AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURALLY 
RECOGNIZED SYMBOLS AS AVATARS AND TRUST IN COMPUTER-
MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTS 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this 
dissertation is my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee.  This 
dissertation does not include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
________________________________________ 
Rodger Glenn Morrison, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
 
_________________________    _______________________ 
Houston H. Carr       Casey G. Cegielski, Chair 
Professor       Associate Professor 
Management       Management 
 
 
 
 
_________________________    _______________________ 
R. Kelly Rainer, Jr.      George T. Flowers 
George Phillips Privett Professor    Dean 
Management       Graduate School 
 
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURALLY 
RECOGNIZED SYMBOLS AS AVATARS AND TRUST IN COMPUTER-
MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTS 
 
Rodger Glenn Morrison, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
A Dissertation 
 
 
Submitted to 
 
 
the Graduate Faculty of 
 
 
Auburn University 
 
 
in Partial Fulfillment of the 
 
 
Requirements for the 
 
 
Degree of 
 
 
Doctor of Philosophy 
 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
December 19, 2008 
 
iii 
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURALLY 
RECOGNIZED SYMBOLS AS AVATARS AND TRUST IN COMPUTER-
MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTS 
 
 
 
 
 
Rodger Glenn Morrison, Jr. 
 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this dissertation at its  
discretion, upon request of individuals or institutions and at their expense. 
The author reserves all publication rights. 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________ 
Signature of Author 
 
 
 
 
 
_____________________________ 
Date of Graduation 
 
 
  
iv 
AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CULTURALLY 
RECOGNIZED SYMBOLS AS AVATARS AND TRUST IN COMPUTER-
MEDIATED COMMUNICATION ENVIRONMENTS 
 
 
Rodger Glenn Morrison, Jr. 
 
Doctor of Philosophy, December 19, 2008 
(M.B.A., Troy University, 2004) 
(B.S., Troy University, 1999) 
(A.A.S., Community College of the Air Force, 1992) 
 
 
 
181 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by Casey G. Cegielski 
 
 
 One of the characterizations that distinguishes man from the rest of the animal 
world is the use of symbols.  Many researchers consider the act of forming and using 
symbols as the central cognitive process in mankind?s thinking.  A study of human 
communication, then, would be incomplete without a consideration of the impact of 
symbolism.  The use of symbols in communication has been a focus of study in many 
disciplines including psychology, religion, literature, and more.  While psychologists 
have focused primarily on the cognitive processes involved in forming and using 
symbols, anthropologists have focused on commonly accepted meanings of particular 
symbols.  In religion and literature, researchers note certain symbolic themes and their 
v 
associations with certain abstract meanings meant to be understood by the readers of the 
works being considered.  In more contemporary research fields, such as computer-
mediated communication, the study of culture and symbols is a relatively new focus of 
research efforts.  While it is well known that the meanings of symbols is both taught and 
learned through cultural phenomena, little research exists on the cultural influence of 
symbol meaning on user trust.   
 The methodologies used to gather data in this study include two opinion surveys 
and a lab experiment.  In the first two phases of the research, student opinions of 
commonly recognized symbols and their meanings are obtained.  In the third phase of the 
research, student subjects were each shown one of three different communication 
transcripts between two fictitious students.  Each transcript differed only in the avatar 
used to represent one of the students.  Student perceptions of the trustworthiness of one of 
the fictitious students were measured, as was student willingness to engage in trusting 
behavior.  ANOVA revealed sufficient evidence to suggest that the use of symbols 
associated with positive character traits resulted in increased trust development.  
ANCOVA revealed sufficient evidence to suggest that the use of symbols associated with 
positive character traits resulted in increased trust development.  Interactions between 
respondent gender and specific symbol used were also significant.  These results suggest 
that the use of certain symbols as avatars influences the amount of trust developed toward 
them, as well as willingness to engage in trusting behavior, key factors in the successful 
implementation of technologies such as automated online virtual agents, certain 
knowledge sharing systems, and more.  Additionally, these results suggest implications in 
other areas such as corporate branding, advertising, and more.
vi 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 To my dearest friend and wife, Vicki, I must say that I could not have faced these 
many private challenges over the last few years without you.  God knows how thankful I 
am he brought you into my life.  Thank you for staying by my side, reminding me when 
to sleep, nursing me when sick, feeding me when I forgot to eat, and enduring alone 
when I was absent.  I hope and pray that our lives will be long and happy together in each 
other?s arms.  I love you now and forever, my dearest. 
To Dr. Anthony K. Rhee of Troy University, my journey at Auburn might never 
have started at all, were it not for you.  I will never forget all that you have done to help 
me succeed.  Thank you for sharing the gift of yourself, which I will never forget.  Your 
vision, leadership, and sensitivity have taught me more than I could ever have learned 
from a book.  May God bless you and keep you. 
 To my extended family, the Sorrell College of Business, I cannot thank you 
enough.  As a student in your classrooms, and as a colleague in your midst, you have 
remained my faithful friends, encouraging mentors, and steadfast advocates.  I could 
never thank you enough for all you have done. 
 To the faculty of the Department of Management, Auburn University, and 
especially my committee, Dr. Casey Cegielski, Dr. R. Kelly Rainer, Jr., and Dr. Houston 
Carr, thank you for releasing the bonds of my ignorance.  Vincit qui se vincit.  Soli Deo 
gloria! 
vii 
Style manual used:  Publication Manual of the American Psychological 
Association (APA), Fifth Edition 
 
 
Computer software used:  Microsoft Word 2007; Microsoft Excel 2007; EndNote 
X1; AMOS 7.0; SPSS 16 for Windows
viii 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. xi 
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii 
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1 
CHAPTER II.  LITERATURE REVIEW ...........................................................................8 
 Overview ..................................................................................................................8  
 Computer-Mediated Communications .....................................................................9 
 Symbolism .............................................................................................................13  
  Overview of Symbolism Studies ...............................................................13 
  Definitions..................................................................................................17 
  Symbol Usage ............................................................................................22 
  Symbol Usage in Psychology ....................................................................23 
  Symbol Usage in Literature and the Arts ...................................................28 
  Symbol Usage in Religion .........................................................................32 
  Archetypal Symbols ...................................................................................35 
 Trust .......................................................................................................................36  
  Overview of Trust Studies .........................................................................36 
  Definition and Description .........................................................................41 
  Trust Usage ................................................................................................45 
  Trust and Computer-Mediated Communications.......................................49
viii 
 Symbols and Interpersonal Trust in Computer-Mediated Communications .........53 
 Research Hypotheses .............................................................................................57 
CHAPTER III.  METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................62 
 Overview ................................................................................................................62 
 General Information and Demographics ................................................................63 
 Phase 1 - General Perceptions of Symbol Meanings .............................................64 
  Overview ....................................................................................................64 
  Method Specifics .......................................................................................65 
 Phase 2 - Strength of Symbol Meanings ................................................................67 
  Overview ....................................................................................................67 
  Method Specifics .......................................................................................68 
 Phase 3 - Strength of Trust in Context ...................................................................70 
  Overview ....................................................................................................70 
  Method Specifics .......................................................................................74 
CHAPTER IV.  RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................76 
 Phase 1 - General Perceptions of Symbol Meanings .............................................76 
 Phase 2 - Strength of Symbol Meanings ................................................................76 
 Phase 3 - Strength of Trust in Context ...................................................................77 
 Analysis Related to Hypothesis H1, Trust .............................................................78 
 Analysis Related to Hypothesis H2, Action ..........................................................79 
 Additional Analyses ...............................................................................................83 
CHAPTER V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .....................................................86 
 Summary ................................................................................................................86  
ix 
 Contributions and Implications ..............................................................................88  
 Limitations .............................................................................................................89  
 Future Research .....................................................................................................92 
 Conclusions ............................................................................................................93  
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................95  
APPENDIX A.  Phase 1 Instrument ................................................................................131 
APPENDIX B.  Phase 2 Instrument ................................................................................145 
APPENDIX C.  Phase 3 Instrument ................................................................................159 
APPENDIX D.  Phase 2 Analysis Summary ...................................................................167 
 
x 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table 1: Common Archetypal Symbols .............................................................................37 
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Phase 3 Scale Data ......................................................78 
Table 3: Pearson Correlations Between Phase 3 Scale Variables ......................................78 
Table 4: Gender and Symbol Subgroup Descriptive Statistics for Trust ANOVA ...........79 
Table 5: Hypothesis H1 ANOVA Table ............................................................................80 
Table 6: Gender and Symbol Subgroup Descriptive Statistics for Action ANCOVA ......81 
Table 7: Hypothesis H2 ANCOVA Table .........................................................................84 
Table 8: 95% Confidence Intervals for Group Means of Trust Groups ............................84 
Table 9: 95% Confidence Intervals for Group Means of Action Groups ..........................85 
Table D1: Phase 2 Analysis Summary.............................................................................160
xi 
LIST OF FIGURES 
Figure 1:  Trust Model: Relationship of Manipulated Variable to Trust Development ....61 
Figure 2: Comparisons of Symbol Histograms ..................................................................81 
Figure 3: Estimated Marginal Means Plot for Action Variable .........................................82  
Figure C1:  Permission to use Dr. Rotter?s ITS Scale .....................................................160
1 
CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 
One of the characterizations that distinguishes mankind from the rest of the 
animal world is the use of symbols (Cassirer, 1944).  Man is the only animal that is said 
to use symbols in everyday life and has even come to be dominated by them (Petocz, 
2005).  Many researchers consider the act of forming and using symbols as the central 
cognitive process in mankind?s thinking, ?like eating, looking, or moving about.  It is the 
fundamental process of his mind, and goes on all the time.? (Langer, 1942, p. 41)  A 
study of human communications behavior, then, would be incomplete without a 
consideration of the impact of symbolism.  The use of symbols in communication has 
been a focus of study in many disciplines including psychology, religion, literature, and 
more.  While psychologists have focused primarily on the cognitive processes involved in 
forming and using symbols, anthropologists have focused on commonly accepted 
meanings of certain symbols.  In religion and literature, researchers note certain symbolic 
themes and their associations with certain abstract meanings meant to be understood by 
the readers of the works being considered.  In more contemporary research fields, such as 
technology-mediated communications or human-computer interaction, the study of 
symbols and their use is a relatively new focus of research efforts, especially in the areas 
related to social interaction, emotion, and cognition.  
2 
For instance, researchers have shown that the symbols used as avatars to represent 
the individuals in online chat sessions are often related to self-identification and self-
disclosure (Kang & Yang, 2006).  The use of small graphic symbols, or emoticons, as 
surrogates for non-verbal emotive expression in online chat environments have come 
under increased study as well.  In fact, researchers have shown that using symbols is such 
an integral part of how humans communicate that we often do not even realize that it is 
occurring, even in online communication environments.  It is this subconscious 
processing of symbols and their meanings wherein the subject of this study lies. 
To illustrate the need for understanding how humans process the meanings of 
symbols in computer-mediated communication environments, consider one of the areas 
currently under study, that of online virtual agents.  These automated software routines, 
or bots, are often designed to mimic humans in some way such as appearance, behavior, 
sound, grammar, and more.  When deployed in customer service, these agents assist 
customers by solving technical problems, responding to inquiries, entering sales orders, 
and much more.  The success of these agents in terms of competitive advantage can be 
significant.  In one comparative study, the cost of a live-body customer service call was 
approximately four dollars, while the average cost of an automated online virtual agent 
interaction was approximately twenty-five cents (Trott, 2000, p. 31).  Another example 
involves a California school district that introduced and began using MySite Agent, an 
online, interactive, virtual agent designed to handle online student inquiries.  Using 
conversational English, students ask the agent questions and the agent software 
formulates a response based on keywords and sentence structure.  The result is then given 
back to the students in conversational English (Kattner, 2004).  Using existing instant 
3 
messaging technology and providers, the MySite Agent system was programmed to 
distinguish explicit from tacit knowledge and respond accordingly, either by providing 
answers from a database or by referring students to a live human agent. 
While early online virtual agents such as these were historically passive in nature 
and only replied to inquiries and requests, this is no longer the case.  Automated agents 
have recently been designed to be more active and direct.  Virtual agents that seek out 
possible customers from massive online databases, and then contact those customers to 
make sales pitches via email or instant messaging have become commonplace. 
Recent trends in automated online virtual agents also include the deployment of 
agents that actively collect personal information from the humans they communicate 
with, just like their human counterparts.  When a web site visitor communicates with this 
type of agent, the software controlling the agent creates a database entry and records the 
IP address, cookie information, user name, and more.  During the communication 
exchange, the agent either actively solicits information from or collects information 
freely given by the visitor in the course of addressing whatever problem or request is at 
hand.  This information is recorded in the organization?s databases and may later be used 
in sales, marketing, product improvement, collections, etc.  To be successful, these 
automated systems must collect and maintain as much information as possible, which is 
often not freely given by the human users. 
One phenomenon that has been noted by researchers is the ability for humans to 
communicate with online agents and avatars in the same way that they do with other 
humans.  Humans often form pseudo-social relationships with the graphic components of 
communication interfaces presented by their computers (Isbister, Nakanishi, Ishida, & 
4 
Nass, 2000).  As in relationships between humans, the relationships between humans and 
computer interfaces is often influenced by non-verbal as well as verbal exchanges of 
information (Cassell et al., 1999).  Many researchers believe that the non-verbal 
component of communications may actually deliver more information in the 
communication process than verbal behavior does (Birdwhistell, 1970; Mehrabian, 1968).  
For example, most information about emotion, empathy, and social presence in 
interpersonal relationships is relayed non-verbally (Knapp & Hall, 2002).  One of the 
biggest difficulties in developing interaction environments that utilize virtual agents, 
especially those that resemble humans in appearance, has been modeling human non-
verbal behavior so that it properly augments verbal communication (Nakanishi, Shimizu, 
& Isbister, 2005a). 
A key factor contributing to successful verbal and non-verbal interpersonal 
communication between humans is interpersonal trust.  Rotter (1967) defined 
interpersonal trust as ?an expectancy held by an individual or a group that the word, 
promise, or verbal or written statement of another individual or group can be relied 
upon?.  In situations of higher media richness such as face-to-face, video, and audio 
communications, a higher level of trust develops than when text alone is used (Bos, 
Olson, Gergle, Olson, & Wright, 2002), such as in a chat session.  This suggests that 
information not found in text-only environments influences trust levels.  That is, the non-
verbal components of the communication environment influence the level of trust that 
develops.   
One of the phenomena related to interacting with an online agent, especially those 
that are animated or mimic human behavior, is that it allows both verbal and non-verbal 
5 
information to be exchanged (Cassell et al., 1999; Cassell, Sullivan, Prevost, & Churchill, 
2000). This holds true even when multiple people or multiple agents are involved.  For 
example, in training environments that use simulated humans in emergency situations, 
programmed non-verbal communication was found to have a strong influence on group 
behavior (Nakanishi et al., 2005a). 
Most people understand that the overall physical appearance of the individual can 
project trustworthiness.  This is why network news anchors are careful about their 
appearance.  Their neat dress gives the viewing audience an impression of 
trustworthiness.  The clearly distinguishable uniforms of authority figures (e.g. policemen 
or doctors) can also lead to perceptions of trustworthiness (Joseph, 1986).  Likewise, 
older people are considered by most societies to be more trustworthy than younger people 
(Doob, 1983).  Many people put faith in authority figures and older people, even when 
their actual trustworthiness is unknown, a practice evident in the American culture when 
we teach young children to trust police officers, doctors, and teachers.  Indirectly, this 
reaffirms the belief that the appearance of authority and experience is a reflection of an 
individual?s trustworthiness.  Most people assume, and we teach children, that an 
individual?s experience helps them understand our needs so that they can help others.  
That is, people consider those that appear to have more experience to be more 
trustworthy because they are more able to understand the problem at hand or empathize 
with those in need.  The appearance of symbols that represent authority or age, therefore, 
is culturally taught in the American culture to be associated with trustworthiness. 
When humans communicate with each other, or with an online virtual agent in a 
computer-mediated communications environment such as online chat, it is often the case 
6 
that a graphic image or symbol is chosen as an avatar to represent the presence of those 
communicating.  Often, this is the only visual clue that exists to the other?s 
trustworthiness.  Because these are typically chosen by each individual, or by the person 
responsible for programming a humanized agent, these avatars become a form of self-
expression similar to an individual?s clothing, hairstyle, or jewelry. 
The purpose of this study is to show that the appearance of an avatar, or symbol 
used to represent a human or a virtual human in computer-mediated communications, can 
be manipulated through the use of culturally-recognized symbols to influence perceptions 
of trustworthiness and the behavior that follows.  To that end, this study is written and 
divided into this introductory chapter and four additional chapters.   
In Chapter two, a logical presentation of the extant literature from several 
different, but related, disciplines will be given.  Because symbols permeate most aspects 
of the human existence, studies on symbol usage have been fecund.  While psychologists 
have been studying the cognitive aspects and sociologist have been working with the 
social aspects of symbol usage, researchers in other areas have also been prolific.  In the 
area of religious studies, researchers often study symbols for a deeper understand of 
religious works.  Likewise, in the humanities, accurate symbol interpretation is key to 
understanding the works of architects, poets, authors, composers, and painters.  The use 
of symbols in many of these disciplines will be discussed, as well as in the area of 
computer-mediated communications and trust studies.  Numerous symbols are identified 
that are commonly found in the literature in three research disciplines, Religion, Arts and 
Literature, and Psychology.  Two hypotheses are developed relating to the effect of 
7 
culturally-recognized symbols and trust in computer-mediated communication 
environments. 
Chapter three describes the method used to test the hypotheses developed in 
Chapter two.  The testing method described in Chapter three is divided into three parts, or 
phases.  In Phase one, symbols identified in Chapter two are presented to respondents in 
order to identify keywords or phrases associated with each.  In Phase two, symbols and 
word combinations from the responses in Phase one are presented to respondents to give 
an opinion regarding the strength of association, which will be used to identify which 
symbols will be used in Phase three.  In Phase three, respondents will be asked to 
complete an instrument that measures predisposition to trust, read the text of one of three 
different chat sessions, and then complete instruments related to willingness to perform a 
trusting act and general trust levels that develop.  Chapter four will provide a detailed 
analysis of data collected during the three data gathering phases described in Chapter 
three.  Chapter five will contain conclusions and implications for this research, along 
with discussions of possible bias, limitations, generalizability, and future research 
possibilities. 
 
