Parent Discipline Scale: Discipline Choice as a ... - ProQuest Search

Parent Discipline Scale: Discipline Choice as a function of Transgression Type N. L. Lopez University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

H. G. Schneider Appalachian State University

C. S. Dula Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University The Parent Discipline Scale (PDS) was designed to measure the effects of children’s transgressions on parental disciplinary choices. The items for the final version of the PDS represent four types of child behavioral transgressions: aggressive and non-aggressive social violations, and aggressive and non-aggressive safety violations. Parents (n =101) were presented with these items and were asked to endorse the likelihood of using three different types of discipline techniques: non-aggressive power assertion, aggressive power assertion, and induction. Results of a 2 X 2 within subjects ANOVA indicated that parents were more likely to endorse the use of all types of discipline interventions when addressing aggressive violations as opposed to non-aggressive violations. Transgressions that could result in injury to self or others (safety violations) elicited higher levels of aggressive power assertion and induction than did violations of moral or social norms. Parents did not increase levels of non-aggressive discipline when addressing safety violations. The interaction between the aggressiveness and the type of the transgression was also significant, indicating that parents were more likely to use aggressive power assertion and induction for aggressive social violations than for non-aggressive safety violations.

Parental reactions to children’s behaviors are moderated by a complex interaction between parent and child variables (Catron & Masters 1993; Dix, Reinhold, & Zambarano, 1990; Dix, Ruble, & Zambarano, 1989; Holden, Coleman, & Schmidt, 1995; Tisak, Nucci, & Jankowski, 1996). To understand this relationship, studies have examined parental responses to different types of child transgressions, with a variety of methods being used to classify the transgressions. While theoretical schemes for classification of transgressions are logical and meaningful, selecting items and examples to represent specific categories Author info: Correspondence should be sent to: H. G. Schneider. Department of Psychology; Appalachian State University. Boone, NC 28608. [email protected] North American Journal of Psychology, 2002, Vol. 4, No. 2, 381-394.  NAJP

382

NORTH AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY

has often been subjective rather than empirical. The purpose of the present study was twofold: first, an attempt was made to generate a set of items representing a wide range of child misbehaviors that could be used to create a useful taxonomy of transgression. The second goal of the study was to evaluate how parental disciplinary choice was influenced by the nature and severity of child transgressions. Transgression Types Parents determine the amount and type of discipline they use based on factors such as the age and gender of the child, level of aggression, potential for injury, parental emotional and cognitive states, and whether the offense violates social or moral standards (Catron & Masters, 1993; Holden et al., 1995). Holden et al. (1995) found that mothers were more likely to use spanking in response to aggressive behaviors compared to any other type of offense. Their classification of transgression was a simplified version of Dunn and Munn’s (1987) categorization system, which included variables such as caretaking, manners and politeness, violations of the rights of others, destructive behavior, and aggressive behavior. Tisak and Turiel (1984) used three similar categories for child transgressions: prudential violations, social convention violations, and moral violations. Prudential violations are actions that may result in physical harm to the child, such as drinking poison or playing with fire. Social convention transgressions are violations of common social rules, such as manners or dress. Finally, moral violations consist of actions that have a negative psychological or physical impact on others, such as fighting or property damage. Catron and Masters (1993) used this system of classification to study parental use of corporal punishment and children’s acceptance of discipline. Pre-school children did not differentiate between transgressions, holding a generalized view of appropriateness of parental discipline. However, fifth graders and their mothers showed more discrimination between transgressions, with both viewing prudential and moral transgressions as more deserving of all types of discipline than social transgressions. Prudential transgressions were viewed as deserving more corporal punishment than moral transgressions. With these models of categorization, the type of transgression may be confounded by the severity of the offense. Severity, rather than the type of offense, may determine the parental reaction and disciplinary choice. To better understand the effects of transgression types, the behaviors representing these categories should have similar levels of severity or they be matched based on severity within categorization. Even if equivalent levels of severity cannot be established across the types of

