Relationships between proxemics and audience responsein extreme close-up and tight close-up camera shots

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Klein, David Mitchell, 1952-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this materialis made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such aspublic display or performance) of protected items is prohibitedexcept with permission of the author.

Download date 11/08/2021 23:28:39

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/348205

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN PROXEMICS AND AUDIENCE RESPONSE

IN EXTREME CLOSE-UP AND TIGHT CLOSE-UP CAMERA SHOTS

by

David Mitchell Klein

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF SPEECH COMMUNICATION

In P a r t i a l .Ful.fiTTment of thef Requirements For the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

1 9 7 7

STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thes is has been submitted in pa r t ia l fu l f i l lm e n t of re ­quirements for an advanced degree a t The University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made avai lab le to borrowers under rules of the Library.

Brief quotations from th is thes is are allowable without special permission, provided th a t accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission fo r extended quotation from or reproduction of th is manuscript in whole or in par t may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate College when in his judg­ment the proposed use of the material is in the in te r e s t s of scholar­ship. In a l l other in s tances , however, permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED:

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thes is has been approved on the date shown below:

y J a m e s W. Davis Associate Professor of

Speech Communication

7 - 7- 77Date

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would l ike to thank Beth Anne Carr and the people

a t KUAT-TV who allowed an unknown graduate student the use of th e i r

time and f a c i l i t i e s .

The author is a lso indebted to Dr. James Davis, fo r reminding

him tha t there is no place for "waging a war" in an experimental

th es is .

Fina l ly , a special note of thanks to two parents who d id n ' t

mind waiting 25 years fo r proof tha t the child is_ a product of the

home.

i l l

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ABSTRACT . . . . . . .............................................. . . . . . . . . . vi i

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Background of Study . ..................................... 1Statement o f the Problem ..................................... 2Purpose .................................... 2J u s t i f i c a t i o n .................... 2

2. RELATED THEORY AND RESEARCH ...................................... . . . . . . . 4

Intimate Distance—Far Phase . . . . . . . . 4Personal Distance--Far Phase . 5

3. PROCEDURE ...................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

I n i t i a l Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7S t i m u l u s ............................ 7The Speech . . . . . 8Measuring Instrument . . ........................ 8Administration of Treatment ................................. 9Instruct ions ................................. 9

4. RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..................... 11

Summation ..................... . . ................................ 25

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . ..................... ? . . . . . . 26

APPENDIX A: STIMULUS TAPING PROCEDURE ................. 30

APPENDIX B: THE SPEECH ................. 31

APPENDIX'C: SEMANTIC SCALES-INSTRUMENT ................. 34

REFERENCES.................... 35

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Table of Unadjusted Means................. . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2. Summary of Analysis o f Variance fo r Good-bad Scale:Sequence Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . . 13

3. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Pleasant-unpleasantScale: Sequence Segment . . . . . . . . 14

4. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Object ive-subject iveScale: Sequence..Segment . . ............................. 15

5. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Far-near Scale:Sequence Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Cold-hot Scale:Sequence Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

: ■ . ■ , )

7. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r In teres t ing-bor ingScale: Sequence Segment ...................... . . . . . . . . . . 17

8. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Blunt-sharp Scale:Sequence Segment . ......................................................... 18

9. Summary o f Analysis of Variance fo r Reputable-disreputableScale: Sequence Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

10. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Good-bad Scale:Speaker Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

11. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Honest-dishonestScale: Speaker Segment . . . . . . . . . . . 20

12. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Strong-weak Scale:Speaker Segment . . . . . . . . 21

13. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Pleasant-unpleasantScale: Speaker Segment ................. 21

14. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Near-far Scale:Speaker Segment . . . . . . ' ......................................... 22

v

LIST OF TABLES— Continued

Table Page

15. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Hard-soft Scale:Speaker Segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

16. Summary of Analysis of Variance for Calm-agitated Scale:Speaker Segment . . . . . . . 23

,17. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Reputable-disreputableScale: Speaker Segment , .................... ............................. ....... . 24

ABSTRACT

This study examines the re la t ionsh ip between interpersonal

proxemics and the re la t ionsh ip between the " ta len t" and the te lev is ion

viewer. Spec i f ica l ly , th is study attempted to discern i f there is any

s ig n i f ic a n t d if ference in audience response to a t i g h t close-up shot as

opposed to an extreme close-up shot in a shor t na rra t ive sequence.

The stimulus was a five-minute videotape of a speaker. The

speaker was taped twice simultaneously. One tape held extreme close-up

shots and bust shots , while the second tape held t ig h t close-up shots

and bust shots.

Students were randomly se lec ted and assigned to one of two

experimental groups. Experimental group one observed the tape with the

bust-shots and the t i g h t close-up shots , while experimental group two

observed the tape with the bust-shots and the extreme close-up shots.

Analysis of variance determined differences between groups and

sexes. Subjects ra ted the speaker and the sequence on a seven-step

semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l .

The analysis revealed s ign if icance on f ive Out of the sixteen

scales measured on the proxemic var iab le . Three out of the sixteen

scales measured revealed s ign if icance on the sex var iab le . In a l l

cases where s ign if icance was shown, the t i g h t close-up group rated both

the speaker and the sequence more favorably than did the extreme close-

up group.

v i i

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Background of Study

For as many years as te lev is ion has exis ted as a mass medium,

i t s persuasive e f f e c t upon audiences has been of major concern. Most

research undertaken in the area has addressed broad, contemporary social

problems. Subjects of topical importance such as sex, violence, and

th e i r long term e f fec ts on the viewing public have dominated the f i e ld .

The broad assumptions of these s tudies have yielded r e su l t s both contra­

dictory and inconclusive.

There have, however, been attempts to accumulate re levant data.

Franklin Fearing 's "Social Impact of the Mass Media of Communication"

(1954) t r i e d to understand the e f fec ts of the mass media on the public .

