Twc E:<JJeI."'.:.m8~,ts
In\'8stigatir;g ?roblems
Submltted In FulFillment cF the requirements cF 10
April L. Acquino
Thesis Director
Darrell L. Butler
?~ofessor
sf
Psy~ho18~ical
Ss!ence
Ball State Uni'lerslty
AL..g--:st
-
I
1990
~99
~:P('ol/
I {:('~ ,.-
Table of Contents
Introductl::r. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~8aSO:lS
fa:- SubJ Bet
ChaLac:t8['i..st~::S
Vi tae . . . . . . . . , .
sf
. ................... 1
1\jc;-shc 1J:s • . . . . . • • • • . . • . . . • • • • • • • .
2
.20
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
-
Subject pool
Each year, thousands of human particlpants are needed
for the research projects conducted by the psychology
department.
Most of these subjects are provided by the
subject pool.
The subject peol 1S a valuable resource
because of ltS diverslty and ltS accessibllity; however,
is not without problems.
it
The following experiments examine
two of the problems that plague the subject pool.
subjects miss thelr appointments?
Why do
Most of the researchers
in the building tend to belleve that subjects are lazy and
inconslderate.
Frequently they suggest implementing a
punlshment system to lncrease the show rate.
Thus the
first goal was to determlne if subjects really miss
experiments because of apathy.
A second and related
problem is subjects becom1ng lost in the building and
arriving late or faillng to arrlve for their experiments.
Experiment 2 was conducted to determlne the best routes in
the build1ng for which to des1gn a wayfinding system.
Subject pool
Abstract
The present
stud~
attempted to 1dent1fy the major reascns
why subjects fall to show up for psychology experIments.
Attempts were made t6 contact 98 students about
part1clpat10n in a one credlt hour psychology experiment.
Twenty-four of the 78 students who were successfully
contacted were actually run.
The subjects were hooked by
electrodes to a physlogragh mach1ne that served as a bogus
Subjects were then asked a series of questions
about the1r and the1r classmates' partlcipation in the
subject pool.
Analysis of responses yielded five
categories of 'reasons for no-shows: memory, apathy, time
confllct, 111ness, and wayfinding problems.
apathy were the most frequent responses.
Memory and
Results for the
self and classmate data reveal that the bogus pipeline may
not have been successful in eliminating all socially
des~~able
d1scussed.
answering.
Possible
Inte~'.'entlon
st~ategles
are
.-
Subject pocl
Reasons for subject no-shows
Whe~
subjects are late or fall to show up for
expe~lrnents
the
they create problems for both themsel\'es and
expe~imente~.
Late subjects irterf9re wlth the
~unning
of other subjects and subjects who never arrlve waste
valuable experlment tlme.
In addition, subjects who fall
to keep theIr appolntments create a drain on the subject
pool
taking sign-up times
b~
awa~
from other students.
These problems, when comblned with the results from a
recent
stud~
in which researchers were asked in an
open-ended question to indicate their worst experience in
research
C~3%
responded subject no-shows) are reason for
concern CKirkhoff, 1990).
A review of the llterature revealed that much of the
attenticn paid to no-shows (in various settings) has dealt
with either the characteristics that differentiate shows
from no-shows, or intervention strategies to prevent
no-shO~5
(Wesch,
Lutzl':er,
Kluger & Karras 1983).
explored in other
Frl5ch &
Man~
setti~gs
~lllon,
1987;
Larson,
of the intervention strategies
(pho~e
call remInders,
punlshmentl have been proposed to deal with our problem.
However,
these :nter'Jentlon programs all have underlying
r.c-s~:::'.;..:5
(remInders) or
apath~
~;u~lshment
,
or motl\'ators).
Because
Subject pool
it would be unwlse to lmplement an interventlon program
before
determ~ni~g
deslg~ed
the sause of the
p~oblem,
thlS study was
to collect informatlon from no-shows about
ql~hough
subjects could
interview or questionnalre)
experlments. the
concern.
personall~
valldlt~
Subjects
ma~
slmpl~
wh~
~hy
be asked (elther ln an
missed their
the~
of their selF-reports were of
Feel that the experlmenter is
evaluating them.
inclined to respond in a
thereb~
sociall~
NederhoF (1985) .deFines soclal
distortion of responses in a
making them more
desirable manner.
deslrabilit~
sociall~
which is a resultant of two Factors:
as "a
desirable direction
'selF-deception' and
·other-deception·.·· In our situation it was presumed that
most subjects would remember iF
experiment, so
the~
the~
had missed an
would be more inFluenced
b~
• other-deceptlon , in which answers are given to avoid
negative evaluation.
In an attempt to reduce the
desirable answers. we
of socially
a variation of the 'bogus
emplo~ed
pipeline' technique developed
l!J~elihccd
b~
Jones and Sigall (19 7 1).
The procedure involves convincing subjects that their
selF-reports can be
obJectlvel~
veriFied
b~
a
in subjects a desire to tell the truth to avold being
._
Subject pool
perceived as a 11ar.
Millham and Kellogg (1980) have shown
that the bogus pipeline reduces the other-deceptive
component of social
desirabillt~.
Therefore, the bogus
pipellne was viewed as an ldeal technlque for our
In addltion, both personal reasons and others'
sltuatl0"1.
reasons for missing experlments were gathered because some
ps~cholo~ists
ma~
have suggested that judgments about others
be more valid than personal judgments (e.g.
al., 1975).
validit~
Baird et
ThlS technique also provldes a check on the
enhancing qualltles of the bogus pipeline.
Method
Subject!>.
During the sixth week of the spring semester, 98
students from seven different
introductor~
classes were selected from the Ball State
research particlpants pool.
Universit~
Students were chosen if
had been recorded as missing a
that semester.
ps~chology
ps~cholog~
e~perlment
the~
durlng
Students were contacted about participation
in a one hour experiment Vla a note dellvered
b~
teachlng asslstants during their
ps~chology
classes.
lntroductor~
their
Attempts were made to contact each student on
five consecutIve class perIods.
Of the 98 students, 21
fal1ed to respond to the five attempts (l.e. were not
Subject pool
Of the 78 students contacted, five
attending class).
refused
"0
participate
s~nce
the~
believed
had
the~
completed their course requIrements and 32 made
appo~ntments
with the experImenter.
Of these 32,
onl~
25
subjects showed up to be run.
Ma ter i
a..l~
~Earatus.-ph~siograph
sy.~n
Subjects were hooked
machine.
b~
electrodes to a
ThIS machine measured respiration,
conductance, and heart rate.
The hook up used a
Bellowsneumograph for respiration, two finger electrodes
Chooked to the two middle fingers of the dominant hand) for
skin conductance, and three steel plated electrodes to
measure heart rate.
The heart rate electrodes were hooked
to both the left and
r~ght
arms and the right leg.
The
machine was on during the questioning.
Questionnaire.--A nine item questionnaire was
constructed.
Items concerned the students (and their
classrocm acquaintances)
subject peal.
The
partlclpat~on
questlc~nalre
1n the
ps~chology
is shown In AppendIX A.
Procedure
Subjects met
ind~v1duall~
w~th
the experimenter.
The~
were then taken to a room that contained a chair and the
ph~siograph
machine.
s/he would be
hoo~ed
The subject was then informed that
to a machine that had been used
b~
prevIous researchers to detect truth-tell1ng and asked a
-.
