Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 177
Intensity of Emotions Conveyed and Elicited 177
I NTENSITY OF E MOTIONS C ONVEYED
AND E LICITED BY FAMILIAR AND U NFAMILIAR M USIC
. .
S. O MAR A LI AND Z EHRA F. P EYNIRC I O G LU
American University
WE REPLICATED PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND DEMONSTRATED
that familiarity with musical stimuli increased liking
or preference for the stimuli. We also demonstrated
that familiarity increased the intensity of emotional
responses to music, but only when the stimuli were
made highly familiar through en masse repetitions
(Experiment 3) rather than through interspersed repe-
titions (Experiment 1). In addition, intensity ratings
were higher when participants were asked to judge the
emotion conveyed by the music than when they were
asked to judge the emotion elicited by the same music
(Experiments 2 and 3). Finally, positive emotions (i.e.,
happy and calm) were rated higher compared with neg-
ative emotions (i.e., sad and angry) for both types of
ratings (i.e., conveyed or elicited). The findings suggest
that familiarity plays a role in modulating a listeners
emotional response to music.
Received July 3, 2008, accepted September 16, 2009.
Key words: music, emotion, familiarity, preference,
repetition
C
ONSIDERABLE RESEARCH HAS EXPLORED HOW MUSIC
influences emotions (e.g., Juslin & Sloboda,
2001); however, few studies have examined the
role of familiarity in modulating emotional response to
music. Listeners often play music to enhance their current
mood state (e.g., playing romantic music during a can-
dlelit dinner; Knobloch & Zillmann, 2003), or to alter
their current mood state (e.g., playing relaxing music
during stressful situations; Stratton & Zalanowski,
1997). Yet, as listeners become more familiar with music, it
is unclear whether the subjective emotional intensity of
the music increases or diminishes. Meyer (1956) postu-
lates that expectations play a key role in the interpretation
of emotion in music. Thus, decreased novelty may dimin-
ish the listeners emotional intensity for the music, but
increased familiarity may enable listeners to predict what
follows in the music, resulting in anticipatory arousal.
Music Perception VOLUME 27, ISSUE 3, PP. 177182,
RIGHTS RESERVED. PLEASE DIRECT ALL REQUESTS FOR PERMISSION TO PHOTOCOPY OR REPRODUCE ARTICLE CONTENT THROUGH THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS S
RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS WEBSITE , HTTP :// WWW. UCPRESSJOURNALS . COM / REPRINTINFO. ASP.
This study examined the role of familiarity in modulat-
ing emotional response to music. Experiment 1 replicated
the positive association between familiarity and liking
(Gaudreau & Peretz, 1999; Hargreaves, 1984; Peretz,
Gaudreau, & Bonnel, 1998; Sampson & Peretz, 2005;
Stevens & Latimer, 1991; Szpunar, Schellenberg, & Pliner,
2004; Tan, Spackman, & Peaslee, 2006) and examined
whether a similar finding would emerge with emotions.
Because liking is a positive state or attitude, the liking
expressed by participants for more familiar music could
imply an underlying emotion (happiness or pleasure).
Experiment 2 examined whether any differences would
emerge when participants were asked to rate the intensity
of emotions conveyed by music compared to the intensity
of emotions elicited by the same music. The emotion that
music intends to convey and the ability to judge its
intended intensity does not necessarily imply that the
emotion is actually experienced in the same way (e.g.,
Gabrielsson, 2001/2002). Experiment 3 combined the
methods of Experiments 1 and 2 and examined whether
responses differed as a function of familiarity when par-
ticipants were asked to rate the intensity of emotions con-
veyed by the music as compared to that elicited by the
same music.
Experiment 1
The purpose of this experiment was to replicate the
positive association between familiarity and liking (or
preference) reported by others (e.g., Hargreaves, 1984)
and to explore whether the liking expressed by partic-
ipants could be construed as an underlying emotion
(i.e., happiness or pleasure).
Method
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 64 American University students
who received extra credit in psychology courses.
MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND PROCEDURE
The stimuli comprised 32 musical excerpts with no
lyrics, all taken from instrumental classical and jazz
pieces as well as soundtracks (see Ali & Peynircioglu,
2006, for the list of musical excerpts). The excerpts
ISSN 0730-7829, ELECTRONIC ISSN 1533-8312 2010 BY THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA . ALL
DOI:10.1525/MP.2010.27.3.177
Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 178
178 S. Omar Ali & Zehra F. Peynirciog lu
were chosen to express four different types of emo-
tions (happy, sad, calm, and angry) corresponding to
the four quadrants of the circumplex model of emotion
adapted by North and Hargreaves (1997). Eight musi-
cal excerpts of approximately 20 s in length were used
for each emotion. Extensive pilot testing ensured that
these stimuli were not highly familiar to the participant
population.
Participants were tested either individually or in small
groups. There was a familiarization phase followed by a
rating phase. For the familiarization phase, half of the 32
excerpts (four excerpts from each of the four emotions)
were randomly selected and presented three times, with
each presentation of a given excerpt separated by at least
two other excerpts. The excerpts were interchanged across
two groups of participants so that each excerpt served
in the familiar and unfamiliar conditions equally often.
To make the familiarization phase meaningful and engag-
ing, the participants were told to learn each excerpt for
a memory test (which did not exist) and to rate its
memorability on a nine-point scale (1 representing
not memorable and 9 very memorable).
During the rating phase, all of the excerpts were pre-
sented randomly with respect to the type of emotion.
Half of the participants rated how much they liked each
musical excerpt on a nine-point scale (1 representing
not much and 9very much). The other half rated the
intensity of the emotion in each of the four categories:
(1) happy, joyful, exciting, or festive, (2) sad, depress-
ing, or melancholy, (3) calm, relaxing, or peaceful, and
(4) angry, unsettling, disconcerting, or stressful, always
in that order, regardless of the intended emotion of the
excerpt. The emotion ratings also were given on nine-
point scales, 1 representing not (e.g., not happy)
and 9 very (e.g., very happy). Participants made
their liking or emotion ratings at any time during the
20 s presentation of each excerpt and were given as
TABLE 1. Mean Intensity Ratings (SD) of Liking and Emotional Responses to Musical Excerpts as a Function of the Familiarity Condition and the
Intended Emotion.
Happy Sad
Liking
Familiar music 5.10 (1.50) 5.40 (1.94)
Unfamiliar music 4.72 (1.41) 4.81 (1.49)
Overall 4.91 (1.45) 5.11 (1.74)
Emotion
Familiar music 7.70 (0.90) 6.65 (1.19)
Unfamiliar music 7.91 (0.93) 6.66 (0.86)
Overall 7.80 (0.92) 6.65 (1.03)
much time as needed to complete them before listening
to the next excerpt.
Results and Conclusions
Table 1 presents the mean ratings from the targeted
rating scale (i.e., happy, sad, calm, or angry) for the
intended emotion of the musical excerpts. The ratings
were evaluated using multivariate analysis of variance
(MANOVA) with repeated measures.
There was a significant effect for familiarity, Wilks
lambda = .82, F(1, 62) = 13.45, p < .05; the participants
gave higher ratings to familiar music compared to the
unfamiliar music. However, there was also an interaction
between familiarity and type of rating, Wilks lambda =
.92, F(1, 62) = 5.29, p < .05. Posthoc Bonferroni com-
parisons showed that liking was influenced by familiarity,
t(254) = 2.10, p < .05, but not by emotional intensity,
t(254) = 0.63, p > .10. Even the happy emotion by itself
was unaffected, p > .05.
There was a significant effect for the intended emo-
tion of the music, Wilks lambda = .60, F(3, 60) = 13.36,
p < .05, but this effect did not depend on familiarity,
Wilks lambda = 0.94, F(3, 60) = 1.27, p > .10. There was
also an interaction between the intended emotion of
the music and type of rating, Wilks lambda = 0.73,
F(3, 60) = 7.57, p < .05. Posthoc Bonferroni compar-
isons showed that the participants rated the happy as
well as calm music higher than the sad and angry music
on emotional intensity, ts(126) = 6.69, 4.01, 8.77, 6.46,
respectively, all ps < .05. Consistent with our previous
results (Ali & Peynircioglu, 2006), participants rated
the intensities of the positive emotions higher than those
of the negative emotions (see also Pfister & Bhm,
1992). Interestingly, this phenomenon did not occur
when participants were asked to rate their liking of the
excerpts, all ps > .10.