More recen t ly , Hartmann and Husband's Racism and the Mass Media (1974)

awakened readers to -the r e a l i t y of some of the negative e f fec ts media

may provoke. .F in a l ly , Denis McQuai1 1s Towards a Sociology of Mass Com-

munication (1969) and Sociology of Mass Communication (1972) presented

the community with a rich synthesis of contemporary s o c i a l - s c i e n t i f i c

research.

There has, however, been a Tack of experimental research dealing

with sp ec i f ic behavioral components of te lev is io n . Currently , s tudies

dealing with video-tape t r i a l s have attempted to measure re ten t ion as a

■ ■. ■■ ■' v . ; "• ' ■ 2function o f th a t media. Other studies have t r i e d to measure the e f fec ­

t iveness of black and white vs. color TV in message e f fe c t iv en e ss .

Statement o f the Problem

Recently, a growing number of te lev is ion commercials (Alka S e l t ­

zer , Excedrin) have been in te rspers ing extreme close-up shots into t h e i r

regular shot sequences. This technique has the e f f e c t of bringing the

subject in close to the viewing audience.

Theore t ica l ly , the e f fec ts o f th is usage of camera may draw upon

the same conventions in the usage of space as apply to interpersonal com­

munications, i . e . , images on the TV screen may impinge upon the viewers

interpersonal space. -

Two obvious questions a r ise : (.1) i s there a proxemic re la t ion

between the TV subject and the viewer, and (2) can th is re la t ionsh ip be

analogous to research in proxemics as delineated by people l ike Edward

T. Hall (1966)?

Purpose

- The purpose of th i s study is to determine whether there is any

s ig n i f ic a n t difference in audience a t t i tu d e when exposed to an extreme

close-up shot as opposed to a t ig h t close-up shot in a sho r t n a rra t ive

sequence.

J u s t i f ic a t io n

The democracy in the United Sta tes is a system of rule "by the

people ." In order fo r th i s system to work, the inhabitants must be able

to make decisions based on c lea r , objective information. As the system

cal led the "United States" has grown, there has come to be an increased

need for the informational system, mass communications, to also grow.

However, mass communication, l ike the system in which i t is opera t ional ,

is ne i ther good nor bad. Used properly i t is an indispensable tool in

the maintenance of an "informed c i t i z e n ry ," the basic component of any

democracy. Misused, i t is the most dangerous tool of the " d i c t a to r ' s

armory" (Huxley, 1958, p. 43).

I f a re la t ionsh ip ex is ts between camera shot and audience

response there is a po ten t ia l for hidden persuaders. I f th is potential- • ■ -

were exploited in t e lec as t s of two candidates fo r the presidency, a pos i­

t ive or negative unconscious reaction could r e s u l t . The implications are

obvious.

In more conventional terms, an understanding of camera shots and

audience response would be of grea t use to people in the te lev is ion f i e l d

as well as ahy behavioral s c i e n t i s t dealing with the medium. Certa in ly,

an understanding of which camera shot would produce a ce r ta in e f fec t

could be used in dozens of ways. Commercially, i t could be used to add

c r e d ib i l i ty to a product or a person. Po l i t ic ians ' would want to be aware

of the implications , as would t h e i r public re la t ions men in times of

te lev is ion debates. The legal p rofess ion , already considering the notion

of videotape t r i a l s , would have a new variable to consider. The l i s t is

endless , and more than j u s t i f i e s the present research e f f o r t .

CHAPTER 2

RELATED THEORY AND RESEARCH

In The Hidden Dimension» Hall (1966,' p. 113) u t i l i z e s four

t e r r i t o r i a l distances in his discussion of proxemic r e la t io n : (T) i n t i ­

mate d is tance, (2) personal d is tance , (3) social d is tance , and (4) public

d istance. Each of these distances are subdivided into two more descrip­

t ive categories ; "close phase" and " far phase." . I t i s the " far phase"

of both the intimate d istance and personal distance th a t are crucial to

th is thes is . Hall charac ter izes these distances by the following.

■ Intimate Distance—Far Phase

The interpersonal distance associated with th is label is six

to eighteen inches. Among i t s i d e n t i f i a b le t r a i t s are:

1. The head is seen in an enlarged s t a t e , i t s fea tures d is to r ted .

2. The i r i s of the other person's eye is seen in an enlarged s t a t e .

3. Small blood vessels in the sc le ra are c lear ly perceived.

4. Clear vision (15 degrees) includes e i th e r the upper or lower

portion of the face.

5. Some breath odor may be perceived.

6. Easily access ible to touching behavior.

7. The nose, ea rs , l i p s , tee th and tongue may appear overlarge

and d i s to r te d .

4

Persona] Distance—Far Phase

The interpersonal distance associated with th is label is between: - . ' - ' .■ \

1-1/2 and 2-1/2 fee t . Among i t s ident i fy ing t r a i t s are:

1. Par t ies are j u s t outside easy touching dis tance.

2. Subjects of personal involvement and i n te r e s t can be discussed.

3. Head s ize i s perceived as normal.

4. Facial fea tures are c lear ly v i s ib le . .

5. Fine d e ta i l s as s ta ins on t e e th , and small wrinkles are also

highly v i s ib le .

6. Foveal vision d ic ta te s that, the party must glance or gaze a t

d i f f e r e n t parts of the face, as the ra t io seen becomes smaller.

These two categories (Personal and Intimate Distances) seem to

hold an in te res t in g analog to what people in the videotape/fi lm industry

cal l "extreme close-up" and " t ig h t close-up" camera shots . There appears

to be s im i l a r i t i e s between Intimate Distance—Far Phase and the extreme

close-up (ECU) shot and Personal Distance--Far Phase and the t ig h t close-

up shot (TCU). I t is in the area of visual components th a t these analogs

occur.