Subject pool
series of questions about their participation in the
psychology subject pool.
The subject was then given the
opportunity to withdraw without punishment from the
experiment.
No one chose to leave.
Each subject wa's hooked to the machine using the
electrode configuration detailed in the apparatus section.
The subject was given approximately ten minutes to
habituate to the machine while it was being calibrated.
The subject was then informed that s/he would be asked a
test question to assure the experimenter that the machine
was recording properly.
The subject was instructed to
respond with the truth to the following question,
"What is
your name?" The subject was then provided with a false
response to make and asked the
~uestion
again.
At this
time, the printout was removed from the machine and showed
to the subject.
The differences in the physiological
recordings when they told the truth and when they were
forced to lie were emphaslzed to
inc~ease
trelr belief In
the "1 J.e-detecti ng " p8wers of the mach 1 ne.
After demonstratlng the reliability of the machine,
the subject was asked the list of prepared questions about
the subject pool.
All verbal responses were recorded by
the experimenter.
The subject-was then unhooked from the
mac~ine
.-
a~d
any qLestlcns
s,il~e
had about her./his selectIon
for the experiment or the machine were answered.
~JD
one
S~bject
expressed serious doubts about the
to detect
was
other than the
of the mashine
Befcre be:ng excused the subject
truth-telll~g.
l~structed
abl:lt~
p~ol
not to discuss the experIment with anyone
exper:~enter.
The subject was then
t~anked
Results
The 98 subjects were divlded lnto 5 categories: shows,
no-shows, subjects who refused to partlcipate, subJects who
never responded, and subjects who were never reached.
Importantl~,
differ
subjects who showed up to be run did not
signiflcantl~
from the other categories in either
grade receIved in their
[2~J
=
introductor~
ps~chology
class
33.97, ns) eX2 [6J = 5.107, ns) or gender
2.261, ns).
In fact,
C~2
C~2
[~J
-
no variables were found to suggest
that the group that showed up was different from those who
dld not.
about missed experiments (why they missed thslr experiment,
why a classmate (real or hypothesized) mlssed an
e)~perlment,
and
reason subjects
~hat
the~
~alled
to
thought was the most common
5~CW
up Eer
exper~ments)
were
-
Sub~ect
Table 1
Judged reason For missing experiment
:1ost
SelF
Classmate
Common
Memory
9
7
11
Apathy
3
9
12
ConFlict
'1
3
1
I::"l::ess
3
2
0
2
1
0
Wa':dflndlng
..
N
_-_._._....--_..a
21
..--"..
----
-
b
22
2'1
a
Number
~oes
not tctal
2~
because cf subjects who
b
did not
subjects
remembe~
m:sslng an
r~sponded
expe~iment.
"I don't know,"
Two
peel
Subject pool
illness, and
wa~finding
The results are
problems.
summar1zed in Table 1.
Mest subjects
subjects state they
appa~ently
~er8
~o:d
tell:~g
the
t~e
t~uthl
of frequencies far self ard classmate
significantlid different eX2
[~J
-
~ere
but
the~
onlid dld
~omparlson
not
3.91, ns).
subjects had no reason to lie about others,
supports the hidPothesis that
~·Jot
t~wth.
Since
this result
did not lie about their
own reasons for missing.
As can be seen 1n Table 1,
that theid forgot.
~3~
of the subjects stated
A Chl square goodness of fit test on the
self data does not indicate significant differences in
frequencies for the S categories eX2
However,
anal~sis
a~:j
conflict,
man~
=lassmate results
a~e
(~2
cells.
[~J
=
c8mb:~ed,
illness, and waidf1nding problems.
frequencies do significantlu differ
.025) .
7.33, Q < .12).
alwa~s
An
of the classmate data does reveal differences in
frequenc1es among the categories
S~1~
=
the N 1S verid small and the test is not
robust with small frequencies in so
If
[~J
(~~
[~J
10.73,
~hen
p- < .05).
~orgetting
These
=
13.15,
n
<"-
<
Cons1stent wlth thiS analids1s, subjects report that
theid believe memo rid ard apathid are the major reasons that
Researchers Wh8
~se
tl18
s~~~ect
peol suggested that
.-
Subject pool
one reason for the high rate of no-shows is that students
are signed up by their friends who then forget to tell them
of the appointment.
this hypotresls.
Subjects self reports do not support
Of the
2~
subjects, only 1 reported being
signed up by someone else and that person was a member of
his/her immediate family.
DiscuSSion
The present investigation was successful in that it
delineated five major categories of reasons for subject
no-shows.
apathy.
The two most frequent reasons were memory and
However, the three other categories, accounted for
approximately 27 -
~3~
of the no-shows depending on the
data used (self or classmate).
These results indicate that
the no-show problem is more complex than previously thought
and that several factors need to be considered in designing
an
not
i~~8~vention
c~l~
program.
have tc be
A~~
8ff~cle~~
intervert~on
st~ateg~
would
to !mplement , but wculd have
to be fair to subjects in all five categories.
One suggested inter'}ention strategy is some type of
punisher (Wesch, Lutzker, Frisch, and Dillon, 1987).
Two
suggestions made by researshers in our department are
requiring an additional
~our
for every experiment missed
Subject pool
regardless of length.
However, while a punlsher might
motivate subjects with
apatb~
problems or time conflicts,
it would not be fair to subjects who were ill or who got
lost in the buildlng.
punishment
s~stem
It is also not clear what Impact a
would have on thcse subjects that forgot.
In addition, a punishment
s~stem
might encourage subjects
to call in and cancel their appolntments to avold being
counted as a no-show.
If thls were to happen we would have
succeeded in increasing the number of excused absences
while not increasing the show rate.
The two categorles for which it is hardest to design
an intervention
strateg~
are those subjeots who are
apathetic and those that have time conflicts.
While
reminders might be beneficial to the subjects with time
conflicts
ma~
~~
allowing them to reschedule, these subjeots
also have been
apathetic in that
slightl~
motivated to remember their oommitment.
motivator has been proposed.
were not
the~
As of
~et,
Subjects are alreadu prcvlded
wlth a Sllght motlvator In that
the~
incomplete in the class if
fail to complete the
research requirement.
the~
~ill
~eC91'Je
possible motivator would be to
e~periments
ho~everJ
an
However, this motlvator does not
appear to exert a strong influence on subjects.
participation;
no good
t~~s
pa~
Another
subjects for
solution lS
onl~
feaslble f2r
requiring a small number of subjects or for
Subject pool
researchers with external fundlng.
A related Solut1cn would be to make the subject pool
ThlS
voluntar;,J.
attracti!lg
onl~
~ould
sol\'e the apathu problem by
the rnost mot;'l,:ated students.
wlth th1S 1S that we currentl;,J get a
ver~
students participating in research.
B~
voluntar~
we
Another
ma~
The
~roblem
diverse group of
maklng the
s~stem
end up with sampling biases.
frequentl~
suggested lntervention is to send
reminders to subjects of their appointments (Kluger and
Karras, 1933; Turner and Uernon,1976l.
On the surface this
appears to be an ldeal solution because it would benefit a
significant portion of the no-shows and it is not unfair to
any of the subjects.
designing a
s~stem
The problem with reminders is in
that would be able to reach all subjects
and still be efficient to run.
Three possible
s~stems
are
phone calls, postcards, or electronic mail.