Lopez, Schneider, & Dula

PARENT DISCIPLINE SCALE

383

transgressions, then the ratings of severity may be useful as a covariate. The materials used for these studies employed behavioral descriptions or vignettes created by the researchers to logically represent categories. Empirical support for the selection of these items has not been provided; additionally, there is little evidence of inter-rated agreement about classification of the types of transgressions. Parental responses to different transgressions vary considerably. Previous studies have mainly focused only on parental use of corporal punishment, which is one type of power assertive discipline. The literature on parental disciplinary choice neglects the study of other types of disciplinary techniques, such as induction and non-aggressive power assertion. Only Dix, et al. (1989) studied a range of parental disciplinary responses as mediated by child behavior. They focused on parental beliefs concerning children’s competencies and understanding of rules, rather than the nature of the children’s transgressions. Little is known about the moderating effects of children’s transgression on parental use of non-aggressive discipline, even though these interventions are used far more frequently than corporal punishment (Straus & Kantor, 1994). Parental disciplinary interventions are usually divided into two categories: power assertion and induction (Hoffman & Saltzstein, 1967; Hoffman, 1975; Eisikovits & Sagi, 1982; Rich, 1993). Induction is an intervention during which the parent explains to the child the consequences of his/her actions on self or others or the rationale behind the rule (Hoffman, 1975). The prevalence of inductive discipline use, and the factors that increase the use of induction by parents has not been well documented. Induction is contrasted to power assertive interventions. During these power assertive interventions the parent uses the power inherent within the parent-child relationship to enforce rules or to punish the child after a violation. These interventions include corporal punishment but can also less aggressive actions such as time-out and withdrawal of privileges. Few studies have attempted to relate children’s transgressions with parental discipline, and many studies concerning the effects of parental discipline style, contain problematic theoretical and methodological issues. Studies on the effect of power assertion have failed to separate aggressive from non-aggressive power assertive interventions, which is necessary since these two types of techniques may lead to significantly different outcomes, and possibly serve different purposes for the disciplinary agent. According to Hoffman (1994), the aggression component of some interventions (corporal punishment, scolding) may make the child very anxious and fearful. This elevated level of arousal may prevent some children from processing the inductive message from the parent, thereby reducing the efficacy of the intervention. Studies also

384


suggest that aggressive interventions may be used by the parent to relieve his/her personal stress or frustration with the child, and not simply as a disciplinary intervention (Holden et al., 1995). It is clear that aggressive and non-aggressive power assertion techniques are qualitatively different, and should not be studied as a unit. Finally, parents may use a combination of discipline responses to address a specific situation. Any assessment of parental disciplinary choice must allow parents to choose different disciplinary interventions for the same violation. The present study attempted to address these theoretical and methodological issues. The first step was to develop a scaled set of items that accurately reflect current theoretical models regarding the taxonomy of children’s transgressions. The next step was to assess parents’ reactions to a series of child behaviors based on the types of transgressions and determine if parental disciplinary choices were influenced by the nature of the child’s transgression. Scale Development and Item Pools Psychology graduate students and parents generated brief descriptions of children’s behaviors that may result in a disciplinary response from parents. We attempted to include a very wide range of behaviors with an adequate representation of the different types of offenses with varying levels of severity. Item generation and subsequent editing resulted in an initial pool of 250 transgressions. Participants – Sample 1. The first sample consisted of 87 college student volunteers from introductory psychology classes. Students received research credit in their classes for their participation. There were 56 females and 31 males (mean age of 18.7 years) and 92% of the subjects were white (n=80), 7% were black (n=6) and 1.1% were Hispanic (n=1). Participants completed a questionnaire containing the 250 behavioral transgressions presented in a set of random orders. For each transgression, the subjects were asked to rate the severity of the item on a Likert-type scale from 1 (trivial violation) to 4 (severe violation). They were also asked to assign the transgression to one of three categories: Social convention violation (e.g. lying or stealing), safety violation (e.g. playing with fire or a sharp object), and aggressive violation (e.g. hitting someone or killing an animal). Item Selection - The 250 items were categorized based on the nature and severity of the offense. The agreement rate for the nature of the offenses was reviewed, and transgressions that were consistently assigned to one of the categories (by at least 75% of the participants) were selected as an item for that category. Within each category the severity ratings were used to select the six most and six least severe items. This selection process created six clusters of items: least-severe