Three of H al l 's (1966) major identify ing fac tors of Intimate

Distance--Far Phase a re apparent in the extreme close-up camera shot.

While the head is not seen as d i s to r te d , i t does appear to the viewer to

be enlarged (espec ia l ly r e l a t iv e to other camera sho ts) . In both, the

blood vessels in the sc le ra are c lear ly perceived, and the i r i s is seen

as enlarged. Clear vision in the Intimate Distance--Far Phase includes

e i t h e r the upper or lower port ion of the face. In the ECU the same^

. : ' . 6

phenomenon is forced upon the viewer because of the technological l im i ta ­

t ions of the shot.

Three of H a l l ' s major ident i fy ing f a c to rs of Personal Distance—

Far Phase are also id e n t i f i e d within the t i g h t close-up camera, shot.

The f i r s t co r re la te is t h a t head s ize i s seen (perceived) as normal. In

following th a t , both show fac ia l features highly v i s ib le . The t ig h t c lose-

up also shows the f ine d e ta i l s of sk in , s ta in s on teeth and small wrink les .

I t is evident th a t many o f the visual fac tors th a t e s tab l ish

Hal l ' s proxemic distances are apparent in the ECU and TCU camera shots .

I f these proxemic associa t ions were unconsciously processed in the same

way by te lev is ion viewers as they are in te rpersona l ly , i t is possible th a t

the TV t a l e n t i s subject to the same conventions as are applicable to

in terpersonal communication.

CHAPTER 3

PROCEDURE

I n i t i al Procedure

Twenty-eight students were randomly se lec ted out of the completely

enumerated population of Speech Communication 2 and Speech Communication

12 a t The University of Arizona. At the time of t h e i r s e lec t io n , they

were randomly assigned to one of two experimental groups. Each experi­

mental group contained fourteen su b je c t s , and was composed of seven males

and seven females. Each experimental group was then subdivided to allow

three intragroup pa r t ic ip an ts to view the treatment a t a time, except the

l a s t group in each treatment condition which held only two subjects .

Stimulus

The stimulus was a videotape performance of a male speaker giv­

ing a five-minute informative speech. The speaker was dressed formally.

Filmed in the format of a te lev is io n news na r ra t io n , the tape

was produced in color within the studios of KUAT-TV, Tucson, Arizona.

The tape was of broadcast qua l i ty . Two tapes were made concurrently

(Appendix A). The f i r s t tape was composed o f bust shots and extreme

close-up shots . The second tape was composed of bust shots and t ig h t

close-up shots. Both tapes held the bust shot in common. In one tape

the bust shot was cut to the extreme close-up, while in the other , the

bust shot was cut to the t i g h t close-up.

7 . '

The Speech

The speech was designed to be as neutral (in term's of emotionally

laden content) as possible . This n e u t r a l i ty was then pre tes ted by a

group of six-Speech Communication graduate s tudents . A Liker t Scale

tes ted whether the judges f e l t the speech was emotional or unemotional.

A S p l i t Half Correlation was then applied to the Likert Scale.

A Pierson Product Moment Correlation showed agreement among the judges

t h a t the speech was neutral with a .828 co rre la t ion . The speech dea l t

with the posit ion of bureaucracy in today's job market (Appendix B).

Measuring Instrument

The Semantic D if fe ren t ia l was used as the measuring instrument

in th is experiment. The instrument may be found in Appendix C.

The Semantic D if fe ren t ia l has Jbeen applied in many s tud ies ,

ranging anywhere from a subject ive analysis of aes the t ics to e lect ion

p red ic t ions .

The abundance of highly loaded b i -p o la r adject ives allows for

spec ia l ly designed sca les . This, in t u r n , allows the inves t iga to r to

design a series ' of. scales fo r his research question. The b i -po la r adjec­

t ives were rated on a seven-step sca le .

The measurement was composed of three p a r t s . The f i r s t segment

was administered as soon as a l l three subjects had a rr ived for the study.

This was a question to determine how many hours each sub jec t watched

te lev is ion per day. I t was used as the covariate in the s t a t i s t i c a l

analysis .

9

The second segment o f the measurement was the administra t ion of

the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale . This segment followed the viewing of

the stimulus, and asked questions perta ining to the "sequence" tha t the

subjects observed.

The th i rd segment, a lso followed the viewing of the stimulus and

was a semantic scale th a t asked the subjects to ra te the speaker.

Administration of Treatment

The experiment took place over a one-week period. Three subjects

were administered the treatment a t a time, except the l a s t group in each

treatment condition which held only two subjec ts . To simulate the t e l e ­

vision watching s i tu a t io n as c losely as poss ib le , a small room with

comfortable chairs and a small tab le were used. The subjects s a t around

the small tab le and viewed the monitor.

Ins truct ions

Upon entering the room the subjects were given an i n i t i a l ques­

t ionna i re inquir ing how many hours per day they spent watching TV.

After giving the information, the subjects were to ld to s i t back and

watch the te lev is ion fo r a few minutes. I f the subjects were in experi­

mental group one, they were shown the sequence with the bust shots and

the t ig h t close-up shots. The subjects in experimental group two were

shown the sequence with the bust shots and the extreme close-up shots.

After viewing the tapes, the subjects were given oral in s t ruc ­

t ions on how to f i l l out the measuring instrument. The in s t ruc t ions

followed the format s e t out by Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957) in

10

The Measurement of Meaning. This included: (1) o r ien ta t ion to the

general nature of the ta sk , (2) scale posi t ion and how they were to be

marked, and (3) the a t t i t u d e to be taken to the task.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This inves t igat ion was conducted to determine i f there is any

s ig n i f ic a n t d ifference in a t t i tu d e when a group of people are exposed

to an extreme close-up camera shot as opposed to a t i g h t close-up camera

shot in a shor t na rra t ive sequence. More general ly , th i s study attempted

to discern i f there i s any re la t ionsh ip between interpersonal proxemics

and the. re la t ionsh ip of the viewer and the t a l e n t in the TV watching

s i tu a t io n .