Emotion of Melodies
Calm Angry Overall
4.98 (1.97) 4.64 (1.78) 5.03 (1.81)
4.70 (1.90) 4.11 (1.37) 4.59 (1.57)
4.84 (1.93) 4.38 (1.60) 4.81 (1.70)
7.55 (0.98) 6.15 (1.31) 7.01 (1.27)
7.20 (1.01) 5.87 (1.41) 6.91 (1.30)
7.37 (1.00) 6.01 (1.36) 6.96 (1.28)
Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 179
TABLE 2. Mean Intensity Ratings (SD) of Emotional Responses to Musical Excerpts as a
Function of the Type of Emotion and the Type of Rating.
Intended Emotion Conveyed
Happy 3.63 (0.64)
Sad 3.15 (0.82)
Calm 3.69 (0.59)
Angry 3.19 (0.87)
Overall 3.41 (0.77)
Experiment 2
The purpose of this experiment was to examine
whether responses differed when participants were
asked to rate the intensity of emotions conveyed by the
music as compared to when they were asked to rate the
intensity of emotions elicited by the same music.
Method
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 44 American University students
who received extra credit in psychology courses. None
had participated in Experiment 1.
MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND PROCEDURE
The stimuli included a randomly selected 24 of the 32
excerpts from Experiment 1, with six of each emotion,
and were presented five times in succession with no
pauses between the repetitions in order to immerse the
participants in the music and give an opportunity for
the intended emotion to be evoked. Half of the partici-
pants were asked to judge the emotion that was con-
veyed by the excerpts (What emotion does this music
convey?) and the other half were asked to judge the
emotion that was elicited by the same excerpts (How
does the music make you feel?). To this end, partici-
pants rated each excerpt across each of four emotional
domains (happy, sad, calm, and angry) using the fol-
lowing 12 items from the Positive and Negative Affect
ScheduleExpanded Form (PANAS-X; Watson &
Clark, 1994): Happy, Joyful, Cheerful, Calm, Relaxed,
At-ease, Sad, Lonely, Blue, Angry, Hostile, and Scornful.
Thus, there were three PANAS-X items to gauge each
emotion. To conform to the standard PANAS ratings,
the ratings were given on five-point scales, where 1
represented very slightly or not at all (e.g., very slightly
or not at all happy) and 5 represented extremely as a function of the type of emotional rating (i.e.,
(e.g., extremely happy). Participants were asked to
Intensity of Emotions Conveyed and Elicited 179
Type of Rating
Elicited Overall
3.41 (0.74) 3.53 (0.70)
2.81 (0.63) 2.98 (0.75)
3.29 (0.90) 3.49 (0.78)
2.56 (0.77) 2.87 (0.87)
3.02 (0.83) 3.21 (0.82)
start making their ratings during the third presentation
of each excerpt and were given as much time as needed
to complete their ratings before listening to the next
excerpt.
Results and Conclusions
Table 2 presents the mean ratings from the targeted
rating scale (i.e., happy, sad, calm, angry) for the
intended emotion of the musical excerpts. A MANOVA
showed a significant effect for type of rating, Wilks
lambda = .16, F(3, 40) = 70.87, p < .05. Participants who
were asked What emotion does this music convey?
gave higher ratings than those who were asked How
does the music make you feel? Thus, the participants
were able to distinguish between the two questions.
As in Experiment 1, there was a significant effect for
the intended emotion of the music, Wilks lambda =
.13, F(3, 40) = 88.47, p < .05; participants gave higher
ratings to music with positive emotions than music
with negative emotions, Wilks lambda = .26, F(1, 42) =
117.66, p < .05. More pertinent to the present experiment
was the lack of an interaction between the intended
emotion of the music and the type of rating made by
the participants, Wilks lambda = .97, F(3, 40) = 0.45,
p > .05. Even though the overall intensities were judged
to be less when the task was to judge the emotion
elicited by the melody, the difference between the pos-
itive and negative emotions was similar in both types
of rating tasks.
