#" "# N-&6.'+R $" H"-&67'$"" "" &)0/!8..1OB <6

PAGE 73

8 8.7,'BE" # B"" &8.7<'&'H #! "&+"V0I8.<1O 90I$8.<6' 9 A &8.<,'I$&8.,2' N%P-&9 0A8.<,8' %* &'82 9"&%!8.;;'>" !) L H" L L<<

PAGE 74

$ %( $ "+!E8.7; ">9E 9(#""+!E9()" >" $>$ $" @ # <,

PAGE 75

> ># > &I$8.,28.,7OI$/!098.<;O I$90/!8.<,OI$098.<.O90I$8.<6O 98.6;O9 0A8.<,'A HF 8%$" I =3(9 9()"

PAGE 76

1)(@"#( 6K() "$ ("E @)"#> &I$8.7.OI/08.,.' %$&+!8.7,' ( "&!8.,;' "&98..1'" """" <7

PAGE 77

)9&8.1<'#E&8.<<' O>05"&8.<.'5"E&8.,<' OE&8.,18.;6'O IE&8.<78.,88.;6' >#H$E&8.;<' B&8.,28.,2' A&8.;2'" I$9 A $>E" I$&8.,2'"+" "*B ($" &+!8.7,'+" "G /" &>8.<;')

PAGE 78

"> =8"" >=8!" $" #! #$>=8> > F> )(@" "" (" ,2

PAGE 79

*+, -+,. >3/%3#?9 #@) /%B3K)@99%3#3/) + #@) #@) #@) #@) >=8/" ,8

PAGE 80

" H) &!8.,;' "")( @"&I/08.,.' "!" "A8.,28.;2 "&>0 #H$O8.;"( "" &9/ 182.'+! >&)0/!8..1O 98..1' ,=

PAGE 81

+!%$ 3 A"" ""8.72 $!&*! !0 B8.7.'+!99" "+! N-&+!8.7,'7 +!E&8.7;' "+ E 3" &=7;' 7+!E8.7,#F 3!/>P #3*">##8.7;# !8.7;!8.7, 8.7,!8.7;A8.7,+! 8.7;N&+!8.7,',1

PAGE 82

+! ""+ "H(()"")" &8.7,' )""H H"" H" +!)" """ $+!")"":)" &8.7,8.7;'. 8)(9! # .> F)9Y)(99)Y9()"K)YK()" @Y@" ,6

PAGE 83

"""H =@"9)(@"<; ""H @"""H 19()"# """ ("S 6K()"#>" E? &# /1&88=(8=;' )""9()"& 'K)"&( "'@"&E'9 (9()":K( )"

PAGE 84

+!I$9 N -&8.7,82;'#+! H&'=8 #HE =8#E E >"N -H" &@'>" @" =8%" 9"" "" ""+!S #>" D

PAGE 85

=8 *9#> *#%H &@' 9 )( 9 "! H )( 9 Z "! $ #( )"" Z "! H K( )" " !" 9( )" 3>N#F3 B+!8.7,V96= 82.&+!8.7;' 5 ,;

PAGE 86

8 /#>" +!" #>"&#>'#> &+!8.7;' 9"#>&' &# I8..2'&8..=' &@8..,'"& +!048..,'""&/9 50+8..6'"#> �I8..2' +!&8.7;' #> H

PAGE 87

9K#>@# #> ""( 9"&8.7<'#I&8..2'B&8..=' 9"&8.7<'" "H# 5 H >#H K()"*" "9"E (" &9 09$8..,' "! #I&8..2'#> H

PAGE 88

""# )(99()" K()" @">""#> H+!E #>" "H##I&8..2' 9"&8.7<'H >&K( )"'"9()")( 9 B&8..='( *( "" > #>9 ">!H "(H #>& '( ;2

PAGE 89

"BE>H #'! "&+!8.7,'9B #I&8..2'9"&8.7<'+!&8.7;'" #>#>(! "!! "&B8..=' 53#5 +!&8.7,'*" 9@ E!("! G "" """( ;8 L

PAGE 90

K()" "" )" "E !" / *K &I$8.,2O9 0A8.<,' "" ""&)0/!8..1' "!(9Z """#

PAGE 91

""" &9"8.7.'" "&5H! 8.7='"! "&90@ 8.7.'# ((" # $E&K()"' E&9( )"'#""" *K9( #/ 9&8.;.8.7;'9@ &8.7<8.7;8.7.'@ &8.7;'"( "9( "$ 9E9(9&8.;6'+( ;1

PAGE 92

!&9 0@ 8.7.'+!E9( )"H (" "K()" ?(" "&@ )8.7.' ( 9@&8.7<'Z "$"* $(A "H E( (" "&(' $ "&<.=' ;6

PAGE 93

@ &8.7;'" (" 9@ &8.7<' H"" &=76'9" F9()"$ '$) !' &=7=' E((5 (" "8..< #" !" A" "N L V ;<

PAGE 94

"&=76' #>" @ E&8.7;'"H ""HH"9( )"K()"! (" &90 @ 8.7<8.7.O@ 8.7;'" (K( )"9()" &8..<'" &8..<'( &'9(9 &98.;6'( "" "+("!" "#" ;,

PAGE 95

9(#H"( "$ "("(N (" T(U(TU-&77.' $" "&99E! 9 9$&8..,' H" H H!""" H ((""" 9()"K( )" ;;

PAGE 96

*@KF (" """ &/95 0+8..6O9"?0+8..=O98..1' @9"&8..=' (A ( H" HE H # / 8..6'E "" """#( ;7 8 L

PAGE 97

"E /&8..6'N G E"&' "-&8866' "" 9&8..1'" "H "#@9 "% 9 &8..=' "9&8..1' *@9/F >K """ ""Z ""

PAGE 98

5" "$.7,'*&8.7;' "9! &'> H( H" ">$ $A!H"" !H ""H """ *N" "" H-&8228' ># *&8.7.'! % 9! 72

PAGE 99

"" $?" !"" K()"" $"H5 "("/ """ " &>8..8'A"" III" $"" ""HH "($ &)+!048..1O+! 40)8..1' K()" "" I4&8.77' 78

PAGE 100

!"H (" # (""( "H&=<1' "H (&I8..2'( "" IE""" )&8..2'I( 9$ H"#" 82Z !"" 82 )" 7=

PAGE 101

I4&8..6'" "" "" "H ""H " (""&0%8..<' %&8..<'" 5 K# "F 5%#>""" " &9"8.7<8..2'K( )"&I9()"' &'"K( )"&'K()""! "$"&'

PAGE 102

""( !"# F "(" !" "EH "&9"8..2=71' KI4&8..2'%&8..<' K()"3 (" K"H E"9 """$ H.778..6I048..6' "$ ""%9K7F *K" +!04&8..,' /"("F# "! 76

