A comparative study of personality in Ugandan and English subjects

019l-8869:83S3.00+0.00

Person. vzdrurd.Difl. Vol. 4. No. 6, pp 5X3-589,1983 Printed

m Great

Britain

All

rights

Copyright

reserved

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PERSONALITY UGANDAN AND ENGLISH SUBJECTS

8~’ 1983

Pergamon Press Ltd

IN

S. B. G. EYSENCK Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London

SE5 8AF,

England

J. A. OPOLOT MaKerere

University,

P.O.B.

7062,

Kampala, Uganda

(Received 25 April 1983) Summary-Nine hundred and twenty-one males and 555 females in Uganda completed the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Indices of factor comparison indicated that the personality dimensions of P, E, N and L were virtually identical in Uganda and England. Some item changes were required to establish satisfactory reliabilities (alpha) for all factors. Sex differences revealed that males scored higher than females on E but lower on N, which is the usual finding. Strikingly, however, there was no sex difference for P and L, there being, in fact, a very slight tendency for females to score above males on P and below them on L. Cross-cultural comparisons, using only items both Ugandan and English scoring keys had in common, showed Ugandan Ss to score higher on L than their English counterparts, Ugandan males also scoring higher on E and N and Ugandan females scoring higher on P.

INTRODUCTION

After standardizing the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ; Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975) in England, it seemed worthwhile to do so in other countries desirous of using this personality questionnaire. One of the earliest of these cross-cultural studies attempted was in Nigeria (Eysenck, Adelaja and Eysenck, 1977). Unfortunately several problems were encountered in this study, firstly the dearth of female Ss (n = 101) due primarily to the fact that the males were largely from the Nigerian army, and only few females could be persuaded to take part in the study. Secondly, the EPQ was administered to part of the sample under conditions of selection which could well have accounted for the marked elevation of the L scores and possibly other irregularities (e.g. the very high NL and PL intercorrelations in the Nigerian groups). It was decided that a further study should be attempted in Nigeria, increasing the number of female Ss and rewording certain items which failed to load (all on the P scale) adequately. In some cases these items were not only reworded but completely replaced by more apt questions and most of the guidance for this came from Colonel Adelaja. Sadly, the ensuing study proved unsuccessful in Nigeria, but the revised questionnaire had already been sent to the second author of this paper, who had instigated data collection in Uganda, the results of which are now reported. In subsequent cross-cultural studies of the EPQ the existing items themselves were never again changed, but the practice was adopted of adding several spare items at the end of the intact inventory so that substitutions could be made in case of inappropriate items, yet no original items were lost. This procedure proved successful in Spain for example (Eysenck, Escolar, Lobo, 1983) where several of the spare items helped considerably to establish a viable scoring key. Quite a number of countries have now obtained a standardization of the EPQ, and many of those have been reported in the 1982 edition of Advances in Personality Assessment (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1982). The basic aims of these cross-cultural studies have been 3-fold. Primarily we were concerned that Ss from countries, with varying cultures, should be shown to have the same personality factors of P (Psychoticism or Toughmindedness), E (Extraversion), N (Neuroticism or Emotionality) and L (Lie score or Social Desirability) as English Ss. Secondly, we wanted to provide viable scoring keys of items wholly appropriate to the particular culture. Finally, although subsidiary to the first 583

S. B. G.

584

Table 14 19 27 35 51 67 71 74 88 97 100

(a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a)

(b)

EYSENCK

I. Item channes:

and

a = British

J. A. OPOLOT

EPO: b = Urandan

EPO

Would you enjoy parachute jumping? Would you enjoy hunting for antelopes? Do you believe insurance schemes are a good idea? Do you bother much about the influence of the spirits of your ancestors? Do you enjoy hurting people you love? Do you enjoy making people dear to you unhappy? Do you enjoy practical jokes that can sometimes really hurt people? Do you enjoy jokes that can sometimes really annoy people? Do people who drive carefully annoy you? Would you enjoy polygamy? Is (or was) your mother a good woman? Would you have been happier if your mother had been different? Are there several people who keep trying to avoid you? Are there many people who do not like you? Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future with savings and msurances? Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future by consulting the fortune tellers? Do you sometimes like teasing animals? Do you sometimes hke teasing children to annoy them? Do people tell you a lot of lies? Do you feel people are not telling you the truth most of the time’? Would you feel very sorry for an animal caught in a trap? ..^ I_ , ^..^ Do tradltlonal healers play an Important part m me for you ano your tamllyl’

two aims, we attempted to make cross-cultural comparisons of the means for the personality factors, using only items common to the British scoring key and that of the country being studied. EXPERIMENT