8 
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW 
Overview 
 This chapter will provide basic introductions to the fields of computer-mediated 
communication, symbolism, and interpersonal trust.  First, descriptions of key 
characteristics of both face-to-face communication and computer-mediated 
communication are given, focusing on significant differences between the two.  Second, 
an overview is provided that outlines key definitions and rhetoric used in symbolism 
studies.  Information on symbol usage from the fields of Psychology, Literature, and 
Religion, along with descriptions of symbols commonly found in all three of these 
research disciplines, is also included.  Third, a brief discussion of interpersonal trust is 
provided that includes key concepts, dimensions, and definitions.  The role and 
importance of trust in both computer-mediated communication and Face-to-face 
communications is outlined in general terms.  Finally, a brief description of recent 
research into interpersonal trust and the use of symbols in computer-mediated 
communication are outlined.  In this section, current trends in the areas of changing 
culture, business communications, and marketing are described that highlight the 
importance of studying symbol usage in business research.  The final section of this 
chapter also contains the research problem investigated in this study and a model used to 
9 
describe the relationship between trust and symbol usage in computer-mediated 
communications. 
Computer-Mediated Communications 
 Galbraith (1977) describes communication as one of the processes used by the 
individuals in an organization to reduce uncertainty.  Although in the past managers 
tended to communicate more often in face-to-face communication environments than in 
others (D'Ambra, Rice, & O'Connor, 1998), this is now changing.  Technological 
influences on communication media have resulted in systems built specifically to replace 
face-to-face communications such as e-mail, instant messaging, and chat systems.  The 
widespread use of these systems has led researchers to expand studies of interpersonal 
communications to include the distinctive characteristics found in them.  These 
computer-mediated communication systems, ?use computers to structure and process 
information and use communication networks to facilitate its exchange?  (D'Ambra et al., 
1998, p. 164), and have been the focus of an increasing amount of research. 
 Most of the extant literature involving business communication uses face-to-face 
communication environments as the benchmark to which most other interpersonal 
communication environments are compared (Berry, 2006).  The characteristics of face-to-
face communication have been well documented and are assumed be consistent across 
most situations (McGrath & Hollingshead, 1990).  These characteristics include the co-
presence of the communicating parties, a general lack of anonymity, the use of non-
verbal communication, the possibility of immediate feedback, the expression of emotion, 
and an unequal division of time among speakers.  Further, the one person speaking 
typically exercises some form of control over the pace of the communication process, 
10 
who the next speaker will be, the allowance of interruptions, and the expression of 
emotional cues.  Lastly, the participants in a face-to-face communication situation that 
may be allowed to speak typically include only those individuals that are actually present.  
These participants typically do not share the speaking time equally and usually speak to 
everyone present rather than to those that are not.   
 In computer-mediated communication, however, many of these characteristics 
may differ, which in turn creates phenomena not found in face-to-face communication.  
For example, in an email exchange, it is rare for the parties exchanging email to be in the 
same place and time during the exchange, as they would be in a face-to-face 
communication exchange.  This lack of co-presence results in an inability of both parties 
to use non-verbal communication to provide cues to trustworthiness, emotion, and 
understanding.  For example, in situations where trustworthiness is important, the use of 
email over face-to-face communication may delay the development of a trusting 
relationship because both parties cannot observe the other during the communication 
process.  The facial language of an individual making a statement in an email is generally 
not observable, and is therefore not usable for the reinforcement of what was 
communicated verbally, which in turn delays the development of a trusting relationship.   
 Although computer-mediated communication often takes place without non-
verbal input to the communication process, participants may adapt the verbal 
communication process to express non-verbal information.  For example, the absence of 
simple non-verbal gesturing in online chat sessions has led to the widespread use of text-
based emotional expressions, such as  ?:)?, ?;)? and ?:(?, as surrogates for the traditional 
face-to-face communication gestures of smiling, winking, and frowning.  Similarly, it is 
11 
understood by many that typing an email or chat session in all capital letters may be 
viewed as speaking loudly or yelling, whereas typing the same message in all lower case 
may be viewed as whispering.   
 Although the absence of non-verbal input into the communication process can be 
problematic, the use of computer-mediated communication has its advantages as well.  
For example, the use of email, chat, or instant messaging allows individuals to 
communicate when separated by time and/or distance.  A factory manager at the Hyundai 
assembly plant in Montgomery, Alabama, can communicate asynchronously with an 
engineer in Seoul, South Korea.  Rather than place an inter-continental telephone call, 
each individual can send and receive email messages at their leisure and communicate 
over several days.  Furthermore, the entire contents of the communication can be 
forwarded to other individuals if necessary if the need arises to get others involved.  
Records of these communication exchanges can be stored for future use by others within 
the organization that may not be participants in the original communication process. 
 Another benefit of asynchronous computer-mediated communication over face-
to-face communication is the enlarging of the span of control that some managers have 
over subordinates.  In the past, managers could properly supervise only as many 
subordinates as he or she could directly observe and communicate within face-to-face 
communication environments.  The advent of computer-mediated communication has led 
to significant changes in the way that managers supervise their subordinates.  Email and 
instant-messaging session often substitute for face-to-face communication, and work 
product can often be reviewed electronically.  This has allowed workers to remain 
dispersed among many isolated sites, be they at home or in remote work centers, rather 
12 
than gathering at large offices.  Workers that telecommute to their work environment 
rather than drive often benefit from more flexible schedules, reduced commuting times, 
and less direct involvement with others in the work place (Jerving, 2007; Mears, 2007).  
Handicapped workers and those with special familial obligations are now able to enter 
the work place by telecommuting for organizations that were once beyond their reach.   
 Where organizations were once forced to invest in large office buildings, parking 
lots, and large teams of managers, this is no longer the case.  Fewer workers need to be 
co-present and many work from home, which often results in fewer cars in smaller 
parking lots outside of smaller office buildings.  Computer-mediated communication also 
broadens the span of control within organizations, which lowers the number of managers 
required to supervise a given number of workers.  Organizations then become leaner and 
more efficient.  While face-to-face communication has been the standard communication 
protocol in organizations in the past, computer-mediated communication has allowed the 
re-engineering of key business processes for efficiency.  Researchers have realized the 
need for more study into the similarities, differences, and issues regarding face-to-face 
communication and computer-mediated communication, noting many differences 
between the two processes that can be both capitalized on and that present new 
challenges. 
 For example, when compared to face-to-face communication, the characteristics 
of computer-mediated communication include reduced non-verbal communication (Hiltz 
& Turoff, 2002), an increase in the ability to communicate anonymously (Green, 2006; 
Pissarra & Jesuino, 2005), reduced perceptions of social presence (Rice, 1993), slower 
development of trusting relationships (Bos et al., 2002), an increase in group polarization 
13 
(Williams, 1977), and more.   The presence of these characteristics in the communication 
process has allowed, if not necessitated, changes to organizational structures, team 
dynamics, decision making by managers, and more (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992).  
Computer-mediated communication has therefore become an important research area in 
business communications, decision-making, and organizational dynamics.   
 One aspect of communications that is often studied, whether the researcher is 
working in the field of face-to-face communication or computer-mediated 
communication, is the effect of cultural forces on the communication process.  Many 
researchers have studied the effects of culture on many aspects of the communication 
process including knowledge sharing (Ducate, 2003), majority influence on decision 
making (B. C. Y. Tan, Wei, Watson, Clapper, & McLean, 1998), group decision making 
(Swamy, 2005), and even gender-specific issues (Baek, 2005).  However, one key 
component of culture that is only now beginning to be the focus of computer-mediated 
communication studies is that of symbol usage and interpretation.  Once found primarily 
in the domain of marketing research, the study of how culture affects the interpretation of 
symbols in the communication process is only now beginning to find its way into the 
research domain of computer-mediated communication. 
Symbolism 
 Overview of Symbolism Studies 
 In Hymn to Hermes, Homer makes what is now believed to be the first use of the 
term symbol when he describes Hermes seeing a turtle and loudly proclaims it a 
?symbolon? (Evelyn-White, 1914) before turning it into a lyre.  In its original Greek, the 
etymology of the English word symbol comes from the verb ??????????, which means 
14 
?to throw together?, and the noun ????????, which refers to a ?tally? (Merriam-Webster, 
2005; Petocz, 2005, p. 9).  Originally used as a reference to a small item broken into two 
pieces and given to contract parties as security (Liddell, Scott, Jones, & McKenzie, 
1996), it later came to mean many different things (Von Bertalanffy, 1965) including 
iconic images, characters for mathematical operations, and more.  The many different 
uses of the term have become so diverse that an organized and thorough summary of the 
use of the term ?symbol? would be beyond the scope of this study and would be useful 
only to show the lack of unity in symbol studies.  However, by limiting discussions to a 
clearly defined use of the word, such a review becomes more useful.  For the purposes 
of this study, the following review of symbol-related studies is limited to those that 
regard the symbol as a special type of sign, the meaning of which is culturally 
transmitted through a social learning process rather than by a conditioned or 
instinctive one. 
Some of the earliest works concerning symbolism date back to Aristotle and 
Augustine.  In his On Interpretation, Aristotle referred to spoken words as ?symbols of 
mental experience? (350 B.C.E.).  His expositions form some of the earliest written 
records of symbol studies.  From Aristotle, we get glimpses into thoughts on signs, 
symbols, and meanings.  Later, Sextus Empiricus expounds on these concepts and 
introduces the concepts of the signifier and the signified in Against the Logicians (200 
C.E.).  The former being a term meant to represent an artifact used to represent 
something, and the latter, a term to represent the something being represented (Todorov, 
1982).  Sextus Empiricus, like Aristotle, limits his discourse to the spoken word and does 
not include the expression of visual symbols at all. 
15 
 While Aristotle and Sextus Empiricus spoke of symbols as concrete associations 
of spoken words and their concrete relationships to the things they represent, Clement of 
Alexandria went further.  In his work, The Miscellanies, he suggested a more abstract 
connection between the signifier and the signified, or ?what is expressed in veiled 
term?(Wilson, 1869).  While the discourses of Clement were similar to those of Aristotle 
and Sextus Empiricus in that they were also firmly entrenched in the realm of the 
linguistic, he was among the first to distinguish between the direct and the indirect types 
of relationships between signifiers and things signified.  The former relationships were 
later referred to by scholars as semiotics, or related to signs, and the latter as symbolic, or 
related to symbols (Harman, 1986; Hinderer, 1968; Mick, 1986; Todorov, 1982). 
 Yet, it was not until the religious writings of Augustine in the late fourth and early 
5th centuries that we find a clearly stated definition of a sign.  ?A sign is something which 
is itself sensed and which indicates to the mind something beyond the sign itself? 
(Augustine, trans. 1975).  Because his definition is suitable for signs in general, it is 
insufficient for a discourse on symbols as a special subset of signs (Todorov, 1982).  In 
On Christian Doctrine (trans. 1958), Augustine relates that all signs must fall into either 
of two categories, the literal or the figurative, and uses the example of an ox.  In the case 
of the literal, the signifier, or sign, ?ox? refers to the signified, a particular type of herding 
animal.  However, in the figurative, the same word can be used to refer to a preacher.  
Augustine refers to an interpreted scripture, ?Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth 
the corn? (1 Cor 9:9, King James Version).  Thus, Augustine is among the first to 
describe the difference between two distinctly different types of signs, which later 
researchers referred to as proper signs and transposed signs, or symbols (Todorov, 1982). 
16 
 While much of the research in semiotics and symbolic since Augustine has served 
to clarify and further define the relationships that exist between signifiers and things 
signified, some of it seems contradictory.  The linguist Saussure, for example, held that 
because symbolic relationships are originally motivated by experience, they are not 
arbitrary (Holdcroft, 1991; Saussure, 1959).  He puts forth that signs must therefore be 
created arbitrarily.  Peirce (1931-58) on the other hand, as a logician and philosopher, 
suggests just the opposite.  Peirce regards the sign as the motivated artifact and the 
symbol as the arbitrarily defined one.  This stems mainly from his view that logic was 
closely related to semiotics, or the study of the sign.  Like Saussure and Pierce, most 
researchers tend to view symbols and their use from the vantage point of their own 
discipline.  Although this seems an obvious conclusion, it is an important one.  For 
example, researchers such as Langer and others in aesthetic fields tend to view symbols 
as tools to express abstract concepts such as beauty, evil, godliness, etc (Jenkins, 1987; 
Langer, 1948; Whitehead, 1927).  Researchers in Anthropology, on the other hand, are 
more concerned with the forms of symbols and their use and interpretations in a cultural 
context (Carlson, 1999; Roberts, 1994).  The diversity of research areas in which the 
symbol has been a focus of study, therefore, resulted in a lack of unity among researchers 
as to the definition, meaning, and use of symbols in general (Bertalanffy, 1981; Safouan, 
1982; Whitehead, 1927). 
Most researchers, however, agree that symbols are a phenomena of relationships 
expressed indirectly (Petocz, 2005), the meaning of which are taught and learned through 
cultural phenomena (Eco, 2000; Prodi, 1977; Von Bertalanffy, 1965).  Although culture 
expresses itself in a multitude of different ways, many anthropologists might agree that 
17 
one of the keys to studying culture in general is to study symbols.  In fact, Some 
researchers go so far as to suggest that the presence of symbols may be a litmus test for 
the presence of culture (Tuttle, 2001, p. 408). 
 Definitions 
 However, before one can begin a discourse into the importance of studying 
symbolism in a cultural context, it seems logical to define what a symbol is.  Even though 
symbolism is generally accepted to be a distinctly human behavior (Von Bertalanffy, 
1965), the lack of a commonly accepted definition for what a symbol is has been a 
subject of debate.  Among the first researchers to address this issue were Cassirer (1944), 
Von Bertalanffy (1947), and Langer (1948) over a half-century ago. 
 Cassirer?s definition of the symbol is related to the concept that symbols are a 
natural product of language and the cultural categorization of concepts.  However, while 
he clearly notes that the use of symbols is heavily dependent on culture; his descriptions 
of symbols fall short in distinguishing human behavior from sub-human behavior in the 
use of signs.  That is, his description of symbols as a ?system of categories,? (1953, p. 
271) is not sufficient to distinguish culturally transmitted language and meaning in 
human behavior from instinctive transmitted expressions found in nature such as the 
mating calls of insects and birds.  Cassirer?s work was very broad in scope and was 
concerned mainly with the different types, or forms, of symbols rather than their use.  
While this approach may be appropriate for philosophical discourse, it would also be 
inadequate for behavioral research efforts that require clear delineation between the use 
of concrete signs and the use of abstract symbols. 
18 
 Langer?s descriptions of symbol usage, however, were focused on the symbol as a 
logical way to express the abstract qualities of beauty and grace found in art.  In fact, her 
work was mainly an effort to use logic to explain the connected emotive expressions 
found in painting, sculpture, music, drama, and other aesthetic arts (Langer, 1948; Von 
Bertalanffy, 1965).  Although her work lends itself well to research efforts of symbol 
usage in these more aesthetic areas, it does not work well in others.  While those of 
Cassirer heavily influenced her ideas, she also put forth the notion that the symbol was of 
the same logical form as the thing or concept being symbolized.  Her logic would 
suggest, for example, that some musical phrases may sound mournful and are often used 
to express the emotion of sorrow.  Likewise in art, dark colors may be used to express a 
dark mood (Tindall, 1955).  While her analysis may sometimes be true, it is not always 
so.  Further, another issue with Langer?s work is that she does not clearly distinguish the 
use of signs from the use of symbols (Levesque, 1997), which is necessary for this 
research effort.  Bertalanffy, on the other hand, does precisely that. 
 Bertalanffy?s (1947) definition of the symbol includes three distinct points in that 
symbols are signs that are, ?freely created?, ?representative?, and are ?transmitted by 
tradition.?  His idea that symbols are freely created refers to the notion that a symbol is 
not formed because of some Pavlovian conditioning, or biologically reflexive, behavior.  
While a picture of a flame used to represent the danger of a nearby heat source is a sign, 
it is not a symbol.  Observation of such a sign is a warning that one can be burned by a 
nearby danger and is meant to conjure up any past memory of the pain of intense heat.  
This, in turn, leads the observer to avoid the heat source.  Because the meaning of such a 
sign is tied to the reflexive action of pain avoidance, it is not freely created and therefore 
19 
not a symbol.  On the other hand, a white cross on a red background, such as is used by 
the American Red Cross, is a symbol.  Because there is no such connection between the 
sign and the thing signified, the organization, it is freely created, and may therefore be a 
symbol. 
 Although the idea that symbols are also representative may seem intuitive, but not 
all signs are clearly representative of a particular thing.  For example, a picture can be 
used to represent something else, such as a picture of a king?s golden crown.  That is, the 
picture may be a sign for the golden headwear of a king, or it may be a symbol for the 
office of a king.  It is therefore representative.  In this example, the former connection 
between the picture of a crown and the signified thing, a king, may not be freely created.  
Repeated observations of kings wearing crowns can condition an individual to connect 
the sign of the crown to the thing signified, the king.  The latter connection between the 
picture of a crown and the office of a king, however, is not so easily created by simple 
conditioning.  One must understand the abstract concept of the office of a king to make 
the connection, therefore, such a sign is both representative and freely created. 
 Bertalanffy?s third notion of symbols, that they are transmitted by tradition, is 
included in his definition to distinguish behavior learned by culture from behavior due to 
instinct.  For example, the angry bark of a dog is a form of communication meant and 
often understood to be a warning, though it is not a learned behavior but an instinctive 
one.  A dog that barks three times and sits by the door with a leash in its mouth when it 
needs to go out is exhibiting a learned behavior.  However, while this act is a sign of a 
dog?s need to go out, it is not a symbol.  Because it is due to the conditioning training by 
its owner, this sign is not freely created and therefore is not a symbol.  The earlier 
20 
example of the sign of an ox used to represent a preacher, however, is freely created.  The 
relationship between this particular signifier, the ox sign, and this thing signified, the 
preacher, is typically learned through the teachings of others rather than through direct 
experience or observation.  In this example, the understanding of the relationship would 
typically come from the teaching of another preacher, or from reading the teachings of 
the original writer, Paul of Tarsus. 
Bertalanffy?s definition clearly allows that a symbol may have a symbolate, or 
thing referred to by the symbol, to be unrelated to the symbol in a direct sense as 
described first by Augustine.  Tindall expresses a general understanding of the difference 
between a symbol and a sign in that, while both refer to an exact something, the reference 
is not ambiguous.  ?The difference seems to be that a sign is an exact reference to 
something definite and a symbol an exact reference to something indefinite? (Tindall, 
1955, p. 6). 
 As was previously discussed, researchers have recognized the fact that there is not 
a single, commonly accepted, definition of the symbol.  In fact, the Merriam-Webster 
dictionary contains multiple and often unrelated definitions for many of the terms 
common in symbol studies, such as sign, signify, symbol, and symbology.  However, 
Von Bertalanffy?s definition of ?symbol? is most similar to the second of Merriam-
Webster?s (2005) five dictionary entries for the word.  According to this entry, a symbol 
is ?something that stands for or suggests something else by reason of relationship, 
association, convention, or accidental resemblance; especially : a visible sign of 
something invisible <the lion is a symbol of courage>.?  While this dictionary definition 
is similar to Von Bertalanffy?s, it does not address each of the three necessary properties 
21 
that he says that a sign must have in order to be a symbol.  The fifth Merriam-Webster 
entry defines a symbol as ?an act, sound, or object having cultural significance and the 
capacity to excite or objectify a response.?  While this does reference the cultural aspect 
of symbols noted by Bertalanffy, it seems to exclude both written and graphic forms of 
symbols and provides no reference to symbols being freely created.  The third Merriam-
Webster entry defines a symbol as ?an arbitrary or conventional sign used in writing or 
printing relating to a particular field to represent operations, quantities, elements, 
relations, or qualities.?  This definition also seems to contain a part of Bertalanffy?s 
definition, that a symbol should be freely created, by its use of the term ?arbitrary?, but it 
also does not include a reference to culture or society in the teaching or learning of 
meaning.  The other two definitions in Merriam-Webster seem completely inappropriate 
to the use of the term in this study. 
 The first definition in the dictionary defines a symbol as ?an authoritative 
summary of faith or doctrine : Creed,? which, while it may present a cultural aspect to the 
use of the term, is a usage that would be more likely found in the fields of theology, or 
political ideology than in this type of research effort.  The fourth definition, ?an object or 
act representing something in the unconscious mind that has been repressed <phallic 
symbols>,? is similar to Freud?s use of the symbol in his writings on dream interpretation 
called the ?Freudian Broad? view (Petocz, 2005, p. 24).  While this definition does allude 
to Bertalanffy?s free creation of symbols, it clearly lies in the realm of unconscious 
mental processes rather than known unrepressed connections between symbol and 
meaning.  However, while this definition is not suitable to define symbols for this study, 
it does provide a hint into what many researchers of symbols in the field of psychology 
22 
hold true.  The behavior and mental processes of individuals is often subconsciously 
encoded in their transmission and interpretation of symbols (Tuttle, 2001) as they relate 
to culture.  Like Tuttle, other researchers describe culture as either a mental or a mental 
and behavioral process (Brumann, 2002, p. 509) that often is best described as man?s 
social use of symbols.   
 Symbol Usage 
How a society uses and interprets symbols is closely related to the social forces at 
work at any particular time (Whitehead, 1927).  The architecture, heraldry, religion, 
literature, and art of an era is so rich with symbols that historians often find it best to 
discuss these in terms of the symbol usage of the time.  For example, the previously 
mentioned use of the ?ox? symbol by Augustine demonstrates his familiarity with the 
Christian Bible of his time.  This is significant historically because Augustine was the 
ruler that ended the official state persecution of the early Christian church and established 
Christianity as the official religion of Rome (Merdinger, 1985; Sayers, 2000).  Similarly, 
Hurston used the symbolism of the pear tree in Their Eyes Were Watching God to 
develop the main black female character as a woman who should be ?loved, respected, 
and self-sufficient? (Dilbeck, 2008, p. 102).  Her novel was published when black women 
were considered among the lowest of America?s social classes.  Because the meaning and 
use of a symbol depends on the socio-political phenomena of the moment, interpreting 
symbol meanings can provide a window with which to study culture. 
Symbols are used to add meaning to something beyond the literal understanding 
(Emerson, 1904; Lawrence, 1930; Symons, 1919).  Using symbols to express oneself is a 
distinctly human characteristic and, as such, manifests itself into most areas of human 
23 
behavior (Hacker, 1965; Petocz, 2005; Todorov, 1982).  Therefore, when studying human 
behavior, it is important that one must keep in mind that symbols often carry meanings 
that go much further than the literal.  This is especially true for studies involving such 
abstract notions as spirituality, emotions, or aesthetics, where the indirect meanings 
associated with symbols are often more efficient in conveying a concept or idea than the 
direct and literal meanings associated with signs.  In other words, human expression and 
the resulting behavior are often influenced, not only by the literal meanings of signs, but 
by the hidden meanings found in symbols, which should be viewed cultural standpoint. 
To illustrate this point, consider the major research works in the area of symbol 
usage.  A study of research in the area of symbols reveals that there are a few key works 
repeatedly referenced by contemporary researchers.  Petocz (2005, p. 10) refers to some 
of them as the ?Bibles? of symbolism and they include the works of Cassirer (1953), 
Langer (1942), and Bertalanffy (1965).  Other research works often referred to include 
those of Freud (1900), Eco (2000), Saussure (1959), and Peirce (1931-58).  A thorough 
review of these and other works of these symbol researchers reveals that the examples 
and illustrations they use to describe symbols and their usage, comes mainly from the 
literature of three domains heavily influenced by culture; psychology, art and literature, 
and religion.  An understanding of how symbols are used in each of these domains should 
provide a better understanding of how symbols affect human behavior. 
Symbol usage in Psychology 
Royce points out that the generally accepted definition of psychology is that it is 
the ?science of the behavior of organisms? (Royce, 1965, p. 3).  It seems intuitive, then, 
that a logical place to begin studying how humans behave with regard to symbols is in the 
24 
field of psychology.  It is unfortunate, however, that there is comparatively little research 
available from the psychology literature on the subject of symbol usage (Bertalanffy, 
1981; Petocz, 2005) in terms of symbol meanings and interpretation.  Most of the 
literature in psychology uses the terms ?symbol? and ?sign? synonymously, while 
focusing on the neurological activity of the human brain with regard to symbol usage.  
Concerned primarily with how the brain works, researchers often utilize individuals with 
abnormal brain activity as subjects for studies into the formation of symbol meaning, 
cognition, recognition, memory, and more rather than focusing on how the average 
individual uses symbols in daily activities.  Further, as mentioned earlier, there remains 
no unity within the research domain of the psychology of the symbol and no general 
theory of the symbol exists as yet.  Nevertheless, there are researchers that feel including 
symbol usage patterns when studying human behavior is both a fruitful and reasonable 
undertaking (Badcock, 1980; Ricoeur, 1970).  Therefore, it seems prudent that a general 
discussion of how symbols are used in psychology is in order.  However, this discussion 
will be limited to those efforts that conform to the use of symbols in terms of 
Bertalanffy?s (1947) definition discussed earlier. 
Sigmund Freud?s work in the late 1800?s and early 1900?s pioneered research into 
the psychology of how humans use symbols, focusing mainly on symbol usage in the 
dreams of patients (Petocz, 2005).  By analyzing the meanings of these symbols, Freud 
believed that he was able to correct errant behavior in individuals caused by repressed 
memories that manifested themselves in the patient?s dreams.  Later, his work came to 
include doctor-patient discussions of symbols and their meanings in which patients would 
25 
talk their way through problems.  This method of treatment developed into what is now 
termed psychoanalysis.   
For example, in his early work Freud believed that symbols took on two main 
forms.  First, symbols can take the form of behaviors that act as substitutes for repressed 
memories.  In one of his cases, a woman?s hands twitched when she was faced with the 
memory of an incestuous relationship that her mind was repressing.  The twitching of her 
hands acted as an outlet for the memory, according to Freud (Freud & Breuer, 1895, p. 
173).  The symbolic connection between the twitching fingers and the patient?s 
relationship did not become evident until the patient had engaged in lengthy dialogue 
with Freud. 
The second form of symbol that was discussed by Freud is similar to those 
discussed earlier in which the symbol and the symbolate are connected by an indirect 
relationship.  In his discussions on socialization, Freud uses the terms id, ego, and super-
ego to describe the different states of self-expression.  Where the id is the selfish and 
child-like part of an individual?s personality, the super-ego is the part that understands 
morality.  The ego, according to Freud, is the balance between the two.  What is key here 
is that Freud recognized the super-ego as being the result of socialization processes, 
primarily from parental and cultural influences (Freud, 1921, 1923).  While many 
researchers and practitioners today discount the bulk of Freud?s work, the practice of 
analyzing the social problems of individuals by studying their use of symbols and 
meanings remains a valuable practice (Hogenson, 2004). 
Another researcher in the area of psychoanalysis and symbols was Hermann 
Rorschach.  Famous for his inkblot tests, Rorschach believed that the unconscious mind 
26 
worked primarily in symbols and that when viewing images, the mind would recognize 
images it had associated with troublesome memories.  That is, people would look at ink 
blots and see symbols that related to suppressed thoughts and memories, based on their 
mental state and cultural background (Allen & Dana, 2004; Rothstein, 1997).  Other 
researchers use symbols in testing methods developed to assist in the categorization of 
personality traits, such as the KAHN Test of Symbol Arrangement and Criminality 
(Kipper, 1977) and the various Thematic Apperception Tests (Langan-Fox & Grant, 
2006).  In tests such as these, individuals with certain psychological traits have been 
shown to use symbols in similar ways.  The purpose of these tests is generally to 
determine how a subject uses symbols as a method of predicting certain behavior or 
identifying particular mental conditions. 
Another area in which psychology researchers study symbol usage is in that 
involved with an individual?s need to interact in a group setting.  Early research efforts in 
this area showed that humans assign meanings to symbols in order to interpret their 
concepts of the reality around them.  These symbols, as meanings became shared among 
people, become language, and eventually even guides behavior in group settings (Mead, 
1922, 1934).  This idea that people interact based on their use of symbols, or the Theory 
of Symbolic Interactionism, has been the focus of many recent researchers? efforts.  In 
particular, since the advent of computers in most homes and wide scale use of the 
Internet, researchers are re-evaluating their understanding of group behavior and symbol 
usage (Lynch & McConatha, 2006, p. 88), to account for human interaction in a virtual 
reality environment. 
27 
One key concept of Symbolic Interactionism is that individuals actually do not 
interact with each other.  Rather, they interact with their perception of each other.  These 
perceptions are held in the brain as patterns of symbols that are constantly interacting.  
Baudrillard (1981) makes the observation that perceptions of reality are often guided by 
symbols and images found in the media, which blurs the boundaries between what is real 
and what is not.  The reality of modern television, and now computer-mediated 
environments, can often interact such that the groundings for beliefs can become 
unsteady.  Her work is key to analytical psychology in terms of what drives human 
behavior, especially abnormal behavior.  It suggests that, when exposed to extreme or 
abnormal human interaction in virtual realities, an individual?s own sense of what can be 
considered normal may change, resulting in behavioral changes.  While the bulk of Social 
Interaction theory is beyond the scope of this study, some aspects are worth noting, 
particularly the need of individuals to use symbols for identification with a particular 
group (McMillan & Chavis, 1986), and the association of symbols with individuals.   
Social psychology is another research discipline that often focuses on symbol 
usage, and deals primarily with how individuals react to changing social conditions.  
Symbols are one of the tools used to establish group identity, to provide a sense of 
belonging, to allow recognition of other members, and sometimes more importantly, to 
allow recognition of non-members (Dunham, 1986).  Psychologists and sociologists alike 
study symbol usage in individuals and groups to better understand group membership 
(Hoult, 1954; F. J. Johnson, 2007), each group member?s sense of self (Jantzen, 
Ostergaard, & Sucena Vieira, 2006; Kostanski & Sallechia, 2003), and the interaction 
between group change and the individual (Erickson, 2002; H. M. Johnson, 1979).  In the 
28 
area of instructional psychology, researchers have shown that a learner?s ability to 
synthesize new information is heavily dependent on their use of the symbols and 
language found in their native group, or culture (Nowak-Fabrykowski & Shkandrij, 
2004).  Their work also points out that it is insufficient simply to learn the native 
language of a particular group in order to integrate.  One must also learn the symbols 
associated with that group for integration to be successful.  Ferdman (1990) makes a 
similar point in terms of being literate and identifying with a particular culture.  
According to his work, successful integration into a group requires that one be familiar 
with, not only the language and symbols of a particular culture, but also with the ways in 
which symbols are used to express the belief system and expected behavior associated 
with that culture.  This type of information, which is often referred to as the aesthetic 
memory of a culture, can be found in a culture?s art, music and literature (Graves-Brown 
& Shennan, 1995; J. W. Woodard, 1936). 
Symbols Usage in Literature and the Arts 
In literature and the arts, an understanding of the originators? use of symbols adds 
much to interpreting the hidden meanings of their work in proper context (Beebe, 1960).  
While there are many symbols found in these works, some symbols occur more often 
than others, and for different reasons.  Symbols that occur repeatedly, in different genres 
and by different artists or writers, are sometimes referred to as archetypical symbols 
(Chouinard, 1970; Frye, 1963).  It is the archetypical symbol that more often appears 
with lasting meaning in the art and literature associated with a particular culture, and 
hence lends itself to later examination.  However, to examine the meaning associated 
with a particular symbol, it is first necessary to note the purpose for the symbol?s 
29 
presence.  That is, one must have some idea of the purpose of the symbol before the 
meaning of the symbol can be understood.  While an exhaustive discussion on the many 
different purposes of symbols in art and literature would be beyond the scope of this 
study, a brief summary of the more common, along with a few examples, should prove 
illustrative. 
One of the more common ways in which symbols are used in the arts is to portray 
the ideal, or perfect example, associated with a particular concept.  Since ancient times, 
writers and artists have tried to describe their particular concept of the perfect, with the 
idea that anything other than that is less than perfect, whether it be with regard to 
physique, sports performance, societal structure, etc.  Philosophers note the strive of 
humanity to achieve the perfect, refer to the absolute, or obtain the ideal.  One of the 
functions of popular art and literature is to define artificially what cannot be defined by 
example or experience (Katvan, 2007).   
In ancient Greece, Phidias and Polykletos both sculpted their conceptions of the 
perfect human physique.  Later, these sculptures came to symbolize the physiological 
superiority of Greek ancestry such that they were associated with Greek national identity 
(Leoussi, 1997).  However, the depiction of the perfect body is not limited to the ancient 
Greeks.  Contemporary symbols associated with the perfect male body are typically 
mesomorphic, or muscular, images that permeate many aspects of modern culture (Stout 
& Frame, 2004).  Nor is the use of symbols to depict perfection limited to conceptions of 
the human body.  Artists and writers must often use symbols for the perfect something, 
when an actual perfect something does not exist.  For example, More?s (1518) concept of 
Utopia, or the perfect place to live that is continually sought but never attained, is often 
30 
symbolized with a reference to the Biblical Garden of Eden, the perfect place to live that 
man has been evicted from (H. O. Lee, 2007; Longxi, 2002).  In terms of the perfect 
expression of an abstract concept of beauty or love, Shakespeare?s sonnets have become a 
symbol of the ideal love poetry, even in contemporary culture (Hegarty, 1995). 
Another way in which symbols are used in art and literature, similar to the 
expression of an ideal, is the expression of something that can be experienced but not 
easily explained.  Whether beauty, love, or even the more negative concepts of terror and 
depression, artists and writers often use symbols in their works to express their own 
conceptualization of such abstract concepts.  For example, the ancient Greek sculpture of 
Venus has come to be used by writers and artists as a symbol for beauty (Haughton, 
2004; Polubojarinova, 2007).  Like Robert Burns, the 18th century poet who made use of 
the rose as a symbol of love in his poem A Red, Red Rose, Kloeckner (1966) notes 
Nathaniel Hawthorne?s similar use of the rose in Rappaccini?s Daughter. In 
contemporary American culture, men give red roses to women as a symbolic expression 
of love.  However, symbols can also be used to express less favorable concepts as well.  
Poets and painters alike have used the black rose, rather than the red, to symbolize death 
or hatred, the absolute absence of life or love (Alford, 1994). 
Symbols have also been used as an expression of self.  That is, an author or 
painter might use symbolism to place him or herself in the work being created.  For 
example, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Walt Whitman both used the butterfly to symbolize a 
desire for beauty, isolation, struggle, continued effort, and indeed the authors themselves 
(Cuddy, 1977).  Other authors have used the symbol of a mirror to represent their own 
reflections on themselves and reality (Leibowitz, 2003; Lloyd, 1998).  Many painters 
31 
have included symbolic mirrors in their own self-portaits such as Mari Lyons, Johannes 
Gumpp, and Diego Velazquez. 
Symbols in art and literature can also be powerful tools with which to make a 
political statement.  In Asian countries, artists? depictions of Hindu temples became 
symbolic of the Hindu culture, a connection which binds Hindus together, even in the 
United States (Bhardwaj & Rao, 1998).  American concepts are often depicted in the 
contemporary arts with images of the Statue of Liberty, used to symbolize the American 
self-ideal (Wong, 2004).  While these symbols, the temple and the statue, may not have 
become symbols due to a widespread state-funded effort to make them so, other symbols 
did.  In the 1930?s, Hitler?s Germany adopted the Hindu symbol of the swastika, which 
represented eternality and peace.  The Nazi party began a systematic effort to destroy the 
symbols associated with earlier Germany and replace them in popular culture with the 
swastika and other symbols of Nazi Germany (S. Taylor, 1981; Zimmermann, 2006).  
While many viewed this is simply state-sponsored propaganda rather than literature or 
art, it is mentioned here because of the resulting inclusion of these symbols in the 
literature and art of Nazi Germany during those years. 
While state-sponsored symbol creation can be a powerful political tool that 
influences literature and the arts, the reverse can also be true.  Mary Shelley?s novel, 
Frankenstein: or, The Modern Prometheus, has received much attention as both a literary 
work and as a tool of her political expression.  Those familiar with the story often 
mistakenly refer to the monster as ?Frankenstein?, and use the same term to refer to the 
evils of science, which critics have suggested was her purpose for the work (Schneider, 
1995).  Hammond also observes that references to this work can often be associated with 
32 
the dangers of ?playing God? (Hammond, 2004, p. 181).  Similarly, when Alexey 
Dushkin, a Russian architect and artist, was commissioned to design and build the 
stations for Moscow?s metro subway, he included eighty bronze statues in cramped poses 
under heavy arches.  Officially, these were symbols of the soviet people (O'Mahony, 
2003), but years later critics noted that it appeared that the expressions on the faces of the 
statues may have suggested something less approving of the political machine at the time 
(Scheib, 2005). 
Symbols Usage in Religion 
Like Shelley?s use of symbolism to express her personal political views, many 
other writers and artists have created works with personal themes other than political.  
Many examples are available that illustrate the use of symbols to express themes about 
beliefs on morality, religion, spirituality, and God.  To illustrate exhaustively the use of 
symbols in religious works, whether they be the commissioned art or architecture of a 
large religious organization or that of a lone individual, is again, beyond the scope of this 
study.  However, as in the previous section, illustrating the use of symbols in religion can 
be accomplished by discussing and providing examples of the more common uses. 
One of the more obvious functions of symbols in religion is for group 
identification.  Because an individual?s beliefs are not outwardly recognizable, religious 
groups over the years have adopted certain symbols in order to identify their members.  
While at times this has served to help protect persecuted groups, religious symbols are 
often used to signify the presence of a particular group in a community.  For example, in 
the days of the persecution of the early Christian church, church members adopted the 
symbol of a fish, or Ichthys, to help members recognize their fellow believers (Hansen, 
33 
2004).  Today, the symbol of the Christian Cross, the Hebrew Star of David, and the 
Islamic Star and Crescent, are often used to provide a public notice of the presence of a 
nearby group of each religion?s believers.  Even within a particular religion, individual 
denominations or sects such as the Charismatic Christians or the Hassidic Jews recognize 
certain symbols that identify their members.  In the case of many of the Charismatic 
Christians, it may be the hair and style of dress of its female members, or in the case of 
the Hassidic Jews, particular hair and dress styles for the men.  Further, within groups 
such as these, the absence of key symbols may also serve to identify non-members 
(Moreno-Navarro, 1986). 
In order to maintain group cohesion, symbols are sometimes used to show both 
the effects of complying with group teachings and with acting counter to them.  For 
example, many religions have teachings about Heaven and Hell.  Symbols associated 
with Heaven, such as angels for example, are sometimes used to remind the observer of 
the eternal benefit associated with compliance, as in examples by Gustav Dore, 
Sebastiano Ricci, and the contemporary artist Howard David Johnson.  Symbols 
associated with Hell, devils for example, are also sometimes used to depict the results of 
disobedience, as in Michelangelo?s use of a two-horned being in his Last Judgment in the 
Sistine Chapel, and Gustav Dore?s painting of Lucifer as described in Dante?s Inferno.  
Another way that symbols are used in religion is for the teaching of religious 
myths and legends from sacred texts, or to call attention to a deity or particular 
individual.  This is often the case with church sponsored artistic works.  For example, 
when Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel, he used the symbols of celestial 
cartography to highlight the view of the Roman Catholic Church at that time concerning 
34 
God?s orderliness and numeric structure while creating mankind (Meegan, 2006).  Many 
other artists have used symbols in their work to call attention to the deeds of individuals 
that are the subjects of their paintings or sculptures.  For example, when martyrs are 
depicted in paintings or sculptures, they are often shown with palm fronds as symbols of 
their martyrdom (Merriam, 2005) as in the facade of S. Agata dei Groti by Francesco 
Ferrari.  In some Buddhist cultures in India, artists often depict subjects carrying a vajra, 
or small scepter, in the right hand to symbolize masculinity, and in the left hand a bell to 
symbolize femininity (Decleer, 2005; Vessantara, 2001). 
While artists and writers often use religious symbolism in their works for many 
reasons, the use of symbols in religion is not limited to art and literature.  At times, they 
are used for teaching, as when symbols such as a cross or crucifix are used by parochial 
schools as decorations to transmit the culture associated with a particular religion (Furst 
& Denig, 2005).  Often, these symbols are used to ordain the exterior of church buildings 
as well.  For example, many of the great cathedrals in Europe are adorned with the 
symbols associated with Christianity, such as crosses, angels, and depictions of Christ.  
Many of the mosques of Islam are similarly decorated with the symbols associated with 
the Islamic faith, such as the crescent moon or the minaret. 
Some religious symbols may also be behavioral.  That is, some actions are seen as 
having significant symbolic meaning in the practicing of a particular religion.  For 
example, in Malasian Christianity, women cover their heads with a portion of their gown 
when coming to take communion, or Eucharist, to symbolize their submission as women 
(Rajah, 2005).  Similarly, to symbolize submission in most religious groups, especially 
submission toward diety, members often bow their heads during prayer.  In Christianity, 
35 
the act of water baptism is often seen as a symbolic act of cleansing and starting life anew 
in submission to the will of God (Ratzinger, 2007).  This act, as an example, may also be 
symbolic of group membership and identity, as can a belief in an afterlife (Richardson & 
Weatherby, 1983).   
Archetypal Symbols 
Whether by art, literature, religious practice, or contemporary media, some 
symbols inevitably permeate many aspects of our existence.  These symbols and their 
meanings can become so widely used that they become a lasting part of not only our 
culture, but our communication systems as well.  According to Chouinard (1970, p. 164), 
these archetypal symbols are ?significantly pervasive in traditional literature and/or in the 
body of work of any author.?  Mahlberg?s research concluded, as did Jung?s (1981) years 
before, that there is something of a collective unconscious memory that allows people to 
recognize the meanings of archetypal symbols without extensive exposure to their use 
(Mahlberg, 1987). 
A few years later, Rosten, Smith, Houston, and Gonzalez determined that a 
logical extension of Jung?s work, which utilized only word-symbols, was in order.  They 
extended Jung?s work in word association to include a ?symbol association test? (Rosten, 
Smith, Huston, & Gonzalez, 1991).  While developing an Archetypal Symbol Inventory 
(ASI) of forty symbols from several volumes of symbol inventories, they specifically 
removed symbols thought to be influenced by culture.  Then, the researchers themselves 
determined the meanings for each of the symbols prior to testing the strength of 
association between the symbols and meanings among the test subjects.  While their 
method is very similar to the one used in this study, their exclusion of culturally biased 
36 
symbols precludes the use of their ASI for this effort.  Rather, to identify archetypal 
symbols that may be used to determine the influence of symbols learned through cultural 
influence, numerous searches of Ebscohost, Proquest, the Library of Congress, and other 
online databases for research on symbolism was conducted.  Specifically, literature was 
sought out that discussed specific symbols in multiple domains, such as literature, the 
arts, religion, contemporary media, psychology, sociology, etc.  The results of these 
searches revealed many symbols that are often used in multiple domains.  Table 1 
provides several of the more common symbols, along with references that provide either 
a discussion of each symbol?s use and meaning, or a typical example of how the symbol 
is used. 
Researchers in analytical psychology generally agree that people associate 
archetypal symbols with meaning at the subconscious level, which has an influence on 
their cognitive processes and behavior.  Although the relationship between archetypes 
and behavior is often studied in cases where behavior is abnormal, such as when a 
psychologist is treating a patient, little research from other domains could be found 
regarding the influence of archetypes on typical human activity.  For example, in the area 
of computer-mediated communication, nothing was found regarding the influence of 
archetypes on the subconsciously perceived meaning of the message, or of the perceived 
trustworthiness of the message source. 
Trust 
 Overview of Trust Studies 
 Researchers consider trust as one of the most complicated concepts in the 
behavioral sciences (Fukuyama & Ikenberry, 1996; Tsfati, 2003).  They often note that 
Table 1 
Common Archetypal Symbols
Image Literature & Arts
 Dove & Olive 
Branch 
(Carroll, 2006)
(Carey, 1815)
(Picasso, 1998)
 