A 2x2 f ac to r ia l analysis of covariance was used fo r the analysis

of the data . Variables measured were proxemics ( Extreme close-up and

Tight close-up) and sex (male/female), A tab le of mean scores may be

found in Table 1.

As the covariant adjustment did not s ig n i f ic an t ly a f fe c t the

c r i t e r io n va r iab le s , the outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r

the good-bad scale of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measuring instrument is

shown in Table 2.

The good-bad scale was analyzed for the main e f fe c t s of proxemics

and sex and in te rac t io n e f f e c t s . The proxemic main e f f e c t showed s ig ­

n if icance.

11

Table 1. Table of Unadjusted Means.

12

Sex ProxemicsFemale Male TCU ECU

Sequence Question -

bad-good 3.93 3.85 4.43 3.35pleasant-unpleasant 2.93 3.93 3.36 - 3 . 5 0objec t ive -sub jec t ive 3.28 3.36 3.57 3.07far-near 3.57 3.65 3.22 4.00cold-hot 3.79 3.71 4.00 3.50in te res t ing-bor ing 4.21 3.93 3.50 4.64blunt-sharp 3.64 3.78 3.64 3.78reputable-di sreputabl e .. 2.57 2,71 2.28 3.00

Speaker Questiongood-bad 3.21 . 3.07 2.57 3,71dishonest-honest 5.21 5.57 5.85 4.93strong-weak 3.50 3.92 3.78 . 3.64unpleasant-pleasant 6.21 4.79 5.71 5.29near - fa r . 3.79 . 4.07 4.29 3.57soft-hard 2.79 3.57 3.14 3.22calm-agitated 2.50 2.28 2.28 2.50reputable-dis reputable 2.71 2.43 2.07 3.07

Table 2. Summary o f A na lysis o f V ariance f o r Good-bad S c a le :Sequence Segment.

Source of Sum of Mean Significance, Variation Squares DF Square F of F

Covariates 1.880 1 1.880 .821 ..374

Main Effects 9.720 2 4.860 2.121 . .143Var 18 Sex .228 1 .228 .100 .755Var 19 Proxemic 9.557 1 9.557- 4.171 .053

2-Way In teract ionsVar 18 Var 19 .380 1 .380 .166 .688

Explained . 11.980 4 2.995 1.307 .297

TOTAL 64.679 27 2.396

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the pleasant-

unpleasant scale of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measuring instrument is

shown in Table 3.

The p leasant-unpleasant scale was analyzed fo r the main e f fec ts

of proxemics and sex and in te rac t ion e f f e c t s . The sex main e f f e c t

showed s ign i f icance . While the proxemic variable .showed no s ignif icance

the in te rac t ion e f f e c t produced s ig n i f i c a n t variance.

Table 3. Summary o f A na lysis o f V ariance f o r P le a s a n t -u n p le a s a n tS c a le : Sequence Segment. :

Source of Sum of Mean SignificanceVariation Squares DF Square F of F

Covariates 3.689 1 3.689 3.086

Main Effects 9.4T4 2 4.707 3.938Var 18 ' 8.952 1 8.952 7.489Var 19 .565 1 .565 .' .473

2-way In teract ions Var 18 Var 19 8.259 1 8.259 6.909 .015

Explained 21.362 4 5.341 4.468 .008

TOTAL 48.857 27 1.810

The outcome of the two-way analysis o f variance fo r the object ive-

subject ive scale of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measuring instrument is

shown in Table 4.

The ob jec t ive -sub jec t ive scale was analyzed for the main e ffec ts

of proxemics and sex and th e i r in te rac t ion e f f e c t . No source of variance

produced s ig n i f ic a n t e f f e c t s .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the far -near

scale of the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l measuring instrument is shown,in

Table 5.

The fa r -near scale was analyzed fo r the main e f fec ts of proxemics

and sex and th e i r in te rac t ion e f f e c t . No source of variance produced

s ig n i f ic a n t e f f e c t s .

.092

.034

.012

.499

15

Table 4. Summary o f Analys is o f Variance f o r O b j e c t i v e - s u b j e c t i v eSca le : Sequence Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares OF

MeanSquare F

Signi fi cance of F

Covariates 2.834 1 2.834 .974 .334

Main Effects 1.344 2 .672 .231 .796Var 18 .182 1 .182 ,062 .805Var 19 1.139 1 1.139 .392 .538

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 1.016 1 ' 1.016 .349 .560

Explained 5.194 4 1.298 .466 .774

TOTAL 72.107 27 2.671

Table 5. Summary of Analysis Sequence Segment.

of Variance fo r Far-■near Scale:

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares OF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates .028 1 .028 .012 .912

Mai n Effects 4.363 2 2.181 .959 .398Var 18 .046 1 .046 .020 .888Var 19 4.335 1 4.335 1.905 .181

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 1.952 1 1.952 .858 .364

Explained 6.343 . 4 1.586 .697 .602

TOTAL 58.679 - 27 2.173

16

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the cold-hot

scale of the semantic d i f f e re n t ia l measuring instrument is shown in

Table 6. The cold-hot sca le was analyzed fo r the main e f fe c ts of prox-

emics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n . No source of variance

produced s ig n i f ic a n t e f f e c ts .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the

in te res tin g -bo rin g sca le of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring in s t ru ­

ment is shown in Table 7. The in te res ting -b o ring scale was analyzed fo r

the main e f fe c ts of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n . The

proxemic main e f f e c t showed s ig n if ican ce . While the sex main e f fe c t did

not show s ign if icance in d iv id u a lly , i t did when considered in the two-

way in te rac t io n with proxemi c s .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the blunt-

sharp scale of the semantic d i f f e re n t ia l measuring instrument is shown

in Table 8. The blunt-sharp scale was analyzed fo r the main e ffec ts of

proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n . No source of variance

produced s ign if icance . '

. The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the

repu tab le-d isrepu tab le sca le of the semantic d i f f e re n t ia l measuring

instrument is shown in Table 9. The repu tab le -d is repu tab le scale was

analyzed fo r the main e f fe c ts of proxemics and sex and t h e i r two-way

in te ra c t io n . No source of variance produced s ig n if ican ce .