385

and most-severe for social, safety, and aggressive violations (see Table 1). TABLE 1 Agreement Rate and Severity Ratings for Item Set No. 1 Agreement Severity rate rating _________________________________________________________________________ Safety Transgression - Low Severity Neglecting to use sunscreen during a sunny day at the beach .78 1.87 Burning candles in his/her room .81 2.09 Running around the house with a sharpened pencil ..95 2.19 Trying to catch a snake ..83 2.34 Riding his/her bike/skates without a helmet ..88 2.35 Means: .85 2.16 Safety Transgressions - High Severity Playing with a gun .87 3.81 Playing with a dangerous chemical .96 3.66 Taking prescription medications with the intention of getting high .85 3.63 Having unprotected sexual intercourse with boyfriend/girlfriend .80 3.63 Taking hallucinogenic drugs .82 3.59 Means: .86 3.66 Aggressive Transgressions - Low Severity Breaking a window in anger .81 2.52 Violently pushing a child away from his toys .75 2.79 Getting in a fist fight with his/her sibling .77 3.00 Kicking the family pet .86 3.16 Beating up a younger child .82 3.26 Means: .80 2.94 Aggressive Transgressions - High Severity Pointing a gun at another person .75 3.85 Cutting a child with a knife during a fight .92 3.85 Hitting a teacher .95 3.81 Beating a friend with a bat over the head .87 3.81 Killing the family pet .93 3.79 Means: .88 3.82 Social Transgressions - Low severity Leaving the cap off the toothpaste .98 1.12 Leaving the ice cream out .98 1.20 Leaving the refrigerator’s door open .97 1.25 Swapping lunches at school .92 1.27 Talking to friends on the phone longer than allowed .98 1.31 Means: .95 1.23 Social Violations - High Severity Masturbating with another child of the same age .77 3.24 Stealing a copy of an upcoming test .81 3.08 Trying to sell your belongings without permission .82 3.04 Putting down someone else’s culture .88 2.96 Calling 1-900 numbers .82 2.92 Means: .82 3.04

386


The overall agreement rate for these items suggested that subjects were basically able to accurately assign the behaviors to discrete categories. For safety and social transgressions, a large number of items were endorsed, allowing for the creation of categories that clearly varied in terms of severity. However, the differences between the high and low severity ratings for aggressive violations were not significant. The number of items that were endorsed as aggressive were minimal (only 14 out of 250), which limited variance of the severity ratings. Clear agreement that a transgression was aggressive was evident for only those items that represented extreme levels of aggression, with items that contained less aggressive actions being often classified as safety or social violations. Rather than considering aggression as a separate type of transgression, this construct may be an important dimension of all types of violations. Subjects - Sample 2. A second study was conducted to create a classification system that included aggressiveness as a component of both social or safety violations. The same item pool of 250 transgressions was presented to a second set of college students (N = 48). Participants were asked to assign the transgression to one of two categories: Social violation (violations of basic social rules or norms) and safety violation (actions that might result in injury to self or others). The participants were also asked to rate the level of aggression of each item on a Likert scale from 1 (non-aggressive violation) to 4 (aggressive violation), and the severity of the item on a scale ranging from 1 (trivial violation) to 4 (severe violation). Item Selection Items were divided into two categories representing safety and social violations. There was clearer agreement among raters regarding this classification. Only those items with an agreement rating of .90 or higher were selected for each category. After initial analysis, it was determined that ratings of aggression and severity were very highly correlated (r = .90), which precluded using both aggressive and severity ratings as a basis for categorization. Items were selected, therefore, based on levels of aggression, since the aggressiveness of transgressions was assumed to be centrally related to disciplinary choice. The 10 least and 10 most aggressive items were included, creating four clusters of items: nonaggressive safety violations, aggressive safety violations, non-aggressive social violations, and aggressive social violations. This group of 40 items was then evaluated based on content. Five items per cluster were selected, which represented violations applicable to most social classes and geographical locations. The final pool



387

contained a total of 20 items, which are presented in Table 2: these items were used for the Parent Discipline Scale. This scale included parental responses on the use of induction, aggressive power assertion, and nonaggressive power assertion for each of the child transgressions. For each class of disciplinary response, two specific parental responses were generated reflecting common disciplinary actions.