Under the present Circumstances, phone calls are not
as eff,clent as
keep the
the~
universit~
could be because many students fail to
updated about residence changes.
However, with one minor change in the system, phone calls
could be successfully used.
The change would involve
having subjects fill out 3 x 5 cards on the first
da~
of
class that included their name, address and phone number.
-,
Subjects w=uld be instructsd that if any of the information
on the card changed dur1ng the semester they should go the
Subject pool
ps~cholog~
This
office and update it.
create an unfair workload for
an~
s~stem
would not
one person, and would
Phone calls are best
increase the hlt rate
substantlall~.
used
running either slngle subjects or
b~
ex~er~menters
small groups.
ma~
People runnlng large groups however,
still find it to be inefficlent.
The second suggestlon of postcards would also be made
more
feasl~le
b~
However, a pilot
about 50% of
on-campus.
such a
having students fill out the cards.
stud~
CSutler, 1989) revealed that only
introductor~
ps~cholog~
students lived
ThlS would make the financial investment in
quite high.
s~stem
Therefore, this
s~stem
works
best for researchers operating on external grants.
The final suggestion of using electronic mail
the
proble~s
b~passes
of cost and locating students because
computing services are available to all students on campus.
However, while this
is ideally good, in practice it
s~stem
is not reasonable at the
p~esent
time.
T~e
computer
high enough to lnsure that everyone would be wlillng to use
the system.
might
elec~
Indeed,
students who are computer phobic
man~
to do the optional project
merel~
to avoid
having to use computers.
Resea~ch
is
~rese~~:y
subjects who become last
O~
~e~ng
thelr
=onducted
wa~
t~
~elp
those
to experiments.
Subject pool
Attempts are being made to find the best wayfinding aids to
use, to determine what routes to use, and what the
wayflndlng aids should look llke to maximlze their
efficlency.
This type of lntervention, while not
lncreasing the show rate by a large amount, does benefit
all subjects as well as experimenters by insuring that
subjects arrive on time.
There is one group of no-shows for which the is no
feasible interventlon and that researchers must come to
accept, those students who become ill.
While it would be
beneficial lf these students would call to cancel their
appointments, this is not always possible.
When people
become ill their schedule is often disrupted and many
students may simply not remember to call and cancel.
A noteworthy lssue regardlng the present lnvestigation
is that the bogus pipeline may not have been as successful
as asking about others in reduclng socially desirable
answers.
net
Although the data
s~gnifica~tl~
different
E~~
the self ard classmate were
~p=ss:bl~
N) there was a slight difference.
beca~5e
of the small
Results for the self
question indicated that memory was the most frequent cause
of mlssed experiments; however, when asked about classmates
and for the most common reason, apathy became number one.
These
~eswlts
are
intece5t~rg
l~
lig~t
of
responses to a forced sholes questlon in
S~~J8=t5'
wh~ch
theu were
Subject pool
asked which
the~
would consider worse, someone who forgot
an experiment or scmeone who was unconcerned and decided
Onl~
not to show up.
two of the subjects reported that
they would consider someone who forgot worse.
While it is
possible that the people subjects used for the classmate
question
reall~
were apathetic, these results tend to
indicate that some subjects may have made
desirable answers.
sociall~
However, because the difference was not
statistically significant, more research needs to be done
to see if 1n certain circumstances asking about others
produces equivalent or better results than the bogus
pipeline.
Based upon our findings,
wa~s
it appears that there are
to reduce the severity of the no-show problem.
most important contribution of the
stud~
The
was that it
revealed five categories of no-shows, four of which can be
helped by the implementation of some type of intervention.
The research
benef~cial
In
sugges~
that the
~ncreaslng
t:~~
thirgs that
~~uld
the show rate are a card
be most
s~stem
that would permit the collection of current information
about students, and the development of a
for the bUilding.
wa~finding
s~stem
In addition, the research raises
questions about the validity of the bcgus pipeline for some
)
)
rt
o
Ul
,t
l:
I---'
a
rr
(l.
Ul
~
r1"
(1)
Ul
"::J
~~
I[]
~
:)
o
rr
[)
n,
r.c..:
Ie
[D
n
-1
OJ
Ul
n
,Ul
'-'11
"
o·
CD
:1
U
In
,)
CD
v
t:l
0
u::
[)
C
In
'1
'"
n
,.
C
I
o
'1
In
(ll
t-'
0
m
n
t~
to
'"
In
to,
t~
ct
(U
CD
'1
J
lJl
ru
o~
3
m
'1
IT
ru
t"
c-t
ID
as
m
"ro
"J"
[)
~
u:
n
,
o·
Ul
ID
'1
'1
ti:
I~
()
u
If:
II)
(J
[)
C
'1
Ul
o
3
m
[)
(J
10
"
"
(1)
(J
r:
:1
,t
"J
..."1
Ul
:J
In
...
In
Il.
,t
CD
'1
.,
,
" m
""
U:
::r
m
"
'0
.
:1
rt
"J
,r
:r
m
U-
~
"
W
II.:
1J
o
'1
>--
E
3
Ul
m
~
o
'1
w
m
u::
o
...
OJ
m
In
0
3
m
c
:J
n
[)
::l
m
::l
E
::r
o
n
(1)
W
'1
CD
"ID
tr:
fJ
L
ID
1)
"
m
I.
III
m
,.
.l
W
J
"OJ
m
u
W
::l
U
U
(1)
n
....
0.
m
0.
0
,
'1
W
ID
:J
IJl
lr
(]
"'r
ro
.J
1)
,f
,".
ro
3
...
In
In
CD
U
w
::l
m
x
1)
(1)
1J
...'1
U
m
II:
3
:J
rt
or
1)
"ID
11
1)
ID
"
1J
o·
ID
''l
...
,-
W
"o
In
::r
o
E
:1
"
In
o
:,
ro
1
CD
'1
o
'1
11
or
o
:1'
w
CD
n
r
In
In
ID
U
III
,)
-j
!1
C
,.
Cj
In
In
ro
U
w
~
:r
(1)
n
l'
ID
,
'1
,.1
ID
:1
"
In
,)
"
J
W
-j
u
cl
'n,"
D
'1
In
u
ID
o
Ul
Ul
,T
'1
:r
m
"
ID
(l
ID
ID
:J
rt
1)
ID
")
,1
'J
ru
J
"In
"JID
lU
Jl
"til
IJl
IU
"
(]
1
ID
IJ
"
n
rn
u:
ID
n
" "-,J "m ,
II
1J
W
"
u
ID
'1
11
(1)
":"::1
ID
'1
LJ
D
,t
"or
3
'J
IJl
IJl
"
ID
1=
:1
U
ro
{l
oIl.
ID
0.
w
0'
:l
ID
L
0.
:-l
In
":s
(l)
"
'0
11
o·
o·
(J
l
I'i
o-
lD
III
In
ID
"
11
:J
In
o·
rl.
CD
'1
.
,,
I
ID
D
"
ID
":3
Il
tl
'1
[J
, . ",.
u.
"Ul
,T
'"1
n'
r
u:
ID
1J
ro
,]
'
(JJ
"
ID
ID
U)
.- ",.
Uj
:1
":::1
Ul
,1
o·
()
ID
lU
In
fJ
.1
11
11
~
{J
,
'1
'1
III
u:
:r
u
C
3
3
m
I
ID
In
J
[J
In
n
x
IL
:r
m
,.