Scales of Justice 
(Rubens, 1997)
(Mei, 1985)
(Robbins, 1
 Lion 
(Durer, 1984)
(Warren, 2000)
(Lotto, 1985)
 
Serpent 
(Boswell, 1975)
(Schouten, 1967)
(Unknown, 2007)
 
 Cross 
(Orton, 1993)
(Freiberg,
(Fumaroli, 1995)
 
37 
 
 Religion Contemporary
 
 
 
Genesis 8:11 
Song of Solomon 2:14 
(Hermann of 
Helmarshausen & 
Byzantinizing Master, 
1985) 
(Rosenthal, 
1994)
(Rigby, 1998)
(De Gruchy, 
2007)
 
 
915) 
Proverbs 11:1 
Proverbs 16:11 
Koran - The Poets 
26.182 
 
(Probst, 1999)
(Ti
(Crubaugh, 2001)
 
 
 
 
Job 10:16 
Proverbs 28:15 
(Goldsmith & Gould, 
1990) 
(Huneck, 1986) 
(O'Loughlin, 
1997)
(Nepo, 2007)
(MacQueen, 
2003)
 
 
 
Numbers 21:9 
Revelations 20:2 
Koran ? The Rangers 
37.65 
(Flood, 1996, p. 151) 
(Hood Jr & Kimbrough, 
1995) 
(Sahi, 1980)
(White, 1987)
 
 
 1995) 
 
1 Corinthians 1:18 
Mark 10:21 
Koran ? The Women 
4.157 
 
(Boys, 1994)
(R. K. Smith, 
2001)
(Fotiade, 199
Other & 
 
 
 
 
 
deman, 1998) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8) 
 Pentacle 
(Mus?e des arts 
d?coratifs (France), 
1968)
(Lavin, 2002)
 Yin and Yang 
(Beecham, 2002)
(Kai, 2000)
(Little & Eichman, 
2000)
 
 Eagle 
(Calnimptewa, 1984)
(Xu, 1984)
(Clayton, 2002)
(Jungic, 1997)
 Heart 
(Komar, Shideler, & 
Freedman, 1998)
(Mitchell, 1989)
(Blair, 2006)
 Fish / Ichthys 
(Tracy, 1985)
(Thompson, 1944)
(Von Sadovszky, 
1995)
(Michelangelo, 2006)
 Crown 
(Manenti, Bollen, & 
Bachfischer, 2001)
(Colley, 1990)
 
38 
 
 
(Cooper, 1999) 
(Frost & Frost, 2004) 
(Lady, 1990) 
(Banerjee, 2007) 
(Hagopian, 2004)
(Shesso, 2007)
(Boston, 2007)
 
 
 
(Wang, 2005) 
(Jung-Soon, 1999) 
 
(Harvey, 2006)
(Claire, 2006)
(Molta, 2006)
(Chrambach, 
2004)
 
 
 
 
Hosea 8:1 
Revelations 4:7 
(G. Woodard, 2007) 
(Museo Arqueol?gico 
Rafael Larco Herrera. & 
Berrin, 1997) 
(S. R. Pearce, 
2008)
(Edwards, 2006)
(Cunnar, 2003)
 
 
 
Exodus 25:2 
Ephesians 5:19 
Koran - The Cow 2.7 
(Borella & Champoux, 
2001) 
(Metcalf, 1996)
(Foster, n.d.)
(Ehses, 2002)
(Kinnunen, 2000)
 
 
 
 
 
Jonah 1:17 
Mathew 7:10 
Koran - The Rangers 
37.142 
(S. Gibson, 2000) 
(Laurie, 1999)
(Young Leslie, 
2007)
(Schuchardt, 
1998)
 
 
Job 31:36 
Proverbs 12:4 
(Kayser, Sabar, Fine, & 
Kramer, 2000) 
(Buccellati, 
Snapp, & 
Ambrosioni, 
1995)
(Richard, 2007)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Skull and 
Crossbones 
(Gow, 1929)
(S. Smith, 1996)
(Gordon, 1999)
(Sierra, 2005)
(Mann, 1998)
 Apple or Fruit 
(Curtis, 1992)
(Harrison, 2003)
(Treip, 1991)
(Stobie, 2008)
 Bull 
(MacGillivray, 2000)
(Brereton, 2002)
(Picasso, 2005)
(Rosetsu, 1989)
 Butterfly 
(Alt, 1984)
(Brown, 2002)
(Musila, 2007)
(Cuddy
 
Dragon 
(Chi, 1989)
(Scher
(Sugg, 2000)
 Earth 
(Clough, 1964)
(Dragland, 2004)
(A. Johns, 2005)
39 
 
 
 
 
 
John 19:17 
(Davies, 1997) 
(Promey, 2005) 
(Gauch, 1997) 
(Gorman & DiBlasl, 
1981) 
(Millegan, 2003)
(Dunkin & Hill, 
2007)
(Kingston, 2007)
(Seglin, 20
 
 
 
 
Genesis 3:3 
(Tulloch, 2004) 
(Silver, 2001) 
 
(Apples, 1997)
(Phil, 2000)
(Dvorak, 1995)
(Greenough, 
1981)
 
 
 
 
1 Enoch 90.37-38 
Job 24:3 
(Relke, 2007) 
(Lodrick, 2005) 
(Janzen, 1990) 
 
(Krupp, 1997)
(Tougher, 2004)
(Horsley
Meacham, 1991)
 
 
 
, 1977) 
(Durer, 1986) 
(J. H. Lee, 2007) 
(Hsueh, 1981) 
 
(Newfield, 1991)
(Cameron, 1998)
(N. J. Johnson & 
Giorgis,
 
 
er, 1998) 
 
Revelations 20:2 
(Mandt, 2000) 
(Arakelova, 2004) 
(Neitz, 2000) 
(Ferreira, 2007) 
(Sleeboom, 
2002)
(Dickinson, 
2005)
(Ding, 2005)
(Dunis, 2007)
 
 
 
Isaiah 40:22 
Koran - The Bee 16.65 
(Gutierrez, 1994) 
 
(Moyes & Brady, 
2005)
(Gill, 2002)
(Sevier, 2007)
 
 
 
 
00) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
-
 
 
 
 2001) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Compass and 
Square 
(Henderson, 1916)
(Kemp, 1990)
(Curl, 1993)
 
Owl 
(Thoreau, 1854)
(France, 1984)
(Vaisman, 1992)
(Picasso, 2002)
(Miller, 1988)
 Ram 
(Atac, 2006)
(Rudolph & Ostrow, 
2001)
 
 
Devil 
(E. Gibson, 1989)
(Dante, 1882)
(Algardi, 1992)
(Boorsch, 1992)
 Hexagram 
(Spicer, 1996)
(Pogrebin, 2005)
(TenHouten & Wang, 
2001)
 
the definitions of trust can vary widely, depending on the conte
2005), such as when studying the trust of an individual and when studying trust in group 
settings.  For example, the research of Komiak and Benbasat 
40 
 
 
 
Isaiah 44:13 
(D. A. Taylor, 2007) 
(Rich & Merchant, 
2003) 
(Covernton, 
2005)
(Tolson, 2005)
 
 
 
 
 
Psalms 102:6 
(Schele, 1991) 
(Murphy, 2000) 
 
(Braz, 2001)
(Howard & 
Cerio, 1992)
(Sanderson, 
1948)
 
 
 
Daniel 8:1-20 
(Petridis, 2005) 
(Dreifuss, 1975) 
 
(Perry, 2001)
(Audubon, 1987)
(Duane, 2005)
(Jung, Read, 
Ford
Adler, 1953)
 
 
 
 
Mathew 16:23 
Revelations 12:9 
Koran - Ta Ha 20:120 
(Collins, 2006) 
(La Vey, 2005) 
 
(John, 2006)
(Demos, 1982)
(Woodward & 
Smith, 1995)
(Lawrence Van, 
2007)
 
 
 
(Friedemann & Peeler, 
1936) 
(Laurie, 1998) 
(Ming Dong, 2004) 
(Bledsoe, 2004
(Eder, 1987)
(Tsimhoni, 2008)
 
xt (Goudge & Gilson, 
(2006) focused on an 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ham, & 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
41 
individual?s  trust toward a computerized recommendation agent and included both an 
emotional and a cognitive component, but without a clear social component.  Discussions 
of trust in group contexts, however, typically include rhetoric related to social factors as 
well.  Barber (1983, p. 165), for example, defined trust in a group context as ?a set of 
socially learned and socially confirmed expectations that people have of each other, of 
the organizations and institutions in which they live, and of the natural and moral social 
orders that set the fundamental understandings for their lives.?  Rather than consider all 
possible contexts, definitions and descriptions of trust, this study will be limited to those 
related trust between individuals or involving information systems. 
Definition and Description 
Rotter (1967, p. 651) defined trust as ?an expectancy held by an individual or a 
group that the word, promise, or verbal or written statement of another individual or 
group can be relied upon.?  In the context of interpersonal trust, his work showed that 
trust is a learned behavior comprised of three principal components: dependability,  
predictability, and faith (Rempel & Holmes, 1986; Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985).  
The concept of dependability is related to the idea of freedom from error or mistake.  If 
an entity were found to be correct most of the time, perceived dependability would likely 
be higher than for an entity that proved more fallible.  For example, if one individual 
often made statements of fact that consistently proved to be true and correct, and another 
individual often made statements of fact that were shown to be incorrect, the first 
individual would likely be perceived as being more dependable than the second.  The risk 
of making decisions based on the factuality of the information presented by the first 
42 
individual would be lower than those based on information from the second individual.  
The first individual is therefore perceived as being more trustworthy. 
While dependability is related to the accuracy of information supplied by an 
entity, predictability is related to an accurate expectation of results, given a particular set 
of variables or circumstances.  For example, when a driver turns the key in the ignition 
switch of a car, the car is expected to start.  If the car consistently starts, it can be said to 
be predictable.  If the car often does not start, the car is said to be unpredictable because 
the driver is unable to develop a reasonable expectation of the car?s behavior.  A car that 
exhibits the predictable behavior of starting on command is therefore deemed more 
trustworthy than one that does not. 
The faith construct of trust, on the other hand, is not formed based on the actions 
of the entity toward which trust is directed.  Faith is related to the predisposition of an 
individual to develop trusting a relationship toward that entity in the first place.  Consider 
a woman that was sexually abused by male authority figures in her past, such as a father, 
a priest, etc.  She may be much less predisposed to develop trusting relationships with 
men of authority than would a woman who had no such experiences (Schwarz & Brand, 
1983).  In other words, faith is the component of trust related to an individual?s 
development of an opinion, without any objective information, of another?s 
trustworthiness. 
Many researchers have also noted that trust is often used as a term to express a 
certain level of acceptance of risk.  For example, Johns (1996, p. 81) defined trust as a 
?Willingness to place oneself in a relationship that establishes or increases vulnerability 
with reliance upon someone or something to perform as expected.?  Likewise, Hupcey et 
43 
al. (2001, p. 290) included similar rhetoric in their definition of trust.  While their 
definition is limited to trust as it applies to the filling of a need, the phrase ?? some 
assessment of risk?? clearly expresses a notion common among researchers.  Trust is 
often considered a cognitive function related to a specific need (Hupcey, Penrod, & 
Morse, 2000; Pask, 1995) and the associated risks involved (Mayer, Davis, & 
Schoorman, 1995).  Some researchers also point out that trust is necessary in order to 
take a risk at all (McAllister, 1995).  This is not to say that just because someone chooses 
to take a risk by relying on the actions of another means that trust is present.  On the 
contrary, taking a risk without trust present may often be the case in extreme instances 
such as when a patient is faced with certain death or a risky medical procedure.  When 
studying trust in situations such as this, researchers point out that multiple choices must 
be present for trust to become a factor in decision making (W. B. Pearce, 1974). 
Even with multiple choices present, however, some individuals develop trust 
more quickly than others do.  For example, researchers note that trusting is a learned 
behavior (Erikson, 1963; Rotter, 1967), and therefore differs among individuals.  Others 
note that the speed and level of trust development may be different from person to person 
because of differing personality traits (Deutsch, 1960; W. B. Pearce, 1974), experience 
(Mayer et al., 1995), education (Berg, Lundgren, Hermansson, & Wahlberg, 1996; 
Meize-Grochowski, 1984), or culture (Kivijarvi, Laukkanen, & Cruz, 2007; Vishwanath, 
2004).  While researchers have provided ample evidence that trust development differs 
from person to person for a variety of reasons, they also note differences based upon the 
person or entity being trusted.  Shapiro (1987) notes that trust can be based on the roles of 
individuals being trusted, rather than on the individuals themselves.  In many societies, 
44 
children are taught that particular roles that an individual may occupy are deemed 
trustworthy.  This is necessary so that children are not afraid to seek help from a police 
officer, teacher, counselor, parent, pastor, etc.  Of course, because young children have 
not become efficient at developing healthy trusting relationships based on interpersonal 
interaction, they must depend on these roles to define who can be trusted (Hupcey et al., 
2000; Kirschbaum & Knafl, 1996). 
Another aspect of how roles can influence interpersonal trust involves the nature 
of the relationship between the trusting and the trusted parties.  If the two parties are 
romantically involved, the trust that forms between them is different from the trust that 
forms between a patient and a nurse or doctor (Pask, 1995).  In an intimate relationship, 
trust typically develops in both parties over a period of time and involves a cycle of 
mutual testing and confirmation of the other?s trustworthiness (Zak, Gold, Ryckman, & 
Lenney, 1998).  Also in an intimate relationship, each party has a certain expectancy that 
the other will see to the other?s present and future needs (p. 218).  In the case of trust 
development between a patient and a nurse, however, there is no such expectancy.  A 
nurse typically cannot expect an incapacitated patient to satisfy a present or future need 
that the nurse might have.  The trust that develops between patients and nurses is 
therefore different than the trust that develops in an intimate relationship (Pask, 1995). 
 It is worth noting that as relationships change over time between two people, so 
do the trust levels associated with those relationships.  Initially, trust levels are small and 
individuals engage in trusting behavior in low-risk situations.  As the trusted individual 
exhibits consistent positive behavior in response, trust levels increase (Zak et al., 1998).  
Once trust levels increase to the point that the trusting individual feels comfortable about 
45 
the trustworthiness of the trusted individual, such trust-testing behaviors diminish (Mayer 
et al., 1995; McAllister, 1995).  However, Meize-Grochowski (1984) refers to trust as 
being fragile, in that an individual?s untrustworthy behavior quickly causes trust levels 
directed toward that individual to drop.  Hupcey et al. (2001, p. 290) describe several 
additional boundaries to trust that, when present, cause trust levels to drop or cease 
entirely.  Trust levels may also drop when there is no assessment of risk, the trusting 
individual has no choice but to take a risk, or the benefits associated with a risk no longer 
outweigh the potential consequences.  Once trust levels drop, many researchers note that 
trust levels are slow to recover, if they recover at all (Meize-Grochowski, 1984; Rempel 
& Holmes, 1986; Rempel et al., 1985). 
 Regardless of the particular rhetoric researchers use to describe and define 
interpersonal trust, all are similar to that of Rotter?s (1967) definition.  Definitions and 
descriptions of trust typically refer to a predictability of behavior, a dependable or 
consistent pattern of positive behavior or accurate information, an individual?s 
predisposition to form a trusting relationship, and an assessment and choice to accept a 
certain level of risk.  Additionally, trust may include a ?dependency on another individual 
to have a need met,? a ?limited focus to the area or behavior related to the need,? and 
?testing of the trustworthiness of the individual? (Hupcey et al., 2001, p. 290). 
Trust Usage 
 Many authors note that trust is necessary for a multitude of things, including a 
properly functioning economy, political system, intimate relationship, judicial system, 
and more.  However, even within the scope of interpersonal trust as just described, uses 
of trust abound.  Within the context of risk aversion between two individuals, trust is 
46 
often used as an economical proxy for lengthy and expensive contracts (Keser, C. 2003).  
When trust does not exist between two parties, risk is often mitigated with detailed 
contracts that stipulate compulsory reactions in response to any number of possible 
contingencies.  However, the use of trust as a substitute for expensive contracts may not 
only be more economical, in some situations it may be the only option.  Contracts are 
sometimes not enforceable for legal or environmental reasons.  It may also be the case 
that contracts are not enforceable because the existing contract environment contains no 
due process of law, as is the case in cyberspace or under certain forms of government 
such as despotism, totalitarianism, and some absolute monarchies.  In situations such as 
these, trust plays a more critical role in risk mitigation. 
 Another way that trust is used in risk mitigation is in the area of relationship 
management.  In the course of establishing relationships, such as among soldiers or 
between husband and wife, it is often the case that sensitive information is shared 
between individuals.  Further, certain negative behavior, such as the revealing of secrets 
or avoiding obligations, may expose these individuals to an increased risk of physical 
harm, emotional stress, or moral dilemma.  In situations such as these, where an assumed 
set of behavioral norms must be maintained, trust is often seen as an important requisite 
in the maintenance of loyalty (Keser, C. 2003). 
 Trust also permits the delegation of tasks between individuals in an organizational 
setting (Paparone, 2002), or an assurance that asymmetrical task assignments will be 
balanced among individuals.  When tasks are delegated from a supervisor to a worker or 
from a parent to a child, the subordinate individual becomes the party responsible for task 
completion.  However, in most cases, the delegating, or superior, party retains 
47 
accountability.  That is, if the subordinate does not complete the task they were given to 
do, the superior must face the consequences as though they personally were assigned the 
task and did not accomplish it.   
Even in situations where the two individuals are not in a superior/subordinate 
relationship, such as between two friends, trust allows tasks to be shared.  Consider the 
situation in which two workers in an accounting department are planning to attend an 
event after work.  Just before quitting time, one of the two workers is given an additional 
task that must be finished prior to leaving for the day.  By working together, the two 
workers can finish and leave on time.  If they do not, then one worker must stay and work 
well past quitting time and cannot make the event.  Trusting the other worker may allow 
the job to be shared, even though the one to whom the task was given remains 
accountable for the accuracy and completeness of the assignment.  
 Trust, at least in terms of decision making and task accomplishment, is also a key 
factor in the long-term stability of organizations (Cook & Wall, 1980).  The trust that 
forms in subordinates toward their supervisors is associated with subordinate satisfaction 
levels.  Subordinates who trust their supervisors also tend to be more innovative, which in 
turn contributes to the effectiveness of organizations.  Further, the trust that subordinates 
have toward their superiors often translates into trust toward the organization itself, 
resulting in loyalty toward the organization and lower turnover rates  (H. H. Tan & Tan, 
2000, p. 242). 
 Another way in which trust is used involves monitoring or verifying the behavior 
of others.  When individuals are trusted to engage in positive behavior, or not to engage 
in negative behavior, verification is not as necessary.  For example, when a husband and 
48 
wife do not trust each other to refrain from extramarital promiscuous behavior, one party 
may engage in behavior designed to verify that the other is remaining faithful.  That is, a 
husband may follow his wife discretely to make sure she is not engaging in inappropriate 
behavior.  When trust is not present between individuals in business exchanges, 
verification activities typically incur additional costs that must be accounted for.  The 
presence of trust, however, reduces or eliminates the need for monitoring and verification 
activities, which in turn lowers transaction costs (Gossling, 2004; Keser, 2003). 
 While generally discussed in terms of group dynamics, researchers have shown 
that trust also allows for self-regulation (Ailsop, 2006; Paparone, 2002).  For example, by 
engaging routinely in trustworthy behavior and refraining from non-trustworthy behavior, 
both individuals and groups are more likely to be left alone to regulate their own 
adherence to moral and ethical standards.  When trust is not present, however, regulations 
regarding appropriate behavior are often implemented (Ailsop, 2006; Connolly & 
Hargreaves Heap, 2007; Goold, 2001). 
 As relationships form amongst individuals, and sometimes groups, trust becomes 
a key factor in the ability to capitalize on the resulting social network (Hibbitt, Jones, & 
Meegan, 2001).  Within these structures, a tendency toward the development of a 
normalized sense of obligation and reciprocity arises.  As these structures grow, the 
number of obligations an individual or organization has also grows, creating an 
increasing amount of social capital on which other structure entities can draw.  The 
amount of obligation available to network participants is dependent upon ?the general 
trustworthiness of the social environment? (p. 143).   
 