Experiment 3
The purpose of this experiment was to combine the
methods of Experiments 1 and 2 and explore whether
familiarity affected the intensity of emotional responses
conveyed versus elicited emotion).
Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 180

180 S. Omar Ali & Zehra F. Peynirciog lu

Method
PARTICIPANTS
The participants were 64 American University stu-
dents who participated for extra credit in psychology
courses. None had participated in either of the previ-
ous experiments.
MATERIALS, DESIGN, AND PROCEDURE
The stimuli were the same 24 excerpts from Experiment 2,
but some were made more familiar than others. Half of
the 24 excerpts (three from each emotion) were ran-
domly selected and were presented five times in succes-
sion with no pauses between the repetitions (as in
Experiment 2); the other half were presented only once.
For the excerpts presented five times, participants
began to make their ratings during the third presenta-
tion of the excerpt (again, as in Experiment 2). For the
excerpts presented once, participants made their rat-
ings immediately after the presentation of the excerpt.
The excerpts were interchanged so that, across two groups
of participants, each excerpt served in the familiar and
unfamiliar conditions equally often.
Results and Conclusions
Table 3 presents the mean ratings from the targeted
rating scale (i.e., happy, sad, calm, angry) for the
intended emotion of the musical excerpts. MANOVA
showed significant effects for the type of rating, Wilks
lambda = .24, F(3, 60) = 63.33, p < .05, and the partic-
ular intended emotion of the excerpt, Wilks lambda =
.25, F (3, 60) = 61.07, p < .05. As in Experiment 2, par-
ticipants who were asked What emotion does the music
convey? gave higher ratings than the participants who
were asked How does the music make you feel?
Participants also gave higher ratings to music with pos-
itive emotions than music with negative emotions,
Wilks lambda = .66, F(1, 62) = 31.83, p < .05. There was
also an interaction between type of rating and the mag-
nitude of the differences between positive and negative
emotions, Wilks lambda = .92, F(1, 62) = 5.33, p < .05.
Thus, unlike in Experiment 2, although the intensity
differences between positive and negative emotions
emerged for both types of ratings, these differences were
more pronounced when participants judged the emo-
tion elicited by the music than that conveyed by the
music, indicating a more heightened sensitivity to the
emotions in the former condition.
There was also a main effect for the familiarity con-
dition, Wilks lambda = .47, F(1, 62) = 69.18, p < .05.
This time, unlike in Experiment 1, even though the rat-
ings were entirely on emotion, familiar music was rated
higher on emotional intensity than unfamiliar music.
This effect did not vary as a function of type of rating,
Wilks lambda = .99, F(1, 62) = .68, p > .10.
Discussion
This study examined whether familiarity with musical
stimuli intensified or otherwise modified emotional
responses, as it had been previously reported to do so
with liking responses (e.g., Peretz et al., 1998).
Experiment 1 suggested that it did not. The circumplex
model (North & Hargreaves, 1997) characterizes emo-
tions expressed in music by both their levels of like-
ability and arousal. Ritossa and Rickard (2004)
investigated the relative utility of pleasantness and lik-
ing in predicting the emotions expressed in familiar

TABLE 3. Mean Intensity Ratings (SD) of Emotional Responses to Musical Excerpts as a Function of Type of Emotion, Type of Rating, and the
Familiarity Condition in Experiment 3.

Type of Rating

Emotion Conveyed Emotion Elicited

Unfamiliar Unfamiliar
Emotion Familiar Music Music Overall Familiar Music Music Overall

Happy 3.84 (0.65) 3.72 (0.65) 3.78 (0.65) 3.52 (0.88) 3.19 (0.84) 3.36 (0.87)
Sad 3.53 (0.71) 3.18 (0.86) 3.36 (0.80) 2.74 (0.70) 2.41 (0.75) 2.57 (0.74)
Calm 3.86 (0.69) 3.41 (0.90) 3.63 (0.83) 3.77 (0.73) 3.15 (0.78) 3.45 (0.81)
Angry 3.50 (0.91) 3.10 (0.78) 3.30 (0.86) 2.36 (0.86) 2.03 (0.65) 2.19 (0.77)
Overall 3.68 (0.76) 3.35 (0.83) 3.52 (0.81) 3.10 (0.97) 2.69 (0.90) 2.90 (0.96)
Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 181
music and found that pleasantness was a more useful
predictor of emotions expressed by familiar music than
liking. Thus, Ritossa and Rickards results suggest that
preference for familiar music may have both intellectual
(i.e., liking) and emotional (i.e., pleasantness) com-
ponents. In short, likeability is only one component of
emotion because it can indeed be devoid of arousal
and does not share all of the properties associated with
happiness.