:c
o·
Il.
(l
o
E
!1.
"
::r
...._,
[)
C
:<
IU
(l)
ID
'1
,.
w
v
[)
I
J
,.
n
m
lU
u
c
()
r:
,.
11
[)
"
rt
"
::r
o
:~.
,t
,r
I[]
w
1J
()
(1)
11.
In
3
E
:r
II.:
Ul
W
'1
ID
()
10
'1
[]
'r
w
E
1)
~
n'r
'1
m
~1
~
Il
[)
,t
t:l
m
C
U
'0
c
In
Il
w
. ,)
F
"
I.
(l
r-t
CD
v
D
>--
::r
rt
::r
'J
::r
....
..,
111
.J
()E
Ul
:::1
m
'"
m
:J
m
tr
m
E
ctil
C
1J
'1
Ul
'1
ID
c
w
n
'-I
'"o
rt
In
U
v
o
III
tr
IL
1J
m
c
[J
I~
C
rr
'1
ll~
....
U
CD
II:
"
u::
m
E
~
Ul
Ul
'J
OJ
::l
::r
o
tU
Il
CT
In
C
c
E
o
0-
Ul
tr
,.t
I[]
t,
c
rt
'
(J
,.
OJ
o
j
'1
I
1J
,.
u:
::;1
In
I.
m
u
"
IJl
D
1J
'U
CD
1
n
,.
,tl.
l>
'r
[)
U
><
til
u-
IU
11
IU
'1
:1
tD
.J
"
to
,t
,-: r
til
UJ
IU
:::1
ID
IJl
"10'1
J
Ul
r
.r
c,
to
11
"
1)
[)
"
Subject pecl
References
f·Jo~a
BaiLd,
E.,
~Jagkd
.J. N.
I
&
(1976) .
Quu-:n J.
Predicted and observed activitd patterrs
In
campus
setti'gs.
Jones, E.E.
&
(1971).
Siga11 , H.
The bogus pipeline: A
new paradigm for measurlng affect and attitude.
Kirkhoff,
K.
Cl990) .
ps~chological
The experiences of undergraduate
scierce researchers.
Unpublished
thesis, Ball State University.
& Karras, A.
Kluger, M.P.
(983) .
Strategies for
reducing missed initial appointments in a community
mental health center.
Larson, D.L., Nguyon, T.D., Green, R.S.
(1983) .
& Attkinson, C.C.
Enhancing the utilization of outpatient
mental health services.
Mi11ham, J.
r. Kellogg, R.:.u.
approval:
Nederhof, A.J.
desirabilIty bias;
-
~anagement
ImpressIon
(1985) .
(1988).
Methods of
i'leed E'or 5cc.:..al
or self-deceptIon?
COpl~g
~ith
social
a rS'.'lew.
, c;
_~
Turn.er, A. J .
"':7.
I
& Uernor., J.C.
(1975) .
Prompts tc increase
Subject pool
attendance in a commuritd menta1-health senter.
q
-::::"'J
Wesch,
D.,
(198 7
Lutzker,
),
J.R.,
Ll2..
,
~
E"Jaluating the :mpa=t
patient compliance,
JO
Frisch,
91-101,
1'-±1-:~5
g Dillon,
,
o~
.
M.M.
a ser\'ice fee on
Subject pocl
Abstract
Previows research on
~aufinding
neglect what characteristics
has generallu tended to
comp~lse
study was (jane to provlde an initial
This
a best route.
lnvest~gatlon
into
best routes, and to find the best routes along which to
guide subjects through a complex building.
Twent~-five
undergraduates were shown a video tape and maps of seven
routes from a designated starting area to a goal room.
Subjects were given a table that provlded a
route variables.
routes for
summar~
of
The subjects were asked to rate the
desirabilit~
four times on a scale of
a
to 10.
The four conditions were; 1) an initial rating made after
viewing the tape and maps, and
rating made while imagining
stud~ing
the~
the table; 2) a
were confined to a
wheelchair; 3) a rating made while imagining
visuall~
impaired; and
~)
--
h~pothesls.
Subjects'
J~dgments
Short routes and routes with
elevators were Judged best.
efficlenc~
were
an overall rating taking into
account th9ir previous three ratings.
instruction condition.
the~
This provides support for the
-
Subject pool
Characteristics of a Best Route
The term waWfinding has been llnked to cognltive maps
It should be made clear,
However)
In the literature.
thew are not the same.
representations of
that
Cognltl'.?8 maps are long term memory
en';lr~nments.
Wawflndlng 1s the process
It could involve the
of getting from one place to another.
use of well-developed cognltl\'e maps (e.g. getting around a
house WOU have lived In for wears) or a partiallw developed
~etting
cognitive map (e.g.
around in an unfamiliar
building) .
particularl~
There is a
troublesome
ln the building in which we work.
wa~finding
problem
Each wear, thousands of
people participate in numerous research projects run ln the
building.
According to the criteria proposed bW Garling,
Book, and Lindberg (1986) the bUllding has "verw high"
wawfinding problems.
This, comblned with the fact that
most of the research partioipants are newoomers to the
bUl~~lng
~esults
in
man~
subjects
According to Best (1970),
gettl~g
there are
t~o
l=s~
and arriving
logical solutions
to waWfinding problems: move locatlons so that thew are
easier to find
l
or pro'lide
wa~flnding
aids.
In our easel
moving destinations was lmpractlcal so It was necessary to
turn to
,-
wa~findlng
a:ds.
In an .!.Tlitl.al st~C!~
'-=: __ ::J..er,
1.989),
dow-are-here :naps
Subject pool
The study Found
were compared to signs as wayFinding aids.
that subje=ts not
but they
a~~l'}ed
o~ly
expressed a preFerence For signs,
in less t:me and maje fewEr errors than
did students FolloWing maps.
However,
these results
The bUlldlng,
presented a new problem.
llke many public
buildings, provides numerous routes to the same
IF a slgn system were to be developed, which
destlnati~n.
route should be used?
While the
c~a~acte~~s~~cs
suggested
~hat
literat~re
o~
a best
has not concerned itself with the
r8~te
per
S8,
Best (1970) has
a gC8d Indicator of whether people will
become lost is the number of cholce points in a route.
This would suggest that the best route would then be the
one with
t~e
Fewest decision or choice points.
However,
because we would be designing a sign system that would
theoretically eliminate incorrect decisions, this
deFinition was suspect.
Follcwi~g
~f
the logic
Gestalt
ps~chclog:sts,
best
,-.,..., +"
how simplest should be deFined.
the fewest
directio~
changes or is it the
,-,.,
~
::lear
Is it slmply the one with
lowest information load CLeeuwenburg,
=F:Ci-ic:;l ..........
tIle :res:' -----_
..... ',-
.....
o~e
with the
1967)?
'-:-.:.
---~-.
frequent comparlsors
~f
8~~
bwiljlng
~ith
a
~at
maze.
The
Subject pool
prlnciple of least effort states that organlsms will
respond "in such a manner as to
p~6S1cal
energ~
Mitchell,
~~edlcts
1989:1
!~
•
t~e
e~pe~d
the least amount of
achle'_'sment of a goal"
Eased Gn thiS,
that the best rowtes
~grener
the eff:c:encu
~cwld
and
h~pct~es:s
be those requlrlng the
least amou,t of ph8s1cal expenditure.