49 
Trust and Computer-Mediated Communications 
Researchers in the area of Computer-Mediated Communications also note that 
trust definitions and descriptions vary widely, depending on the research context, such as 
when comparing interpersonal trust in an online chat room with trust directed toward a 
website by a user.  For example, as was mentioned before, interpersonal trust is 
comprised of three basic components.  However, between an individual and an e-
commerce website, at least ten different factors have been identified that can contribute to 
trust (Friedman, Kahn, & Howe, 2000), though many of them address technological 
concerns.  Still, many of these factors, including those of a technological nature, are 
similar to the three factors suggested by Rempel et al.   
First, the reliability of the technology used on an e-commerce website contributes 
to trust.  Visitors typically regard newer technology as more reliable and, hence, more 
trustworthy than severely dated technology.  This is similar to Rempel et al.?s use of the 
term dependability.  Second, it is important that the output of an e-commerce website be 
similar to the user?s expectations, similar to Rempel et al.?s idea of predictability.  If a 
user clicks on a button to cause an event, that event should occur.  If a different event 
occurs, perceptions of predictability drop and overall trust levels drop.  Finally, certain 
factors associated with a website, such as reputation, contribute to an individual?s 
willingness to develop a trusting relationship.  A good reputation assists in the 
development of trust without further evidence of trustworthiness.  Even with a good 
reputation, however, some people are quicker than others to form trusting relationships 
because of differences in their respective preconceived notions.  Differences in the rate at 
50 
which individuals develop trusting relationships are similar to Rempel et al.?s notion of 
faith. 
Bos et al. (2002), researched trust as it relates to cooperation in computer-
mediated communication and showed that, in some cases, development of trusting 
relationships may be delayed.  In the richer environment of face-to-face communications, 
trust develops quicker and tends to be stronger than in a text-only online environment 
(Rocco, 1998).  However, by engaging in social activities early in online communication, 
trust between individuals develops quicker and stronger than between individuals who do 
not engage in such activities (Zheng, Veinott, Bos, Olson, & Olson, 2002).  These 
phenomena are possibly due to changes in the faith component of trust that results from 
increased familiarity with the trusted individual.   
One aspect of trust in computer-mediated communication environments that is 
similar to trust found in interpersonal communications involves the concept of swift trust.  
This type of trust occurs when individuals quickly form relationships in order to 
accomplish a clearly defined goal in a limited amount of time.  In this type of situation, 
individuals sometimes temporarily put aside their negative suspicions about the 
dependability of individuals they do not know so that quick progress can be made toward 
accomplishing a common goal (Coppola, Hiltz, & Rotter, 2004; Grabber, 2001; 
Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996; Tovey, Southard, & Bates, 2005).  This concept 
applies to teacher-pupil online interaction as well.  In asynchronous online instruction 
environments, students are typically unable to use non-verbal cues to trustworthiness that 
are associated with face-to-face communication environments (Hiltz & Turoff, 2002).  
They must be willing to trust their instructor to provide accurate information in the class 
51 
and treat the students fairly, even though they may have no information as to the 
instructor?s trustworthiness.  Individuals developing swift trust do so as though the 
trusted individual has a known history of relatively trustworthy behavior. 
Untrustworthy behavior in computer-mediated communication environments, as 
in traditional interpersonal trust, has a strong negative influence on an individual?s 
willingness to develop trust.  Computer-mediated communication environments, 
however, differ from traditional environments by the presence of an information system 
to facilitate communications.  In the context of individuals trusting an information 
system, trust levels drop as system performance drops.  Specifically, when erroneous 
information is introduced into automated systems, once-high trust levels go down (Lee & 
Moray, 1992, 1994) .  Once trust levels drop due to errors in the information presented, 
whether presented by the information system or another individual, they might never 
fully recover to previous levels (Lerch & Prietula, 1989).  Similarly, the less an 
information system is available, the less a user is willing to trust that system (Bonsall & 
Parry, 1991; Kantowitz & Hanowski, 1997).  In other words, individuals are not willing 
to develop trust in an information system, or in an individual, that does not provide 
consistently accurate output when expected. 
While information accuracy is important in the development of trusting 
relationships, it is also important to consider the role that non-verbal behavior plays.  
Most researchers agree that non-verbal communication is important to the overall 
communication process.  In fact, many researchers believe that non-verbal behavior may 
even add more to the communication process than verbal behavior (Birdwhistell, 1970; 
Mehrabian, 1968).  Specifically, much of the information concerning emotion, empathy, 
52 
meaning, communication cueing, and even honesty, in interpersonal relationships is 
relayed non-verbally (Bayliss & Tipper, 2005; Hummel, Paas, & Koper, 2006; Knapp & 
Hall, 2002).  When talking, where a communicator looks, or gazes, is important to the 
flow of information.  Studies in animated avatar design, for example, reveal that 
controlling the amount of time an avatar is gazing at the user has an effect on how that 
avatar is perceived (Tepper & Haase, 1978; 2001).  Changes in non-verbal behavior such 
as this typically lead to changes in perceptions of trustworthiness even though the non-
verbal behavior that led to it is usually subconscious.  Although the projection of 
trustworthiness through proper gesturing, eye contact, and other non-verbal behaviors can 
be taught (Zimbardo & Leippe, 1991), exhibiting such behavior in computer-mediated 
communication environments, such as text-only chat rooms, in order to project 
trustworthiness is typically impossible. 
Another aspect involved with projecting trustworthiness is the physical 
appearance of the individual.  This is one reason that network news anchors are careful 
about their appearance.  Their neat dress gives the viewing audience an impression of 
trustworthiness.  Clearly distinguishable uniforms of authority figures (e.g. policemen or 
doctors) can also lead to perceptions of trustworthiness (Joseph, 1986).  Likewise, older 
people are considered by most societies to be more trustworthy than younger people 
(Doob, 1983).  This idea is similar to trust?s faith construct.  Many people put faith in 
symbols associated with authoritative roles, even when the actual trustworthiness of the 
trusted individual is unknown.  This is evident in the American culture when we teach 
young children to trust police officers, doctors, and teachers.  Indirectly, this reaffirms the 
53 
belief that the appearance of certain symbols is a reflection of an individual?s 
trustworthiness. 
Symbols and Interpersonal Trust in Computer-Mediated Communications 
Unlike in face-to-face communication, graphic images are often used in 
computer-mediated communication to represent an individual directly.  A computerized 
image, whether animated or static, is often referred to as an avatar, when used to 
represent an individual in computer-mediated communication environments.  The term 
comes from a Hindu word originally used to describe a deity that appears in human form 
in order to interact with humanity.  Avatars are used as surrogates, or stand-ins, for their 
human counterparts in some forms of computer-mediated communication and human-
computer interaction (HCI) environments as user interfaces.  Avatars are used to provide 
focal points for the development of pseudo-social interaction environments in which 
humans interact with the avatar socially, as though they were interacting with the humans 
that the avatars represent (Isbister et al., 2000). 
Some avatars can be simple graphic images, similar to the icons found on a 
Windows desktop.  Others can be complex animated figures that can mimic the 
movement, speech, and even emotive responses of humans.  Clippy, the animated help-
file interface included in some early versions of Microsoft Office, was one of the more 
popular early animated avatars.  While Clippy did have animated movements and 
balloon-text communication abilities, it looked essentially like a simple paper clip.  Other 
avatars have been developed more recently that can mimic the subtle non-verbal behavior 
of humans with surprising clarity.  Facial expressions, gaze control, gesturing, 
synthesized voice inflections, synthesized emotion, and even synthesized empathy are all 
54 
active research areas in which avatar development is proceeding at a fast pace.  One 
result of this focused research activity is that avatars have become commonplace in many 
user interfaces and computer-mediated communication environments.  With the 
widespread presence of powerful personal computers in many American households, 
increasingly young children are interacting regularly with the avatars found in many of 
their educational games.  In fact, children may even begin to trust these avatars more than 
they trust adults because the avatars are among the first personalities that children 
interface with on a regular basis (Larson, 2006). 
Other, more icon-like, images are often used as non-animated, or static, avatars.  
For example, when visiting some online text-only chat rooms, users are often required to 
choose a static image or icon as their avatar.  The choice of which avatar is used to 
represent the human visitor is often based on personal preference, mood, etc.  Other 
visitors also choose their own avatars and the resulting group of individuals interact with 
one another?s avatars as though they were interacting face-to-face. 
In environments where individuals interact or information is presented for 
decision making, be it in a recreational, educational, or business setting, a key component 
of success is believability (Landrum, Cook, Tankersley, & Fitzgerald, 2002), one of the 
components of trust.  This is true, regardless of whether a human or an avatar presents the 
information.  Avatar designers continue to struggle with the problem of creating avatars 
that can present information in a way that fosters the development of trusting 
relationships (Nakanishi, Shimizu, & Isbister, 2005b).  The root of this problem is in the 
fact that non-verbal communications may actually contain more information than verbal 
communications (Birdwhistell, 1970; Mehrabian, 1968).  In media-rich communication 
55 
environments such as face-to-face, video, and audio, a higher level of trust is possible 
than when text alone is used (Bos et al., 2002).  This suggests that information not found 
in text-only communication environments, such as email or instant messaging, influences 
trust levels.  That is, both verbal and non-verbal components of the communication 
environment influence the level of trust that develops.  Since non-verbal communications 
and trust are closely related in human interpersonal communications, it would seem 
logical that a similar relationship would exist in communication environments that 
incorporate surrogates for human participants, such as avatars in computer-mediated 
communication environments.  This assumes, of course, that the pseudo-social 
relationships actually develop between the participants and their avatar surrogates.  It has 
been well-established that, based on a number of factors including culture and 
experience, some individuals are more likely than others to put aside logic and develop 
trusting relationships (Moore, Yufang, McGrath, & Powell, 2005; Rotenberg et al., 2005; 
Rotter, 1967).  Similarly, some people may also be more likely than others to regard any 
particular avatar as trustworthy (Bailenson, Yee, Merget, & Schroeder, 2006).  For 
example, studies have also shown that individuals or groups with similar backgrounds 
develop stronger trust levels toward others than those that do not  (Goleman, 1995).  
Similar backgrounds allow each party to develop a better understanding of the other that 
leads to an increased ability to rely on the other for honest and effective communication 
and to predict their likely behavior.  The notion that perceptions of reliability and 
predictability play a strong part in trust development between individuals also holds true 
for the social interaction that occurs between humans and avatars as well (Bailenson & 
Yee, 2005, 2006).  Human-like avatars that appear ambiguous with regard to gender are 
56 
not trusted as quickly as avatars that are clearly associated with a single gender ("You 
can't trust gender-bending avatars," 2007).   
Similarly, exchanging photographs early in computer-mediated communication 
communications also leads to more rapid trust development (Olson & Olson, 2003), 
suggesting that images may provide communicating partners the focal points on which to 
ground opinions of the other person?s general trustworthiness.  The images that are 
exchanged may not even be photographs.  They may just be images chosen by the 
communicators for that one communication session.  In fact, a rising ethical concern is 
that several avatar-based marketing initiatives adapt an avatar?s appearance to manipulate 
perceptions of trustworthiness in order to increase sales.  Such adaptations are based on 
demographic information collected about potential clients from websites and human-to-
avatar private instant messaging chat sessions (Kerr & Bornfreund, 2005). 
While research literature on avatar use in computer-mediated communication is 
extensive, literature on the subject of trust involving avatars has experienced rapid 
growth only in the last few years.  Much of this research involves animated avatars that 
have a humanoid form, even though static avatars are used in many computer-mediated 
communication environments.  Further, much of the literature concerning avatars and 
trust seems to support the notion that many of the phenomena associated with human 
interpersonal trust can be projected onto this research domain.  This includes the effect of 
appearance, prejudice, and more.  There appears to be considerably less research 
however, involving human-to-avatar trust in situations where the avatar is not animated, 
but static.  Further, no research literature was found that specifically addressed the 
57 
influence that archetypical symbols used as avatars have on trust development in 
computer-mediated communication environments. 
Another phenomena associated with human interpersonal trust that can be 
projected onto this research domain is that of planned behavior.  When trust is not 
present, individuals are less willing to engage in risky behavior (McLain & Hackman, 
1999).  For example, in computer-mediated ecommerce environments, trust levels have 
been shown to strongly influence consumer purchasing behavior (Kim, Ferrin, & Rao, 
2008).  Consumer decisions have been shown to be influenced by the trust that develops 
toward online information sources as well as those found in traditional media (Jisu, 
DeLorme, & Reid, 2005).  In virtual online communities, where members typically form 
social relationships via computer-mediated communication channels, behavior intent is 
significantly influenced by trust levels among members (Jyh-Jeng & Tsang, 2008).  
However, no research was found involving the influence of trust levels on behavior intent 
in situations where a static avatar represents one or more of the communication 
participants. 
Research Hypotheses 
As noted earlier in this chapter, culturally recognized symbols permeate many 
aspects of the human experience.  These archetypical symbols are often used to express 
indirect, and often secondary, meanings in communication.  The precise meanings of 
these archetypal symbols are usually determined by experience and culture, and differ 
from individual to individual.  Further, the subconscious behavior and mental processes 
of the individuals communicating are often encoded into the transmission and 
interpretation of these symbols.  As was stated before, many researchers have shown that 
58 
symbol usage often conveys meaning that goes far beyond what is literally 
communicated.  Further, the hidden meanings found in symbols often have a 
subconscious influence on the social functioning of individuals such that many 
researchers study symbol usage as a tool to understand social issues.   
Researchers have also shown that an individual?s underlying psychological traits 
have a heavy influence on the use and interpretation of symbols.  Several psychometric 
tests have been developed to predict certain mental conditions or tendencies to certain 
behavior, based on the way that an individual uses symbols.  Further, psychologists and 
sociologists study the ways in which symbols are used to better understand an 
individual?s sense of self and of group belonging.  In short, researchers have shown that 
the use of symbols is central to the formation and interpretation of meaning. 
As was stated before, much of the information concerning emotion, empathy, 
meaning, communication cueing, and even honesty, in interpersonal relationships is 
relayed non-verbally, often in the form of symbols.  Whether by art, literature, religious 
practice, or contemporary media, some symbols inevitably permeate many aspects of our 
existence.  These archetypal symbols and their often hidden meanings can become so 
widely used that they become a lasting part of not only our culture, but our 
communication systems as well.  It logically follows, then, that the subconscious 
perception of archetypal symbols found in the communication environment will have an 
influence on perceived meaning.  For example, many people put faith in symbols 
associated with authoritative roles, even when the actual trustworthiness of the trusted 
individual is unknown, which reaffirms the notion that identification with certain symbols 
59 
is a reflection of an individual?s trustworthiness, even though explicit communication 
might not occur. 
When avatars are used in computer-mediated communication environments, 
human communicators often react with the avatars socially, as though they were 
interacting with the humans that the avatars may represent.  Further, much of the 
literature concerning avatars and trust development seems to support the notion that 
phenomena associated with human interpersonal trust can be applied to human-to-avatar 
communication as well.  This includes the effects of visual appearance, prejudices, and 
more, which can cause some individuals to be more likely than others to regard any 
particular entity as trustworthy.  Given that an avatar?s appearance is known to influence 
trust development, and symbols often convey hidden meanings to the subconscious, the 
use of archetypal symbols associated with trustworthiness as avatars should influence 
trust formation directed toward the avatars and the humans they represent.  That is, when 
these archetypal symbols convey meanings associated with trustworthiness, such as 
honesty, deception, loyalty, unpredictability, dependability, and lack of sincerity, the 
levels of trust that develop should change.  Because of the relationship that trust levels 
have been shown to have on behavior intent, individuals with differing levels of trust 
should also differ in their willingness to act on that trust.  This leads us to the following 
hypotheses: 
H1a:   The use of archetypal symbols associated with trustworthiness will be 
associated with trust development, when used as avatars in Computer-
Mediated Communication environments. 
60 
H2a:   The use of archetypal symbols associated with trustworthiness will be 
associated with trusting behavior, when used as avatars in Computer-
Mediated Communication environments. 
These hypotheses address only one of the six components of trust discussed in 
this study, that of predisposition.  As was stated before, trust is often described as having 
at least seven components.  Rotter (1967) describes four; predictability, consistency or 
accuracy, presence of choice, and predisposition.  Hupcey et al (2001) describe three; 
results of trust testing, dependency, and scope of need.  Figure 1 provides a model for 
these seven components.  Among these, predisposition is the most closely related to the 
influence of symbol usage and how it relates to perceptions of trustworthiness.  Subtle 
and often subconscious perceptions of meaning communicated by symbols should have 
an influence on how willing, or predisposed, an individual is to form trusting 
relationships.  Once formed, trust levels should guide the behavior intent of the 
individual.  The manipulation of trustworthiness-associated symbols as avatars in 
computer-mediated communication environments, therefore, should influence trust 
development and lead to changes in trusting behavior intent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
61 
Figure 1.  Trust Model: Relationship of Manipulated Variable to Trust Development. 
 