Experiment 3, however, demonstrated that familiarity
enhanced emotional intensity. Of the several procedural
differences between Experiments 1 and 3 (for example,
the PANAS-X scales were used in Experiment 3, but not
in Experiment 1), two differences are most likely to
have contributed to the emergence of the effect in one
experiment but not the other. First, in Experiment 1,
participants were given an extra task of trying to remem-
ber some of the music. This may have led to a divided-
attention situation, thus reducing the processing of
other elements at the expense of a possibly more salient
intellectual element (i.e., trying to remember dur-
ing the familiarization process). Similarly, although the
experiment did not actually test for memory during the
main task of emotion ratings, the imposed memory
load may have led to the unintended byproduct of lim-
iting cognitive resources and thereby not allowing the
full processing of the emotional intensity. Second, in
Experiment 3, familiar excerpts were played more times
and en masse and unfamiliar excerpts were played
only once, and thus the familiarity level reached in
Experiment 1 (in which the familiar excerpts were
played only three times in an interspersed fashion) may
have been enough to cause liking but not enough to
reach a threshold to increase emotional intensity.
Similarly, in Experiment 1, because each familiar
excerpt was interspersed with unfamiliar excerpts, the
participants may have built up a different type of rep-
resentation of familiar excerpts in Experiment 1 com-
pared to Experiment 3. Although we did not test for
liking in Experiment 3, it is possible, but unlikely, that
the liking responses of Experiment 1 might not have
been replicated, given the procedural differences in
manipulating familiarity of the musical excerpts. If that
were the case, one could even argue that emotional
intensity ratings were actually more independent of lik-
ing ratings and were influenced not by familiarity, but
by more of an in-depth experience as a result of famil-
iarity. In any case, both of these factors (i.e., reduced
processing and not enough familiarity) may have
worked in a similar manner. According to the circum-
plex model (North & Hargreaves, 1997), judgments of
Intensity of Emotions Conveyed and Elicited 181
liking depend on contributions from only one of the
axes and thus possibly require less effort or information
for discrimination, whereas judgments of emotion also
involve a contribution from the arousal axis, and thus
make discrimination more complicated. Thus, it is pos-
sible that the task in Experiment 1 might have enabled
that limited amount of familiarity to affect liking but
not emotional intensity.
Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that emotions
conveyed by music were judged to be more intense than
emotions elicited by the same music. However, further
evaluation of these findings is warranted given the
methodological limitations of this study. For example,
the participants may not have been comfortable experi-
encing strong emotions in a laboratory setting. The dif-
ferences in the intensity judgments may have been a
function of the exposure time, such that the partici-
pants were able to classify the emotions conveyed, but
were unable to actually process the emotions elicited
during the relatively short presentation time (five repe-
titions of each musical excerpt and 20 s per repetition,
for a total of two minutes for each excerpt). The pre-
dictability achieved through the en masse repetitions in
Experiment 3 may have enhanced the participants
intellectual judgment of what the music intended to
convey but blunted the participants actual experience
of the emotion because of habituation. Thus, a single,
but longer presentation of the music may diminish the
observed differences.
Finally, in all of the experiments, the participants
rated the music that conveyed positive emotions
higher in intensity than the music that conveyed neg-
ative emotions (cf. Ali & Peynirciog lu, 2006); howev-
er, this difference was not observed in liking ratings.
It may be that, by chance, the music selected to depict
the positive emotions were intrinsically more effec-
tive at evoking them than those selected to depict the
negative emotions. However, these results are consis-
tent with those of Balkwill and Thompson (1999),
who also found that a tendency for participants to
rate their intensity of joy and peace to be higher
than that of anger.