PAGE 103

" "( K()"&K)'9(#H"&9#'&+!E9()"' B""#> H A" H !"" "" "E $ K)9## K)9# K)9#" "K) 7<

PAGE 104

"""&>03 8., 9% #+!4&8..,' &B0 8.;8O+0 58.7,OI8.;.O38.7.O3VK0/O 8..1O5058.78O58.,7O50V8.,7O

PAGE 105

5"08.;1O9098.72' " "" "! /9&8..<'+9&8..='9 +&8..68..<'! "" " A//F#>#&/09 8..<'" "O&'&9( #H"'&)(9' " """ ")(9 7;

PAGE 106

"G""G &9()"'"( "" /99+ &8..<'F >" "" !" EH )(9" &"' &9()"'"E H 9+&8..6' F3)(99( )"":" H

PAGE 107

" "# )(9 "H &9()"' !" #" !" E" $ @KF#># /0& # D9 D L7. D

PAGE 108

9" " 1!' #@9"&*5K0I8.7.O?0 A&8..8'&908..6' E" #@9&#@9' *&8.7.'? A#@9" *F> #@9(O E#@9( &)(9'K()" &)(9'" .2

PAGE 109

&K()"' A" )(9 $ "" #@9"?A&8..8'" #@9 "# )(9 *" #@9"" "" .8

PAGE 110

#@@9" H"" "" "") +!&8.7,'=8&,;'+ H H+ "*" +#@9 H"&"' )#@9"! #@@9" 5I4E!&8.77'K( )"!H ""$H +!" 9&8..6'" .=

PAGE 111

"#" )(@/" 9( ("" "#+!E( H" 9>* "#" ( (" "K()"9()""

PAGE 112

" >" $" """ "" "" 99"&8.7.'"N H" H""H !"H&1==' > """ "/ I$99&8..1' 9*9* F #"N !-$" .6

PAGE 113

"" ">" " #! """ &=,8(=,=' 9?5" "F" "" E !" "> 99(" " .<

PAGE 114

!EO(9 A"" "" P)" $""H! 5! #>"&#>' #>" .,

PAGE 115

/+#*)51 )+%@%?%BC "9I$ &I$8.,2O90I$8.<6O98.6;O9 0A8.<,' 3" "H&+!8.7, 8.7;O9"8.7.O98..1'5 "H" "&%048..1' ( ""+!E# >"&#>'&8.7;' H* "*" &#>'"" "" .;

PAGE 116

#>""99 F&'*"E &'&'""*" """"1=H 18#>" 18 9#>" + # ?"999 +9?9 995 +?+ ? 66 66 66 66 .7

PAGE 117

*99" ",222 =<222 <
PAGE 118

" (" "( > "()!"#" )3() ?)*&?)*' "!! ("E& N9*99"-*" #! ,8," 99 #>"" "# 1=&821' "" 822

PAGE 119

! + 62 !H* !82"" 1=" 3" %? "! *8(8<\! "7<\! 9 "H &/8.72O38..1O9*998..7' 11&826' "< &]1'"

PAGE 120

! "" "!&9*998.., <,<' 2811 RE #" /E&8.<8'786 999 " "" ) "

PAGE 121

1= *K)J/*9 JK J8@P6 J=ETUP1 J1#E"6 TUP@!P TU J<@:6 P J,+EP6 J7E6 J.A"P6 J82+E""6 ""P JAP6 J8=%""< EP 821

PAGE 122

11 */*99" >?J J? J,8. J=<7= J1 1,8 J< ,;< J, ;=1 J(7 ,86 J. <,8 J82 ,;6 J,.. J8= ;2, 826

PAGE 123

)FI(< 89$ "3/) *!""3/) 9"!",< ==! =5: 9" 9822W! 9.2822W! 12W! 1?"/ &"'# ""9" 69 822WH"9.2 822W! 12 82<

PAGE 124

9FB,(8= B"B*# "#B*#1<" =229 ( #B @5#"" 9"" #"" *#9* /$" *!E 82,

PAGE 125

"E #> "E EE "" )9) ) 8=W "*"))* "" 82;

PAGE 126

)* !" "/ "! 3()! "! ##>"3 #" #>()! #>">*# #> !+!&8.7;'#>" "+!E! "+!"#> $$ +!)( 9@"9()")H 827

PAGE 127

" &' 9/)"# !+! "F 8#?B9&+!8.76'9 @"9()")(9 =*""" &+!8.7;=.2(=.8' 1#59&*8.,8'9 ( 69(/9 !&8.;;' <9("" +!&8.76' ,9@"&B0" 8.,.'$ 82.

PAGE 128

;*!"A&8.78' (" 7#&8.17' @"9()")(9 +!E" #> "K()"9#> FB:?#@9 #>11" $ "#> 8818=. K%#> 9H"#> ">" 882

PAGE 129

#>#> H" +!#>>#>N TU TUN3-NK-* )(9 9 )K)@"+! #>9" #>""H ##>J9# #>#> ( +!E!"#>&+! 8.7;O9"8.7.')#>

PAGE 130

E $+!E!9+! H &9"8.7<8.7;O9"0>$8.7;' $=8,; ""+!E &8.7,' #>11 +!E(( "">&' &('" >+!4E#> &8..;'"""8 8&8..;'#>R#>E#> " #>

PAGE 131

*""" H&88,8=='# H#" #>" ##>)""# 9F)"/ E" E" "NA "P#"&>$ 8.7.' )(9+"" $+!E!! "H"E 881

PAGE 132

16 /%#> %#>#> E ? )(9 8)91FA!E = )9F" 1H!)9
PAGE 133

16&/' 9()" < 9)8F+ ," 9)1F+ 9)
PAGE 134

16&/' K)" ; K)8F H 7K)1F K)
PAGE 135

16&/' @" .! 82 @)F&' @)1F H! @)6F @),F @).F9H! @)82FT U (@)=F (@)
PAGE 136

#>+!E !H &'""H /#>"" #>" #>" "" "" !@" HE&#F"/!' "" "&'%" " "+" 5" 887

PAGE 137

"! 9 ( )(9#H )( 9* !E ""$" / &!8.,;'" ")(9N%$ EH-&I$8.,2' H E*)9)9=)9<)9; )(9E 88.

PAGE 138

E )98F" )91FA!E )9
PAGE 139

()96F8E!E ()9,F8!E "" !! "3")(9 (* !E )(9A &K( )"9()"@"'"! >(" H ")(9 K()"K()"" )

PAGE 140

"B K()"@ "" &90@ 8.7;' K()"F K)8FH E"+!E#>&9 11826' K)1F "+! 4&8..,'K()" #>N -&88=' K)
PAGE 141

"&8..,8=.'9 "E 9HK()" 9()"99@ &8.7;8.7.'9 &8.;.8.7;'""K()" 9()"3" K()"F (K)=FE" (K)6F8" (K),F9 9()"9()" *9()" "* 9()"( H" 8=1

PAGE 142

"E&90@ 8.7 $" &'9()" E" H8=6

PAGE 143

(9)=F8" (9)6F8"E *"" *"" "A # K()" *(9)=(9)6 K()"" AK()" 9()" @"@"H : ""&>8.67O/8.<,'% H@" 8=<

PAGE 144

&/"/5!8.,2'9 ""&<<(<.' @" E @"""> E /" 3 ""@" @" 8=,

PAGE 145

@"F @)F&'" #I$&8.,28;='H NH "@)1FH! @"( @)1 ""F&'E &'&' E&' "" )(9 @)6F8" >& ('H @"9"&8.7.'B&8.7.' 8=;

PAGE 146

(("" @),F8 @).F9! / "@" @)82F# @"" &/"/05!8.,2O?8.,;'3"@" "@" 3"@"F (@)=F8 (@)6F8! (@),F8E (@)7F8 E +!!H = EE"

PAGE 147

!&8.7;=7.'+ "@" @" /* ""5( "& '""!&#' H !" ("("&<1= "'" 9H 9! ""! >@)6N" 8=.