62 
CHAPTER III 
METHODOLOGY 
Overview 
 This chapter will present the research methods used to test the two hypotheses 
presented in Chapter 2: the use of positively perceived archetypal symbols as avatars will 
lead to higher levels of trust development and trusting behavior intent in computer-
mediated communication environments.  The methods used in this study can be described 
as quasi-experimental, and used both qualitative and quantitative methods of data 
collection and analysis.  This effort was divided into three phases, each utilizing a 
different methodology and instrument.  The purpose of Phase 1 was to identify words that 
are commonly associated with particular archetypical symbols.  The research subjects 
were shown each twelve of the symbols identified in Chapter 2 (See Table 1), and asked 
to record the words they felt represented any meanings each symbol may have.  In Phase 
2, the strengths of association between the most commonly presented words and each 
associated symbol were measured with a similar survey instrument to that used in Phase 
1.  Three symbols were identified that conveyed polar-opposite secondary meanings with 
regard to trustworthiness.  Two additional symbols were identified that conveyed neutral 
meanings.   
In Phase 3, these symbols were used in three similar text-only printouts of an 
online chat session.  Each research subject completed an instrument designed to measure
63 
 predisposition to develop trusting relationships, read one of the three chat session 
printouts, and then completed instruments designed to measure the amount of trust that 
developed toward one of the individuals in the chat session and the willingness to act on 
that trust.  The manipulated component is the specific symbol used as an avatar to 
represent one of the two individuals on the chat session printout.  A statistically 
significant difference will provide sufficient evidence to support the hypotheses in this 
study.  Demographic information was gathered from the research subjects in all three 
phases. 
General Information and Demographics 
The participant pool for each survey phase consisted of students enrolled in 
business courses at a major state-funded university in the Southeastern United States.  
Recruiting for all phases was conducted via planned visits to classrooms, where students 
were invited to immediate participation.  Those agreeing to participate in each phase were 
given a pen-and-paper survey instrument to complete, which was given back to the 
researcher when completed.  In all phases, respondents were given informed consent 
information and reminded that participation was voluntary and anonymous.  Participation 
time for each phase was approximately 15 minutes. 
The instruments for all three phases consisted of at least two sections, the first of 
which was identical among the three phases and designed to gather demographic 
information in order to describe the respondent pool.  Information concerning age, 
gender, student and work status, and academic major and minor were gathered.  Further, 
because the literature clearly pointed to a cultural aspect of symbol interpretation, two 
items were included to identify two aspects of each respondent related to culture, namely,  
64 
ethnic background and the childhood development environment.  Appendix A contains 
the instruments for all three phases. 
Duplication of responses during each of the three phases was controlled by 
scheduling data gathering sessions in classrooms such that it was not possible for any one 
student to submit a duplicate response.  No personally identifiable information about any 
student was recorded on the instruments, other than the previously mentioned 
demographic information. 
The remainder of this chapter is divided into three sections, each describing one 
of the three data gathering phases.  Each of these sections is broken into two subsections.  
The first subsection provides an overview of that phase and the second subsection 
provides specific details about the methods and procedures used in data gathering. 
Phase 1 - General perceptions of symbol meanings 
 Overview 
The methods used in Phase 1 and Phase 2 were similar to the Symbol Association 
Test methods used by Roster et al. (1991) to develop their Archetypal Symbol Inventory 
(ASI).  However, where the ASI specifically excluded archetypal symbols that were 
thought to be culturally influenced, the research methods used in this study specifically 
included them.  Similar to the method of surveying existing symbol collections for 
archetypal symbols from which to develop the ASI, the method used in this study 
involved searching the arts, literature, religion, and psychology literature for archetypal 
symbols.   
Although many more symbols exist, twenty-two common archetypal symbols 
were identified (See Table 1).  Ten of these symbols, however, were associated with 
65 
meanings outside the scope of study for this research effort, namely perceptions of 
trustworthiness, and were not studied further.  The remaining twelve symbols were then 
presented to the research subjects as images, again similar to the works of Roster, et al., 
who were then asked to associate them with words or phrases, similar to the methods 
used by Rorschach in his inkblot tests.   
As noted by Allen & Dana (2004) and by Rothstein (1977), words used in 
exercises such as this may be influenced by the subject?s mental state, memories, and 
cultural background.  Therefore, each participant was asked to look at each symbol and 
write down any words or phrases that expressed what each image was thought to 
symbolize.  Each participant was also asked to write what he or she would think of 
someone that used each image to represent himself or herself?  In order to collect 
sufficient variety of opinion, it was determined that the opinions of least 100 participants 
would provide sufficient data to complete Phase 1.  The words and phrases provided by 
each respondent, and associated with each symbol, were compiled into a single list for 
each symbol.  Synonyms were identified with a thesaurus and with an axiom dictionary, 
and synomyms were grouped together.  The five most frequently reported words, or word 
groupings, were recorded for use in Phase 2. 
 Method Specifics 
The respondent pool for Phase 1 consisted of 3,600 students enrolled in the 
College of Business at a large, state-sponsored university in the Southeast United States.  
Because the researcher administered the instrument for this phase in a classroom setting, 
the respondents were chosen based on their class schedule for the Fall, 2008 semester.  
Twelve simultaneously-meeting class sections were chosen from the College of Business 
66 
schedule.  Simultaneously-meeting sections were chosen to minimize duplication of 
responses.  Those sections with more than 20 students in any one particular major were 
excluded so as not to introduce a selection bias due to large concentrations of student 
majors or minors.  Should all participants scheduled for these sections have participated, 
the number of responses would have been approximately 213.  Because only 100 
responses were required and to avoid placing an unnecessarily burden on the respondent 
pool, data gathering was to be terminated early should the response rate be unexpectedly 
high. 
In each session, the researcher was introduced to the class by the instructor, who 
left the classroom and waited outside to minimize the perception of participation 
coercion.  The researcher then gave an informed consent briefing, emphasizing that 
participation was both voluntary and anonymous, and then distributed copies of the Phase 
1 survey instrument.  Students were informed that should they choose not to participate, 
they should just return the Phase 1 survey instrument without completing it.  The students 
that chose to participate then completed the demographics section of the instrument, 
which was followed by, and attached to, the word-listing section.   
Each page of the word-listing section had a single symbol at the top and two 
subjective response items with large blank areas in which to write their responses.  There 
were twelve symbols in this section of the Phase 1 instrument, each on a separate page.  
When finished, the respondents returned the completed instruments to the researcher.  
Once all instruments were returned, the researcher thanked the students, left the 
classroom, and the instructor returned.  Data gathering in Phase 1 was terminated after 
139 subject responses were gathered. 
67 
Phase 2 ? Strength of Symbol Meanings 
 Overview 
To minimize confusion due to multiple meanings, a thesaurus was used to identify 
three synonyms for each word theme resulting from the analysis of Phase 1 responses.  
These three-word combinations were then used in the survey items in Phase 2.  The 
purpose of Phase 2 was to determine if each three-word combination was accurately 
represented by its respective symbol.  That is, because the accuracy of the researcher?s 
interpretation and grouping of the words provided on the Phase 1 instrument, along with 
the subsequent identification of three-word combinations, was a purely subjective process 
and needed to be verified.  To this end, the instrument used in Phase 2 was patterned after 
the instrument used in Phase 1, differing only in that the two subjective response areas 
below each symbol were replaced with five, seven-point Likert-scale items.  Each item 
contained one three-word combination.  Then, rather than relying on additional 
researchers? subjective opinions of the accurracy of the first researcher?s efforts in 
eliminating and combining responses in Phase 1, a more objective empirical method was 
chosen. 
In Phase 2, the subjects were asked to provide their opinions as to how well each 
three-word group accurately expressed the symbolic meaning found in the symbol given.  
This was to determine the strength of association between each of the three-word 
combinations and associated symbols.  Therefore, the items in Phase 2 were actually 
measuring a construct related to the perceived accuracy of the researcher?s interpretation.  
Accurate interpretation would therefore result in items that were highly scored, each item 
may have a completely different meaning.  Any mis-interpretation on the part of the 
68 
researcher would likely result in an item being scored low.  Therefore, it was determined 
that if the confidence interval of the mean score for each item included the neutral 
response, ?4?, then the item was mis-interpreted and was not considered sufficiently 
accurate.  If it did not include the neutral response, then the item was considered 
sufficiently accurate for further consideration. 
 Method Specifics 
The actual survey method used in Phase 2 was identical to that used in Phase 1, 
except for the second section of the instrument itself.  The respondent pool for Phase 2 
consisted of approximately 3,600 students enrolled in the College of Business at a large, 
state-sponsored university in the Southeast United States.  Because the researcher 
administered the instrument for this phase in a classroom setting, the respondents were 
chosen based on their class schedule for the Fall, 2008 semester.  Twelve simultaneously-
meeting class sections were again chosen from the College of Business schedule, though 
on different classes were chosen than those used in Phase 1 so as to reduce the number of 
respondents participating in both phases.  Simultaneously-meeting sections were again 
chosen to minimize duplication of responses.  Those sections with more than 20 students 
in any one particular major were excluded so as not to introduce a selection bias due to 
large concentrations of student majors or minors.  Should all participants scheduled for 
these sections have participated, the number of responses would have been in excess of 
210.  Because only 100 responses were required and to avoid placing an unnecessary 
burden on the respondent pool, data gathering was to be terminated early should the 
response rate be unexpectedly high. 
69 
In each session, the researcher was introduced to the class by the instructor, who 
left the classroom and waited outside to minimize the perception of participation 
coercion.  The researcher then gave an informed consent briefing, emphasizing that 
participation was both voluntary and anonymous, and then distributed copies of the Phase 
2 survey instrument.  Students were informed that should they choose not to participate, 
they should just return the instrument without completing it.  The students that chose to 
participate then completed the demographics section of the instrument, which was 
followed by, and attached to, the word-group association section.   
Each page of the word-group association section had a single symbol at the top, 
above five Likert-scale items.  Each of these items included one of the three-word groups 
developed from the Phase 1 results and a seven-point Likert-scale with which to indicate 
their response.  In several cases, there were less than five, three-word groups from Phase 
1 to use on the instrument in Phase 2.  In those cases, the researcher created one or more 
three-word groups to add to those resulting from Phase 1, and then added those to the 
Phase 2 instrument.  There were two primary reasons for this.  First, to verify that the 
scoring method used in analyzing the Phase 2 data properly identified three-word groups 
that were not typically associated with a particular symbol.  Second, to determine if a 
particular symbol was commonly associated with one or more of the components of trust.   
There were twelve symbols in this section of the Phase 2 instrument, each on a 
separate page, and each with five three-word groups.  When finished, the respondents 
returned the completed instruments to the researcher.  Once all instruments were 
returned, the researcher thanked the students, left the classroom, and the instructor 
70 
returned.  Data gathering in Phase 2 was terminated after 140 subject responses were 
gathered. 
Phase 3 ? Strength of Trust in Context 
 Overview 
Phase 3 was a quasi-experiment involving three groups of respondents.  Each 
group was randomly given one of three nearly identical printouts of an online chat 
session.  After the respondents read the printouts, the trust that each respondent 
developed was measured.  In order to assign each subject randomly to a test group, 150 
copies of each of the three different instruments were prepared and, using Microsoft 
Excel to generate a random number, placed in random order in a single stack.  Each 
subject was then given a survey instrument from the top of the stack, which effectively 
assigned each subject randomly to one of the three survey groups. 
As in Phase 1 and Phase 2, one section of the Phase 3 instrument gathered 
demographic information from each respondent.  The respondents were also given a 
printout of a chat session in which two college students discussed a fictitious scenario 
that posed an ethical dilemma.  This scenario was one in which both students had a need, 
but choosing to trust the other to meet that need involved a measure of risk, ethical 
question, dependency, and more.  This scenario was written so as to leave the research 
subject with little concrete information with which to form an opinion of the 
trustworthiness of the two students in the scenario.  Rather, information about how the 
two students addressed the trust components of predictability, dependability, results of 
prior trust testing, scope of need, dependency, and presence of choice were either not 
clearly provided or were in conflict with other factors.  Furthermore, the ethical dilemma 
71 
chosen involved a situation where no clear policy or rule existed and the risks were small.  
The purpose of this was to provide as little information as possible from the text of the 
scenario as to the trustworthiness of the two students in order to highlight the effect that 
the remaining factor, predisposition to trust, had on the development of trust toward one 
of the students in the scenario.   
As was noted in the literature review, this particular factor can differ greatly 
between individuals.  Therefore, prior to conducting an experiment in which 
interpersonal trust toward one of the students would be measured, it was necessary to 
account for the variation between respondents that existed beforehand related to their 
predisposition to form trusting relationships.  This was accomplished by administering 
Rotter?s (1967) Interpersonal Trust Scale (ITS), which was designed to measure an 
individual?s predisposition to form interpersonal trusting relationships, prior to the test 
subjects reading the chat scenario.  This instrument is widely used in trust research, but 
due to the lengthy period since it was developed, the rhetoric required slight modification 
to improve its readability by the respondent pool.  The need to reword this instrument 
when considering student respondent pools has also been noted by other researchers such 
as Hunt, Kohn, and Mallozzi (1983).  Previous research with this instrument has 
consistently demonstrated reliability in excess of .75 (Montada, Filipp, & Lerner, 1992; 
Rotter, 1967; Stein & et al., 1974).  Comprised of 40 Likert-scale items, half inverted and 
with some filler items, it is designed to produce a single index number, representing the 
subject?s predisposition to form trusting interpersonal relationships.  The instrument 
scales were inverted to achieve similarity with the other instruments used in this research 
phase. 
72 
 After completing the ITS, respondents were asked to read a chat session printout, 
in which each of the two fictitious students was represented by an avatar.  The only 
difference between each of the three versions of the printout was the symbol used as an 
avatar to identify the fictitious student initiating the online chat session. 
T-tests with confidence intervals were used on the results of the data gathered in 
Phase 2 in order to help identify symbols for use as avatars in Phase 3.  Symbols where 
the confidence interval of the meaning-to-symbol association included neutral were 
discarded, leaving only those in which there was a strong symbol-to-meaning association.  
Based on the results of the remaining symbols, along with the mean and standard 
deviation of each symbol?s associated responses and the three-word groups themselves, 
four symbols were identified to be used in Phase 3.  Because many of the three-word 
groups used on the Phase 2 instrument were synonymous with positive character traits 
such as perfection, honesty, godliness, etc., or negative character traits such as unreliable, 
sinful, dangerous, sinister, etc., identification of symbols associated with both 
trustworthiness and untrustworthiness was straight-forward.  However, to reduce any bias 
on the part of the researcher in the selection of the symbols to be used, a senior 
experienced faculty researcher was asked to, and did, review and confirm the selections.  
The same method of selection was again used to identify two symbols associated with 
relatively neutral concepts such as unrestrained, independent, calm, or pretty. 
Once these four symbols were chosen, a symbol associated with trustworthiness 
traits was used as an avatar to represent fictitious student #1.  On another version, a 
symbol associated with untrustworthiness traits was used to represent fictitious student 
#1.  A third version utilized one of the two neutral symbols as an avatar representing 
73 
fictitious student #1.  In all three versions, the second neutral symbol was used as the 
avatar to represent the fictitious student #2.   
After reading the printout, each subject was asked to complete an instrument to 
determine if the respondent would perform a trusting action.  This instrument was 
comprised of only two items, each measuring the willingness of the respondent to 
perform one of two trusting actions.  Both items were written in a seven-point Likert 
Scale format.  Following this, the respondents completed an instrument designed to 
measure the interpersonal trust developed toward fictitious student #1 in the chat session, 
the student who?s avatar was manipulated between the three experiment groups.  The 
Rempel and Holmes (1986) Trust Scale (RHTS), a 17-item instrument designed 
specifically for measuring interpersonal trust directed toward a particular individual by 
another, was chosen. 
The RTHS has been widely used in behavioral studies involving interpersonal 
trust and has consistently demonstrated a reliability of .80 or higher (Gaines et al., 1997; 
Rempel et al., 1985; Zaheer, McEvily, & Perrone, 1998).  Only minor wording changes 
were necessary to align the instrument items to this particular scenario and to fictitious 
student #1.  This 17-item instrument can either be used to measure the three primary 
constructs of dependability, predictability, and faith separately, or, to measure 
interpersonal trust in general by summing all item responses together. 
The survey instruments for Phase 3 were arranged in the following order: An 
informed consent memo from the researcher, the 40-item ITS, the 7-item demographics 
instrument, one of three randomly chosen chat session printouts, the 2-item intent to act 
instrument, and finally the 17-item RHTS.  All instruments were stapled together to form 
74 
a single 10-page instrument.  A pilot study was conducted using 13 subjects from the 
participant pool to verify that the research design and measurement scales were 
sufficiently robust and appropriate.  Minor layout changes were made to the instrument, 
and data gathering continued as planned. 
 Method Specifics 
The method used in Phase 3 was similar to those used in Phase 1 and Phase 2, 
though there were a few differences.  The respondent pool for Phase 3 also consisted of 
3,600 students enrolled in the College of Business at a large, state-sponsored university in 
the Southeast United States.  Because the researcher administered the instrument for this 
phase in a classroom setting, the respondents were chosen based on their class schedule 
for the Fall, 2008 semester.  Six simultaneously-meeting class sections were again chosen 
from the College of Business schedule, though selected in such as way as to minimize 
duplication of responses.  Should all participants scheduled for these sections have 
participated, the number of responses would have been in excess of 500.  However, due 
to another on-campus event, student attendance in these sections was lower than 
expected.  Only 281 students were present for this phase of the research. 
In each session, the instructor introduced the researcher to the class, who then 
gave an informed consent briefing, emphasizing that participation was both voluntary and 
anonymous.  The researcher then distributed copies of the Phase 3 survey instrument.  
Students were informed that if they choose not to participate, they were simply to return 
the Phase 3 survey instrument without completing it.  The students that chose to 
participate should then complete the Phase 3 instrument and return it to the researcher. 
75 
Participation was 100%.  When finished, the respondents returned the completed 
Phase 3 instrument to the researcher, who gave each respondent one half of a numbered 
raffle ticket and placed the other half in an open bucket.  Once all instruments were 
returned, the researcher asked an observer to draw a raffle ticket from the bucket.  The 
number was called out and an iPod Shuffle was immediately given to the respondent that 
held the other half of that ticket.  The researcher then thanked the students and left the 
classroom.  This concluded the data gathering portion of this study. 
76 
 CHAPTER IV 
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 
Phase 1 ? General Perceptions of Symbol Meanings 
 The information from Phase 1 was not quantitatively analyzed.  Rather, the data 
gathered from Phase 1 was compiled for each symbol and sorted.  Using a thesaurus and 
an axiom dictionary, synonyms were grouped together into response themes.  The 
resulting list of themes was sorted again and then the total number of responses for each 
theme was recorded and sorted.  
Phase 2 ? Strength of Symbol Meanings 
It was determined that if the confidence interval of the mean score for each item 
on the Phase 2 instrument included the neutral response, ?4?, then the item was mis-
interpreted and that particular three-word group was not considered sufficiently accurate 
for further consideration.  If it did not include the neutral response, then the item was 
considered sufficiently accurate for further consideration. 
A thorough analysis of the responses in Phase 2 was conducted.  Means, standard 
deviations, and 95% confidence intervals for the means was calculated and recorded.  
These can be found in Appendix D, Table D1.  By analyzing this information, along with 
the symbols themselves and the meanings of the strongly associated three-word groups, 
four symbols were identified for use in Phase 3.  These symbols included a dove, which 
was strongly associated with trustworthy traits, and a serpent, which was strongly 
77 
associated with untrustworthy traits.  Additionally, a butterfly symbol and a lion symbol 
were identified for use as neutral symbols because they were identified with traits that 
had nothing to do with trustworthiness. 
Phase 3 ? Strength of Trust in Context 
Once the responses were gathered from Phase 3, they were screened for 
completeness and abnormalities.  Of the 356 instruments returned to the researcher, 16 
were identified that were either incomplete or improperly filled out.  These responses 
were removed, leaving 340 responses available for further study.  Calculations were 
performed on both the Rotter and the Rempel instruments in the traditional manner by 
removing filler items, inverting the scales of the reverse-scored items, and summing the 
items together to get a single score for each instrument.  The Rotter instrument score was 
recorded as ?Predisposition? and the Rempel score as ?Trust?.  Another calculated 
variable called ?Action? was calculated by totaling the responses from the two action 
questions immediately following the chat-session printout.  Descriptive statistics for these 
variables can be found in Table 2.  Correlations between these variables can be found in 
Table 3.  Though it was expected that the correlation between between Predisposition and 
Trust would be significant, it was not (r = .002, p = .975), suggesting that Predisposition 
may not be a suitable covariate for Trust in an ANCOVA. 
The reliability of both the Rotter and the Rempel instruments were also 
calculated.  Though the reliability of the Rempel instrument was found to be sufficient 
(Cronbach ? = .771), that of the Rotter instrument was somewhat lower than desired 
(Cronbach ? = .571). 
 
78 
Table 2 ? Descriptive Statistics for Phase 3 Scale Data 
 
Minimum Maximum Mean 
Std. 
Deviation 
Predisposition 27 82 53.54 8.859 
Action 2 14 6.56 3.165 
Trust 17 101 48.63 16.230 
 
Table 3 ? Pearson Correlations Between Phase 3 Scale Variables 
 Predisposition Trust Action 
Predisposition 1.000 .002 -.171* 
Trust .002 1.000 .615* 
Action -.171* .615* 1.000 
* Significant at the .01 level (2-tailed) 
 
Analysis Related to Hypothesis H1, Trust 
ANOVA was performed to determine if any of the demographic variables were 
significant predictors for the Trust scores.  Only gender was found to have a significant 
relationship with Trust scores and was therefore included in further analysis.  The other 
demographic variables were not considered in further analysis with regard to hypothesis 
H1.  Descriptive statistics for the subgroups created by Gender and Symbol can be found 
in Table 4.  Sample normality for the Trust variable was confirmed by a Kolmogorov-
Smirnov (KS) test (KS Z = 1.094, p = .182). 
ANOVA was then performed with Gender as a fixed factor, Symbol as a random 
factor, and Trust as the dependent variable.  A Levene?s Test of Equality of Error 
Variances reveals no evidence that the error variance of the dependent variable, Trust,  
 
79 
Table 4 ? Gender and Symbol Subgroup Descriptive Statistics for Trust ANOVA 
Gender Symbol Mean Std. Deviation N 
Female Butterfly 40.31 13.284 49 
Dove 51.96 15.695 47 
Serpent 42.24 12.444 49 
Total 44.74 14.661 145 
Male Butterfly 54.20 15.307 60 
Dove 56.03 16.406 68 
Serpent 44.55 16.326 67 
Total 51.52 16.763 195 
Total Butterfly 47.95 15.957 109 
Dove 54.37 16.175 115 
Serpent 43.58 14.796 116 
Total 48.63 16.230 340 
 
was not equal across the groups (F5, 334 = 1.792, p = .114).  Both Gender (F1, 338 = 15.707,  
p < .001) and Symbol (F2, 337 = 14.173, p < .001) were found to be significant predictors 
for Trust (see table 5 for complete ANOVA table).  Because Symbol was found to be a 
significant predictor of Trust, sufficient evidence was present to suggest that symbol 
usage was significantly related to trust development.  Hypothesis H1a was therefore 
supported.  Further, Gender was also found to be significant (p < .001).  The total effect 
size for a model containing Symbol, Gender, and intercept components explains 11.7% of 
the total variance of Trust (?2 = .117). 
Analysis Related to Hypothesis H2, Action 
ANOVA was performed to determine if any of the demographic variables were 
significant predictors for the Action scores.  Only gender was found to have a significant 
relationship with Action scores and was therefore included in further analysis.  The other 
80 
Table 5 ? Hypothesis H1 ANOVA Table 
Dependent Variable:  Trust 
Source Type III SS df MS F Sig. Partial ?2 
Hypothesis 770663.606 1 770663.606 236.462 .004 .992 
Error 6538.236 2.006 3259.141    
Gender Hypothesis 3684.460 1 3684.460 15.707 .000 .045 
Error 78817.273 336 234.575    
Symbol Hypothesis 6649.414 2 3324.707 14.173 .000 .078 
Error 78817.273 336 234.575    
 
demographic variables were excluded from further analysis with regard to hypothesis H2.  
Additionally, Predisposition was found that related to Action and was included in further 
analysis as a covariate.  However, a KS test performed on the Action variable revealed a 
lack of normality (KS Z = 2.380, p < .001).  An inspection of a histogram showing each 
of the three groups reveals that the group associated with the serpent symbol appears 
heavily skewed toward the low end of the scale, which was expected (see figure 2).  The 
lack of normality in the Action variable was therefore determined to be acceptable and 
analysis continued.  However, when performing an ANCOVA on all three symbol 
groups, a Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances provided evidence that the error 
variance of the dependent variable, Action, was not equal across the groups (F5, 334 = 
2.424, p = .035).  It was determined that the group associated with the butterfly symbol 
may be the cause and was removed.  Once these responses were removed, Gender was 
again confirmed as the only significant demographic predictor of Action (p = .031).  
Descriptive statistics for the subgroups created by Gender and Symbol, with the Buttefly 
responses excluded, can be found in Table 6.   
  
81 
Figure 2 ? Comparison of Symbol Histograms 
 
Table 6 ? Gender and Symbol Subgroup Descriptive Statistics for Action ANCOVA 
Gender Symbol Mean Std. Deviation N 
Female Dove 6.26 3.103 47 
Serpent 5.55 2.685 49 
Total 5.90 2.904 96 
Male Dove 7.18 3.305 68 
Serpent 6.12 3.501 67 
Total 6.65 3.432 135 
Total Dove 6.80 3.242 115 
Serpent 5.88 3.182 116 
Total 6.34 3.238 231 
 
After performing another ANCOVA, a Levene?s Test of Equality of Error 
Variances revealed no evidence that the error variance of the dependent variable was not 
82 
equal among the remaining groups (F3, 227 = 1.716, p = .165).  The responses associated 
with the butterfly symbol were therefore excluded from further study associated with 
hypothesis H2. 
ANCOVA was again performed with Gender and Symbol as fixed factors, 
Predisposition held as a covariate, and Action as the dependent variable.  As was 
mentioned before, a Levene?s Test of Equality of Error Variances, revealed no evidence 
that the error variance of the dependent variable was not equal among the remaining 
groups (F3, 227 = 1.716, p = .165).  An assumption of parallel group regression slopes was 
confirmed by observing the slopes on an X-Y plot (see Figure 3).   
 
Figure 3.  Estimated Marginal Means Plot for Action Variable 
 
83 
Both Gender (F1, 338 = 4.717, p =.031) and Symbol (F2, 337 = 5.970, p = .015) were 
found to be significant predictors for Action (see table 7 for ANOVA table).   
Predisposition was found to be significantly related to Action as well (F1, 338 = 13.58, p < 
.001).  Because Symbol was found to be a significant predictor of Action, sufficient 
evidence was present to suggest that symbol usage was significantly related to behavior 
intent.  Hypothesis H2a is therefore supported. 
Additional Analysis 
Because both Gender and Symbol were found to be significantly related to both 
Trust and Action dependent variables, interaction effects were investigated.  In the case 
of Trust, the interaction between Gender and Symbol was found to be significant (F5, 334 = 
10.986, p < .001).  A model containing only an intercept and Gender and Symbol 
components explains 11.7% of the variance of Trust (?2 = .117).  Adding a Gender-
Symbol interaction component results in a model that explains a more favorable 14.1% 
(?2 = .141).   
Similarly, the interaction of Gender and Symbol was also significantly related to 
Action (F3, 336 = 7.679, p < .001) A model with Gender, Symbol, Predisposition, and 
intercept components explains 11% of the variance (?2 = .110) in Action.  Adding a 
Gender-Symbol interaction component results in a model that explains a more favorable 
13% of the variance in Action (?2 = .130). 
For comparison purposes, the 95% confidence intervals for these models were 
calculated and can be found in Table 8 and Table 9.  Additionally, to verify what had 
been identified in the literature regarding the relationship between trust development and 
willingness to engage in trusting behavior, Trust was regressed against Action and found 
84 
to be significant (F1, 339 = 205.275, p < .001), explaining 37.6% of the variance of Action 
(Adjusted R2 = .376).  No additional analyses were performed and no anomalies noted, 
other than those previously mentioned. 
 
Table 7 ? Hypothesis H2 ANCOVA Table 
Source Type III SS df MS F Sig. Partial ?2 
Hypothesis 705.695 1 705.695 64.582 .000 .584 
Error 503.091 46.041 10.927    
Symbol Hypothesis 57.867 1 57.867 5.970 .015 .026 
Error 2200.115 227 9.692    
Gender Hypothesis 45.722 1 45.722 4.717 .031 .020 
Error 2200.115 227 9.692    
Predisposition Hypothesis 131.615 1 131.615 13.580 .000 .056 
Error 2200.115 227 9.692    
 
Table 8 ? 95% Confidence Intervals for Group Means of Trust Groups 
Gender Symbol Mean Std. Error 
95% Confidence Interval 
Lower Bound Upper Bound 
Female Butterfly 40.306 2.165 36.048 44.564 
Dove 51.957 2.210 47.610 56.305 
Serpent 42.245 2.165 37.987 46.503 
Male Butterfly 54.200 1.956 50.352 58.048 
Dove 56.029 1.837 52.415 59.644 
Serpent 44.552 1.851 40.911 48.194 
 
  
85 
Table 9 ? 95% Confidence Intervals for Group Means of Action Groups 
Gender Symbol Mean Std. Error 
 
95% Confidence Interval 
Lower Bound Upper Bound 
Female Dove 6.292a .455 5.395 7.189 
Serpent 5.326a .450 4.440 6.213 
Male Dove 7.232a .379 6.486 7.978 
Serpent 6.202a .382 5.450 6.955 
a. Predisposition evaluated at 53.69 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
86 
CHAPTER V 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 
Summary 
In this research study, culturally-recognized symbols used as avatars were 
manipulated to influence perceptions of trustworthiness and behavior.  A logical 
presentation of the extant literature from several different, but related, disciplines was 
given.  The use of symbols in psychology, religion, art and literature, and other areas was 
discussed, as well as in the area of computer-mediated communications and trust studies.  
By studying the extant literature in these areas, numerous symbols were identified that 
are commonly found throughout many cultures.  Two hypotheses were developed relating 
to the effect of using culturally-recognized symbols and trust in computer-mediated 
communication environments. 
To test these hypotheses, a method was devised that was comprised of three 
distinct phases.  In Phase one, the symbols identified earlier were presented to 
respondents in order to identify keywords or phrases commonly associated with each 
symbol.  In Phase two, word combinations were created from the results of Phase one and 
presented, with each respective symbol, to respondents.  This was designed in such a way 
as to confirm the association between the meanings and the symbols so that symbols 
could be selected for Phase three.  In Phase three, respondents completed an instrument 
that measures predisposition to trust, read the text of one of three different chat sessions, 
87 
and then completed instruments related to willingness to perform trusting acts and 
general trust levels that developed. 
Once this data was gathered, an investigation was conducted to determine if 
sufficient evidence existed to support the hypotheses.  An ANOVA concluded that there 
was sufficient evidence in support of hypothesis H1a, the use of archetypal symbols 
associated with trustworthiness will be associated with trust development, when used as 
avatars in Computer-Mediated Communication environments.  Further, evidence was 
discovered that trust development was also significantly related to gender.  An interaction 
effect between the gender and the specific symbol used suggests that male and female 
respondents reacted to each symbol differently with regard to trust development.  These 
factors explained 14.1% of the variance found in the Trust scale measurements for this 
sample. 
Another investigation using ANCOVA concluded that there was also sufficient 
evidence in support of hypothesis H2a, the use of archetypal symbols associated with 
trustworthiness will be associated with trusting behavior, when used as avatars in 
Computer-Mediated Communication environments.  As was the case when investigating 
trust development, evidence was discovered that willingness to engage in trusting 
behavior was also significantly related to a respondent?s gender.  An interaction effect 
between the gender and the specific symbol used suggests that male and female 
respondents reacted to each symbol differently with regard to willingness to engage in 
trusting behavior.  In fact, the reaction was so varied to the butterfly symbol that the data 
for this group could not be used in an ANCOVA investigation.  These factors explained 
13% of the variance found in the Action variable measurements for this sample.  
88 
Additional investigations also echoed the findings of other researchers in that trust 
development is significantly related to the respondents? willingness to engage in trusting 
behavior in computer-mediated communication environments.   
It was unexpected, however, that predisposition to form trusting relationships was 
not significantly related to actual trust development.  This may have been due to many 
factors, including the rewording of Rotter?s original instrument using contemporary 
rhetoric, or its application to this particular respondent group.  Regardless of the reason, 
the lack of a suitable covariate during analysis would likely have been detrimental to this 
study, were it not for the large sample size.  Additionally, the appearance of a significant 
interaction between respondent gender and the actual symbol used was unexpected.  
Though this was not anticipated for a priori, a post hoc investigation revealed sufficient 
literature to suggest that males and females process symbol meanings differently (Gecas 
& Libby, 1976; Lewis, 1998; Waltner, 1986).  The results of such research efforts can 
easily be applied to the domain of computer-mediated communications, and this research 
study does provide considerable support to that inference.   
Contributions &  Implications  
 