First
There were two purposes to this lnvestlgatlon.
we wanted to identifd the best routes for guiding subjects
Sec8rd
studu of
t~e
~;ar!ab!es
1
we
~hat
~a~ted
to pro"jide a preliminary
determine goad or poor routes.
Wadflndlng dlfflcultles can be especlalld severe for people
in wheelchalrs and the visual18 impalred.
Passini and
Proulx (1988) have shown that congenitall8 blind
individuals can be successful wa8finders.
However,
lack of
sensltivit8 on the part of archltects and others can create
architectual barriers for the visuall8 impaired, that while
less visible then those affectlng people in wheelchairs,
are no less real.
subjects were asked to maLe r-atir,gs from s8'/eral r:;cints c::f
'iew in addition to
=ompos~te
viewpoint
~helr
t~a~
=J~:
that 8f a
!:l~l~ded
t!1eir
'Y':s~a:l~
OW~
a~d
impalred
tJ~8se
other
SucJec:t
~col.
The subjects were 25 underJraduates part1clpating 1n
the 8al: State
~ni\!e~s~t~
~esea~=~
pa~ticipants
pool.
All
to engage 1n three and a half hours of extra classroom
Ore cf
~,::;-e
a::':::: ':':'es ::. !...rhic1l
t~e:d
can
Seven of the most practlcal routes from the experiment
sign-up board to a particular set of
ps~cholog~
laboratories located in the basement of the
bUllding were selected.
These routes were chosen on the
basis of the likelihood that subjects would
them in
t~~ing
ps~cholog~
to locate the labs.
actuall~
use
:~ese
routes differed
ro~te
~ert
3:-.:..~t:lesj
route used an
elevatD~1
the number of deels:cn
defined as
an~
whethe~
pel~ts.
~~e
~
decision
~clnt
and
was
location at WhlCh a per sen had the cholee of
A stairwell
landings.
outSide,
Each route
~as
given a
=~lor
~as
code,
defined as
and all of
Subject pool
this information was presented to subjects three
wa~s.
It
was presented 'Jia a table (see Table 1).
Insert
Ta~le
1 abcut here
Also each route was videotaped as it was walked
the
The videotape was about l5 mlnutes in
e7:per i menters .
length.
b~
Simplified floor plans of both the first and
ground flcors
o~
the psychology bUlldlng were created.
There was a set of floor plans (first and ground floors)
for each route, wlth the route drawn out in its color code.
In addition, there was a set of floor plans that displayed
all of the routes in thelr color codes.
Procedure
Subjects were informed that
the~
video of several routes through the
would be shown a
building,
ps~chology
and that they would be required to rate their preference
fc~
these
summar~
r~utes.
Pr~or
to the
'.!e~!ng
~f
the \'ldeo,
of the informatlon about each route.
shee~
an the information
about the informatiDn
subjects were show r
."
~ere
t~~8
~<.-<-
-,.----~-
watching the 'Jideo.
~ece
desc~ibed
a~d
The varlables
an~
questions
arswered at that tIme.
~:je~
tape.
Sub ~ a:::ts '....:ere
Then
~--'
,----
1
,....
'<::"
--------,
Ove:-a:":
2':'S~a.:-,=8
:'32.
-------------:-------:
Sta:..r-...<Je':'':'s
3
("',
-------:--------:-------:
-------,
c
2
3
2
1
-------------:-------:--------:-------:-------:-------:-------- -------
Total II of
15
Sta..:.=-s
29
-------------:-------:--------:-------:-------:-------:-------- ------Tur-s
8
5
5
,-------
-------~--------
Use
Q
8
--------'-------:
..
':'£S
~
.~
-------;-------:------., .... 0::::
!=.. ....
i:"";
Nc.
:-:;
~
:e=':'5_="-'
•
-
-------:-------:-------~--------~-------:
~
13
9
9
'.--,
'" ...
~
8
....
Subject pool
~ransparencies
~~=und
the
C~
of the flocr plans for both the flrst and
E~cors
cf the
ps~chclog~
an adjacent projection screen.
was
'Je~tallu
bUlld~ng
I~
addition,
e~perimenter
described b6 the
were
a~d
displa~ed
the rQute
t~e
l=catiD~
of the vldeo was shown on the floor plan.
AFter viewlng the videos of all routes, subjects were
glven a ratlng sheet that llsted the routes
The~
b~
color code.
were asked to rate the routes on a scale of 0-10 with
10 belng a "best"
or optlmal route, and 0 being a terrible
route that they would not use.
use Fractions,
if
necessar~,
Subjects were encouraged to
to diFFerentiate among routes.
SUbjects were then asked to list those Factors that were
important to them in making the ratings and to rank order
the Factors in order of importance.
were
pla~ej
Segments of the video
a second time while these ratings were made and
subjects were encouraged to request revlewing segments
could not remember.
all the
the~
However, no subject requested to view
seg~ents.
81ther confined to wheelchairs or were
vlsuall~
impaired,
travelled the routes with the experimenter and commented
about various bUlldlng features and
This infcrmation
~as
prc'j~ded
subjects were to imagIne
the~
mobllit~
problems.
to subjects who were then
conf:ned to a wheelcha:r
1
and
--
10
--4
J,
z
5
~
"
--I
J
J
~
:'. ~~
............ -I.••-~
r"
I ""t"l
~--:k.
1
(.i.. ..~o(l
<. +.~;.~
2
i
..J
~::;~~ .
.~~.-i-- ~.,~
-·I~"'·-:·l
-
Subjest pool
Figure Caption
~ea~
conditior.
--
ratl~gs
Fer the seven
r~utes
by
instruc~icr
Subject pool
in the third rating
impai~ed
(totall~
the~
the~
were
SutJects were
t!~en
i~5tr~cted
bl~rd).
make a final set of
previo~s
were to imagine
~atings
vlsuall~
to
taking lnto account thelr three
ratlngs and all of the information
the~
had been
given.
Results
As expected, ratings of the seven routes were affected
b~
both route and lnstruction conditlon.
for the routes are shown in Figure 1.
anal~zed
The mean ratings
The ratings were
using an ANOVA with two within subjects variables:
instruction condition
(~
levels) and route (7 levels).
effects in the ANOUA were significant.
All
Instructions had a
significant effect on ratings C[ [3,72J - 11.95, B < .0001,
eta2 -
~~),
ratings varied across routes C[
20.69, B < .0001, eta2 interactlo~
16.29,12<
16~),
[6,1~~J
and there was a significant
between instructions and routes CF
.0001, eta2 =
-
c18,~32J
=
17~).
Insert Flgure 1 about here
Instr~ctions
--
in
reasona~le
first rating,
af:ected subjects ratlngs of the routes
~ays.
subjects
~a~8d
ro~te
2 as best,
then routes
~
Subject pcol
and 6.
On the second ratlng (wheelchaIr conditIon) means
~lth
For the routes
~ar
rowtes 2 and 7,
g8nerall~
staIrs
~bich
jo net
decreased and means
~a'.ls
stai~s.
in=reased
relati'!e to Eirst rat:rgs.
impaIred conditIon), ratIngs for routes 2 and 7, which have
Features that were
impaired,
poi~ted
visuall~
Far the
decreased relative to the wheelchaIr condition.