PAGE 148

-"# "NAE "P-3"" "# 9 /!5>) $ #>" !" % H(( 8#! ">9)1N -N!-N!-N"F "F+"P F*FC! 812

PAGE 149

#9)1+" E "! =# H>!N H"K()"+" N-N@ H P-K()" N! -# #NE$# N-! *F% E !"" 818

PAGE 150

13"" H >N "-N! -9 > "@" *FE !$D "F#EP *F3 63("" "(" "FCE P *F5 "FC! E *F@!"T!EUP 81=

PAGE 151

<@"!&' &'"!@" &'" 9H@" @""@" @"&# H "F P *FT+U" A C" C"TU E"%" ,# @"+" H !""@"# @" 811

PAGE 152

!( @"F "#!P *F%E"H "!TU "CE P *F3 ;# @"9@" @) @)1@)6@),@). "! "+P *FTUT"UD #!TU EE E 7)3" H!" 816

PAGE 153

93"! "&' &'" H"" #") """ "" //" 9#V8 "NE" "-&058.7.'/ A&)98@)=' !" ( "E* ""! 81<

PAGE 154

@ ) "" *" #>" "" "! "( $0$2$2 #> 81,

PAGE 155

+!S#>$ 827#> $ +!E#>&16 886'+!S$ #$ ""//!&# =,<' 5 #"&>0 8.7.'"//!" (" """"3" 5 "5! #"" #&>"5K' 81; 8

PAGE 156

" E*& 'HE E F 8#EE @$" ""E #]8" /!5>) "#" "" =/EI&8.,2' I5/" #I;< I&I &3Y8='Y;,;Y222' &9*998..,8..7'%8=" 817

PAGE 157

8271W1< I ?5"# "! H """ !"! K! ! "E"! ( "" 81.

PAGE 158

1< *95F/"5* /E*> )99)K)@ 5E*> )968 9)= K)1 @)88 5>#>/* )"! "#" "1,! "" 862 ^

PAGE 159

"* #>"" =5" "E% "9""/ /!#&=,<' 1" &V8.7.'5 6"> """ < ,)"""/ /!&=,<'J" *H

PAGE 160

/J"J" 9#> "" 9"" %"" "#/= "H"" +!$ ""+ !H &8.7;' ##>" !"/="!" 86=

PAGE 161

HA" &/0B8..;'5 " /" +"! " H "( """ "9&8.77' NA "E $#&V8.77' L861 D

PAGE 162

"9I"&8.77' NTU "" "-&<86'I9E&8..8' N "H"(H" ("&/0B8..;' +&8.76' "" ""&+!8.7,8.7;'9" "I H)" L>5&8.7.;7' L866

PAGE 163

" &8.7.;7' """ /( &8..6'!! ""!/N "" "-&8;7'> "#> "!&90+8..68..<' +"+!&8.7,'9&8..1' H "("#>$ 86<

PAGE 164

"" "" """ """ "&/8(188,(81.'@ # N-" @" *( "" 86,

PAGE 165

9 #"""&> 8.76' "HG" #>") "" #> !") 9 5*99" 8" ( =#""8622" "!&?"! 8.7;' H86; D

PAGE 166

9 5#>" 8#>"! "" "822W "!(! #> =K()" H #>"!K()" "!"" ""K()" "!$* (HE 1*"#>" ( 6)!H#>"* "" 867

PAGE 167

<8"#>" "" #""" "&98..6'/! "" O&' "&' &' ,#>( 9H ;#>""" ##3%K# "&>&863Y 88;8'Y=7=.._222'" 86.

PAGE 168

9 5*99" #>" 8" " =""! " 1* 6#"" "9()"K "! "&9 09$8..,' "&90 8.7=' "#>" ":"> 9()"" 8<2

PAGE 169

"K()" "! &>8.76OB"0I8.;.OI8.,=O*!8.,2' """! "/!B&8.7;' &8.77'/69()" "" / /"" ""#>" /5*99" #"" #( 3" "9Z # 8<8 D

PAGE 170

" ")9 /! !) /5#+" #>" &18.7' 9H#> "#> "AH H #18 "> 5!) #> "" 8<=

PAGE 171

"19 "#>" E /"!!" "!@! 88#7*"" 9 ))*" $ ")*( "&90 8.7='*E & 08.76O90*8.78' 1#8..2=1" 8<1

PAGE 172

#5 #>" "!9 ""?" >/ &8..6'"" #>" A H "#" +&8,' "# 8<6

PAGE 173

$( 5= <$(1,8<; H &*0*8.;;' # B0+!&8.76'&8.;6'5 &8.;8'/+!&8.;78.;.'( "" /(1, (" $3 AA&8.;7' Q*>Q 8<<

PAGE 174

1, #/6" ( @" Q*>Q 1,> "Q*>Q86 Q*> 99"=6 "Q6Q *999 ==6 H &'!"&' 8<, L D

PAGE 175

5J 8A"E P =A" E&'"&' "P 1A" E&'&' P 6A ?)P

PAGE 176

1, /(9#* 5J```````*> K *>886 9>886 *(9 >8 66\ 99==6 *91=6 991 ==6 )"" )">1== 3>: 91 ==6 8<7

PAGE 177

1,&/' /(9#* 5J*> K )6 =6 *9 6 ==6 99 6 ==6 B?" 6 ==6 B?"< =6 3> ` =6 ( 8<.

PAGE 178

/+#*)56 5)9?9 ""( #" H"# NAP-NA !P-* "!J"F "!" J"" """ "( K" ( 8,2

PAGE 179

( "@H" " (" &98..8' "" " "" ) )" 8,8

PAGE 180

9K )$"E "*" ")" =< "" /<3 " ""(( "" )"" 8,=

PAGE 181

9K #" ""# "3 "# "! :$ 99K )!"9" E"" > " *" N@%I"" D 9 8 L8,1

PAGE 182

) 9"@" 3 # B?" 9" "&(' "&"'(# 6;&8.;' "("(#16 &=<"' "16=/( $ "(&3 A0A8.;7' 8,6

PAGE 183

9)9 3" ))* 9 "A "@&8..7(8...' 8=W# "")* 3> #"!&#' &'$ "( K()" ( 8,<

PAGE 184

*99 *$ # " 58 58!FA" E P! *( 68)(9K( )"# "F)9Y)( 99)Y9()"K)YK()"@Y@" 68 /(&=' D

PAGE 185

"" 1="" 8,88=1 8.=<21&'222 68 /(@*9> )99) K)@ M= 9 > *8,88=11=18.=<2222\\\\ 98=8 1 28, =8=7;< 22<\\ \\\\222 \\28 > )H �I8..2' 8,;

PAGE 186

)(9K()" !@ "" )# 9()"@" /< K()"@ ""K()" " "K()" 6=! 9#( ( =66= H L8,7 D

PAGE 187

K()")( 98 *" 6=$ )(9 )"K()"9( )"@"+!E" ))"/=,< *! &'! "(H !( 6= 83 "8, 8,.