The most obvious contribution of this research study is that it provides evidence 
that culturally transmitted symbol meanings are significantly related to trust development 
and behavioral intent in computer-mediated communication environments.  This is 
important, given the recent increased deployment of numerous systems to support many 
aspects of corporate operations, including knowledge management, customer service, 
sales and marketing, corporate training, and more.  Skilled avatar choice in order to 
influence trust development and trusting behavior, and hence knowledge transfer, 
89 
customer satisfaction, sales revenue, training effectiveness, and more, becomes a critical 
competency with regard to deployment of these systems.  Further, a thorough 
understanding of the cultural nature of these phenomena allows a more accurate 
customization of these systems for use by particular demographic and cultural groups. 
Another contribution made by this study is that it provides a basic framework for 
future studies of archetypal symbols.  That is, the three-phased research method used in 
this study was shown to be a successful method to identify both archetypal symbols and 
their meanings.  In fact, the processes used in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this research work 
would be valuable in creating a catalogue, and perhaps a taxonomy, of archetypal 
symbols for future reference. 
Limitations 
Though the research method proved useful, this study was severely limited by the 
nature of the respondent pool.  The typical respondent was a young Caucasian 
undergraduate student in the southeastern United States.  A more diverse respondent pool 
may have provided much more insight into the cultural aspects of the phenomena under 
study.  Further, the youthfulness of the respondent pool may also have been a factor, 
given that culturally transmitted meanings typically occurs over an individual?s entire 
lifetime.  It is likely that older respondents would interpret symbols differently than 
younger respondents, due to their increased number of years in the learning environment 
of their culture. 
Another aspect related to the respondent pool that severely limited this study 
involves the nature of the two instrument items used to measure intent to engage in 
trusting behavior.  The trusting behavior in question dealt with the ethical dilemma of 
90 
selling notes from a prior semester?s class with a fellow student.  Though this ethical 
dilemma was thought to be one in which the typical respondent would not find to be a 
particularly important one, this was found later not to be the case.  After the research was 
concluded, numerous respondents were asked what they thought the focus of the survey 
was.  Most of them replied that they believed the research dealt with ethical behavior 
involving an issue of high importance, namely, helping a friend to cheat on an exam.  The 
strength of their view that this was about cheating was not expected and may have been 
part of the cause of the skewness found in the Action variable in the Phase 3 analysis.  
Additional research in this area would likely benefit from a more varied and robust set of 
situations, particularly if it were tailored to the respondent group being studied.  Though a 
pilot study was conducted prior to the full study, the fact that this issue was not raised 
was likely due to the difference between the respondent group in the pilot study and the 
respondent group in the main study.  The pilot study respondents consisted almost 
exclusively of current Ph.D. students, and the primary respondent group consisted of 
exclusively undergraduate students.   
Another factor noted by the researcher, albeit anecdotal, was that many of the 
male respondents, particularly in the butterfly symbol group, took noticeably longer to 
complete their survey instruments than the other respondent groups.  Though this is 
strictly anecdotal, it should be noted that it was sufficient to cause the researcher initially 
to think that a randomization mistake had been made, even though it had not.  This was 
also noted on two different days of data gathering and among more than one group of 
students.  Though nothing was noted of a gender-chronology effect in the literature 
review before data gathering commenced, additional study may be warranted. 
91 
Because this research method involved a chat session printout, as opposed to a 
live chat session involving the research subject, the effects noted herein may have been 
muted somewhat.  That is, had the research design been such that a live, one-on-one chat 
session could have been used instead of having the respondents read a chat-session 
printout, a more robust experiment environment may have been possible.  Participants in 
chat sessions typically do not have the avatars used to represent themselves chosen for 
them.  Typically, participants choose their own avatars as a form of self-expression.  
Because this was not the case in this study, it is plausible that the respondents may not 
have viewed the avatars used in the study as expressions of self by the fictitious students 
in the chat-session printouts.  While this research effort was meant to show that a 
relationship exists between archetypal symbol usage and trust development and behavior 
intent, future research efforts in this area may be better suited to more realistic 
experiment environments. 
Additionally, the rephrasing of both the Rotter and the Rempel instruments may 
have had an adverse effect on their reliability and validity for this study.  These modified 
instruments, especially Rotter?s, may not be usable for future research with similar 
respondent groups.  The identification of a more suitable covariate to trust development 
than Rotter?s instrument would likely allow for more power, which could allow the 
detection of other demographic effects not noted in this study.  For example, rather than 
categorizing respondents? ages, the use of a scale variable for age may have provided a 
suitable covariate for both hypotheses. 
 
 
92 
Future Research 
The most obvious direction of future research is an extension of this quasi-
experiment into a true experimental environment that incorporates multiple live subjects 
in a live online chat environment.  The simulation of a real-world chat environment with 
a large and demographically and culturally diverse respondent group would likely yield 
much more information regarding the use of culturally transmitted symbols as avatars and 
trust phenomena.  Future research should also be expanded to include non-academic 
settings such as social networking sites, corporate knowledge-sharing systems, and more. 
As was mentioned before, the method and analyses used in Phase 1 and Phase 2 
of this study proved valuable to future studies.  Using this technique, additional studies 
are warranted that expand the catalogue of known archetypal symbols and the meanings 
attributed to them seeded by this study.  Cultural differences among the meanings should 
also be recorded for use in future studies as well.  The development of a taxonomy of the 
cultural forces that shape archetypal symbol meanings would likely prove beneficial to 
future research efforts in this area as well.   
Another area for future research in terms of cataloging involves commonly used 
avatars gleaned from existing online chat systems.  This approach may allow the 
discovery of additional factors that influence trust related to avatar use, in addition to the 
use of archetypal symbols, such as the use of symbols of authority, symbols of cultural 
groups, symbols related to particular demographic groups, etc. 
Another area for additional research, though not directly related to the subject of 
this dissertation, is related to the revision of the instruments used.  Though Rotter?s 
instrument was not usable as a covariate to the results of Rempel?s instrument, it was 
93 
suitable for use as a covariate to the Action variable.  However, the rephrasing of Rotter?s 
instrument needs more attention.  While other researchers have noted the need for more 
contemporary wording, a more robust redesign of this instrument than what was done in 
this study is in order.  This redesign should follow the same basic principles used by 
Rotter in 1967, but in a more contemporary environment.  The needs for this redesign are 
based on several factors.  First, the rhetoric used in several places in Rotter?s instrument 
is third-person passive, a style not as often used today as it was when the instrument was 
originally developed.  In several places, the meaning of individual items may be 
ambiguous to contemporary readers.   
Second, the instrument makes political references that may be severely dated, 
especially given the changes to the political landscape over the last four decades.  When 
the instrument was originally written, the United States was heavily involved in Vietnam, 
and selective service was still a reality.  Though the United States is still active in world 
politics, and is again involved in military action in other countries, the typical young 
college student is likely more removed from its immediate effects.   
Lastly, Rotter?s instrument uses five-point Likert-scale items, which may limit 
variance in small-n studies.  Further, the center point, ?3?, indicates ?Agree and 
Disagree? rather than ?Neutral,? which can be confusing.  The use of seven-point Likert-
scale items, with ?4? indicating ?Neutral? may be more clearly understood and may also 
allow for increased variance in small-n studies. 
Conclusion 
As avatar use in corporate environments becomes more commonplace, a more 
complete understanding of the relationships between symbol, trust development, and 
94 
behavior intent will be invaluable to those whose success is measured by how well these 
systems influence the people that frequent them.  This study provides one of the first 
glimpses into these phenomena, and provides support for more detailed studies on the 
influence of archetypal symbol usage on the psyche of the avatar user. 
 
 
95 
 
 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Ailsop, J. (2006). Regaining trust in medicine. Current Sociology, 54(4), 621-636. 
Alford, N. (1994). The rhymers' club: Poets of the tragic generation. New York: St. 
Marin's Press. 
Algardi, A. (Artist). (1992). St Michael overcoming the Devil  
Allen, J., & Dana, R. H. (2004). Methodological issues in cross-cultural and multicultural 
Rorschach research. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(2), 189-206. 
Alt, O. (Artist). (1984). To kill a butterfly  
Apples (1997). Apples for the principal. Techniques: Making Education & Career 
Connections, 72(5), 10. 
Arakelova, V. (2004). Notes on the Yezidi religious syncretism. Iran & The Caucasus, 
8(1), 19-28. 
Aristotle (350 B.C.E.). On Interpretation. 
Atac, M. (2006). Visual formula and meaning in Neo-Assyrian relief sculpture. Art 
Bulletin, 88(1), 69-101. 
Audubon (1987). Ancient Ram's Death Foreshadows Disaster. Audubon, 89(6), 18-18. 
Augustine (trans. 1975). De dialectica (Vol. 16, pp. 151). Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel. 
Augustine, A. (trans. 1958). On Christian Doctrine. New York: Macmillan. 
Badcock, C. R. (1980). The psychoanalysis of culture. Oxford: Blackwell. 
 
96 
Baek, M.-K. (2005). Insider at border: Interactions of technology, language, culture, and 
gender in computer-mediated communication by Korean female learners of 
English. Unpublished Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. 
Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2005). Digital chameleons. Psychological Science, 16(10), 
814-819. 
Bailenson, J. N., & Yee, N. (2006). A longitudinal study of task performance, head 
movements, subjective report, simulator sickness, and transformed social 
interaction in collaborative virtual environments. Presence: Teleoperators & 
Virtual Environments, 15(6), 699-716. 
Bailenson, J. N., Yee, N., Merget, D., & Schroeder, R. (2006). The effect of behavioral 
realism and form realism of real-time avatar faces on verbal disclosure, nonverbal 
disclosure, emotion recognition, and copresence in dyadic interaction. Presence: 
Teleoperators & Virtual Environments, 15(4), 359-372. 
Banerjee, N. (2007, 5/16/2007). Wiccans keep the faith with a religion under wraps. New 
York Times, p. A12,  
Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University 
Press. 
Baudrillard, J. (1981). Simulacra and simulation. Paris: Galilee. 
Bayliss, A. P., & Tipper, S. P. (2005). Gaze and arrow cueing of attention reveals 
individual differences along the autism spectrum as a function of target context. 
British Journal of Psychology, 96(1), 95-114. 
Beebe, M. (1960). Literary symbolism: An introduction to the interpretation of literature. 
San Francisco: Wadsworth Publishing Company. 
 
97 
Beecham, G. (Artist). (2002). Yin-Yang-Yin  
Berg, M., Lundgren, I., Hermansson, E., & Wahlberg, V. (1996). Women's experience of 
the encounter with the midwife during childbirth. Midwifery, 12(1), 11-15. 
Berry, G. R. (2006). Can computer-mediated asynchronous communication improve team 
processes and decision making? Journal of Business Communication, 43(4), 344-
366. 
Bertalanffy, L. (1965). On the definition of the symbol. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), Psychology 
and the symbol: An interdisciplinary symposium (pp. 26-72). New York: Random 
House. 
Bertalanffy, L. (1981). A systems view of man. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 
Bhardwaj, S., & Rao, M. (1998). The temple as a symbol of Hindu identity in America? 
Journal of Cultural Geography, 17(2), 125-143. 
Birdwhistell, R. L. (1970). Kinesics and context. Philadelphia: University of 
Pennsylvania Press. 
Blair, K. (2006). Victorian poetry and the culture of the heart. Oxford: Oxford University 
Press. 
Bledsoe, K. E. (2004). Hanukkah crafts. Berkeley Heights, NJ: Enslow Publishers. 
Bonsall, P. W., & Parry, T. (1991). Using an interactive route-choice simulator to 
investigate driver's compliance with route choice advice. Transportation Research 
Record, 1306, 59-68. 
Boorsch, S. (1992). Saint Bernard vanquishing the Devil. Metropolitan Museum of Art 
Bulletin, 50, 24. 
 
98 
Borella, J., & Champoux, G. J. (2001). The secret of the Christian way: A contemplative 
ascent through the writings of Jean Borella. Albany, NY: State University of New 
York Press. 
Bos, N., Olson, J., Gergle, D., Olson, G., & Wright, Z. (2002). Effects of four computer-
mediated communications channels on trust development. Paper presented at the 
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), Minneapolis MN, April 2002.  
Boston, R. (2007). Pentacle quest success! Church & State, 60(6), 4-7. 
Boswell, J. C. (1975). Bosom serpents before Hawthorne: Origin of a symbol. English 
Language Notes, 12(4), 279-287. 
Boys, M. C. (1994). The cross: Should a symbol betrayed be reclaimed? Cross Currents, 
44(1), 5. 
Braz, A. (2001). The white Indian: Armand Garnet Ruffo's 'Grey Owl' and the spectre of 
authenticity. Journal of Canadian Studies, 36(4), 171. 
Brereton, J. P. (2002). The race of Mudgala and Mudglani. Journal of the American 
Oriental Society, 122(2), 224. 
Brown, E. C. (2002). The allegory of small things: Insect eschatology in Spenser's 
Muiopotmos. Studies in Philology, 99(3), 247. 
Brumann, C. (2002). On culture and symbols. Current Anthropology, 43(3), 509-511. 
Buccellati, G., Snapp, H., & Ambrosioni, A. (1995). The iron crown and imperial 
Europe. Milan: Societ? di Studi Monzesi. 
Calnimptewa, C. (Artist). (1984). Eagle dancer  
Cameron, D. (1998). The symbolism of the ancestors. ReVision, 20(3), 6. 
 
99 
Carey, M. (1815). The olive branch: Or, faults on both sides, federal and democratic 
(2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Mathew Carey. 
Carlson, R. G. (1999). Anthropology at the edge: Essays on culture, symbol, and 
consciousness. American Anthropologist, 101(4), 899-900. 
Carroll, C. (2006). Symbols in art. Arts & Activities, 140(1), 27-28. 
Cassell, J., Bickmore, T., Billinghurst, M., Campbell, L., Chang, K., Vilhjalmsson, H., et 
al. (1999, 15-20 May 1999). Embodiment in conversational interfaces. Paper 
presented at the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) 
1999, Pittsburgh, PA. 
Cassell, J., Sullivan, J., Prevost, S., & Churchill, E. (2000). Embodied Conversational 
Agents. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 
Cassirer, E. (1944). An essay on man. New Haven: Yale University Press. 
Cassirer, E. (1953). The philosophy of symbolic forms (Vol. I). New Haven: Yale 
University Press. 
Chi, P. (Artist). (1989). Lotus and dragon-fly  
Chouinard, T. (1970). The symbol and the archetype in analytical psychology and literary 
criticism. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 15(2), 155-164. 
Chrambach, M. (2004). The Yin and Yang of teaching Science. Connect Magazine, 
18(2), 1-3. 
Claire, W. (2006, 7/30/2006). Square feet: Blueprints; Even law firms have a yin and a 
yang. New York Times, p. BU24,  
Clayton, M. (2002). Leonardo's 'Gypsies', and 'The wolf and the eagle'. Apollo, 155(486), 
27-33. 
 
100 
Clough, W. O. (1964). The necessary earth: Nature and solitude in American literature. 
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. 
Colley, L. (1990). Crown pictorial: Art and the British monarchy. Paper presented at the 
Yale Center for British Art, New Haven CT, December 5, 1990 - February 17, 
1991.  
Collins, A. Y. (2006). Satan's throne. Biblical Archaeology Review, 32(3), 26-39. 
Connolly, S., & Hargreaves Heap, S. P. (2007). Cross country differences in trust in 
television and the governance of public broadcasters. Kyklos, 60(1), 3-14. 
Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organizational 
commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational 
Psychology, 53(1), 39-52. 
Cooper, J. (1999). Comprehending the circle: Wicca as a contemporary religion. New Art 
Examiner, 26(6), 28-33. 
Coppola, N. W., Hiltz, S. R., & Rotter, N. G. (2004). Building trust in virtual teams. 
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 47(2), 95-104. 
Covernton, G. (2005). Inside King Solomon's temple: A brief glimpse into early masonry 
in Red River, 1864 -1869. Manitoba History(49), 29-32. 
Crubaugh, A. (2001). Balancing the scales of justice : local courts and rural society in 
Southwest France, 1750-1800. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State 
University Press. 
Cuddy, L. A. (1977). Symbolic Identification of Whitman with Hawthorne. American 
Notes & Queries, 15(5), 71. 
 
101 
Cunnar, E. (2003). Alchemical fiction and political transformation: "The history of the 
golden eagle." American Notes & Queries, 16(4), 10-24. 
Curl, J. S. (1993). The art and architecture of Freemasonry : An introductory study. 
Woodstock, NY: Overlook Press. 
Curtis, G. (1992). Ford Madox Brown's work: An iconographic analysis. Art Bulletin, 
74(4), 623-636. 
D'Ambra, J. D., Rice, R. E., & O'Connor, M. (1998). Computer-mediated communication 
and media preference:  An investigation of the dimensionality of perceived task 
equivocality and media richness. Behavior & Information Technology, 17(3), 164-
174. 
Dante, A. (1882). La divina commedia. London: Edinburg. 
Davies, B. (1997). Gargoyles, gremlins and curious carvings. In Britain, 7(3), 44. 
De Gruchy, S. (2007). An olive agenda: First thoughts on a metaphorical theology of 
development. Ecumenical Review, 59(2), 333-345. 
Decleer, H. (2005). Sacred visions: Early paintings from central Tibet. Tibet Journal, 
30(1), 73-114. 
Demos, J. (1982). Entertaining Satan: Witchcraft and the culture of early New England. 
New York: Oxford University Press. 
Deutsch, M. (1960). Trust, trustworthiness, and the F scale. Journal of Abnormal and 
Social Psychology, 61(1), 138-140. 
Dickinson, T. M. (2005). Symbols of protection: The significance of animal-ornamented 
shields in early Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval Archaeology, 49(1), 109-163. 
 
102 
Dilbeck, K. (2008). Symbolic representation of identity in Hurston's "Their eyes were 
watching God". The Explicator, 66(2), 102-104. 
Ding, H. (2005). A comparative study on the cultures of the Dungan and the Hui peoples. 
Asian Ethnicity, 6(2), 135-140. 
Doob, L. (1983). Personality, Power, and Authority: A view from the Behavioral 
Sciences. Westport: Greenwood Press. 
Dragland, S. (2004). Hidden out in the open. Journal of Canadian Studies, 38(1), 166-
188. 
Dreifuss, G. (1975). The binding of Isaac. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 20(1), 50-
56. 
Duane, D. (2005). Sacrificial ram. Mother Jones, 30(2), 66-94. 
Ducate, L. C. (2003). Culture, communication, community: Co-constructing knowledge 
and cultural images through computer-mediated communication. Unpublished 
Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin. 
Dunham, H. W. (1986). The community today:  Place or process. Journal of Community 
Psychology, 14, 399-404. 
Dunis, S. (2007). Can we master myth? Reviews in Anthropology, 36(2), 175-207. 
Dunkin, A., & Hill, T. (2007, 7/30/2007). Heads-up: A skull and crossbones. Business 
Week, 4044, 81. 
Durer, A. (Artist). (1984). Coat of arms with lion and rooster  
Durer, A. (1986). The Holy Family with the butterfly [art reproduction]. Burlington 
Magazine, 128, xiii. 
Dvorak, J. C. (1995). The Cupertino papers. MacUser, 11(4), 180. 
 
103 
Eco, U. (2000). Kant and the platypus: Essays on language and cognition (1st ed.). New 
York: Harcourt Brace. 
Eder, A. (1987). The Star of David: An ancient symbol of integration. Jerusalem: Ruben 
Mass. 
Edwards, K. (2006). Eagle. Milton Quarterly, 40(2), 134-139. 
Ehses, H. (2002). Speaking of the heart: Some annotations. Design Issues, 18(1), 62-67. 
Emerson, R. W. (1904). The poet. In Essays, second series (pp. 1-42). Boston: Houghton 
Mifflin. 
Empiricus, S. (200 C.E.). Against the logicians (Loeb Classical Library ed.). 
Erickson, F. (2002). Culture and human development. Human Development, 45(4), 299-
306. 
Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and Society (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton. 
Evelyn-White, H. G. (1914). Hesiod, the Homeric hymns, and Homerica. New York: 
Macmillan. 
Ferdman, B. (1990). Literacy and cultural identity. Harvard Educational Review, 60(2), 
181-205. 
Ferreira, J. (2007). Did Christianity reach China in the Han Dynasty? Asia Journal of 
Theology, 21(1), 124-134. 
Flood, G. D. (1996). An introduction to Hinduism. New York: Cambridge University 
Press. 
Foster, F. (n.d.). The red heart. In Japan, the red heart is the symbol of truth and loyalty. 
Unpublished Autograph. The Library of Congress Performing Arts Reading 
Room (Madison, LM113) ML96 .F796. 
 
104 
Fotiade, R. (1998). The slit eye, the scorpion and the sign of the cross: Surrealist film 
theory and practice revisited. Screen, 39(2), 109-123. 
France, G. (Artist). (1984). Owl transformation  
Freiberg, J. (1995). In the sign of the cross: The image of Constantine in the art of 
counter-reformation Rome. Studies in the History of Art, 48, 66-87. 
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams. London: Hogarth. 
Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego (Standard ed. Vol. 
XVIII). London: Hogarth. 
Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id (Standard ed. Vol. XIX). London: Hogarth. 
Freud, S., & Breuer, J. (1895). Studies on hysteria (1893-95) (Standard ed. Vol. II). 
London: Hogarth. 
Friedemann, W. H., & Peeler, E. F. (1936). The cross and the star of David, the way of a 
convert from the Torah to the host. London: Burns, Oates & Washbourne. 
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Howe, D. C. (2000). Trust online. Communications of the 
ACM, 43(12), 34. 
Frost, G., & Frost, Y. (2004). The solitary Wiccan's bible. Boston, MA: Weiser Books. 
Frye, N. (1963). Fables of identity: Studies in poetic mythology. New York: Harcourt 
Brace. 
Fukuyama, F., & Ikenberry, G. J. (1996). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of 
prosperity (book). Foreign Affairs, 75(2), 143-143. 
Fumaroli, M. (1995). Cross, crown, and tiara: The Constantine myth between Paris and 
Rome (1590-1690). Studies in the History of Art, 48, 88-102. 
 
105 
Furst, L. G., & Denig, S. (2005). The use of physical symbols to transmit culture in 
religious schools: A comparison of Adventist and Catholic schools in America. 
Journal of Empirical Theology, 18(1), 1-21. 
Gaines, S. O., Jr., Panter, A. T., Lyde, M. D., Steers, W. N., Rusbult, C. E., Cox, C. L., et 
al. (1997). Evaluating the circumplexity of interpersonal traits and the 
manifestation of interpersonal traits in interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 73(3), 610-623. 
Galbraith, J. R. (1977). Organization design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. 
Gauch, S. (1997). Egypt's police see Satan in teens' western ways. Christian Science 
Monitor, 89(52), 5. 
Gecas, V., & Libby, R. (1976). Sexual behavior as symbolic interaction. Journal of Sex 
Research, 12(1), 33. 
Gibson, E. (Artist). (1989). The Mephistopheles of sculpture: Medardo Rosso today; 
Impressions in wax and bronze  
Gibson, S. (2000). Fresh Fish. Skeptic, 8(3), 7. 
Gill, G. (2002). Landscape as symbolic form: Remembering thick place in deep time. 
Critical Horizons, 3(2), 177-199. 
Goldsmith, N. F., & Gould, E. (1990). Sumerian bats, lion-headed eagles, and 
iconographic evidence for the overthrow of a female-priest hegemony. Biblical 
Archaeologist, 53(3), 142-156. 
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York: Bantam Press. 
Goold, S. (2001). Trust and the ethics of health care institutions. Hastings Center Report, 
31(6), 26-33. 
 
106 
Gordon, A. F. (1999). Making pictures of ghosts: The art of Gary Simmons. Social 
Identities, 5(1), 89. 
Gorman, F., & DiBlasl, M. (1981). Gravestone iconography and mortuary ideology. 
Ethnohistory, 28(1), 79. 
Gossling, T. (2004). Proximity, trust and morality in networks. European Planning 
Studies, 12(5), 675-689. 
Goudge, J., & Gilson, L. (2005). How can trust be investigated? Drawing lessons from 
past experience. Social Science & Medicine, 61(7), 1439. 
Gow, R. (1929). Under the skull and bones: A piratical play with songs, in three scenes. 
London: Gowans & Gray. 
Grabber, G. (2001). Locating economic action, projects, networks, localities, institutions. 
Environment & Planning A, 33(8), 1329. 
Graves-Brown, P. M., & Shennan, S. (1995). Fearful symmetry. World Archaeology, 
27(1), 88-99. 
Green, S. C. (2006). Computer-mediated communication in society: A study on self-
disclosure. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN. 
Greenough, S. E. (1981). From the American earth: Alfred Stieglitz's photographs of 
apples. Art Journal, 41(1), 46. 
Gutierrez, M. D. F. (1994). The influence of religiosity on the transculturation of Cuba: 
An issue for the scholars. Social Compass, 41(2), 241-254. 
Hacker, F. J. (1965). Psychology and psychopathology of symbolism. In J. L. Stone 
(Ed.), Psychology and the Symbol, An Interdisciplinary Symposium (pp. 73-87). 
New York: Random House. 
 
107 
Hagopian, R. (2004). Profile pentagram design. Communication Arts Magazine, 46(6), 
254. 
Hammond, K. (2004). Monsters of modernity: Frankenstein and modern 
environmentalism. Cultural Geographies, 11(2), 181-198. 
Hansen, C. (2004). The original Christian bumper sticker. Christian History & 
Biography, 1(81), 15-15. 
Harman, L. D. (1986). Sign, symbol, and metalanguage: Against the integration of 
semiotics and symbolic interactionism. Symbolic Interaction, 9(1), 147-160. 
Harrison, S. (2003). Playing with fire: Women's sexuality and artistry in Virginia Woolf's 
'Mrs. Dalloway' and Eudora Welty's 'The Golden Apples'. Mississippi Quarterly, 
56(2), 289. 
Harvey, A. (2006, 9/5/2006). Sports of the times; Channeling Agassi, the Yin, and the 
Yang. New York Times, p. D1,  
Haughton, N. (2004). Perceptions of beauty in renaissance art. Journal of Cosmetic 
Dermatology, 3(4), 229-233. 
Hegarty, E. (1995). Some suspect of ill: Shakespeare's sonnets and "The perfect mate". 
Extrapolation, 36(1), 55-64. 
Henderson, H. L. (1916). The compass and square for women only. Los Angeles: The 
Master Mind Press. 
Hermann of Helmarshausen, f., & Byzantinizing Master, f. c. (1985). The Dove brings an 
olive branch to Noah in the ark; Baptism of Christ [art reproduction]. Bulletin of 
the Cleveland Museum of Art, 72, 111. 
 