AND

ANALYSIS

The 10 1-item version of the Adult EPQ (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975) was modified for conditions in Nigeria and 1I items were either reworded or substituted. All, except the first, were from the P scale (14, 19, 27, 35, 51, 67, 71, 74, 88, 97, 100). Although the results of the Nigerian study were disappointing, the same modified questionnaire was used in Uganda, the item changes being given in Table 1. Nine hundred and twenty-one male and 555 female Ss completed the EPQ in Uganda; their mean ages being 28.60 + 12.66 and 30.28 f 14.40, respectively. The Ugandan data were analysed in the same way as the British data, i.e. product-moment correlations were factored by Principal Components methods, rotated by Varimax and then obliquely by Promax, taking the first 4 factors only for rotational purposes (see Appendix). RESULTS

Indices of factor comparison were calculated as described by Kaiser, Hunka and Bianchini (1969) in order to establish how closely the factors of P, E, N and L resembled those obtained in the British analyses. Table 2 shows these to be satisfactorily high, with only the male P value falling just short of the 0.95 we arbitrarily considered the value above which that factor could be accepted as virtually identical. Factor loadings are given in the Appendix. All but 1 item on the E scale proved to load in good agreement with the British scoring key, this being No. 30 “Do you prefer reading to meeting people?” This was one of the poor items in the Nigerian study and the authors’ comment was that “Reading is not anything like as accepted as a pastime in Nigeria as in England, and is not The same may well be true of Uganda considered as a proper alternative to social intercourse.” and so this item was omitted from the scale. Item No. 4 “Have you ever taken the praise for something you knew someone else had really done?“, however, loaded modestly on E and was, therefore, included, leaving the E scale at 21 items.

Table

Ugandan Ugandan Ugandan

2. Factor

comparisons

on P, E, N and L between

males vs British males females vs British females males vs Ugandan females

various

groups

P

E

N

L

0.941 0.955 0.998

0.993 0.995 0.991

0.988 0.998 0.996

0.993 0.999 0.997

Comparative

study

of UgandaniEnglish

personalit)

585

Three items proved unsatisfactory on the N scale; NO. 44 “Would you call yourself tense or ‘highly-strung’?” No. 82 “Do you suffer from nerves?” and NO. 94 “Are you sometimes bubbling over with energy and sometimes very sluggish?” The first 2 loaded moderately on N but equally or above on P, and the last also gave moderate N loadings but equally so on the L factor. These then were omitted from the N scale and 2 spare items added, No. 48 “Do you feel self-pity now and again?” and No. 56 “Do you sometimes sulk?” Three items required substituting on the L scale and those were No. 4 “Have you ever taken the praise for something you knew someone else had really done?“, No. 41 “Have you ever broken or lost something belonging to someone else?” and No. 80 “Have you ever insisted on having your own way?“ Loadings for the first item went to E, the next item transferred to the P factor and all loadings from the latter disappeared. Fortunately, there were 3 items worth including in this scale because of the very good loadings. They are No. 33 “Do you always say you are sorry when you have been rude?‘, No 73 “Are you always polite even to unpleasant people?” and No. 83 “Have you ever deliberately said something to hurt someone’s feelings?” Thus the L scale comprises 21 items. Finally, despite the changes in 11 items, 6 items had to be dropped. 4 of these from among the 11 new ones. Items No. 31 “Do you have enemies who want to harm you?” and No. 63 “Do you like to arrive at appointments in plenty of time. Y’ being the original items, both of whom lost all loadings. Item No. 35 “Do you enjoy jokes that can sometimes really annoy people?“, on the other hand loaded on all factors except N, ‘jokes’ appealing to extraverts, ‘annoying people’ appealing to high P scorers and Social Desirability obviously involved as well. Item No. 74 “Do you think people spend too much time safeguarding their future by consulting the fortune tellers?” lost all loadings. Item No. 88 “Do you sometimes like teasing children to annoy them?“. while loading somewhat on P also picked up some Social Desirability responses and was, therefore, unsuitable. Item No. 97 “Do you feel people are not telling you the truth most of the time?” also loaded somewhat on P, but had sizeable N loadings as well. Unfortunately only 4 reasonable items presented themselves for substitution, these being No. 41 “Would you enjoy hunting for antelopes?” (a new item which apparently refers to a particularly cruel form of hunting in Africa), No. 43 “Can you easily understand the way people feel when they tell you their troubles?“, No. 45 “Do you throw wastepaper on the floor when there is no wastepaper basket handy?” and No. 101 “Did you mind filling in this form. 7” Thus the new P scale for Ugandans contains 7 reworded or completely new items (cf. Table 1) and 3 substitute items totalling 23 items in all. The Ugandan scoring key, therefore, comprises 87 items as shown in Table 3. The next step was to calculate alpha reliabilities for the scales and these are given in Table 4, together with the intercorrelations of the scales. The reliabilities are satisfactorily high. especially that of the P scale for the females; intercorrelations are pleasingly low, there being far less evidence of dissemblance than is usually found in other cross-cultural studies of the EPQ. Means and standard deviations which were computed using the Ugandan scoring key produced the usual sex differences for E and N (males scoring higher than females on the former but lower on the latter, see Table 5). There was hardly any difference between them on P and the L scale