PAGE 188

*9#> 61 K()"&' )(9&',1W $#/= K()"&('9()"&Z '"&98.;6' 6139()"K( 6= /(@*>*"3> )99)K)@=9 %>812=88, >1882=8, \\a28 8;2 18=.8;22<\\

PAGE 189

)"#"( (6= #" "!"/ /!"" 61 />**> *> )99)K)@ 9> )9 9) K) 82 8 K()" 8;8

PAGE 190

" "! 6.&=28' *"# #=8&,;'H "&+!8.7,O9"8.7.' "" #"H 3"9 "# ( ( " 8;=

PAGE 191

*" )(9> +!&8.7,'" )"")")"" )(9* !E" 9"! H"E # )(9H E " (" !> ))(9 "=" =A$$" N-N8;1

PAGE 192

' "(1 *FE!! !# R/!! &!'!D#! A"!! #! )9<3) $# ""# ) @ 1< """"E *F!TU! )9!! !! "F9" *F%T"UE "FCP *FE""E!\\ 9! "TU!!! "F+TU P *F! 1"" 8;6

PAGE 193

E """!C "" E 9" $ )(9"" "F+!P *FA"((9 !TU"" $ "F+P *F T"U! "FA!P *F%!E! A" E"" / )(9@" "" 8;<

PAGE 194

""""( "+ "TUP *FAS!S"" !! !! """! "CSS SP *F3!S" #TU"! ""S !!( !SGS !" ! 9)(9 &'!!&' *FTU ( S(TUS SS ! "F9! *F5+( 8;, V

PAGE 195

SS S"E 9#TU PS!" A!HS! "! S *F5 "FATU P *F H! TUS! S+ R AS"E "FTAUP *FR"!E # ( S" "F! P *F( "# AS ! $ RCE! RE( "F"" 8;;

PAGE 196

*FC+!E! SPS" E!+ S! "A" E""" ")(9 H "+ " 9" )(9> )(9" ""E *)(9 H 68<&=8=' 68686")(9 8;7

PAGE 197

( *" 9)"> >9()" ""A 9()" "9()"" ( 9()" !! E# H9()"9" !" DA9()" !"" O8;.

PAGE 198

9()"K( )" 9()" (!"" 9()" "" E! "F P *FTEUS!E !! !#ES SE "FCC!! C *F% "F@"! S *F "F9!!! *FCTU! "F"! P *F! S!```"FA!!H S! D 872

PAGE 199

*F%!(! S!!AS !9!S E A!E" / "+ 9()"H """)( 93" "F+TU P *FE E "E! "FF@TU!!P *FC+!!!! 8!#T UC!R#E!E E+E A("E E)(9

PAGE 200

9()" "E"""" ( #9()" ""E"E 9! "F@P *FC "F/P *FA!S!S #! QESTUQ "F" S"" SP *F!S" S "F9SS SE *F3 "F@S!"P *FCA!S!S 9()"

PAGE 201

9" 9()"> %"9()" "N!-"" E" #E *"K()"> "K()"" % "!" ""! K()" "")" H"" #" 871

PAGE 202

*F%S !"" !"" !G !E "FCS "! S""! *F!! "FSAP *F S C!SS! !!" SSP "9S!S *F9 "FAES"!H !!P *F3STU "FC"TU" C""S!S S""S" *FC *FTU" !TU Q$-!P "FT@"PU *F )"K()" E" K()"$3"( 876

PAGE 203

N"-( K( )""" $!K( )"(61&8;8' !K( )"" *F" E "F *FHE"9 "FAP *F"H E"A "FC! *FC K( )"E "FCTU TU" *F5 87<

PAGE 204

"F TU"TU TU *F*HS""KH "A( S"! P *F# "S! "F!S *F5 """K()" K()" 9"K()"> K()" ""6<& 8.<'K()" &7'&6' K()"K!K()" K()" &8..<' 87,

PAGE 205

!" "" "!K()" *"@"> @"" 9()" !@" @"")" E" "H H@ "F+ *F!C" "@P *F5!A C" "F@P *F REE R3!EC" E"%" "FA" !! 87;

PAGE 206

ETU *F33TA U"!E "" 8 TUT"U TU "+ *F"TU H TU! "F *F)"H !C "FC( ""P *F E! " "+E )" O"!$"

PAGE 207

*F!TU !TU "F@ P *F3"! "@!P *F! "!TU #!H! "" "AP *F#!A TA!U E!! "F@! *F!E R% "! E" H TUT"U# !9A TUT"UT3F U "F!"+" ""T"UP *FT*%U! ) E"TA U NC-# PT!UA P !P TUAT UA 87.

PAGE 208

9ET"U "A "" TEU"PT UE!(T "U9 "(+ &'&' "&' + E+"NQ#-"" @! A " "EE@" +" "!@" 8.2

PAGE 209

9"@"> E""E (""@! @"&+!8.7,'" ( &9"8.7.' @" )(9K()"68<&=8=' @" 9*"# """" "% " "" L )"")"K()" 8 D8.8 8

PAGE 210

( $" """ 5= 5=!FA "E&' "&'"P "" """ 66 " >" "" @" A" 16 @"#68 8.=

PAGE 211

6=@" @""# @"" "3" @"87;8.2" @" """ 66 *345 @*">"99 )9 9)K)@ 9 99 +7 2; 28< ?7 8< 1 8; 16==<=17 3% +" +"" D+E H8.1 D

PAGE 212

51 51!FA "E&' &'P 6< K()" 686= &686=6<')" ) )" 38=8,6<)" 818,(6, 6;67 +! "H" )(9 )""K()"9()"@" )"&8.7,'" 8.6

PAGE 213

^ 6< /(@b*>"9?" )99)K)@=9 9 +8=2628, ?68718, 1.1112=<\ \2< 6, /(@)"")"> )"")" 9 9 + ? \\_O28 8.< 8=6 68= 1=8722222<\\

PAGE 214

"6,6< +!E "" ( 6; K()"@" #" S > " (">" 9 9" ") )*" 6;" B8=&,;'B /8

PAGE 215

1="F) 6; /(@*">"99"9 ?" )99)K)@ M=9 9 +99 ? + <212 7 ?1262 ; ?99 8 <;.66; + ;282 7 ?8861 1 82=;;28,\ \a2< 8.;

PAGE 216

"67 )" 67 /(@*>"9?""9 9 )99)K)@ 9 9* 99 + <2127 ? ;2827 88111=67 @* + 1262; ? 8861. 167=<87< 8.7

PAGE 217

!6<6;67 "! 6; M="% #" H "! "!6; 67 6;67 "" F""+" "==6( 8..