108 
Hibbitt, K., Jones, P., & Meegan, R. (2001). Tackling social exclusion: The role of social 
capital in urban regeneration on merseyside; From mistrust to trust? European 
Planning Studies, 9(2), 141-161. 
Hiltz, S. R., & Turoff, M. (2002). What makes learning networks effective? Association 
for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 56-59. 
Hinderer, W. (1968). Theory, conception, and interpretation of the symbol. In J. Strelka 
(Ed.), Perspectives in Literary Symbolism (Vol. I, pp. 85-127). University Park, 
PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 
Hogenson, G. B. (2004). What are symbols symbols of? Situated action, mythological 
bootstrapping and the emergence of the Self. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 
49(1), 67-81. 
Holdcroft, D. (1991). Saussure: Signs, systems and arbitrariness. Cambridge: Cambridge 
University Press. 
Hood Jr, R. W., & Kimbrough, D. L. (1995). Serpent-Handling Holiness Sects: 
Theoretical Considerations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 34(3), 
311. 
Horsley-Meacham, G. (1991). Bull of the Nile: Symbol, history, and racial myth in 
`Benito Cereno.' New England Quarterly, 64(2), 225. 
Hoult, T. F. (1954). Experimental measurement of clothing as a factor in some social 
ratings of selected American men. American Sociological Review, 19(3), 324-328. 
Howard, L., & Cerio, G. (1992). On wings of eagles and owls. Newsweek, 120(23), 8. 
Hsueh, D. C. (1981). Mandarin ducks and butterflies. Library Journal, 106(7), 798. 
 
109 
Hummel, H. G. K., Paas, F., & Koper, R. (2006). Effects of cueing and collaboration on 
the acquisition of complex legal skills. British Journal of Educational 
Psychology, 76(3), 613-631. 
Huneck, S. (Artist). (1986). Angel & lion  
Hunt, R. W., Kohn, P. M., & Mallozzi, C. B. (1983). Factor analysis of the Interpersonal 
Trust Scale with a noncollege population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 
47(5), 507. 
Hupcey, J., Penrod, J., & Morse, J. (2000). Meeting expectations: Establishing and 
maintaining trust during acute care hospitalizations. Scholarly Inquiry for Nursing 
Practice, 14(3), 227-242. 
Hupcey, J., Penrod, J., Morse, J., & Mitcham, C. (2001). An exploration and 
advancement of the concept of trust. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36(2), 282-
293. 
Isbister, K., Nakanishi, H., Ishida, T., & Nass, C. (2000, 1-6 April 2000). Helper agent: 
Designing an assistant for human-human interaction in a virtual meeting space. 
Paper presented at the International Conference on Human Factors in Computing 
Systems (CHI) 2000, Hague. 
Jantzen, C., Ostergaard, P., & Sucena Vieira, C. M. (2006). Becoming a 'woman to the 
backbone.' Journal of Consumer Culture, 6(2), 177-202. 
Janzen, J. G. (1990). The character of the calf and its cult in Exodus 32. Catholic Biblical 
Quarterly, 52(4), 597. 
Jenkins, D. B. (1987). Someone like you: Modes of resemblance and transcendence in 
literature. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX. 
 
110 
Jerving, J. (2007). Telecommuting gains favor. Credit Union Magazine, 73(2), 26-27. 
Jisu, H., DeLorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (2005). Factors affecting trust in on-line 
prescription drug information and impact of trust on behavior following exposure 
to DTC advertising. Journal of Health Communication, 10(8), 711-731. 
John, S. (2006, 9/ 3/2006). Art: Grim, grotesque and uptown at last. New York Times, p. 
22,  
Johns, A. (2005). Slavic creation narratives: The sacred and the comic. Fabula, 46(3), 
257-290. 
Johns, J. L. (1996). A concept analysis of trust. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 24(1), 76-
83. 
Johnson, F. J. (2007). Tattooing: Mind, body, and spirit.  The inner essence of the art. 
Sociological Viewpoints, 23, 45-61. 
Johnson, H. M. (1979). Religion in social change and social evolution. Sociological 
Inquiry, 49(2/3), 313-339. 
Johnson, N. J., & Giorgis, C. (2001). Cultural voices. Reading Teacher, 54(7), 720. 
Joseph, N. (1986). Uniforms and Nonuniforms: Communication through clothing. 
Westport: Greenwood Press. 
Jung-Soon, S. (1999). The Confucian difference: Yin/Yang feminism in Korean women's 
drama. Theatre Research International, 24(3), 241. 
Jung, C. G., Read, H. E., Fordham, M., & Adler, G. (1953). The collected works of C. G. 
Jung. New York: Pantheon Books. 
 
111 
Jung, C. G., & Stein, L. (1981). Experimental researches (1st Princeton/Bollingen 
paperback printing, with corrections. ed.). Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University 
Press. 
Jungic, J. (1997). Savonarolan prophecy in Leonardo's 'Allegory with wolf and eagle'. 
Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 60, 253-260. 
Jyh-Jeng, W., & Tsang, A. S. L. (2008). Factors affecting members' trust belief and 
behaviour intention in virtual communities. Behaviour & Information Technology, 
27(2), 115-125. 
Kai, Y. (Artist). (2000). Sky, earth & water with yin & yang #5A  
Kang, H.-S., & Yang, H.-D. (2006). The visual characteristics of avatars in computer-
mediated communication: Comparison of Internet Relay Chat and Instant 
Messenger as of 2003. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 64(12), 
1173-1183. 
Kantowitz, B. H., & Hanowski, R. J. (1997). Driver acceptance of unreliable traffic 
information in familiar and unfamiliar settings. Human Factors, 39(2), 164. 
Kattner, T. (2004). Online 'agent' delivers answers to students. National On-Campus 
Report, 32(11), 1-2. 
Katvan, Z. (2007). The concept of ideal and the future of philosophy. International 
Journal of the Humanities, 5(4), 41-47. 
Kayser, S. S., Sabar, S., Fine, S., & Kramer, W. M. (2000). A crown for a king: Studies in 
Jewish art, history, and archaeology in memory of Stephen S. Kayser. Jerusalem: 
Judah L. Magnes Museum: Gefen Publishing House. 
Kemp, M. (1990). The science of art. New Haven: Yale University Press. 
 
112 
Kerr, I. R., & Bornfreund, M. (2005). Buddy bots: How turing's fast friends are 
undermining consumer privacy. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual 
Environments, 14(6), 647-655. 
Keser, C. (2003). Experimental games for the design of reputation management systems. 
IBM Systems Journal, 42(3), 498-506. 
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision making and communication technology. 
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52(1), 96. 
Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making 
model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their 
antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544-564. 
Kingston, A. (2007). The skull won't die. Maclean's, 120(28), 52-54. 
Kinnunen, T. I. (2000). The heart symbol: A new food labeling system in Finland. 
Nutrition Bulletin, 25(4), 335-339. 
Kipper, D. A. (1977). The Kahn Test of Symbol Arrangement and Criminality. Journal of 
Clinical Psychology, 33(3), 777-781. 
Kirschbaum, M., & Knafl, M. (1996). Major themes in parent-provider relationships: A 
comparison of life-threatening and chronic illness experiences. Journal of Family 
Nursing, 2(2), 195-216. 
Kivijarvi, M., Laukkanen, T., & Cruz, P. (2007). Consumer trust in electronic service 
consumption: A cross-cultural comparison between Finland and Portugal. Journal 
of Euromarketing, 16(3), 51-65. 
 
113 
Kloeckner, A. J. (1966). The flower and the fountain: Hawthorne's chief symbols in 
'Rappaccini's Daughter', American Literature (Vol. 38, pp. 323): Duke University 
Press. 
Knapp, M. L., & Hall, J. A. (2002). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. 
Florence: Wadsworth Thomson Learning. 
Komar, K. L., Shideler, R., & Freedman, R. (1998). Lyrical symbols and narrative 
transformations : essays in honor of Ralph Freedman. Columbia, SC: Camden 
House. 
Komiak, S. Y. X., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The effects of personalization and familiarity on 
trust and adoption of recommendation agents. MIS Quarterly, 30(4), 941. 
Kostanski, M., & Sallechia, S. (2003). An examination of one's perception of the 
importance of fashion and the experience of shopping on body image satisfaction. 
Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 190-191. 
Krupp, E. C. (1997). Throwing the bull. Sky & Telescope, 93(4), 68. 
La Vey, A. S. (2005). The Satanic Bible. New York: Avon Books. 
Lady, I. (1990). Priestess of the pentacle [sound recording]. Des Moines, IA: Dance of 
Life Productions,. 
Landrum, T. J., Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Fitzgerald, S. (2002). Teacher 
perceptions of the trustworthiness, usability, and accessibility of information from 
different sources. Remedial & Special Education, 23(1), 42. 
Langan-Fox, J., & Grant, S. (2006). The thematic apperception test: Toward a standard 
measure of the big three motives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(3), 277-
291. 
 
114 
Langer, S. K. (1942). Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard 
University Press. 
Langer, S. K. (1948). Philosophy in a new key. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 
Larson, D. A. (2006). Technology Mediated Dispute Resolution (TMDR): A new 
paradigm for ADR. Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 21(3), 629-686. 
Laurie, G. (1998, 6/23/1998). Town's fish logo becomes a battleground on religion. New 
York Times, pp. A1, A17,  
Laurie, G. (1999, 7/14/1999). Judge orders a city to remove fish symbol from official 
seal. New York Times, p. A19,  
Lavin, M. (2002). Spellbinding. Print, 56(3), 22. 
Lawrence, D. H. (1930). Selected literary criticism. London: The Viking Press. 
Lawrence Van, G. (2007, 7/4/2007). Arts, briefly: Iranian president rebuffs Oliver Stone. 
New York Times, p. 2,  
Lee, H. O. (2007). Eating in Eden: Food and American Utopias. Early American 
Literature, 42(3), 632-636. 
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1992). Trust, control strategies, and allocation of function in 
human-machine systems. Ergonomics, 35, 1243-1270. 
Lee, J. D., & Moray, N. (1994). Trust, self-confidence, and operators' adaptation to 
automation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 153-184. 
Lee, J. H. (2007). What is it like to be a butterfly? A philosophical interpretation of 
Zhuangzi's butterfly dream. Asian Philosophy, 17(2), 185-202. 
Leibowitz, F. (2003). "Images" of the female and of the self: Two recent interpretations 
by women authors. Hypatia, 18(4), 283-291. 
 
115 
Leoussi, A. S. (1997). Nationalism and racial Hellenism in nineteenth-century England 
and France. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 20(1), 42. 
Lerch, F. J., & Prietula, M. J. (1989). How do we trust machine advice? In G. Salvendy & 
M. J. Smith (Eds.), Designing and Using Human-Computer Interface and 
Knowledge Based Systems (pp. 410-419). North-Holland: Elsevier Science 
Publishers. 
Levesque, P. J. (1997). Symbols of transcendence: Religious expression in the thought of 
Louis Dupre. Louvain, Belgium: Peeters. 
Lewis, E. R. (1998). Female-to-male transsexualism: Materiality and the symbolic. 
ProQuest Information & Learning, US. 
Liddell, H. G., Scott, R., Jones, H. S., & McKenzie, R. (1996). A Greek-English lexicon 
(Rev. and augm. throughout / ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. 
Little, S., & Eichman, S. (2000). Taoism and the arts of China (1st ed.). Chicago: Art 
Institute of Chicago. 
Lloyd, R. (1998). Writing on the self: Mallarme, Redon, and symbolist. Romance 
Quarterly, 45(3), 178. 
Lodrick, D. O. (2005). Symbol and sustenance: Cattle in South Asian culture. Dialectical 
Anthropology, 29(1), 61-84. 
Longxi, Z. (2002). The Utopian vision, East and West. Utopian Studies, 13(1), 1. 
Lotto, L. (Artist). (1985). Vierge et enfant avec Saint Pierre, Saint Jerome, Sainte Claire 
et Saint Francois  
 
116 
Lynch, M., & McConatha, D. (2006). Hyper-symbolic interactionism: Prelude to a 
refurbished Theory of Symbolic Interaction or just old wine? Sociological 
Viewpoints, 22, 87-96. 
MacGillivray, J. A. (2000). Labyrynths and bull-leapers. Archaeology, 53(6), 53. 
MacQueen, K. (2003). In like a lion, out like a lion. Maclean's, 116(25), 29. 
Mahlberg, A. (1987). Evidence of collective memory: A test of Sheldrake's Theory. 
Journal of Analytical Psychology, 32, 23-34. 
Mandt, G. (2000). Fragments of ancient beliefs: The snake as a multivocal symbol in 
nordic mythology. ReVision, 23(1), 17. 
Manenti, C., Bollen, M., & Bachfischer, M. (2001). Castles in Italy : The medieval life of 
noble families. Cologne: K?nemann. 
Mann, R. (1998). Apollo and Dionysus in Andrei Belyi's Petersburg. Russian Review, 
57(4), 507. 
Mayer, R., Davis, J., & Schoorman, F. (1995). An integrative model of organizational 
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734. 
McAllister, D. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal 
cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 24-59. 
McGrath, J. E., & Hollingshead, A. B. (1990). Effects of technological enhancements on 
the flow of work in groups:  Preliminary report of a systematic review of the 
research literature (Report 90-1). Urbana: University of Illinois. 
McLain, D. L., & Hackman, K. (1999). Trust, risk, and decision-making in organizational 
change. Public Administration Quarterly, 23(2), 152-176. 
 
117 
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. 
Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23. 
Mead, G. H. (1922). A behavioristic account of the significant symbol. Journal of 
Philosophy, 19, 157-163. 
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 
Mears, J. (2007). 'Father of telecommuting' speaks out. Network World, 24(21), 27. 
Meegan, W. J. (2006). The Sistine Chapel: A study in celestial cartography. The 
Rose+Crois Journal, 3, 45-128. 
Mehrabian, A. (1968). Communication without words. Psychology Today, 2(9), 52-55. 
Mei, B. (Artist). (1985). An allegory of justice  
Meize-Grochowski, R. (1984). An analysis of the concept of trust. Journal of Advanced 
Nursing, 9(2), 563-572. 
Merdinger, J. E. (1985). Africa Vs. Rome: Ecclesiastical politics in the era of St. 
Augustine (Papacy). Unpublished Dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT. 
Merriam-Webster (2005). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary (11th ed.). 
Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. 
Merriam, T. (2005). The palm of martyrdom, the crown of victory. Notes & Queries, 
52(2), 213-214. 
Metcalf, B. (1996). Heart & art. Metalsmith, 16, 6. 
Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary systems. 
Trust in Organizations, 166-195. 
Michelangelo, B. (Artist). (2006). Jonah  
 
118 
Mick, D. G. (1986). Consumer Research and Semiotics: Exploring the Morphology of 
Signs, Symbols, and Significance. Journal of Consumer Research (1986-1998), 
13(2), 196. 
Millegan, K. (2003). Fleshing out Skull & Bones: Investigations into America's most 
powerful secret society (1st ed.). Walterville, OR: Trine Day. 
Miller, J. W. (1988). The owl. Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society, 24(3), 399. 
Ming Dong, G. (2004). Elucidation of images in the 'Book of Changes'  Ancient insights 
into modern language philosophy and hermeneutics. Journal of Chinese 
Philosophy, 31(4), 469-488. 
Mitchell, S. (1989). The enlightened heart: An anthology of sacred poetry (1st ed.). New 
York: Harper & Row. 
Molta, D. (2006). Commoditization's Yin and Yang. Network Computing, 17(8), 16. 
Montada, L., Filipp, S.-H., & Lerner, M. J. (1992). Life crises and experiences of loss in 
adulthood. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. 
Moore, D., Yufang, C., McGrath, P., & Powell, N. J. (2005). Collaborative virtual 
environment technology for people with autism. Focus on Autism & Other 
Developmental Disabilities, 20(4), 231. 
More, T., & Erasmus, D. (1518). De optimo reip. statv, deqve noua insula Vtopia (pp. 
355). Basle, Switzerland: Johann Frobenius. 
Moreno-Navarro, I. (1986). Religiosite populaire andalouse et catholicisme. Social 
Compass, 33(4), 437-455. 
Moyes, H., & Brady, J. E. (2005). The heart of creation, the heart of darkness. 
Expedition, 47(3), 30-36. 
 
119 
Murphy, G. R. (2000). The owl, the raven & the dove: The religious meaning of the 
Grimms' magic fairy tales. New York: Oxford University Press. 
Mus?e des arts d?coratifs (France) (1968). Pentacle. Mus?e des arts d?coratifs, Paris, 18 
janvier-31 mars 1968. Paris,: le Mus?e. 
Museo Arqueol?gico Rafael Larco Herrera., & Berrin, K. (1997). The spirit of ancient 
Peru : treasures from the Museo Arqueol?gico Rafael Larco Herrera. New York, 
N.Y.: Thames and Hudson. 
Musila, G. (2007). Embodying experience and agency in Yvonne Vera's 'Without a name' 
and 'Butterfly burning', Research in African Literatures (Vol. 38, pp. 49-63): 
Indiana University Press. 
Nakanishi, H., Shimizu, S., & Isbister, K. (2005a). Sensitizing Social Agents For Virtual 
Training. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3/4), 341. 
Nakanishi, H., Shimizu, S., & Isbister, K. (2005b). Sensitizing social agents for virtual 
training. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 19(3/4), 341-361. 
Neitz, M. J. (2000). Queering the dragonfest: Changing sexualities in a post-patriarchal 
religion. Sociology of Religion, 61(4), 369. 
Nepo, M. (2007). Facing the lion, being the lion : finding inner courage where it lives. 
San Francisco, CA: Red Wheel/Weiser. 
Newfield, J. (1991). Like a butterfly. Nation, 252(23), 818-820. 
Nowak-Fabrykowski, K., & Shkandrij, M. (2004). The symbolic world of the bilingual 
child: Digressions on language acquisition, culture, and the process of thinking. 
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 31(4), 284-292. 
 
120 
O'Loughlin, E. (1997). Is `Lion King' a symbol of a brave new Zaire? Christian Science 
Monitor, 89(78), 1. 
O'Mahony, M. (2003). Archaeological fantasies: Constructing history on the Moscow 
metro, Modern Language Review (Vol. 98, pp. 138-150): Modern Humanities 
Research Association. 
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2003). Human-computer interaction: Psychological aspects 
of the human use of computing. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 491. 
Orton, S. (1993). De-centered symbols in `Endicott and the Red Cross'. Studies in Short 
Fiction, 30(4), 565. 
Paparone, C. R. (2002). The nature of soldierly trust. Military Review, 82(6), 45-53. 
Pask, E. (1995). Trust: An essential component of nursing practice - implications for 
nurse education. Nurse Education Today, 15(3), 190-195. 
Pearce, S. R. (2008). The bald eagle / the Liberty Bell / the White House. School Library 
Journal, 54(2), 103. 
Pearce, W. B. (1974). Trust in interpersonal communication. Speech Monographs, 
41(August), 236-244. 
Peirce, C. S. (1931-58). Collected Writings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 
Perry, B. A. (2001). The Israeli and United States supreme courts: A comparative 
reflection on their symbols, images, and functions. Review of Politics, 63(2), 317. 
Petocz, A. (2005). Freud, psychoanalysis, and symbolism. Cambridge ; New York: 
Cambridge University Press. 
Petridis, C. (2005). Bwadi Bwa Chikwanca: A ram mask of the Bakwa Luntu. African 
Arts, 38(2), 50-95. 
 
121 
Phil, P. (2000, 1/13/2000). Design notebook: Trademark battle over Pueblo sign. New 
York Times, p. A1,  
Picasso, P. (Artist). (1998). Dove subject  
Picasso, P. (Artist). (2002). Red owl on black ground  
Picasso, P. (Artist). (2005). Picador and bull  
Pissarra, J., & Jesuino, J. C. (2005). Idea generation through computer-mediated 
communication: The effects of anonymity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 
20(3/4), 275-291. 
Pogrebin, A. (2005). Stars of David: Prominent Jews talk about being Jewish (1st ed.). 
New York: Broadway Books. 
Polubojarinova, L. N. (2007). Venus on the way to photography: The particularity of 
representation in Leopold von Sacher-Masoch. Arcadia - Internation Journal for 
Literary Studies, 42(2), 227-239. 
Probst, C. (1999). Scales of justice. American Cinematographer, 80(1), 48-52+. 
Prodi, G. (1977). Le basi materiali della significazione (pp. 262 p.). Milano: Bompiani. 
Promey, S. M. (2005). Seeing the self "in frame": Early New England material practice 
and puritan piety. Material Religion, 1(1), 10-46. 
Rajah, S. (2005). A study of symbolism in visual arts and its relevance to the church in 
Malaysia. Asia Journal of Theology, 19(1), 30-67. 
Ratzinger, J. (2007). The meaning of baptism. Newsweek, 149(21), 46-48. 
Relke, J. (2007). Interpreting the Bucrania of Catalhoyuk: James Mellaart, Dorothy 
Cameron, and beyond. Anthrozoos, 20(4), 317-328. 
 
122 
Rempel, J. K., & Holmes, J. G. (1986). How do I trust thee? Psychology Today, 20(2), 
28-34. 
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal 
of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95-112. 
Rice, R. E. (1993). Media appropriateness. Human Communication Research, 19(4), 451. 
Rich, P., & Merchant, D. (2003). Religion, policy, and secrecy: The Latter Day Saints 
and Masons. Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 669. 
Richard, S. (2007, 8/25/2007). Yankee caps pulled after protesters see gang links in 
symbols and colors. New York Times, p. B3,  
Richardson, J. G., & Weatherby, G. A. (1983). Belief in an afterlife as symbolic sanction. 
Review of Religious Research, 25(2), 162. 
Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy (D. Savage, Trans.). New Haven: Yale 
University Press. 
Rigby, A. (1998). A peace symbol's origins. Peace Review, 10(3), 475. 
Robbins, T. (1915). The scales of justice, and other poems. New York,: J.S. Ogilvie 
Publishing Company. 
Roberts, A. F. (1994). Culture and contradiction: Dialectics of wealth, power, and 
symbol. American Anthropologist, 96(1), 201. 
Rocco, E. (1998). Trust breaks down in electronic contexts but can be repaired by some 
initial face-to-face contact. Paper presented at the Conference on Human Factors 
in Computing Systems (CHI) 1998, Los Angeles CA. 
Rosenthal, P. (1994). How on earth does an olive branch mean peace? Peace & Change, 
19(2), 165. 
 
123 
Rosetsu (Artist). (1989). Bull and elephant  
Rosten, D. H., Smith, S. M., Huston, H. L., & Gonzalez, G. (1991). Empirical study of 
associations between symbols and their meanings: Evidence of collective 
unconscious (archetypal) memory. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 36(2), 211-
228. 
Rotenberg, K. J., Fox, C., Green, S., Ruderman, L., Slater, K., Stevens, K., et al. (2005). 
Construction and validation of a children's interpersonal trust belief scale. British 
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(2), 271. 
Rothstein, D. N. (1997). Object relations and attachment: A comparison of Rorschach 
responses and adult attachment classifications. The City University of New York, 
New York. 
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of 
Personality, 35(4), 651-665. 
Royce, J. R. (1965). Psychology and the symbol; an interdisciplinary symposium. New 
York: Random House. 
Rubens, P. P. (Artist). (1997). Allegory of justice  
Rudolph, C., & Ostrow, S. F. (2001). Isaac laughing : Caravaggio, non-traditional 
imagery and traditional identification. Art History, 24(5), 646. 
Safouan, M. (1982). Seminar I: On symbolism. In On Angst: Papers of the Freudian 
School of Melbourne. Bundoora: PIT Press. 
Sahi, J. (1980). The child and the serpent: Reflections on popular Indian symbols. 
London: Routledge. 
Sanderson, I. T. (1948). Mysteries of the owl. Saturday Evening Post, 220(36), 27-146. 
 
124 
Saussure, F. (1959). Course in general linguistics. New York: Philosophical Library. 
Sayers, J. (2000). Peter's throne and Augustine's chair: Rome and Canterbury from 
Baldwin (1184-90) to Robert Winchelsey (1297-1313). The Journal of 
Ecclesiastical History, 51(2), 249-266. 
Scheib, S. L. (2005). A world apart. Russian Life, 48(6), 28-35. 
Schele, L. (1991). The owl, shield, and flint blade. Natural History, 100(11), 6. 
Scherer, S. (1998). Structure, symbol & style in Hryhorii Skovoroda's `Potop Zmiin'. East 
European Quarterly, 32(3), 409. 
Schneider, E. F. (1995). Man and machines: Three criticisms. Paper presented at the 
1995 Annual National Convention of the Association for Educational 
Communications and Technology (AECT), Anaheim, CA. 
Schouten, J. (1967). The rod and serpent of Asklepios, symbol of medicine. Amsterdam, 
New York,: Elsevier Pub. Co. 
Schuchardt, R. M. (1998). Swoosh! Utne Reader, (no. 89), 76. 
Schwarz, N., & Brand, J. F. (1983). Effects of salience of rape on sex role attitudes, trust, 
and self-esteem in non-raped women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 
13(1), 71-76. 
Seglin, J. L. (2000). The sacred and the mundane. Inc., 22(7), 160. 
Sevier, L. (2007). Life, religion and everything. Ecologist, 37(7), 38-42. 
Shapiro, S. (1987). The social control of impersonal trust. American Journal of 
Sociology, 93(3), 623-658. 
 