TABLE 2 Agreement Rate, and Severity and Aggression Ratings for Item Set No. 2 ___________________________________________________________ Agreement rate

Safety Non-aggressive Transgression Crossing the road without looking ..90 Climbing on a tree branch that is about to break ..90 Riding his/her bike/skates without his/her helmet ..90 Trying to get something of the oven without gloves ..95 Running barefoot w/ several sharp objects on the floor . 93 Means: ..92 Safety Aggressive Transgressions Cutting a child with a knife during a fight ..90 Pointing a gun at someone ..93 Beating up a younger child ..93 Severely shaking a baby ..93 Aiming and shooting fireworks at other people ..90 Means: ..918

Severity rating (M = 2.79) (SD = .85)

Aggression rating (M = 2.54) (SD = .94)

3.17 3.05 2.5 2.85

2.12 2.15 2.07 1.97

2.82 2.88

2.25 2.11

3.8 3.8 3.5 3.7 3.67 3.69

3.80 3.77 3.70 3.62 3.60 3.70

Social Non-aggressive Transgressions Getting up late and missing the school bus Eating with his/her fingers Leaving the cap off the toothpaste Watching TV when he/she should have been doing homework Leaving the refrigerator’s door open Means:

..97 ..97 ..90

1.7 1.27 1.27

1.32 1.17 1.27

1.0 ..97 ..96

1.67 1.62 1.51

1.37 1.40 1.31

Social Aggressive Transgressions Vandalizing school property with his peers Breaking his/her friend’s toy on purpose Using profanity towards a teacher Picking on a younger child until the child cries Intentionally scratching new furniture Means:

..90 ..97 ..9 .90 1.0 .95

3.55 2.80 3.32 2.95 2.80 3.08

3.25 3.20 3.10 2.95 2.85 3.07

_________________________________________________________

388


THE PARENT DISCIPLINE SCALE – APPLICATION Participants One hundred and one parents participated in the study. Sixty-seven percent were mothers (n=68), and 33% were fathers (n=33). The sample consisted of mostly middle class families with an average education of 15 years, and an average of 2.5 children. Ninety-four percent were white (n=97), 1.9% were African American (n=2), 1% were Hispanic (n=1), and 1% were Asian (n=1). Design and Materials Parents of college students were contacted by mail and were asked to complete the PDS. If they were willing to participate, they signed a consent form, and completed the testing packet. The 20 behavioral transgressions were presented to parents in a random order, and parents were asked to rate how likely they would be to use six specific disciplining interventions if their child had engaged in these behaviors. They were asked to assume that they were making these ratings when their child was between 8 and 13 years of age. The forced choice nature of the questions may lead either to more socially desirable responses or to a greater consistency than might be seen in actual behavior. The six specific interventions represented three types of discipline: Aggressive power assertion (use of corporal punishment, severe scolding), nonaggressive power assertion (withdrawal of privileges, timeout or grounding), and induction (explaining the consequences that his/her behavior have on self and others). Parents rated their predicted responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale. The PDS produced separate scores on levels of aggressive power assertion, non-aggressive power assertion, and induction. Using the pre-determined classification of items, the scale also allows for analysis of the amount of each discipline style used for each type of transgression. Appendix A contains the full scale as it was presented to parents. RESULTS Two paired sample T-tests were conducted to determine if there were significant differences between the three types of discipline styles. The mean endorsement score for overall use of induction (M = 162.21) was significantly higher than for non-aggressive power assertion (M = 113.81), t (100) = -19.00, p < .001. Use of induction was also higher than for the use of aggressive power assertion (M = 77.66), t(100) = -12.68, p < .001. Table 3 presents the mean endorsement scores for each discipline style during all types of transgressions. Parents reported most frequent use of induction, followed by non-aggressive discipline, with aggressive discipline being reported least frequently.



389

TABLE 3 Means of all Discipline Interventions for each Type of Transgression.