Table 3. Ugandan

weight matrix:

scoring key for Ugandan

Adult EPQ

P Yes: No:

14, 19, 23, 27, 45, 47, 51. 55, 67, 71, 81. 85, 93, 100, 101. 2, 6, 9, I I, 39, 43, 59, 78. 23

E Yes: NO:

1%4, 5, 10, 15. 18, 26. 34. 38, 42, 50, 54. 58. 62, 66, 70. 77. 92, 96. 22, 46 21

N Yes:

3. 7. 12, 16, 20, 24. 28, 32. 36. 40, 48. 52. 56, 60, 64, 6b. 72. 75, 79. 86. 89, 98.

Yes: No:

13. 21, 33, 37. 61, 73, 87. 99. 8. 17, 25. 29. 49, 53. 57, 65. 69, 76, 83. 91, 95.

L

__ iL

S. B. G. EYSENCK and J. A. OP~L~T

586

Table 4. Reliabilities (alpha) of the new Ugandan and intercorrelations between scales Male Reliabilities P E N L Intercorrelations PE PN PL EN EL NL

scales

Female

0.70 0.71 0.74 0.77

0.75 0.72 0.75 0 77

-0.10 0 18 -0.16 -0.03 -0.05 - 0.24

-0.19 0.02 - 0.09 -0.18 -0.15 -0.23

which is an interesting and intriguing departure from the usual finding that males score considerably higher on P than females and quite significantly lower on the L scale. Finally, an attempt at a cross-cultural comparison of the means for Ugandan and British Ss was made, using only items which both scoring keys have in common (Table 6). This unfortunately only gave 13 items in the case of P because the reworded or new items were all inadmissible, of course. Anyhow, the results showed Ugandan males to score higher than British males on E, N and L and Ugandan females to score higher than their British counterparts on P and L. DISCUSSION Possibly the most pleasing part of this cross-cultural study is the fact that, with appropriate item substitutions it was possible to assume a P scale which is of roughly equal reliability to that of the other factors, in a country of somewhat different culture to Britain. That we are dealing with the same basic factors as those isolated in Britain as demonstrated in Table 2 by remarkably high factor comparisons, is also encouraging. Why were the results of the Ugandan Ss so much better than that for the Nigerians? Probably the large number of Ss in the former study helped, there being 921 males as against 329 of the latter, this being of even greater importance for the females there being 555 Ugandans as against only 101 Nigerians. Also, there was a great preponderance of Army personnel in the Nigerian sample which may have added some kind of bias. The very slight reversal of the usual sex differences on P and L, in the Ugandan groups, are intriguing. Since all male groups have invariably scored higher on P than female ones and, indeed, Eysenck and Eysenck (1976) have commented on the possibility that this factor is sex linked, the similarity of the scores for both sexes in Uganda is anomalous and should be repeated for verification. Similarly, the failure of Ugandan females to score higher on the L scale than the males despite the fact that they were minimally older and the L score rises with age for adults (Eysenck and Eysenck, 1975), is also remarkable.