In summary, this study showed that with more expo-
sure and a greater focus on emotion ratings, familiarity
enhances emotional intensity ratings, independent of
the valence of the emotion. This is consistent with the
idea that knowledge of (or familiarity with) the correct
expectations set up by the organization of the melody
can lead to more anticipatory arousal, which can be
interpreted as greater emotional intensity (Meyer, 1956).
Lastly, this study suggested that emotions conveyed by
Music2703_02 1/11/10 3:38 PM Page 182
182 S. Omar Ali & Zehra F. Peynirciog lu
musical stimuli are judged to be more intense than
emotions elicited by the same stimuli.
Author Note
This study was supported in part by a dissertation research
award from the American Psychological Association and
by a non-competitive research grant from the Graduate
Leadership Council of American University.
References
. .
A LI , S. O., & P EYN IRC IOG LU, Z. F. (2006). Songs and emotions:
Are lyrics and melodies equal partners? Psychology of Music,
34, 511-534.
B ALKWILL , L.-L., & T HOMPSON , W. F. (1999). A cross-cultural
investigation of the perception of emotion in music: Psy-
chophysical and cultural cues. Music Perception, 17, 43-64.
G ABRIELSSON , A. (2001/2002). Emotion perceived and emotion
felt: Same or different? Musicae Scientiae, Special Issue, 123-147.
GAUDREAU, D., & PERETZ, I. (1999). Implicit and explicit memory
for music in old and young adults. Brain and Cognition, 40,
126-129.
H ARGREAVES , D. J. (1984). The effects of repetition on liking
for music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 35-47.
J USLIN , P. N., & S LOBODA , J. A. (2001). Music and emotion:
Introduction. In P. N. Juslin & J. A. Sloboda (Eds.). Music
and emotion: Theory and research (pp. 3-19). Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
K NOBLOCH , S., & Z ILLMANN , D. (2003). Appeal of love themes
in popular music. Psychological Reports, 93, 653-658.
M EYER , L. B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
N ORTH , A. C., & H ARGREAVES , D. J. (1997). Liking, arousal
potential, and the emotions expressed by music. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 38, 45-53.
P ERETZ , I., G AUDREAU, D., & B ONNEL , A. M. (1998). Exposure
effects on music preference and recognition. Memory and
Cognition, 26, 884-902.
The experiments in this study were presented at the
46th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in
Toronto, Canada.
Correspondence concerning this article should be
addressed to Zehra F. Peynirciog lu, Department of
Psychology, American University, Asbury Building 321,
4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C.,
20016. E-MAIL: peynir@american.edu
P FISTER , H. R., & B HM , G. (1992). The function of concrete
emotions in rational decision making. Acta Psychologica, 80,
199-211.
R ITOSSA , D. A., & R ICKARD, N. S. (2004). The relative utility
of pleasantness and liking dimensions in predicting the
emotions expressed by music. Psychology of Music, 32, 5-22.
S AMSON , S., & P ERETZ , I. (2005). Effects of prior exposure on
music liking and recognition in patients with temporal lobe
lesions. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1060,
419-428.
S TEVENS , C., & L ATIMER , C. (1991). Judgments of complexity
and pleasingness in music: The effects of structure, repetition,
and training. Australian Journal of Psychology, 43, 17-22.
STRATTON, V. N., & ZALANOWSKI, A. H. (1997). The relationship
between characteristic moods and most commonly listened
to types of music. Journal of Music Therapy, 34, 129-140.
S ZPUNAR , K. K., S CHELLENBERG , E. G., & P LINER , P. (2004).
Liking and memory for musical stimuli as a function of
exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 30, 370-381.
TAN , S., S PACKMAN , M. P., & P EASLEE , C. L. (2006). The
effects of repeated exposure on liking and judgements of
musical unity of intact and patchwork compositions. Music
Perception, 23, 407-421.
WATSON , D., & C LARK , L.A. (1994). The PANAS-X. Manual
for the positive and negative affect scheduleExpanded form.
Iowa City, IA: University of Iowa.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.