17

Table 6. Summary o f Ana lys is o f Variance f o r Cold-hot S c a le :Sequence Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance o f F

Covariates 1.379 1 1.379 2.183 .153 '

Main Effects 1.339 2 .670 1.060 .363Var 18 .001 1 .001 .002 .963Var 19 1.339 1 1.339 2.120 .159

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .001 1 .001 .001 .977

Explained 2.719 4 .680 1.076 .391

TOTAL 17.250 27 .639'

Table 7. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r In te res ting -boring Scale: Sequence Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates 4.884 1 . 4.884 2.422 .133

Main Effects 11.691 2 5.845 2.898 .075Var 18 .116 1 .116 .058 .812Var 19 11.512 1 11.512 5.708 .025

2-way In te rac tionsVar 18 Var 19 10.898 1 10.898 5.404 .029

Explained 27.473 4 6.868 3.406 .025

TOTAL 73.857 27 2.735

Table 8. Summary o f Ana lys is o f Variance f o r B lu n t - sh a rp S ca le :Sequence Segment.

Source of Variati on

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates 2.333 1 2.333 1.300 .266

Main Effects . 785 2 .393 .219 .805Var 18 .402 1 .402 .224 .640

• Var 19 .402 1 .402 .224 .640

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 1.331 1 1.331 .742 .398

Explained 4.449 4 1.112 .620 .653

TOTAL 45.714 27 1.693

Table 9. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Reputable-disreputable Scale: Sequence Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates .001 1 .001 .001 .977

Main Effects 3.815 2 1.908 . 1.354 .278Var 18 .179 1 .179 .127 .725Var 19 3.. 673 1 3.673 2.608 .120

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .211 1 .211 .150 .702

Explained 4.028 4 1.007 .715 .590

TOTAL 36.429 27 1.349

19

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the good-

bad scale of the semantic d i f f e r e n t ia l measuring instrument is shown

in Table 10. The good-bad scale was analyzed fo r the main e ffec ts of

proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n s . The proxemic main

e f f e c t showed s ign if ican ce .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the honest-

dishonest sca le of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring, instrument is

shown in Table 11. The honest-dishonest scale was analyzed fo r the main

e f fe c ts of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te rac t io n . The proxemic

main e f f e c t showed s ig n if ican ce .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the strong-

weak sca le of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring instrument is shown

in Table 12. The strong-weak scale was analyzed fo r the main e ffec ts

of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te rac t io n . No source of v a r i ­

ance showed s ign if icance .

The outcome of the two-way analysis o f variance fo r the p leasan t-

unpleasant sca le of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring instrument is

shown in Table 13. The p leasant-unpleasant sca le was.analyzed fo r the

main e ffe c ts of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n . The

sex main e f f e c t showed s ign if icance .

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the near-

f a r scale of the semantic d i f f e re n t ia l measuring instrument is shown in

Table 14. • The n e a r-fa r sca le was analyzed fo r the main e f fe c ts of

proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n . No source of variance

showed s ign if icance although the two-way in te rac t io n approached s i g n i f i ­

cance a t .06.

20

Table 10. Summary o f A na lys is o f Variance f o r Good-bad S c a le :Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares OF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates .137 1 .137 .077 . .784

Main Effects 9.779 2 4.890 2.730 . .086Var 18 .063 1 .063 .035 .853Var 19 9.673 1 9.673 5.401 .029

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .320 1 .320 .179 .676

Explained 10.237 4 2.559 1.429 .256.

TOTAL 51.429 27 1.905

Table 11. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Honest-dishonest Scale: Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance . of F

Covariates .933 1 .933 .681 .418

Main Effects 7.500 2 3.750 2.737 .086Var 18 . 553 1 .553 . 403 .532Var 19 6.849 1 6.849 4.999 .035

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .735 1 .735 .536 .471

Explained 9.168 4 2.292 1.673 . 190

TOTAL 40.679 27 1.507

21

Table 12. Summary o f A na lys is o f Variance f o r Strong-weak S c a le :Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of . Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covari ates .308 1 .308 .137 .715

Main Effects 1.593 2 .796 .354 .706Var 18 1.505 . 1 1.505 .668 .422Var 19 .071 1 .071 .032 . 860

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .024 1 .024 .011 .919

Explained 1.925 4 .481 .214 .928

TOTAL 53.714 27 1.989

Table 13. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Pleasant-unpleasant Scale: Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates .059 1 .059 .054 .818

Main Effects . 15.784 2 7.892 7.220 .004Var 18 14.553 1 14.553 13.312 .001Var 19 1.442 1 1.442 1.319 .262

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .014 1 .014 .013 .912

Explained 15.857 4 3.964 3.625 .020

TOTAL 41.000 27 1.519

22

Table 14. Summary of Analys is o f Variance f o r N e a r - f a r S ca le :Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covari a tes 1.883 1 1.883 1.015 . 324

Main Effects 3,772 2 1.886 1.045 .368Var 18 .872 1 .672 .483 .492Var 19 2.822 1 2.822 1.563 .224

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 6.742 1 6.742 3.735 . 066

Explained 12.346 4 3.086 1.710 .182

TOTAL 53.857 27 1.995

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the hard-

s o f t scale of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring instrument is shown

in Table 15. The h ard -so ft scale was analyzed fo r the main e ffe c ts of

proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n s . The sex main e f fe c t

showed s ign if ican ce .