PAGE 218

/ ( (6. @")(9 K( )""! 61&8;8'" "! 6. "%8,8=)(9 68, &7'K()"&6' @" # ))"")""@ K()" @" )(9

PAGE 219

6. ?(""?""3 > )99)K)@ J M= 9 9* %>. 28282 >1 212, @* 8 1=22 2;6 %>6 288, >2 8;= 82 1 .6== \\2< 6=6." > #!! "9@ E!&8.7<'"K( )"9()""@" =28

PAGE 220

" 6.6= "! 1 6<6. 67@ "> H 5J6 56!FA ?)P H (682

PAGE 221

" "688681 "" ""! B ""((A "& /<=16'!" "" 9)9 A#> "9)9 !" 629 (# =<" " =21

PAGE 222

682 /(@*>") )9 9)K) @ M= 9 ? .8 < 88, #;2 ; = 8, 1 8.8; <.2 688 /(@*>9?"") )99)K)@ HT=9 9* ?;2827 #<2127 88111=67 @* ?=8687 #=26=7 18111;=8 =26 D

PAGE 223

68= /(@*>"99") ? # )99)K)@ +99 62627 2 2 ?99 M= 9 2;;;7= ? # 2 1<7;182 =2<

PAGE 224

681 /(@*>"B?"") )99)K)@\=9 ? # ? # O=2, ) 72628= ,2<288 81<6<<= +9 88886 82==< 18<;<,,<

PAGE 225

686 /(@*>9B?" )9 9)K)@ = 9 B?" )( 8= 2.2 =1 +9 =811. 18==81 \\_O28 5< 5
PAGE 226

"(" "H686 )" 1.W()" ;7W K()"@" +9"" )" "" "*"! E" ( "" " D O=27

PAGE 227

95 *" "" )(9K()"* E "7;
PAGE 228

"$ "" "("" +!4&8..,'"! *&8.7;'"! "*&8.7;' @"" "(" "K()" ""S

PAGE 229

9 K()"@" B(" K()"@" *)( 9" "E E" *"" ""E 8

PAGE 230

68< 9/(9/>@ )9 9) K)@ M= 9 9 8, 8 8= 1 1= 1 8.=<2 222\\\\ 9 8=262 8, @ 68 7 18, 1 .111 2=<\\ 9 9 7 2 ; 28< 9 7 8 < 1 8; 1 8,,;,66 ? 8 <8 8, # ; 2 ;=8, 1 8.8;`<.2

PAGE 231

68<&/' 9/(9/)"@ )99)K)@ =9 )( 86 2. 2 =1 +9= 811. 1 8==8122;\\\ 9 ) <2 1 8 39 ) 888.==1 1 =6=667. %> 81 2 = 88, >18 82 =8, 1 8=.8;22<\\\ 3K" +$" \\\2<\\\28\\\\2228 =81

PAGE 232

/+#*)5< @9/99%3 """ /8 "* !" "G "" " &"'&'H& '9"&8.7.'+!&8.7,'( "" "" =86

PAGE 233

"" IB8=* "E "" +!E#>"&#>'# " "B /8 #>" $ )(9K()" 77WA9()" =8<

PAGE 234

@" 9 &'"&'"&' 3 K()"" H :" > *" K()")(9" "9()" @ =8,

PAGE 235

)(9> )(9 )( )( 9 A K()" # )(9 )(9" > """ H3)( 9> K()" "/6" E =8;

PAGE 236

E "I$EIEE $"TU "RE$E "N&I$8.,28;<' 9 )(9 (>"" "! "! )(9 8;, 8;7& 'E "" &' =87

PAGE 237

*)(9" "" AK()" )(9 !" ")(9" E"" E )(9 (" "K( )" ")(9 "))* E =8.

PAGE 238

9)( 9" )(96=&8;2' )(9 9 &6.=28'" )(9 #"" !! )(9 $$ !E "A! "K()"

PAGE 239

K)"> K()" %K()" ")(9 9E&8.;.' 9()"K( )"H*K( )"(>+!E )"":)"K()"&" '"$ (")"K( )" "!" !! K()" A" $ 3!

PAGE 240

&!9' ")"K()" !E "K()" > "(# "( "E E A """"*" E" E" "" ""9 OK()" L D

PAGE 241

,,8" "K( )"! !K( )" @ "(" ""A ")"":)"" (!"! ""(" K()" H"AH ( ":H HA6; &K()"

PAGE 242

' I4E&8.77'" $("@" $ """ "" 55K()"*" K()"" )(9 $$9" @" &8..<'K()" !"( (""( ==6

PAGE 243

!" "&;,'K()"" "! "3(K()" " !9 9$ "" &8..,68' 93*%#9K( )"" "# >NA /( K()"H ==<

PAGE 244

!&)0/!8..=' 9"&I0 98.78'3 """ "!" E# K()" ""#" "E # "( ==,

PAGE 245

@"> "! ?82W" @"* ( """ ""@" A #! "+"! @"3 &'" &' @" ?! A 3( @"" ==;

PAGE 246

@" H" "@" A HE ""3/6&87;( 8.2' @" GK()")(9&61 8;8'" /6&87.(8.2' !A" "" >@"" !E"" F@"" L"! ==7 V

PAGE 247

9()"> 9()"9()" #># "#>16&886' ""# 9()" " # /68;6" "9 ("+" 8;./69()" "9()" "E %"9()"" *9 ==.

PAGE 248

9#> " 1=" "" """! !#> " "! )(9K()" E"E K()" 3 =12

PAGE 249

*" "" "" /%*#> " H *9 $ : # "! =18

PAGE 250

""! "E) E&# =,2'>@"""" "K()"" >"!N "E P-!" @"K()" 3 "H" "" #"9( )"" @"" 89()" "E" "9()"! L 8 D=1=

PAGE 251

9()" ""!" "#> "!@"9()" "E N-*" ""9()" "! 9()" 9()"" @#*"9( )"""" *"" ENA !P-N#! !P-A 9()"K()" ""( =11

PAGE 252

" "! @B @#>" A H "" )" ") =16

PAGE 253

#""! ?! /1 !&' &' &'"&' > / #"" ?!" /3# 9% D"35! "!" =1<

PAGE 254

" "" #>" $" 9" $ )(9 "E B "" !"H@ *"! "( #6<6,&8.<' "&K()"' =1,

PAGE 255

" "$ E E # # K()" HH )O ""H 9K()" "9" H " /6 =1;

PAGE 256

E)" "8,"K /! 99> *#9F ?>#* J! A" E"! " !!" =17

PAGE 257

/"# H" ( (9" 9" +"""A! "+" H+(( /J/ )" H3"E E5 3

PAGE 258

E$E 877 + "! E)(9 "9$ "#" /6 87<" &'!!&' > =62

PAGE 259

" (> ""!! 9" $("" 9 >$H "> K()"" #)E#6, 8.<"" "" "# """ H" =68

PAGE 260

# " "" "H ""$$ "" A" """ 5/E"(8..2 /"( 8..2 ( !"" "" "K()"" =6=

PAGE 261

K" ""/" !"( "">3 " " >" "E" E"? "$" E =61

PAGE 262

5/>>*" @" !" & 0 8..6' /8"" 1=!"A # )"" ""E )(9 "$" ( H #E $ =66

PAGE 263

> &8..6'?/ "(( 3 9 !5 N9-12&7'+ N/(!F -&8=' "+"K()" K()"""!#" &'&' &' &'!" "" K()"" """ =6<

PAGE 264

&' #& 8..8' "(" > "$66 "A ""(" "A P "" "" H"# ?! !"""" =6,

PAGE 265

A H" )(9 K()")(9 &' &1<' "K()" "" !( > !"$ "! K( )""" ""@S =/8" ) "" "(" L =6; H D

PAGE 266

A""" K()" "" )" !&' &'!&' PK()" ("" "8..2 & 8..6O/8..8' #" > 9"!B "($ ! 9"" "%"" =67

PAGE 267

" "" !" "H( (G $ "" " "A" "#" =6.