All other routes in the
Increased
prob~ems
out as
~ith
visuall~
impaired condition
respect t= the wheelchair condition.
Fourth ratlngs,
On the
in which subjects were asked to make an
overall Judgment, subjects rated route 2 the best followed
b~
route
~.
All other routes fell to within one pOint of
each other.
Insert Table 2 about here
Contrar~
to expeotations,
defined bk the number
~f
turns
complexit~
a~d
of route as
~e=:sic~
pc:rts did net
st~~ngld
i~fluerce
routes.
Table 1 shows Pearson r correlatIons for the
subjects'
personal ratIngs Qf the
variables on the informatIon sheet and subJects' first and
fourth ratings.
for
shorte~
First ratings were
distances,
~or
ro~tes
slgnificantl~
that had an
D~5tanc8
signlfican~lu
higher
elevato~,
~~as
and
a
better predlctor of first ratings than either
-_.._.
?!P.S!
S:?'.J=::":"S
8~S7
-------.-.""=::,
-
0-: • •
ST?:':E:":"S
-
2t.:
STAl?S
-
0'-1
TUR:15
EL~liIR
•
•
------
:~p.. ~s
-----
------
-
11
.97
13
'-tS
5l±
75·· - .63
-
:'5
- 61
- 27
:'5
-
C'-I
- .25
- 37
- 55
:1
1.5
=S
.~O
- .58··
'-±S·
- .82··
:.::= ?TS
32
------------
JU:S:!J~
-------
DEC
prs
-------
.C9
':'5
OUTS:DE
-
23
. . Lt··
fOL'R:'H
82·· -
Q. <
•• 2. < ..... .l..
. C5 .
ST~!?S
t:": 1:"- 1""'0
.... ~-y .:. ..
•
-
-.- ••
95··
- .58
-
LfS*
2::
-
Subject pool.
elevator
- 3.58, P < .01) or whether the route went
(~
outs 1 de (?..
=
2.97)
< .01).
Q..
cor~elat~cns
The
and whether the route went outslde
ratings were
eig~t
not
slgnlflcantl~
signif:cantl~
.61, ns).
(~-
Fourth
correlated with seven of the
SL.:rpI""lSl::glbjJ
variables.
between
the 8ne <jar-lable that was
related was the number of decision
points.
dist.ance
r: Z
.01), turns
outside
not
(~=
2.96,
-
(~
n
'-'-
<
~.OO,
stair:-wells
(~=
3.15,
2. <
< .01), or whether the route went
~
p_ < .Oll.
~.35,
signiflcantl~
.(1))
The other correlations did
differ from each other as predictors of
fourth ratings.
Discussion
P~eference
support the
~ondition
Judg~ent5
efficienc~
1,
t~e
:-:cr
deClSlCT'
sldnif:cantl~
ever
h~pothesis
~'arlable
Influence on ratings was
tur:~s
se~'en
the
in which subJects'
own point of VIew,
-,
fc~
routes tend to
complexit~.
rated the
~8utes
In
f~cm
their
which e:<erted the strongest
d!sta~ce.
Neither the nwmber of
;:=.:.:~'.:s,
affected SUbJ8StS'
ratings.
!n the :ourth
)
)
rn
rr
C
l_
w
rT
(:
(L
rr
-y
'.,.
1-'
1-
::J
£
OJ
m
.-"
(I)
In
o
m
([
f:
~
1---1
'J
I t
(]
~
j
~
I-r
OJ
OJ
(I)
rT
L
l..J
[1
,rT
(J
::l
n
()
:J
ICc
,,,
,
rr
"
~1
(V
J
It
I,
,.,
OJ
tr
OJ
(l
t ~
-J
m
D-
E
,-
rT
::;
rT
i..
,-
(0
OJ
'r
m
,
'
J
l. •
"
ID
a'
It
,"
(I)
rT
! T
(J
lj
11
)
U')
I
, ')
If)
11
,"
OJ
,j
':1
ru
(I)
ru
OJ
'T
I_
"
ID
L..
[
(C
OJ
OJ
m
rr
In
(I)
,.-
(I)
Ii';
In
lD
[
l,'
1-
,
t
JJ
(
OJ
~
,
""
m
'1
m
In
I:
i-'
rT
In
.-"
.0
'1
o
::J
rr
[lJ
[lJ
.1
~T
fD
,"
In
[
,.
fD
"::J
Cl-
m
,,
m
'1
.1
1-
,:.'..
'1
In
IL
,-.;
,-
t:
OJ
::l
In
"
"
to
,-
"T
tr
I'
C
Ll..
rr
:j
If,
EO
rr
o
!D
'lJ
In
,,
'1
U
"
,,
I'
1[;
IJ
l
t:,
"
i-'
ru
L;
li:
m
n
C1
rr
:r
ID
o
to
OJ
3
'1
:'J
rT
::r
a
'1
If]
D
:r
n
u
,,
OJ
OJ
T
,-::r
L
,~
I-
"
",
F
o
,--
fD
D-
[
P'
(J
[l
In
rT
"
t:,
ID
,,,rr
ru
rr
;u
tD
rr
t;"
''I
If)
rn
DC
C
n
::J
m
rr
::J
::l
I-
rT
ill
U
o
I-
n.
IT
[1
tr
o
(-,.
ID
1-'
r-r
"(\..
OJ
lC
IV
-y
[
'1
.:J
~j
,~
[-
I:
rr
I-
'1
.j
In
rr
3
ru
I
r:
'1
r
C
OJ
'0
m
I,
o
'-r')
"
'1
'"
[l-
o
OJ
,.-OJ
1
I'
m
::J
U
I
1:..
(l:
[)
rT
i-'
m
o
tr
~.
,r
U
rr
o
m
'1
[lJ
n
n
c
r'
,I,
Ir
o
:1
t,'j
rr
,T
-y
m
"
[1
rT
m
DrT
o
[1
o
3
u
[lJ
OJ
In
In
m
m
<
'1
[lJ
tr
....
tV
(I)
m
>-i
-y
:J
rT
m
o
1-'
.-"
E
tV
1-.
<0
:1'
rt
m
<0
I
1-.
[l.
<:
m
::J
o
o
::l
[1
'1
tV
OJ
(I)
m
III
::J
'1
o
I-
.,
'1
1-.
m
1-.
.....
m
::J
tr
III
E
-y
1-'
[1
-y
rT
-y
m
'1
o
I:
rT
m
m
o
c
o
::J
m
U
o
m
m
1-.
tr
::J
1-.
.....
.....
u:
o
[1
'1
L
OJ
rT
.,
'1
I-
L
rT
tV
u',
rT
1-.
[1
1-.
'1)
.....
rT
....
:J
tV
m
:J'
m
'1
a
o
rt
rr
)(
3
o
C
'1
tV
::l
o
[1
o
'1
rr::
I-
::l
I-
DI-
m
fD
OJ
o
m
'1
1-.
'1)
[lJ
rt
-y
C
rr
A
m
<:
tV
m
rT
'1
tr
ru
1)
o
rT
m
::l
rT
OJ
tJ
C
,~
(I)
m
u
tr
ll--'
u
-y
rr::
In
D
11
1J
OJ
n
"to
,..