125 
Shesso, R. (2007). Math for mystics: From the Fibonacci Sequence to Luna's Labyrinth 
to Golden Sections and other secrets of sacred geometry. San Francisco, CA: Red 
Wheel. 
Sierra, J. (2005). The gruesome guide to world monsters. Publishers Weekly, 252(30), 65-
65. 
Silver, L. (2001). God in the details: Bosch and judgment(s). Art Bulletin, 83(4), 626. 
Sleeboom, M. (2002). The power of national symbols: the credibility of a dragon's 
efficacy. Nations & Nationalism, 8(3), 299-313. 
Smith, R. K. (2001). The Cross: Church symbol and contest in nineteenth-century 
America. Church History, 70(4), 705. 
Smith, S. (1996). Piracy in early British America. History Today, 46(5), 29. 
Spicer, J. (1996). The Star of David and Jewish culture in Prague around 1600, reflected 
in drawings of Roelandt Savery and Paulus van Vianen. Journal of the Walters 
Art Gallery, 54, 203-224. 
Stein, K. B., & et al. (1974). Interpersonal trust and disaffected high school youth: 
Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 
Stobie, C. (2008). Fissures in Apartheid's 'Eden': Representations of bisexuality in 'The 
smell of apples' by Mark Behr, Research in African Literatures (Vol. 39, pp. 70-
86): Indiana University Press. 
Stout, E. J., & Frame, M. W. (2004). Body image disorder in adolescent males: Strategies 
for school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 8(2), 176-181. 
Sugg, R. P. (2000). Symbols and myth in the art of Jose Bedia. Mythosphere, 2(3), 321. 
 
126 
Swamy, S. (2005). Multitasking on social networks: Role of culture, status, and group 
membership in computer-mediated communication. Stanford University, Palo 
Alto, CA. 
Symons, A. (1919). The symbolist movement in literature. New York: E. P. Dutton. 
Tan, B. C. Y., Wei, K.-K., Watson, R. T., Clapper, D. L., & McLean, E. R. (1998). 
Computer-mediated communication and majority influence: Assessing the impact 
in an individualistic and a collectivistic culture. Management Science, 44(9), 
1263-1278. 
Tan, H. H., & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Toward the differentiation of trust in supervisor and 
trust in organization. Genetic, Social & General Psychology Monographs, 126(2), 
241. 
Taylor, D. A. (2007). Open sesame. Smithsonian, 38(1), 30-32. 
Taylor, S. (1981). Symbol and ritual under National Socialism. British Journal of 
Sociology, 32(4), 504-520. 
TenHouten, W. D., & Wang, W. (2001). The eight trigrams of the Chinese I Ching and 
the eight primary emotions. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 4(3), 185. 
Tepper, D. T., & Haase, R. F. (1978; 2001). Verbal and nonverbal communication of 
facilitative conditions. In C. E. Hill (Ed.), Helping Skills: The Empirical 
Foundation (pp. 211-223). Washington: American Psychological Association. 
Thompson, J. E. S. (1944). The fish as a Maya symbol for counting and further 
discussion of directional glyphs. Cambridge, Mass. 
Thoreau, H. D. (1854). Walden: Or, life in the woods. Boston: Ticknor and Fields. 
 
127 
Tideman, N. (1998). Peace and justice are indivisible. USA Today Magazine, 127(2640), 
70. 
Tindall, W. Y. (1955). The literary symbol. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 
Todorov, T. (1982). Theories of the symbol. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. 
Tolson, J. (2005). Inside the Masons. U.S. News & World Report, 139(8), 30-35. 
Tougher, S. (2004). Julian's bull coinage: Kent revisited. Classical Quarterly, 54(1), 327-
330. 
Tovey, J., Southard, S., & Bates, C. (2005). Building trust in virtual teams. Technical 
Communication, 52(1), 103-103. 
Tracy, J. (1985). The Ichthys. Burbank, Calif.: National Literary Guild. 
Treip, M. A. (1991). Reason is also choice: The emblematics of free will in 'Paradise 
Lost'. Studies in English Literature, 31(1), 147. 
Trott, B. (2000). Online 'agents' evolve for customer service. InfoWorld, 22(50), 31. 
Tsfati, Y. (2003). Does audience skepticism of the media matter in agenda setting? 
Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(2), 157-176. 
Tsimhoni, D. (2008). The cross on the Star of David: The Christian world in Israel's 
foreign policy, 1948-1967. Domes, 17(1), 141-144. 
Tulloch, J. (2004). Art and archaeology as an historical resource for the study of women 
in early Christianity: An approach for analyzing visual data. Feminist Theology: 
The Journal of the Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology, 12(3), 277-
304. 
Tuttle, R. H. (2001). On culture and traditional chimpanzees. Current Anthropology, 
42(3), 407. 
 
128 
Unknown (Artist). (2007). Figure of Asclepius  
Vaisman, M. (Artist). (1992). Untitled: Allegorical scene, with an owl in a corner  
Vessantara (2001). The Vajra and bell. Birmingham, England: Windhorse. 
Vishwanath, A. (2004). Manifestations of interpersonal trust in online interaction. New 
Media & Society, 6(2), 219-235. 
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1947). Vom Sinn und der Einheit der Naturwissenschaften. Wein, 
2(7), 10-11. 
Von Bertalanffy, L. (1965). On the Definition of the Symbol. In J. R. Royce (Ed.), 
Psychology and the Symbol: An Interdisciplinary Symposium (pp. 26-72). New 
York: Random House. 
Von Sadovszky, O. (1995). Fish, symbol, and myth : a historical semantic 
reconstruction. Los Angeles: International Society for Trans-Oceanic Research. 
Waltner, R. (1986). Genital Identity: A core component of sexual- and self-identity. 
Journal of Sex Research, 22(3), 399. 
Wang, E. (2005). Holding yin, embracing yang : three Taoist classics on meditation, 
breath regulation, sexual yoga, and the circulation of internal energy (1st ed.). 
Boston: Shambhala. 
Warren, P. N. (2000). King of beasts: Manipulation of the lion symbol by patriarchal 
culture. Mythosphere, 2(1), 73. 
White, J. R. (1987). The sun serpents. Archaeology, 40(6), 52-57. 
Whitehead, A. N. (1927). Symbolism, its meaning and effect. New York: Macmillan. 
Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparisons of face-to-face and mediated 
communication:  A review. Psychology Bulletin, 84(5), 963-976. 
 
129 
Wilson, W. (1869). The writings of Clement of Alexandria (W. Wilson, Trans.). 
Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. 
Wong, S.-L. C. (2004). Middle-Class Asian-American women in a global frame: 
Refiguring the Statue of Liberty in Divakaruni and Minatoya. MELUS, 29(3), 
183-210. 
Woodard, G. (Artist). (2007). Eagle medicine man  
Woodard, J. W. (1936). A new classification of culture and a restatement of the Culture 
Lag Theory. American Sociological Review, 1(1), 89-102. 
Woodward, K. L., & Smith, V. E. (1995). Do we need Satan? Newsweek, 126(20), 62. 
Xu, B. (Artist). (1984). Flying eagle  
You can't trust gender-bending avatars (2007). New Scientist, 195(2612), 25-25. 
Young Leslie, H. E. (2007). A fishy romance: Chiefly power and the geopolitics of 
desire. Contemporary Pacific, 19(2), 364-408. 
Zaheer, A., McEvily, B., & Perrone, V. (1998). Does trust matter? Exploring the effects 
of interorganizational and interpersonal trust on performance. Organization 
Science, 9(2), 141-159. 
Zak, A. M., Gold, J. A., Ryckman, R. M., & Lenney, E. (1998). Assessments of trust in 
intimate relationships and the self-perception process. Journal of Social 
Psychology, 138(2), 217-228. 
Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J. S., & Olson, G. M. (2002). Trust without touch: 
jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. Paper presented at 
the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Minneapolis MN. 
 
130 
Zimbardo, P. G., & Leippe, M. R. (1991). The psychology of attitude change and social 
influence. Columbus: McGraw-Hill. 
Zimmermann, C. (2006). From propaganda to modernization: Media policy and media 
audiences under National Socialism. German History, 24(3), 431-454. 
 
 
   
131 
APPENDIX A 
PHASE 1 INSTRUMENT 
 
 
  
132 
Survey, Phase 1 
DEMOGRAPHICS 
Please record the following information about yourself.
1. What is your age?  
____ 17 or younger 
 ____18 ? 19  
____ 20 ? 21  
____ 22 ? 25  
____ 26 ? 32 
____ 33 or older 
2. What is your gender? 
____ Male  
____ Female 
3. How would you classify yourself? 
____ Arab 
____ Asian / Pacific Islander 
____ Black 
____ Caucasian / White 
____ Hispanic 
____ Indigenous / Aboriginal  
____ Latino 
____ Multiracial 
____ Would rather not say / Other 
4. Major: _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
5. Minor:   _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
 
6. Which of the following best describes 
the area in which you grew up? 
____ Urban 
____ Suburban 
____ Rural 
____ International 
____ Military 
7. Which of the following best describes 
you? 
____ Part-time student without a job 
____ Part-time student with a job 
____ Full-time student without a job 
____ Full-time student with a job 
   
133 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Dove with olive branch? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
   
134 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Balance Scales? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
135 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Lion? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
 
 In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
136 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Serpent? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes.
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image 
himself or herself? 
  
137 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Cross? 
 
as a symbol 
 
 
  
to represent 
 
   
138 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Pentacle? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
139 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Yin and Yang? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
140 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Eagle? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
141 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Heart? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
142 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Fish? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
143 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Butterfly? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
 
 
 
   
144 
Survey, Phase 1 
 
?Crown? 
Carefully consider the image above.  In the area below, write down any words or phrases that you feel 
express what this image symbolizes. 
  
In the area below, write what you would think of someone that used this image as a symbol to represent 
himself or herself? 
   
145 
APPENDIX B 
PHASE 2 INSTRUMENT 
 
 
   
146 
Survey, Phase 2 
DEMOGRAPHICS 
Please record the following information about 
yourself.What is your age?  
____ 17 or younger 
 ____18 ? 19  
____ 20 ? 21  
____ 22 ? 25  
____ 26 ? 32 
____ 33 or older 
1. What is your gender? 
____ Male  
____ Female 
2. How would you classify yourself? 
____ Arab 
____ Asian / Pacific Islander 
____ Black 
____ Caucasian / White 
____ Hispanic 
____ Indigenous / Aboriginal  
____ Latino 
____ Multiracial 
____ Would rather not say / Other 
3. Major: _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
4. Minor:   _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
 
5. Which of the following best describes 
the area in which you grew up? 
____ Urban 
____ Suburban 
____ Rural 
____ International 
____ Military 
6. Which of the following best describes 
you? 
____ Part-time student without a job 
____ Part-time student with a job 
____ Full-time student without a job 
____ Full-time student with a job 
 
147 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?peaceful, tranquil, or serene? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?loving, affectionate, or devoted? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?godly, pious, or religious? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?pure, clean, or correct? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?free-spirited, unpredictable, or changeable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
148 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?just, fair, or right? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?balanced, equal, or symmetric? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?thoughtful, considerate, or attentive? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?law abiding, obedient, or reliable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?rational, predictable, or reasonable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
149 
 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?strength, power, or might? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?ruler, leader, or authority? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?bravery, courage, or selflessness? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?absolute, perfect, or genuine? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?constant, stable, or unchanging? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
   
150 
 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?untrustworthy, undependable, or unreliable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?sinful, immoral, or unethical? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?satanic, demonic, or sinister? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?deceitful, sneaky, or unpredictable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree
1 2 
 
2. This symbol represents
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree
1 2 
 
3. This symbol represents
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree
1 2 
 
4. This symbol represents
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree
1 2 
 
5. This symbol represents
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree
1 2 
 
151 
 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
the response that best reflects how much you 
 ?Christian, disciple, or believer? 
 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree Agree
3 4 5 
 ?God, Christ, or Jesus? 
 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree Agree
3 4 5 
 ?religious, devout, or pious? 
 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree Agree
3 4 5 
 ?consistent, dependable, or faithful? 
 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree Agree
3 4 5 
 ?benevolent, compassionate, or kind? 
 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree Agree
3 4 5 
 
 
agree with each 
 
 
Strongly 
Agree 
6 7 
 
 
Strongly 
Agree 
6 7 
 
 
Strongly 
Agree 
6 7 
 
 
Strongly 
Agree 
6 7 
 
 
Strongly 
Agree 
6 7 
   
152 
 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?evil, satanic, or bad? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?Jewish, Hebrew, or Judaic? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?cultish, pagan, or wiccan? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?confused, unpredictable, or uncertain? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?erroneous, wrong, or false? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
   
153 
 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?harmony, peace, or tranquility? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?opposite, contrary, or reverse? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?unity, equality, or balance? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?unpredictable, two-faced, or fickle? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?undependable, unreliable, or untrustworthy? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
   
154 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?strong, powerful, or forceful? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?patriotic, American, or nationalistic? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?free, unrestrained, or at liberty? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?intelligent, correct, or wise? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?trustworthy, dependable, or reliable? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
155 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?loving, romantic, or passionate? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?caring, affectionate, or feeling? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?kind, gentle, or nice? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?happy, joyful, or gleeful? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?faithful, devoted, or stead-fast? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
156 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?Jesus, Christ, or Christian? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?church, clergy, or denomination? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?faithful, pious, or godly? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?caring, kind, or benevolent? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?consistent, predictable, or steadfast? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
157 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?free, independent, or unrestrained? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?beautiful, pretty, or colorful? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?carefree, unconcerned, or irresponsible? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?calm, peaceful, or tranquil? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?graceful, elegant, or refined? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
   
158 
Survey, Phase 2 
 
Carefully consider the image above and circle the response that best reflects how much you agree with each 
statement below. 
1. This symbol represents ?royalty, regal, or kingly? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
2. This symbol represents ?authority, government, or management? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
3. This symbol represents ?conceited, pompous, or prideful? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
4. This symbol represents ?power, force, or influence? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
5. This symbol represents ?best, superior, or excellence? 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
 
159 
APPENDIX C 
PHASE 3 INSTRUMENT 
 
NOTE:  Rotter?s ITS scale (1967) cannot be published and is therefore excluded from 
this section.  Rather, an email detailing permission from Dr. Rotter to use his instrument 
is included in its place.
 
160 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 2.  Permission to use Dr. Rotter?s ITS Scale  
   
161 
Survey, Phase 3 
DEMOGRAPHICS 
Please record the following information about yourself.
1. What is your age?  
____ 17 or younger 
 ____18 ? 19  
____ 20 ? 21  
____ 22 ? 25  
____ 26 ? 32 
____ 33 or older 
2. What is your gender? 
____ Male  
____ Female 
3. How would you classify yourself? 
____ Arab 
____ Asian / Pacific Islander 
____ Black 
____ Caucasian / White 
____ Hispanic 
____ Indigenous / Aboriginal  
____ Latino 
____ Multiracial 
____ Would rather not say / Other 
4. Major: _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
5. Minor:   _____________________ 
 (enter N/A if not applicable) 
 
 
6. Which of the following best describes 
the area in which you grew up? 
____ Urban 
____ Suburban 
____ Rural 
____ International 
____ Military 
7. Which of the following best describes 
you? 
____ Part-time student without a job 
____ Part-time student with a job 
____ Full-time student without a job 
____ Full-time student with a job 
 
162 
Please read the following chat session carefully and then answer the questions at the end. 
 
Morgan, you there? 
 
Who wants to know? 
 
It?s me, Chris from down the hall.  You got a minute? 
 
Hi Chris.  Long time, no see.  What?s up? 
 
Not much.  Your roommate said I might find you online here, so I thought I would say 
hello.  Sorry to hear about your accident.  You OK? 
 
Yeah.  I?m fine but the car is totalled.  When my parents find out, they?ll be really mad. 
 
You haven?t told them yet?  Why not?  I thought your parents were pretty cool. 
 
They are, but not about this.  It took everything I had to pay the reckless driving ticket.  
$368!!! 
 
Ouch.   
 
Yeah.  Don?t tell anyone.  My roommate talks too much and I don?t want my parents to find 
out. 
 
No prob.  I won?t say anything. 
 
Thanks.  So, what?s up? 
 
Well,..  I really need your help!  I?m not doing so good in my ECON class. 
 
You need my help?  You must be desparate! 
 
No, seriously!  I?m really having trouble in ECON.  I just don?t get it.  We have an exam 
tomorrow and I?m clueless.  If I fail this class, I might lose my financial aid.  Can you help? 
 
163 
 
Me?!  Help you in ECON?   HA!!  Now I KNOW you?re in trouble.  I didn?t do so hot in it 
either.  Professor lectured on one thing and tested on another! 
 
That?s what worries me!  I hear his exams are hard! 
 
They are.  What exactly is it you want me to do?  I know you don?t want me to help you 
study for it.  I have plans tonight and they definitely don?t include studying!   
 
No, no!  Nothing like that.  It?s just that I have the same professor that you had last semester 
and I need to know what to study.  
 
How do you know who I had last semester? 
 
Your roommate told me.  I hear you had a lot of trouble with the exams.  
 
Ugh!  I didn?t think the semester would ever end.  It?s still a blur. 
 
Listen, from what I understand he tends to use the same exam over and over.  If I could find 
a copy of his exams from last semester, that would be a HUGE help.  Do you still have 
yours? 
 
I think I still have them somewhere.  I don?t know if I want to loan them out, though.  I 
don?t think the professor would appreciate it. 
 
Come on!!  He?ll never know.  I won?t tell anyone, not even my roommate.  I promise!  
Please!! 
 
You promise?  I don?t even know you that well!  How do I know you won?t be stupid and 
loan them to someone else?  Or worse yet, what if the instructor found out?  He?d kill me! 
 
But he can?t do anything about it either.   There?s no official policy on letting other students 
borrow your notes from your classes, is there?  It?s not cheating because he let you keep 
your exams.  I bet he didn?t tell you not to share them with anyone, did he?   
 
No, I guess not. 
 
Ok then.  If anyone asks, I am just asking to borrow your notes so that I can study. 
 
OK, but I am not going to let someone borrow my originals.  I might let someone borrow a 
copy, but what?s in it for me? 
 
164 
 
Please turn the page and complete the attached survey. 
 
 
What do you mean? 
 
You want me to take the risk and you get the grade?  I don?t think so!  They?ve been really 
cracking down on cheating and stuff.  If you expect me to stick my neck out, I?d better get 
something for my trouble. 
 
What do you want? 
 
Money would be good.  Like I said, the ticket took everything I had. 
 
How about $100? Your roommate told me you were broke already and had no spending 
cash. 
 
$100 for an old Economics exam?  That?s a lot more than it?s worth, but you?re right.  I?m 
broke (I?m gonna kill my roommate for talking about my business) and I can?t ask my 
parents for more money.  They?ll get ticked when I tell them where my money went.  Why 
so much? 
 
?cuz I need it like, in the next few minutes.  I want to get started studying. 
 
What?s the rush?  It?s not even lunch yet and your exam is not ?til tomorrow. 
 
I need all the time I can get.  Besides, I need to get some sleep too.  I was up partying last 
night and am really beat. 
 
Maybe that?s why you are having such trouble.  Quit screwing around and start studying. 
 
Yeah, yeah, yeah.  You sound like my parents.  So, you gonna help me out? 
 
Ok, fine.  I?ll do it on one condition.  You don?t tell anyone.  If you do, I?ll say you stole it. 
 
Got it. $100 and I keep my mouth shut.  Meet me by the drink machines in the Student 
Union in 15 min.  I?m wearing a gray t-shirt, shorts, and sandals. 
 
OK. Bring cash. 
 
165 
Please complete the following questions (circle your answer): 
1. Would you sell your exam to Chris? 
Definitely 
Not 
 
No 
Probably 
Not 
Not 
Sure 
Probably 
Yes 
 
Yes 
Definitely 
Yes 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
  
2. Would you trust Chris to keep quiet about the exam and your ticket? 
Definitely 
Not 
 
No 
Probably 
Not 
Not 
Sure 
Probably 
Yes 
 
Yes 
Definitely 
Yes 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
 
Please complete the survey on the next page. 
 
  
 
166 
Instructions: Using the 7 point scale shown below, indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree 
with each statement as it relates to your thoughts about the instructor in the chat session transcript 
that you just read.  Place your rating in the box to the right of each statement. 
 
Strongly 
Disagree 
 
Disagree 
Somewhat 
Disagree 
 
Neutral 
Somewhat 
Agree 
 
Agree 
Strongly 
Agree 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
1 Chris seems to be trustworthy.  I am willing to let Chris be involved in my 
affairs, even if they are sensitive or important. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
2 Even when I don?t know how Chris will react, I feel comfortable telling 
things about myself, even those things of which I am ashamed. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
3 Though times may change and the future is uncertain, I feel Chris will 
always be ready and willing to offer me strength and support. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
4 I am not certain that Chris won?t do something that I dislike or will 
embarrass me. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
5 Chris is unpredictable.  I don?t know how Chris will act from one day to 
the next. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
6 I feel very uncomfortable when Chris has to make decisions that will 
affect me personally. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
7 I have found that Chris is unusually dependable, especially when it comes 
to things that are important to me. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
8 Chris behaves in a very consistent manner. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
9 When making an important decision in a situation never encountered 
before, I feel that Chris will be concerned about my welfare. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
10 Even if I have no reason to expect it, I feel certain that Chris will share 
important things with me. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
11 I can rely on Chris to react in a positive way when I expose my 
weaknesses. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
12 When I share my problems, I know that Chris will respond in a caring way 
even before I say anything. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
13 I am certain that Chris would not be dishonest with me, even if the 
opportunity arose and there was no chance that I would find out about it. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
14 I might sometimes avoid Chris because Chris is unpredictable and I fear 
saying or doing something which might create conflict. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
15 I can rely on Chris to keep promises made to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
16 When I am with Chris, I feel secure in facing unknown new situations. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
17 Even when Chris gives explanations that sound rather unlikely, I am 
confident that I am being told the truth. 
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 
 
This concludes the survey.  Please return this package to the researcher. 
 
167 
APPENDIX D 
RESULTS SUMMARY 
 
 
 
Table D1 - Phase 2 Analysis S
Symbol 
 
 *free
 
 
thoughtful,  considerate, or attentive
*
 
 
 
 
untrustworthy, undependable, or unreliable
deceitful, sneaky, or 
 
 
benevolent, compassionate, or kind
 
 
confused, unpredictable, or uncertain
 
 
unpredictable, two
undependable, unreliable, or untrustworthy
 
 
patriotic, American, or nationalistic
trustworthy, dependable, or reliable
 
 
 
168 
ummary 
  Std 
Word Group Mean Dev
peaceful, tranquil, or serene 6.37 0.90
loving, affectionate, or devoted 5.61 1.39
godly, pious, or religious 5.31 1.65
pure, clean, or correct 5.13 1.46
-spirited, unpredictable, or changeable 3.91 1.77
just, fair, or right 5.98 1.39
balanced, equal, or symmetric 6.32 0.95
 3.39 1.57
law abiding, obedient, or reliable 4.76 1.71
rational, predictable, or reasonable 4.09 1.69
strength, power, or might 6.31 1.06
ruler, leader, or authority 6.14 1.10
bravery, courage, or selflessness 5.97 1.16
*absolute, perfect, or genuine 3.56 1.64
*constant, stable, or unchanging 3.61 1.66
 5.49 1.59
sinful, immoral, or unethical 5.72 1.50
dangerous, hazardous, or unsafe 6.11 1.33
satanic, demonic, or sinister 5.49 1.66
unpredictable 5.76 1.46
Christian, disciple, or believer 6.51 1.06
God, Christ, or Jesus 6.51 1.05
religious, devout, or pious 6.21 1.28
consistent, dependable, or faithful 5.71 1.64
 5.58 1.66
evil, satanic, or bad 4.81 1.87
Jewish, Hebrew, or Judaic 5.14 1.56
cultish, pagan, or wiccan 4.58 1.68
 3.72 1.48
*erroneous, wrong, or false 3.68 1.65
harmony, peace, or tranquility 5.50 1.42
opposite, contrary, or reverse 4.81 1.57
unity, equality, or balance 5.38 1.40
-faced, or fickle 3.57 1.55
 2.97 1.30
strong, powerful, or forceful 5.89 1.26
 6.44 0.86
free, unrestrained, or at liberty 5.98 1.19
intelligent, correct, or wise 4.89 1.55
 4.77 1.63
loving, romantic, or passionate 6.54 0.76
caring, affectionate, or feeling 6.34 0.90
kind, gentle, or nice 5.66 1.40
happy, joyful, or gleeful 5.42 1.47
*faithful, devoted, or steadfast 4.97 1.73
 
95% C.I. 
 of the Mean 
 6.22 6.52 
 5.38 5.84 
 5.03 5.58 
 4.89 5.37 
 3.62 4.21 
 5.75 6.21 
 6.16 6.48 
 3.12 3.65 
 4.47 5.04 
 3.81 4.37 
 6.13 6.48 
 5.95 6.32 
 5.78 6.16 
 3.29 3.84 
 3.33 3.88 
 5.22 5.75 
 5.47 5.97 
 5.89 6.33 
 5.21 5.76 
 5.52 6.01 
 6.33 6.68 
 6.33 6.68 
 6.00 6.43 
 5.44 5.99 
 5.30 5.85 
 4.50 5.12 
 4.88 5.39 
 4.30 4.86 
 3.47 3.97 
 3.40 3.95 
 5.26 5.73 
 4.55 5.07 
 5.15 5.61 
 3.31 3.83 
 2.76 3.19 
 5.68 6.09 
 6.30 6.59 
 5.78 6.18 
 4.63 5.14 
 4.50 5.04 
 6.41 6.66 
 6.19 6.49 
 5.43 5.89 
 5.18 5.67 
 4.69 5.26 
 
169 
 
 
Jesus, Christ, or Christian 5.83 1.59 5.56 6.09 
church, clergy, or denomination 5.44 1.58 5.18 5.70 
faithful, pious, or godly 5.27 1.69 4.99 5.55 
caring, kind, or benevolent 4.76 1.62 4.49 5.03 
*consistent, predictable, or steadfast 4.45 1.60 4.18 4.71 
 
 
free, independent, or unrestrained 5.63 1.30 5.41 5.84 
beautiful, pretty, or colorful 6.19 0.94 6.04 6.35 
carefree, unconcerned, or irresponsible 4.37 1.64 4.10 4.65 
calm, peaceful, or tranquil 5.37 1.33 5.15 5.59 
graceful, elegant, or refined 5.30 1.44 5.06 5.54 
 
 
royalty, regal, or kingly 6.59 0.62 6.49 6.70 
authority, government, or management 5.86 1.39 5.63 6.10 
conceited, pompous, or prideful 4.64 1.62 4.37 4.91 
power, force, or influence 5.66 1.47 5.42 5.91 
best, superior, or excellence 5.43 1.54 5.18 5.69 
* Added by researcher