PAGE 268

>@5#*% 9" H #*! "9" # "!*!! "!(" ( 5 ##>""! #<8" =<2

PAGE 269

&'!!&' 9@*5 > (A "" *" "" "!" =<8

PAGE 270

<8 N" )> 9()"" E"#9( )"" !" N9"N9"H" N9! ")(9 5 !!" ""! =<= \

PAGE 271

QQ " H @" <8 ">Z "!!@" %@")(9 @"9 "@" "" #"(" !( #>"3#"$ #>! #><8 =<1

PAGE 272

<8 #>*#)% *# > )( 9 9( )" E K E 5 E *"E #" 9 % E *" @ E B"E ( 9 / "" *E *! B"

PAGE 273

<8&/' *# > 9 9 @" b K)" #" *" 9" V" # ) %( " 9 *( $( 9 E *! " > ( + "( /

PAGE 274

J#9 @" > NE P"" "" 9""" @" 9()"" #"" P H" "B" =<,

PAGE 275

@""" B" "" # @ P "PA P / E "" "(" ( H )(9" H 5")(9 =<;

PAGE 276

/6&8;6(8;,' $6 9$ )" "$" "* # "" ( E "A! " 3 &'!!&'7 A#" =<7

PAGE 277

#**)3@M# *#5)395K)C%>9/+%%?9#9>#/%3F 35%@/%5C9/5* .$$'%33888888888888888888888&9 &!Q9"8E' 388888888888888&$$#'!::::7;&'&"2'# <#&'=3'&3''$73"=3'$60' !'#2'!7;'$2'$6'<&<9 &!' 2'3<>'#88888888888888& C "! *!: "' ?'!=$&'!#'!3$'#<=3&3$ 88888888888888&3''$7?'<'=$$06<&'#$7' '3&3''$=$$"6'=2'<'732=$$'$2$ =3'2
PAGE 278

#**)3@M *+%3)9/5*>%5*#5)395K)C %>9/+%%?9#9>#/%3 #8..7 8@P 3"8 9= 1 #6 =S H8 9= 31 1#S"P() #P(9 38 9= 1 /6 6+!!!P K 9= #1 )6 =,2

PAGE 279

<@EP 38 9= 1 36 ,+EP *8 >= B1 %6 ;"S SA: *8 >= B1 %6 7E 3"8 9= %1 #6 .A"P 3" 9= %1 #6 82+S""" "P 38 9= 91 K6

PAGE 280

88A: 38 9= 1 #6 8=%""E P >8 @= /1 6 #< 81# 8= # P 86A" SP*! C8 3= !"G! "@ =,=

PAGE 281

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``````````````64'%(%#3$*/, /$49%&(%' A4%&$1#.#.+#;$1.(#91'#%$*'31''(/ =1#'%$/(/*#/*%&#/%##4(%(/%.# $1(/'4#'4+#%$%(3$/9*#/%( A &(/7$19$/,4%&%&#'%1*$92(#/%$2/$/' $'%(%;&$4'133#''91'B%&#'%1*#/%/(.#C(%'3&$$ !$#''&#,#/#(+#&(#(/*,#%($/,4%&'%1*#/%'(/*%#(3&#' (%'3&$$ =,1

PAGE 282

" $1#'2$/'#''##.%$/*3(%#%&(%$17#*-$**/$%7#0 $14(/%%$*'31''% % (./%##'%#*/4&$19## % $1(%%%1*#%$4(*'##.'%$+#+('#*12$/ =,6

PAGE 283

#**)3@M@ #>3)5K)A/%@3B/+)/I?9 )9 A!EPA !P+!P )9" )91A!? )9
PAGE 284

K) @! &'P P# "P K)8H K)1" K)
PAGE 285

#**)3@M) >3/%3#?93)5K)A5#3BK)5>/#%3 " 5F E""F @"9)"K()")(9 "!" "" "E E """ "" "+ " "!" " C!" )9)91()96 &!'* %I"! "" %"" =,;

PAGE 286

5)>)5)3/)9 #5*&8.7,' !V9 "8,==1(=<2 #5*0*@#&8.7.' F# "#5*!9V !#BB&)' #&=;<(12.'+3VF) # &8.77')F( 9>/#FV( # &8..6'5H(* 40 D7 %&)'HF 72!<'!7E7B<<7 818(867'+ DF ) #BA&8.1;'*F#3C!F+ #@90I/&8..2'V 9*812&1'68.(6=8 #V5&8.21' *5"8==61(=;8 #V5&8.2;'"*5" 86,8(.8 #9)&8.<<'%9#8.118(1< @)0 !#V&)'&8.;6'#3 C!F* AV&8..6'3C!F90 9 =,7

PAGE 287

@&8..,'"") 5=<&786;(<2 @&8..;#'F *#) 5#/? @0 &8..<'A*3CF ? )B&8..1'"*B"/#F !:/ )B&8.<2'#3C!F#( /(/ BA&8..8'AE!*@I;=&=8 82<(88; BA&8..1' *@I;<&='826(88; BA&8..;'9F5 #K#F# 9"/@" BA&8..;'FE& '"!#K#F)59" BA&8..;'" *@I;.&='8=2(81; #&8..<%=<'*! )A!8<&7'881 )&8.<7>'(! 9)";=,,(,; !*VV/&8.;;'9> <<778(7.; =,.