Transgression Safety Aggressive Non-aggressive Social Aggressive Non-aggressive

Aggressive Power assertion M SD

Non-aggressive Power assertion M SD

Induction

26.94 11.17 14.81 5.32

38.23 9.49 18.74 8.07

47.45 4.85 38.38 7.24

22.52 9.38 13.39 4.20

37.06 9.02 19.86 7.19

44.83 5.96 31.55 9.43

M

SD

A 2 x 2 within subjects factorial analysis was conducted to evaluate the effects of different types of transgressions on parental choice of disciplinary intervention. The within subjects variables were type of transgression (social vs. safety), and aggressiveness of transgression (aggressive vs. non-aggressive). The dependent measures were the likelihood of the use of each type of discipline (aggressive power assertion, non-aggressive power assertion, and induction). Main and interaction effects were tested using the multivariate criterion of Wilks’ Lambda (Λ). The main effect of type of transgression was significant for aggressive power assertion (Λ = .59, F(1,100) = 69.97, p < .001), and induction (Λ = .51, F (1,100) = 95.58, p < .001). This effect was not significant for non-aggressive power assertion (Λ = 1.00, F (1,100) = .007, p = .935). Parents reported that they were more likely to use aggressive power assertion and induction to address safety violations than social violations. However, parents predicted they would use the same levels of non-aggressive power assertion to address both safety and social violations. The main effect for aggressiveness of transgression was significant for aggressive power assertion Λ = .35, F (1,100) = 188.07, p < .001, nonaggressive power assertion Λ = .16, F (1,100) = 510.77, p < .001, and induction Λ = .27, F (1,100) = 265.06, p < .001. Parents reported that they were more likely to use all types of discipline to address aggressive violations rather than non-aggressive violations. The interaction between type of transgression and discipline type was significant for aggressive power assertion Λ = .84, F (1,100) = 18.67, p < .001, non-aggressive power assertion Λ = .90, F (1,100) = 10.67, p = .001, and induction Λ = .81, F (1,100) = 22.84, p < .001. Paired sample t-tests indicated that the effect of type of transgression sometimes was mediated

390


by the degree of aggressiveness of the transgression. Although parents endorsed using more aggressive power assertion and induction to address safety violations over social transgressions, this pattern changed when the social violation was aggressive. Parents endorsed using more induction and aggressive power assertion to address aggressive social violations than non-aggressive safety violations t (100) = -24.35, p < .001; t (100) = -10.18, p < .001. After controlling for family wise error this effect did not apply to the use of non-aggressive power assertion. Parental Disciplinary Responses for Different Types of Transgressions

120

100

Parental Endorsement

80

60

40

20

0 Aggressive Safety

Non-Aggressive Safety

Aggressive Social

Non-Aggressive Social

Type of transgression

FIGURE 1 Parental Discipline Responses by Transgression Type

DISCUSSION A taxonomy of behavioral transgressions was created based on the nature of the violation (safety or social norm violations) and the aggressiveness of the child’s action. This combined classification was developed because the initial classification scheme (safety, social conventions or aggression) was confounded by severity. For safety and social transgressions, it was possible to create item sets differing in severity, but most of the aggressive transgressions were viewed as being severe. Aggression appears to be the most important dimension, since both severity ratings and parental disciplinary responses varied based on this dimension.



391

Parents in this study reported that the type of discipline intervention chosen, vary according to whether the child’s transgression was a social or safety violation. Parents endorsed using more induction and aggressive power assertion as reaction to safety violations than social violations. Catron and Masters (1993) reported similar results suggesting that parents were more likely to use aggressive power assertion techniques and induction when addressing safety compared to social violations. However, parents in the current study did not vary their use of nonaggressive power assertion as a function of type of transgression. This indicates that parents either find little value in increasing the rate of nonaggressive techniques to address safety violations, or these disciplinary interventions serve different purposes for the parent. The perceived danger inherent in safety violations may account for the increased use of induction. By using induction, the parent ensures that the child understands the consequences of his/her actions. Similarly, the increased use of aggressive power assertion could be attributed to a desire to use more powerful discipline in response to safety violations. However, these transgressions may also elicit a strong negative emotional reaction on the part of the parent, which can increase the possibility of responding aggressively to the child. Parents have been found to be more likely to use corporal punishment when they are in a negative emotional state than when their emotions are more regulated (Holden et al., 1995). Parents also reported to be more likely to utilize all types of discipline when the behavioral transgressions were aggressive. The significant effects of aggressiveness of the transgression on disciplinary response are consistent with the findings of previous studies concerning the determinants of corporal punishment (Holden et al., 1995). It appears that the aggressiveness was more important than the type of transgression in determining parental selection of disciplinary intervention. Parents appeared to consider aggressive violations as requiring more discipline than safety violations. However, this was not due to parents considering aggressive violations to be more severe than all non-aggressive violations. Severity ratings indicated that parents considered aggressive social and non-aggressive safety violations to be equally severe, yet they reported using more induction and aggressive power assertion to address aggressive social violations than non-aggressive safety violations. The overall value system of the parent may be related to the selection of discipline style. Parents may provide more severe discipline to actions that violate social or religious values, such as “one should not be aggressive towards others”. Adults may think that aggressive social violations required more discipline than non-aggressive safety violations