III
I-
tV
,,
::l
:J"
tV
'1
<0
"
tJ
l.
rt
tV
fD
,-"
:J
co
tr
L
3
~<
rt
::r
rr
:r
1--'
m
,-
(I)
I-
L
:J
<0
rr::
1-'
a
E
m
"to
r::
(I)
to
DrT
D-
m
-y
"
rJ.
"(I)
rr
::r
III
rr
tr
tV
E
In
c:-
tr
IT
In
::J
f:
m
tV
m
'1
m
OJ
'1
~j
E
U
to
I-
rT
o
<0
::J
I-
rT
1-'
<:
tV
I-
o
III
L
In
D-
OJ
!D
(]
rT
In
11
I-
'1
::J
''1)
ro.
[)
<:
n
(J
::J
D-
1-.
....
rT
(J
::J
rT
,,,£
m
rr
C
::J
rT
o
.-"
(J
rt
::r
m
u.
'1
'1
In
I:
rT
rT
,\
"
:J
.-"
,-(:
!D
:1
t1
ro
_J
.-"
m
E
m
<
ID
'1
:J
C
,,,In
ID
L.
UJ
[-
tr
!D
D.
'1
OJ
C
([j
OJ
3
Ll
.-"
:.1
rT
UJ
0-
"
In
[]
ro
n
,
In
I~
tD
[~
!D
'1
,--
In
....E
tD
D.
D
(l
I·
(.1
:1
,_.
,,,rt
[)
:J
OJ
I-
....
rT
~,~,
o
:J
'"
o
<:
tD
'1
W
lI-
'1
OJ
:J
«1
,~
:J
C
3
[l
,
::J
D-
\-
:j
ro
tJ
tl
(T
:1'
CD
In
::r
OJ
:1
'r
m
rT
'"rJ
[J
[
[]
,-OJ
'1
''I
\-"
UC
1]
ru
o
:1
<0
, >
E
:r
'1
lL
::J
-y
rT
I'
j
...[1
,-:1
I-
[)
:J
r1
::r
3
:r
1-
!D
'1
'1
tV
In
1-'
Ifl
[0.
\t
In
tV
In
o
'1
,,-"
III
"f]
::J
c:-
Of
''I)
[I
<0
I'
-J
OJ
"
....
'"rT
'n
OJ
,If_'1
'1
'1
rt
c-
''I)
to
rT
[1
L.
....
()
tV
tr
!D
'1
3
:J'
::r
'1
(]
''I
[j
::l
In
L
,-rT
m
tV
m
,.-
In
'1
[l
11
tD
tV
rT
3
o
I'
'1
OJ
11
:r
In
r .,
n
IT
[)
rT
-,
In
C
''I
'1
ID
'1
ID
n
m
In
If:
u
E
,-
'1
[1
r::
,-"
(J
I-
to
::l
[lJ
rT
tV
,-D-
o
<:
t1
Ir
'1
tV
tV
OJ
:r
,."
....
L.
TJ
tV
.1
,T
m
rr::
<0
rT
m
::J
I-
,t
fD
o
'1
(I)
E
n
u
rT
-y
(I)
m
'.
m
o
m
,
rr
::J
rt
[1
to
'1
m
'"
fD
o
'1
rT
o
rt
'1
OJ
[1
"OJ
OJ
[1
[lJ
E
l-
I:
-y
m
tV
o
[1
-y
m
rT
.....-"
[1
m
tV
1-'
OJ
m
....
(I)
[1
.,
lU
o
(I)
u
fD
tr
,-D- ....rr
m
'1
m
III
OJ
[1
rr
C
m
III
o
rT
rT
<
::l
::J
I:
u
.....
...,
I:
m
1-'
[1
.,
o
'1
[1
In
In
3
.-"
I-
'1
1-.
rr
rr
If
I:
m
,)
,
rT
'1
[lJ
-y
fD
[L
::J
m
'1
OJ
rT
ID
n
o
tl
lJ'
m
'1
o
'1)
rT
r:
'1
::J
In
[L
'"0tT
!D
[J
1]
tl
'"CJ
rT
U1
o
3
m
W
Ul
C
IT
'-!D
[J
rr
1]
n
o
....
-
Sub J Bct ;:JOe l
~f
~autes
best
becaGse of the
ar=hitect~al
·'isL..;a:~\d
imagl':lng
~- \~o'
I~,
i:npai~ed.
Ratings for routes with stairs
2
(~heelchair),
and ratings for the
had problems for the visually impaired
decreased in condition 3.
route variables
ratings.
both
,
condl~~on
decreased .Ln
t~at
t~
'-- ':::)
visually impaired.
rOutes
barriers
we~e
In addition, seven of the eight
s~gnificantly
correlated
~ith
fourth
These results indicate that subjects did follow
instructions and base their overall Judgements on their
previous three ratings.
However,
it is not certain that
the results obtained are identical to those that would have
."
been obtained had members of these special populations been
A discussion with the visually impaired
tested directly.
students who had helped the experimenters prior to the
study, indicated that a route with an elevator would
prcbab:~
not
:::Ocodition 3.
~a'Je
been chosen as
tJ~e
best
r2~t2
ir
One possible reascn for thiS discrepancy is
that because our world is very visually oriented, subjects
were not very successful in imaging what a loss of vision
is like.
Another possible reason that elevatDrs were
chosen as best f8r
t~e
'!isually impaired is that subjects
in wheelchairs Cboth groups fer which elevators were rated
-
Subject pool
~lghly).
operatir'g
'j:suall~
were
l~hat
[t is possible that some order effects were
'--,
.
•• !d
the time subjects made
impaired.
could be
~O~
Patings
e~pected,
~he
t~eir
ratlngs For t!le
~heelshai~
i~dlcatirg
condition
that subjects
~ere
better able to imagine a loss of physical mobility.
The study was successful 1n finding what are the best
routes for our situation.
?outes 2 and
clearly better then the ether five.
~se
elevators and are accessible
subject ;:JODI.
~D
~,
were Judged
80th of these routes
all members
o~
the
The decislcn must now be made whether to
deslgn sign systems for bcth routes or to try and guide all
subjects along the same path.
Research is currently
underway as to the nature of the signs to be used.
Subject pool
References
Best, G.A.
(1970).
build~ngs.
Direction finding in large
In D. Canter (Ed.) .Arc)l i
t~,=J:.,=,r:?l
P§Jd.£bglggy.
London:
RIBA.
Brener, J.
& Mitchell,
expend~ture
S.
(1989) .
Changes
energy
~n
and work during response acquisition in
rats.
Butler, D.L.
ma!luscript.
Garling, T.,
Unpublished
You-are-here maps versus signs.
Ball State
Univers~ty.
Book, A., & Lindberg,
E.
(1986).
Spatial
orientation and wayfinding in the designed
environment: A conceptual analysis and some
suggestions for postoccupancy evaluation .
.Archlte~J;:_l!.I;~l f.lanni n9 .an_c::!
Leeuwenburg, E. L . J .
Passini, R.
visia,:
people.
& Proul:"
( 1967).
G.
.p.e~.~i~n:::.b,
Journal of
.::3., 55-6'i.
?tructu~J...!DX!='.E:.rn_OLti 0E:'
C1988' .
An experiment with
.gf.
Wayfindlng without
congenitall~
20
totally blind
,~,
• '-
... 1
22-:'-252.