The outcome, of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the calm-

ag ita ted scale of the semantic d i f fe re n t ia l measuring instrument is

shown in Table 16. The calm-agitated sca le was analyzed fo r the main

e f fe c ts of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way in te ra c t io n s . No form

of variance showed s ign if icance .

23

Table 15. Summary o f Analys is o f Var iance f o r H a rd - s o f t S ca le :Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covariates .684 1 . 684 .599 .447

Main Effects 5.120 2 2.560 2.239 .129Mar 18 5.018 . 1 5.018 4.389 .047Var 19 .139 1 .139 .122 .730

2-way In te rac tion s Var 18 Var 19 . 006 1 .006 .005 .943

Explained 5.810 4 1.453 1.270 .310

TOTAL 32.107 27 1.189

Table 16. Summary of Analysis of Variance fo r Calm-agitated Scale: Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F .

Covariates 2.109 1 2.109 2.071 .164

Main Effects .747 2 .373 .367 .697Var 18 .625 1 .625 .614 .441Var 19 .109 1 ■ .109 .107 .747

2-way In te rac tionsVar 18 Var 19 .402 1 .402 .395 .536

Explained 3.257 4 .814 .800 .538

TOTAL 26.679 27 .988

24

The outcome of the two-way analysis of variance fo r the

repu tab le-d isrepu tab le sca le of the semantic d i f f e re n t ia l measuring

instrument is shown in Table 17. The repu tab le -d is repu tab le scale was

analyzed fo r the main e ffe c ts of proxemics and sex and th e i r two-way

in te rac t io n s . The proxemic variab le showed s ig n if ican ce .

Table 17. Summary of Analysis o f Variance fo r Reputable-disreputable Scale: Speaker Segment.

Source of Variation

Sum of Squares DF

MeanSquare F

Significance of F

Covari a tes . .034 1 .034 .034 .855

Main Effects 7.773 2 3.887 3.891 .035Var 18 .451 1 .451 .452 .508Var 19 7.231 1 7.231 7.240 .013

2-way In terac tions Var 18 Var 19 .077 1 . .077 .077 .783

Explained 7.885 4 1.971 1.974 .132

TOTAL 30.857 27 1.143

Summati on

Five out of the six teen scales revealed s ig n i f ic a n t differences

on the proxemic va riab le . Two of these f iv e (good-bad, in te re s t in g -

boring) were in response to the sequence question. The d irec tio n of the

d ifference was toward good and in te re s t in g in the t ig h t close-up group.

In ra t ing the speaker, three scales showed s ig n i f ic a n t ly d i f f e r ­

ent means on the proxemic va riab le . These were the sca le s : good-bad,

honest-dishonest, and repu tab le -d is repu tab le . On these three sca le s ,

the d irec tion of the d ifference was toward good, honest, and reputable

fo r the t ig h t close-up group.

Three of the six teen scales measured revealed s ig n i f ic a n t d i f f e r ­

ences on the sex variab le . One of these scales was in response to the

sequence question. In th is response, the female level of the sex v a r i ­

able was s ig n if ic a n t on the p leasant-unpleasant sca le . The d irec tion of

th is d ifference was toward p leasan t. -

On the speaker segment of the questionnaire , two of the scales

measured were s ig n if ic a n t . In both the p leasant-unpleasant and the hard-

so f t ad jective p a i r s , the female respondents had s ig n i f ic a n t ly d i f fe re n t

means than males. The d irec tion of the d ifferences was toward p leasant

and s o f t fo r the females.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS• a

In terms of the s t a t i s t i c a l evidence a t ta in e d , the following

statements can be made:

1. There is a s ig n i f ic a n t d ifference in audience reac tion to a

male speaker when exposed to an extreme close-up camera shot as opposed

to a t ig h t close-up camera shot in a sho rt n a rra t iv e sequence.

2. Subjects exposed to a t ig h t close-up shot w ill r a te the

sequence as more in te re s t in g and b e t te r than w ill sub jects exposed to

an extreme close-up shot.

3. People exposed to a t ig h t close-up shot w ill view a male

speaker as more honest, more repu tab le , and b e t te r than w ill subjects

who view an extreme close-up shot.

4. In a short n a rra t iv e sequence, woman found the male speaker

to be more p leasan t and so f te r than did the males.

In both the sequence question and the speaker question , the

pa irs good-bad and p leasant-unpleasant were s ig n if ic a n t . The scale

good-bad was s ig n i f ic a n t on the proxemic v a riab le , while the p leasant-

unpleasant sca le was s ig n i f ic a n t on the sex variab le .

A look a t which of the polar opposites were s ig n i f ic a n t is

crucial to an understanding of the th e s is . In a ll cases where a research

variab le showed s ig n if ican ce , i t always held to be one of two cases. On

proxemics, the variab le of g re a te s t i n t e r e s t , the sub jects seeing the

26

27

extreme close-up always had the most negative response. In terms of the

d irec tion of the d if fe ren ces , th is response always went toward bad in

the good-bad sc a le , dishonest in the honest-dishonest s c a le , and boring

in the in te res ting -b o ring sca le .

On the sequence question, the ECU group found the sequence s ig ­

n i f ic a n t ly more boring. The respondents in the ECU group found the

speaker le s s honest and less reputable than did the TCU sub jec ts . Fin­

a l ly , on the sex v a riab le , the males found the speaker less pleasant and

harder than did the females.

These findings concur with the th eo re tica l analog drawn by the

author e a r l i e r in th is work. As c ited by Hall (1966), each sp e c if ic

in terpersonal distance is r e la t iv e to the persons involved, the s i tu a ­

t io n , the fe e l in g s , in sh o r t , the t ran sac tio n . In the sp e c if ic s i tu a t io n

of th is study, a group of subjects observed someone they had never seen

before give a sho rt n a rra t iv e speech. I f information is processed in a

s im ila r manner by the te lev is io n viewer as i t is in te rp e rso n a lly , the

extreme close-up shot would be less comfortable fo r the American viewer.