PAGE 288

A+&8.<='BF E*" )=.&187=(.2 5>0/?#&8.<1'## +3C!F+ /V*5)B5&8.7.'> #5*!9V !#B B&)'#9>&=;<(12.'+ 3VF) /B0+!I@&8.;7'#(== 7<8,1(8,; /B0+!I@&8.;.'== "$* 7,8288(8286 /5> )35%&8.;;' &<)' F# /+&)'&8.<8'*8.1<(8.6,*3VF* "* /V&8.<;'*3) *1,8<862(68 /KV0BV/&8..;'/(" 3@)";68.(1= /KV0BV/&)'&8..;'#"( "F" 3@)";6 /+#&8.=<'*F#"3C!F? B =;2

PAGE 289

/V &8.72'/" F* &=1(1.8*3VF )9" ///+!50A@&8..882'*" )#93 ?# /"&8..,'*""F#) 5=<&7'12(1=6, /!9?#0)#+&8.7.'+ V9 0V# &)'&=8=(=<='3C!F B* /!909/&8.7;'#?A*0 55$&)'#"&<;<(,12'* #/#F#5" /V*0IV*&8.,2'93 C!F+5A /A &8.==(8.61'K8(.88(== />*&8.;,'# "*!F*"9"* /! 5&8.,6'V#@?59/ 0>+&)'9F/ &=;<(=76'9>F/ /)B955*I0+V#&8..6' "F# "V#9*=6 81888=.(886. /V&8.,2'#) *=21;(6, =;8

PAGE 290

/V/&8.<,'#""/F9 > /5"9&8..7'c==(;(=2<&8'c==(;(826&8' /EAEFAP&8..7'K5 ,<&6'8(= /A>&8.72'#3 C!F/* /"V&8.7;'9"9F5 87.2(8.,2 !F"/* /"AV&8.;6'9CE ==V#9# ,.1;6(17= /V09&8..<'AF# *9* =8&88'8=82(8==2 /#&8.7<'*# 8.71B*# )@#6,:2,(#86<1 /"AV/A05!>?&8.,2'#3 C!F 3 /?#&8.,8'F*"# 87;,(8.<;3C!F##I /VA&8..6'5FJ"" %!/#F9* /!V??BI0/&8.7;'@ H"F V*9*<=.2;(8, /?V&8.<8'/ *"!8,=.;(116 =;=

PAGE 291

/%#&8.<8'""E 3E96;,8(,1 /%#0**V&8.<1'A$! 3E9<=,8(,1 /?&8..2'5)58.8 1(81 /53A+0>>&8.,,'#F#" 3C!F##I @/&8.=1'%F"" 3C!F@# @ IB&8.7;'"(H""(" FV *9*6==;.(=7; @ IB0)#)&8.7.'/"Z F#P")81=<.(=;2 @?B&8.77'+)5V*I"&)' )F# !&.(8,'3C!F** @V@&87.,'*5"1 1<;(1;2 @V@&8.,1')3C!F/ @/&8..,'#F# ""( (&@" 3"58..,'@#<;=1<6# @@&8..1'#FP*@ I;6&7',=,(,18 =;1

PAGE 292

)#+&8..='"F\ V*9*,&AF + V"" )V5&8.7;'3C!F9K )9&)'&8.;1'B8.,.(8.;1 3F*@I )V?&8..<'9F/ *@I;,;2=(;8= )K+!B04*&8..1'K @!0@?+ &)'#F" &81;(8,,'3C!F#* >9&8..8' !F#3 C!F# >$5+&8.7.'%F #5*!9V !#BB&)' #&8<1(8;.'+3VF) >?90 5?&8.7.'55??&)') &1862(861'3C!F#/ )(* >?&8.<;'#")"?F5* >0#H$&8.;<' "# 5#F#(A >>V&8.76'9" "+/#F9* >V5*V505" &8.<.'@ /&)'9&8<2(8,;'##F =;6

PAGE 293

>9&8.67'"?F >?0%B&)'&8..7'+(FA! F#0 B0*@I&8.7;'3" 3F*@I B0*@I&8..1'(>" 3F*@ I B0*@I&8..6'(9" 3F*@ I B0*@I&8..<'"(9"" 3F* @I B0*@I&8..,'()" 3F*@ I BV&8..='A"F V#9*== 6=1(6<2 BBK0+!I#&8.76'9 )/3VF*(+ BB/0"@&8.,.'#H" V//*11<=(,2 B?&8..,'))9 8.71(8..,)5=<87' 6(, B?0 V)&8.;8#'(E )<=(<1 =;<

PAGE 294

B#B&8.7.'AF@ =2#5*!9V !0#BB &)'#&6=.(6628+3VF) B"50I5?&8.;.'9""F# "3C!F#* +!B4*0)K&8..1'# HFV *9*,<882<(8887 ++/&8.67'A!C!FA ++/09/A&8.<2'A 3# 9"(9*16817(8<2 +V055&8.7,'/ V* 9*<21,=(1,. +V#09&8..=V'#E "* #*99@/# +I 0++/&8.<=' !P*") ==&1'882(88< +!B&8.76'#F# V+82=(8; +!B&8.7,'F V9 ..(886 +!B&8.7;'/PF#" 9*J62&68=7<(121 +!?#0#&8..7'@"FK0K= ?F"* =;,

PAGE 295

+3&8.78'AEN-FK %A3CF> +!I@0BBK&8.76'9 &=')/3VF*(+ +"/?V?0I++&8.<1'/F *3+"/FC /@&8..=' @#<1=<76# !/#&8.,;'3C!F#(/( / V5&)'&8.77'/ A@/F#)5# VA&87.2'3C!F+5 A VV0V&8..6'>FA# 3C!F*# VV0V&8..<'#F 3C!F*# V*&8.77'#8.7;"3E B@ #6.:27(#=8;8 V@?&8.7.'*"F# 3*!/#F9 I$@&8.,2'*% J=68,1(=26 I$@&8.,7'/P5*# &)"F#!&8;.(.8' /F5(3 =;;

PAGE 296

I$@&8.7.'>#5*!9V !0#BB &)'#&("'+3VF) I$@/!/09>&8.<;'( V*=<6,<(6;6 I$@9>0/!/&8.<,') +5.=;(6, I$@09)&8.<.'# 9I&)'*F# &61=(;<'3C!FB(+ I+/&8.<7'/$F V/5=<8(,2 I+/&8.,8'**%J=< <;(,7 I+/&8.;6'> $V&)'*" &8=<(8;8'/F# I&8.76'+" ))"*#,&18=2;(==, I9&8.;.'"*@ C<<7 ,2&828;8,(;87 IIV&8.77'5"# "86178(621 I/#/ )03&8.,.'#F# 3C!FA I@509@%&8.78'*HF9" V*9* 62686(618 8 =;7

PAGE 297

I@509@%&8.7<'*B ?$0)#&)'+!FK=&1 ,<.(;68'3C!F5+ I?&8.,='9"""V #9#<;.=(88< I/&8..2':"(" V9*812&8S',8( ,. I/04*&8.77'V "F#" V9*=; =6;(=<, I/04*&8..6'"H V9<2&686;(,< ?+*&8.,;'AF ?"!*V&8.7;'"3*!/#F9 ?909)&8..,'+ F)!/ 3)98..,&#":: .,::' ?/0A/&8..8'# #@9"V9*81&,?;,8(;,7 ??05A&)'&8.;8'# A%+FV ?"@&8.,<'"9 <8&.'81 ?A&8.=='*%3C!F =;.