392


because aggressive violations violate their value system, even when both types of violations are considered to be equally severe. Although the PDS appears to provide useful information about the manner in which behavioral transgressions affect parental choice of disciplinary interventions, the data on validity and reliability are limited. The reported frequencies of use for different discipline interventions are consistent with those found in large epidemiological studies (Straus & Kantor, 1994) suggesting some construct validity. Differences found between discipline styles as mediated by transgression type are also consistent with previous findings (Catron & Masters, 1993; Holden et al., 1995). Both the PDS and the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTSPC; Straus, 1991) were used in a study of discipline styles and moral reasoning (Lopez, Bonenberger, & Schneider, 1999), with the aggressive power assertion scale of the PDS significantly correlated with the physical assault sub-scale of the CTSPC. In addition, the non-aggressive power assertion scale was correlated with the non-violent discipline sub-scale of the CTSPC. Future studies may attempt to evaluate properties of safety and aggressive transgressions that elicit high levels of discipline, as well as the role of parental affect on the selection of disciplinary choice. Understanding these interactions is essential for the study of parenting styles and the effects of disciplinary interventions on social, psychological and emotional functioning.

REFERENCES Catron, T. F. & Masters, J. C. (1993). Mothers’ and children’s conceptualizations of corporal punishment. Child Development, 64, 6, 1815-1828. Dix, T., Reinhold, D. P., & Zambarano, R. J. (1990). Mothers’ judgement in moments of anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 4, 465-486. Dix, T., Ruble, D. N., & Zambarano, R. J. (1989). Mothers’ implicit theories of discipline: Child effects, parent effects, and the attribution process. Child Development, 60, 6, 1373-1391. Dunn, J. & Munn, P. (1987). Development of justification in disputes with mother and sibling. Developmental Psychology, 23, 6, 791-798. Eisikovits, Z. & Sagi, A. (1982). Moral development and discipline encounter in delinquent and nondelinquent adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 3, 217-230. Hoffman, M. L. (1975). Moral internalization, parental power, and the nature of parent-child interaction. Developmental Psychology, 11, 2, 228-239. Hoffman, M. L. (1994). Discipline and internalization. Developmental Psychology, 30, 1, 26-28.



393

Hoffman, M. L. & Saltzstein, H. D. (1967). Parent discipline and the child’s moral development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1, 4557. Holden, G. W., Coleman, S. M. & Schmidt, K, L. (1995). Why 3-year-old children get spanked: Parent and child determinants as reported by collegeeducated mothers. Merill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 4, 431-452. Lopez, N. L., Bonenberger, J., & Schneider, H. G. (1999). Parental discipline styles and the development of empathy and moral thought. Presented at the 2nd International Conference: The Changing Family and Child Development. Banff, Canada. Rich, J. M. (1993). Discipline and moral development. The High School Journal, 76, 2, 139-144. Straus. M. A. (1991). Discipline and deviance: Physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problems, 38, 2, 133-154. Straus, M. A. & Kantor, G. K. (1994). Corporal punishment of adolescents by parents: A risk factor in the epidemiology of depression, suicide, alcohol abuse, child abuse, and wife beating. Adolescence, 29, 115, 543-561. Tisak, M. S., & Turiel. E. (1984). Children’s conceptions of moral and prudential rules. Child Development, 55, 3, 1030-1039. Tisak, M. S., Nucci, L. P., & Jankowski, A. M. (1996). Preschool children’s social interactions involving moral and prudential transgressions: An observational study. Early Education and Development, 7, 2, 137-148.

Requests for copies of the Parent Discipline Scale should be addressed to H. G. Schneider. Department of Psychology; Appalachian State University. Boone, NC 28608. [email protected]

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.