I t would follow th a t the ECU shot "invaded" the in terpersonal space of

the viewers. The t ig h t close-up sho t, showing the speaker from a s l ig h t ly

g rea te r "d is tance ," (in terms of the viewers perceptions) kept the t a le n t

a t a more comfortable range, thus achieving a s ig n i f ic a n t ly more favor­

able ra t in g .

The im plications of these findings s t re tc h across the realm of

many v i ta l issues . Take, fo r example, the case of the p res iden tia l

debates. I f one of the candidates were shot with more extreme close-up

shots than was the o ther , a negative unconscious reaction could be s e t

up in the audience. This proxemic reac tion could un fa ir ly jeopardize

the campaign. This notion is not too far-fe tched when one considers

how close the recent e lec tions have been.

In another a rea , we find the legal profession strong ly consider­

ing the use of videotape fo r t r i a l s . In view of the evidence a tta ined

in th is study th is seems to be somewhat alarming. Consider a p l a i n t i f f

being shown to the jury in a s l ig h t ly d i f f e re n t camera shot than the

defendant. This d i f f e r e n t ia t io n , although barely no ticeab le to the

ju ro r s , could have the e f f e c t of unconsciously a l te r in g th e i r a t t i tu d e s .

This change would not be due to the evidence heard, but to an unconscious

proxemic a t t i tu d e .

In another area , we find commercial advertise rs presenting con­

sumers with commercials every day. These commercials surround the t e l e ­

vision viewing public in a myriad of f lash ing l ig h t s , changing camera

sho ts , and any other e f f e c t th a t seems to work. The problem with th is

procedure is th a t i t is b as ica lly a t r i a l abd e rro r method. The re su l ts

o f th is study suggest the p o s s ib i l i ty of se t t in g up a complete "person­

a l i ty " analysis which would t e l l which camera shot, or perhaps se r ies

of shots would best d isplay a person to a highly spec if ied audience.

In conclusion, i t seems apparent th a t there is some kind of

proxemic mechanism operative in the TV-talent-viewer re la t io n sh ip .

This re la tion sh ip appears to be s im ila r to the in terpersonal proxemic

re la tionsh ip s as discussed by Hall (1966). More research is needed to

expand th is understanding and to answer additional questions on the

ex ten t to which these mechanisms are opera tive . f

Further te s t in g is planned as a means of a continued investiga

t ion of th is top ic and fu r th e r reso lu tion of the unanswered questions.

APPENDIX A

STIMULUS TAPING PROCEDURE

Three cameras were used to tape the sequence. Camera 1 held

a bust shot through the whole taping. Cameras 2 and 3 held ECU and

TCU shots respec tive ly . Camera 1 was bussed in to both the major control

un it and an aux il ia ry bus. Camera 2 was d irec ted to the major control

panel. Camera 3 was d irec ted to the a u x il ia ry control panel. Both

tapes held the bust-sho t in common a t the same points in the s c r ip t .

When i t came time to cut from the bust-sh o t, the technical d irec to r

punched Cameras 2 and 3 simultaneously. This sent the TCU to one tape

and the ECU to another. When cu tting back to the bust sho t, the signal

from Camera 1 was d irec ted to both recording un its . Cameras 2 and 3

were placed d ire c t ly together so th a t there was no d iscern ib le d ifference

in angle from the TCU to the ECU.

The eventual outcome of th is procedure, y ielded two separate

tapes. One held bust-shots and TCU shots . The other was composed of

bust-shots and ECU shots.

. The purpose of th is procedure was to:

1. Cut down on the p o s s ib i l i ty of d i f fe re n t p a ra lan g u is t ic and

l in g u is t i c pa tterns th a t might have become operational i f the tapes

were made a t two d i f f e r e n t times.

2. To ensure th a t the camera angle would not in te r f e re with the

proxemic dimension.

30

APPENDIX B

THE SPEECH

IN RECENT YEARS MOST AMERICANS HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DECIDE

WHETHER PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE HIGH-MINDED CITIZENS DESERVING RESPECT

AND AFFECTION OR BRIEF-CASE TOTING ROGUES AND THIEVES, OUT TO ROB THE

AVERAGE MAN OF HIS EARNINGS, SECURITY, AND WELL-BEING. THE TERM

BUREAUCRAT ALONE CAN STIR UP NEGATIVE REACTIONS AND HAS BECOME,ONE OF

THE MORE SUCCESSFULLY USED TERMS IMPLEMENTED BY POLITICIANS TRYING TO

WIN VOTES.

MANY SOCIAL SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THE PUBLIC'S

. OPINION OF SOCIAL SERVANTS. THE GENERAL ASSUMPTION IS THAT A SYSTEM

IN WHICH PUBLIC SERVANTS ARE VIEWED UNFAVORABLY HAS A LOW LEVEL OF

LEGITIMACY AND POOR RECRUITMENT POSSIBILITIES.

A STUDY OF MEXICAN-AMERICANS REVEALS THAT LOCAL BUREAUCRATIC

STRUCTURES ESTABLISHED AND REINFORCED A "CULTURE OF POVERTY." THE

NORMS OF THE BUREAUCRATIC PROCEDURE RAN COUNTER TO OR AT BEST IGNORED

THE NORMS AND VALUES OF THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY. BUREAUCRACY

IS SEEN BY THIS GROUP AS AN AWESOME, EXTRA-LEGAL SYSTEM WHICH IS BEYOND

INFLUENCE OR MANIPULATION.