PAGE 298

?V)04*&8..2'/"F#"( V*9*""<78262( 826; B50%V&8..6'K(("F V9* ==128(18= B50%V&8..6'5" "F D'$ )*18=,,(=7< B50%V&8..<'5" "FV )9*18=,,(=7< @>5035?&8.,<'/! "V*9 *=7,6(7,7 /05B &8.7.'@"3 *!/#F9* /V 0+V/V& 8.;<' 9V9 a9e==&='=1(6< @A&8.=8'#&86' F ? @A&8.27'9?F BAV&8.,2'/"V #9*,216<(1<1 BAV&8.,2'@"( V#9*,21<6( 1<7 =72

PAGE 299

BAV&8.7<'#B?$0)# &)'+!FK=&1=11(16,'3 C!F5+ BAV&8.7,'K )V9 *8,7.(812 +&8.<.'3C!F+5 A #0 V3&8..<'% "F(Z *9* =877<( 7.= ?&8.76'#)""G K/@#6,:2=(#121 0+#&8.76'J"F#! "+/#F9 9&8.,1' "V#9 *,;1;8(1;7 9&8.;6'%F#"3C!F +5 9)0/+9&8.<2'B#F K8&6'3C!F%"* 9?+!B04&8..,'9/%V0 4*&)'"F%7 &82;(811'3VF) +#&8.17')3C!A 3/)9&8..6'@8..6 &3/)9.6(88<'A@/F9B"*% =78

PAGE 300

3/))&8.71'#!&]2,<( 222(228;;(='A@/F9B"*% 3)#5@"&8.<7'* 3)#5 1,&1';<(;, 3)#/)9> &8.<7'*#A@/F 3)# 3)#&8.7<'"F/$ A@/F3)# 3)#&8.7<'9("F%" A@/F3) # 3)9&8..,' !F+ F)!&#"F:: .,' 3%5/&8.66'!@"F "@" 3E9&8.=7(8.16'K8(K82/FB(+ 3VAA0AB#&8.;7'# F # 39?&8.7.' F#"V *9*<,1;6(17, 39?V3K?0/#&8..1'*"( F "V*9 *,662.(6=2 39B&8.17'##3C!F> 5 =7=

PAGE 301

3V&8..1'9*99,2E /F9*99 %5&8..,' /?#5"1;&=',.(;7 % D77% 04 7 BGGHI7 # J7;7 K7 55$&)' $ "& E4LMI7 *#/#F#5" %#90 V*&8..=' "F#V *0B@5&)'+K +3VF) %!9&8.;;'#)/F*+ %!9&S8..8'#&=)')/F* + %&8.7.'A#*!9 !0# B&)'#&88(1,'+3VF ) *"?#&8..,'3C!FA *5/0*V+&8.;;'9 +)?F *!#5 !9V0B#B&)'&8.7.'# +3VF) *@#&8.7;'* "V*9*<1..1(8221 *V 5B@K5V0I?&8.7.' #@9V 8.<1;;(626 *%&877,(8.2,'K8(K623C!:AF*% =71

PAGE 302

D *%J&A8.6,(8.6;')"82&6' ,82 5H!@A&8.7='#F"9#F9 5" &8.,<'9@90>&)' /99*&1;8(17='3C!F+ 50A 5@?05)A&8.78'#( "5")5<8=1;( =6<\ 5AV&8.;7' F%$ "95"7;&8'1(=7 59"&8.<2'&8.<1'&8.<7'@"!@"F @"*9 5V&8.81'93C!F+3 ) 5!&8.,7' "F#$ 9>/#FV( 5)&8.<2%=.'5#?16(1; 5V0 V#&8.;8'#" $(V #9#,,;<<(;<. 5?B#0)9&8..;'=.\*@ I:BE) @I;.&1'68(<, 55&8.;6K%(F >""3 C!F99/* =76

PAGE 303

550V?&8.,7'*3C!F+ 50A 5$M0*M&8..2'#"*#F #5" 59&8.;7'AEF# 87;23C!F 5A+0@!?&8.;6'3C!F 5"*/0?&8.;1'*!V *9*=<&='=82(=87 9B&8..8'"("F )5 =J&,'82(87 90I$@&8.<6'"V #9*6.88<(8=6 9! 5&8.7='F#( ? !$&)' #"&K8<8.1(=6;'9 @/#F#* 9V0+*&8..1')"F# #K#F##) 9"# 9?9&8.77'@F#""V 5&)'/&1(<7' A@/F#)5# 9+0*9&8.78'J"3 C!F#* 9V &8.=<'"F#!" F+ =7<

PAGE 304

9"9&8.7<'>" %9"/%+ 9"9&8.7.'%$#5 *!9V !0#BB&)'# &188(117'+3VF) 9"9&8..2'HV )9*""=,&=?8=6(867 9"90>$5+&8.7;'#(" ** #/ 9"9?0+9*&8..='#"F "(V/ *&'11;(1,6 9)0AV&8.,;'93 C!FB(+ 955&8.,<'/"*)/F# (H@ "@"@" 9&8.1<'##" *=;8(,2 9>&8..<'?E") @I;,&7'<76(<.2 9&8.,1'>@@)*A0V9 &)'#&87(1,'3C!FB(+ 9 &8.6;'*% J88<2;(<=1 9 V90A5A&8.<,'%3 C!FA =7,

PAGE 305

D 9&8.;6'(""V *9*12<=,(<1; 9&8.;.'9(? !$&)'#" 8=3C!F#* 9&8.7;'*:"FZ 3C!F> 9&8..1' F N-*9 8.&1'=<8(=,6 90@ IB&8.7<'#F "V* 9*6.<7,(<.; 90@ IB&8.7;'# *4V%0/*%&)'9 F%<+3VF) 90@ IB&8.7.'F ?"#5*!9V !0#BB&)'#& 188(117'+3VF) 90+V#&8..6'A"P# ""V) 9*12=87(=6, 90+V#&8..<'A"P# "*9 =8&.'.,1(.;6 90*I&8..6'9F# V9*11,1(7= 990I"V*&8.77'#"V *I"&)')F# !&<81(<=,'3C!F* =7;

PAGE 306

9+&87.,'3C!F# 9*99&8..,'9C9#,2F/F9*99 9*99&8..7'9*9972/F9*99 9*&8..;#=6'AA @"*V, 990 3&8.7='#!F# 9>FV( 990 309$3&8..,'!F ""9>F V( 990 3&8.7;'$ 9*%J<8,;(;7 9A V09&8.72'%F V *9*177;.(777 9#&8..;'*FCP)? <6&<'6.(<8 //&8.8.'9991F" =2&=7'< #&8.77'("" #")9*"``=?878(==; #0?/&8.;;'/" V)9*e81162(1<, #09@5&8..2'#?A*0 55$&)'#"&6;.(<=1'* #/#F#5" =77

PAGE 307

) N7BGI7 ** "=7 %MMG4ML7 ) &87..'9*5" 9=.2(=.. ) &8.82'#!3C!F /90)&)'&8.76'9"H"3 C!F9 K@&8..<981' !!"" )A!7 A&)'&8.;6'@FA3 C!F* AV &8.=<' "3C!F3 A &8.78'#! + ,'$0 *D 9!8;8(=228 +/#F9 A)+0?IK&8.;2'3 C!F+5A A59V&8.;2'J"F# H"V* 9*8,<<.(<;2 4V5&8.76'&@ "/ !8..2'@# 6<&2.8=.7< 4V5&8..='3C!F/ "* L=7. 8