,
)
;u
U
III
(U ":1
r1
'1
0
ILl
'1
ro . 1
UJ u-~.r
:J
II
j
n
. '1
ID 111
III
rt f t
,.,. :f
UJ ID
Il! In
(T I·
ro
III
111
lL
I--
'11[1
t-
ej
:.r
0. ,.,
/- III
:j
rn fl
['
'1
:J '1
(ll
0.10
:.1
0. I '
t..
I·"
,-, lC
!U
n .....
,t
/'
()
e1
Il!
/~
,_ .•
:l
C :::
:l 1J
0. m
m '1
'1 1"ILl ID
J Il!
III r 1"
(U
(rD. t , ~J
OJ []
III
(-t"
LL
!ll :~J' r'
1 ID OJ
m
..
U
'1
Dill
n
.D<l
c<lrrc'1
:1 OJ m ..... ID
o.u III :l III
mmrtoro
'1 '1
'1
ILl
'1 U
'I [-r- ID
'"1 (D
! -; '1 'i)
1 '1 10
I
, ..
u
[)
I ....
1--'
[)
'1 '1 [
I ' ,-. lJ'J
OJ Il! ::r
J ~ -' ~ ....
TJ
r to
IlJ
:~
ro
cj
I)
m
ro
I
IIJrtill
'1 Ul (0
'. ,
lD
rT
D
0.
,',
!Dlt:DD
W .1 1J
:0 [L
rn
Ul ClJ
m rt
OJ
'-1 rt
(J :r
:J
ct
"'U
:J '1
OJ (]
11
,t
[t" .,
t)
UJ
n. ])
OJ C n
W r-t
.... rt ~....
< m <
~
.....
(U
n
C ......
l-''1rn
(fl"
I"l. ::r
I 0
'1
III
1-'-
t
.,
'1
ID'1U1
:D el n
(Jl
UJ []
IT)
III
til ,t OJ
:J CD
Cl
3
In
ro ....
IDO
I C
0
~
n
0
3
3
/
.....
I
C1"
rT
!D
rn
(ll
~
0.
-U
ID
'Ii
III
ID
I
III
1,)
r~
111
m {l
11
[J
:l
OJ
.....
m rt-
[lJ
n
OJ
j
rt"
III
......
(1"
G1
11. OJ Ul
ID ct :1
~,
:1 I"' tL
/"
{--.: (n
()
, ... ID
::J
ID ID 0.
~T
:-r-::- :3 Ul
Il!
I-'
1J
10 In 111
( r r tIII 111 {U
ct ri" :1
'q
'j
Cl C E n
[1J OJ IT"
m t .. u::: fO
"'1 '1
H
~..
[D C
ID3
n
m
I ..
ID ::J
'U 0.
'1 (U
ID '1
III ILl
1D'1
:l Il!
IU
'1 :J 0
!U ."1
..... L.
:T
I r
([j
to
ID
:r :1 [)
I"' t1
~ ...
, .. ,
[)
:j
Ul
LlJ (U III
I-~
'1 C lJ)
I-'
Il! 111
1--1
OJ In E
~ ..
:r
< ,_.
'"t)
Il
'11
(U
01
m(lJrtO I
:
0
/.J 1->
,... t,
. " t'- =::1 Ul
'1 t1 II c t
OJ I t--'- \.-,
()
'"
::1
m
'1
11
rt
[1 LD
'U
'1
Il! /'
11 f---'
1J
':.1 CD OJ 0
(J
m
r'" ..
1
I~
''t)
'T) ,',
IT)
In
0
Il! '1 C
(0 c-t
I III ID
[It W
(J.
::J
"'1
m
'"
m
It
in rt
l t'
OJ ::r
t~
III
I i r-t
I'
I)
::r
m
11 "3
III
/,
I",(U
'U
Il!
m
III
m
Il!
'1
<l
111
t~
n
::r
/-
tf
<l Gl <l OJ D ID
'::1'[)UlI--'t-'t1
~
1)
t--'.
tl
rn 0 rn
::l :J ~-'
rt Cl.I {t
..... (1)
ro
mo
tn
I
"
'?
~
ro U Il!
ID:rC1"
o.
o .....
3
0
roO::l
ID'1OJ
I CD .....
ID
0::C"'1
'.J 0
'1
::l m
o UI
'1 ::r
Il! 3
'1 Il!
IC ::l
v
::c
0
::l
0
'1
OJ
'1
n
Il!
(U
I)
I)
I'
/ '
0
1
~33ur"t
j L... ([J(1
u (J '1 .J
UJ ::1 III
11 () )."
III ,. m
....
r1 (]
m ([]
n
n.
1Il
n_oj
(J) '11 (J
~o tJJ
t~ iC to
[j q
<
lJ)
1D::r::r
I'>'
III ~ ....
1IlIDn
1)
O:l::r",
.... m r i l l
~ .... 7\ .-, u:::
(lJ .,
3
mlDu
rt Ie ., r \ 0'
IC
mZo.
III OJ OJ
.... rT
::c
c
3
. . . . ........... c
rT1
0.
()
lJ)
~
~
:D
ILl C '0
-D LV
a
0 (,,]
rn
/.,
IU
~
rn
ro
t-·
11
::r: ::r:
t-=' t .... (J)
/~
to
ill
,"-I
0
::l
Il!
,~
to
.,
[1
c:
("1
LO
:0
to
Il!
'11rT
!-'-
ICC
,~
tn
(1)
,-
!D I,,]
Ul
..
r-J
,-
.j:
01
!Il
{O I'"
rt ~-
.. t: nJ
' j 10
CD,'+:
..,
-...J
,}
C
.....
1J
It
, t
Il!
•
!U
[J
:.1
0
1--,/
.:'"
ru
(D
"0
:l
t-
,.J:
a
UI
rn
a
n
r:
eJ
~J:
:)
D
[)
Jl
/,
I
'j
r-
/---' C1
[J
[j
~J
1Il
n
/.-
0
•
ID :0
0 ...
<-
(J
/,
:l
:0
(n
~
m
,.
en
I ..
'1
IU
f)
/.
rn
:u
f----I
!D
'1 '1
III
D..
to
III
::r:l
!D t~
.... <
)
1j
111
111
OJ
<llllll!
UI 0 t ...
0 C ...,. :) II: C I"
:1 3 Ul rt (1 UJ
nOJC1"(U:T::rlll
tl::JO'10r1'rt
U1 ...... '1 1J ~... " OJ
,~
rt I.C m (}
n ,_.
'1 ILl IU ID
III IL Il!
0 rn
til::r:
Cl ..
Cll
~ltlm"
.....
IL '-0
mm"
(Dm
"
n
])
1J
'1
l.J
J
I-'
rn
n
C
3
r~
Il!
C
0.
CD
IC
D
L
ill
I
111
("t
/'
~
to
,~
ID
ID
0
/
'
to
ID
0
systems in bWlldings.
questicn of
~~~
I am also
s~b~ects
~a!l
t~
examlnin~
S~C~-L~
the
~~~
=>:PE!r- l:"!";e.-:ts.
Teacl'irg
E.~~ar:e~=2:
I
Teaching
r.a',;e
~=:-~
AS5:5tal~t
2'2
as
a
:389-90 (superviser -
Dr. Clark)
Work E:<perience:
I have wor~:ed
t~~ee ~ears as a
desk staff in
the
r8sldence
~a!!.
~y
duties
include making
change and dispe~sing
equipment and inEormation to
the resldents.
--