IN CONTRAST, THE MIDDLE-CLASS ANGLO LEARNS TO MANIPULATE

BUREAUCRATIC RULES TO PROTECT HIS SOCIAL STANDING AND WEALTH. BUREAUC­

RACY IS NOT SEEN AS A DOMINATING SET OF INSTITUTIONS BUT RATHER AS AN

ERRATIC UNRELIABLE AND INEFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE TO INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVE.

31

32

ACCORDING TO CERTAIN THEORIES, THE AMOUNT OF PRESTIGE ATTRIBUTED

TO AN OCCUPATION IS A VITAL FORCE IN MOTIVATING INDIVIDUALS TO TRAIN FOR

JOBS IN THAT OCCUPATION. THIS WOULD INCLUDE JOBS IN THE LOCAL STATE AND

FEDERAL SERVICES.

ONE WOULD EXPECT LOWER-CLASS INDIVIDUALS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES

TO ATTACH MORE PRESTIGE TO BUREAUCRATIC CAREERS AT ALL LEVELS. LOCAL­

IZED PUBLIC SERVICE CAREERS WOULD BE ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE LOWER-CLASS

GROUPS COME INTO MORE FREQUENT CONTACT WITH LOCAL BUREAUCRATS. THEIR

MODELS OF GOVERNMENT SERVICE ARE THUS "LOCAL" MODELS. THIS IDENTIFICA­

TION FACTOR MAY BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN A TOWN WHERE A GOOD NUMBER

OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE THEMSELVES MINORITY GROUP MEMBERS.

MEXICAN-AMERICAN YOUTHSs FOR EXAMPLE, HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE

HIGHLY RECEPTIVE TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT. CHICANO CHILDREN COME INTO

CONTACT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN SUPPORTIVE SETTINGS, FOR EXAMPLE:

WITHIN THE FAMILY UNIT, OR WITH FRIENDS. AT THE SAME TIME THEIR LACK

OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY INCREASES THE DESIRABILITY OF PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT

FOR ETHNIC MINORITIES.

BLACKS PRESENT UNIQUE VARIATIONS IN THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD

GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS USUALLY BEEN VIEWED

FAVORABLY BY BLACKS BECAUSE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT'S DESEG­

REGATION DECISION, AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERSHIP OF PRESIDENTS KENNEDY

AND JOHNSON. THIS POSITIVE IMAGE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRASTS

WITH A TRADITIONAL BLACK DISTRUST AND DISSATISFACTION FOR LOCAL GOVERN­

MENT. LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE VIEWED AS INCAPABLE OR UNWILLING TO RESOLVE

THE IMMENSE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL, AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS CONFRONTING THE

URBAN BLACK.

33

IF STUDENTS HOLD RATIONAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE APPEAL OF PUBLIC

EMPLOYMENT IT SHOULD THEN FOLLOW THAT A RELATIONSHIP COULD BE DETERMINED

BETWEEN A STUDENT'S CAREER ASPIRATIONS AND HIS IMAGE OF GOVERNMENT

BUREAUCRACY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT CAN CONTINUE TO

INCREASE ITS SHARE OF CAPABLE EMPLOYEES BY SPONSORING PROGRAMS THAT

IMPROVE THE IMAGES OF PUBLIC SERVANTS. THIS NATURALLY IS VITALLY IMPOR­

TANT WHERE SUBCULTURAL FACTORS NEGATIVELY INFLUENCE THESE IMAGES.

i ONE FINAL NOTE OF CONSIDERATION INVOLVES THE ECONOMY AND JOB

MARKET. IN THE PAST FIVE YEARS GOVERNMENT SERVICE HAS BECOME INCREAS­

INGLY ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE OF SECURITY AND IMPROVED PAY SCALES. THESE

DEVELOPMENTS WILL PROBABLY HAVE MORE INFLUENCE ON MIDDLE-GLASS STUDENTS

THAN ON MINORITIES.

IN THE PAST MINORITIES ACCEPTED THE ATTRACTIVE QUALITIES OF A

PUBLIC CAREER IN SPITE OF ITS UNATTRACTIVE FUNCTIONAL IMAGES. FOR THE

MORE FORTUNATE CLASSES THE MAJOR CHALLENGE MAY BE TO OVERCOME STEREO­

TYPED NEGATIVE IMAGES, WHICH IS NOT AN INSURMOUNTABLE TASK IN TODAY'S

TIGHT EMPLOYMENT MARKET. .

APPENDIX C

SEMANTIC SCALES-INSTRUMENT

1. "The sequence I j u s t watched seemed:

bad

p leasant

ob jective

f a r

cold

in te re s t in g

b lun t

reputable

bad

honest

weak

pleasan t

fa r

hard

ag ita ted

disreputab le

2. The speaker appeared:

go od___ ,_

dishonest ,__

strong ,__

unpleasant __

near

s o f t ___ i_

calm ,

reputable __ ,__

3. Male Female

unpleasant

_ sub jective

near

„ hot

bori ng

sharp

d isreputab le

34

REFERENCES

Fearing, F . , "Social Impact of the Mass Media of Communication,"in National Society fo r the Study of Education, F i f ty - th i rd Yearbook, Part I I : Mass Media and Education, Chicago, Univ.of Chicago Press (1954), pp. 165-191.

Hall, E. I . , The Hidden Dimension, Doubleday and Co., Garden City,New York (1966).

Hartmann, P ., and C. Husband, Racism and the Mass Media, Roman and L i t t l e f i e l d , Totowa, New Jersey (1974).

Huxley, A., Brave New World Revisited , Harper and Brothers, New York (19587:

MacQuai1, D., Towards a Sociology of Mass Communication, C o llie r- MacMi1lan , London, England (1969).

MacQuai1, D., Sociology of Mass Communication, Penguin, Harmondsworth, England (1972).

Osgood, C. E . , G. J . Suc i, and P. H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning, University of I l l i n o i s Press , Urbana, Chicago, and London (1957).

35

20 10