Table 5. Means and standard

deviations

P

Males Females

Table

6.

Comparison

males and females on personality N

E

L

scales

Age

R

SD

R

SD

R

SD

R

SD

R

SD

4.60 4.69

3.26 3.57

14.15 13.06

3.54 3.82

10.73 12.41

4.04 4.18

9.63 9.35

4.14 4.13

28.60 30.28

12.66 14.40

of means and standard

deviations

P

Ugandan males Ugandan females British males British females

of Ugandan and age

of Ugandan

E

and Bntish Ss on scales of common

N

L

items

Age

R

SD

R

SD

R

SD

B

SD

R

SD

n

2.13 2.39 2.09 I .46

I .96

13.56 12.51 12.73 12.43

3.44 3.70 4.55 4.47

9.86 11.39 8.83 11.27

3.67 3.80 4.54 4.47

7.86 7.70 6.33 6.80

3.60 3.58 3.95 3 94

28.60 30.28 28.06 30.21

12.66 14.40 14.25 14.23

921 555 440 573

2.14 1.91 1.36

Males Females

P

E

N

L

Age

NS 0.001

0.001 NS

0.001 NS

0.001 0.001

NS NS

Comparative

of Ugandan/English

study

personality

587

What is clearly needed is some replication studies of neighbouring cultures to ascertain to what extent these sex differences in personality are generalizable. Meanwhile, the use in Uganda of the newly compiled EPQ can be confidently recommended provided it is scored as suggested in Table 3. Acknowledgemenfs-Thanks computational help.

are due to all the Ugandan

Ss who completed

the EPQ

forms

and Jackie

Marshall

for

REFERENCES Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1975) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire. Hodder & Stoughton, London/EdITS, San Diego, Calif. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1976) Psychoticism as a Dimension of Personality. Hodder & Stoughton, London. Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G. (1982) Recent advances in the cross-cultural study of personality. In Advances in Personality Assessment, Vol. 2 (Edited by Spielberger C. D. and Butcher J. N.), pp. 41-69. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Eysenck S. B. G., Adelaja 0. and Eysenck H. J. (1977) A comparative study of personality in Nigerian and English subjects. J. sot. Psychol. 102, 3-10. Eysenck S. B. G., Escolar V. and Lobo A. (1983) National differences in personality: Spain and England. Revta Psfqutat. Psicol. mdd Eur. Am. Lat. XV, No. 5. Kaiser H. F., Hunka S. and Bianchini J. (1969) Relatmg factors between studies based upon different individuals. In Personality Structure and Measurement (Edited by Eysenck H. J. and Eysenck S. B. G). Routledge & Kegan Paul. London.

APPENDIX Ugandan A&/r EPQ (IOI items): Promax-rotated factors

factor loadings of P items on the 4 personality for males and females

Males (n = 921) P

P

E

N

Females fn = 555) L

P

E

N

L

-0.07 -0.10 0.01 0.08 0.07 -0.04 0.01 0.11 0.24 0.05 0.05 0.19 -0.02 0.01 0.12 -0.02 -0.01 0.05 0.04 0.08 -0.04 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.09

0.04 0.30 0.13 0.15 0.21 0.09 0.04 0.18 -0.01 0.16 -0.02 0.04 0.08 0.33 0.1 I -0.01 0 I8 0.14 0.01 0.05 0.20 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.21

-0.02 0.00 0.14 0.06 0.05 -0.06 0.01 -0.10 -0.31 0.13 0.05 -0.05 0.12 0.10 0.15 -0.03 -0.02 0.05 -0.00 0.03 -0.00 -0.26 -0.08 -0.00 0.08

-0.28 -0.32

0.10 - 0.03

19 23 21 31 35 -39 47 51 55 -59 -63 61 71 74 -78 81 85 88 93 97 100

-0.23 -0.39 -0.12 -0.43 0.39 0.43 0.45 0.17 0.22 -0.49 0.46 0.35 0.43 -0.42 0.04 0.43 0.30 0.02 -0.41 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.41 0.22 0.29

-0.31 -0.36 0.43 0.50 0.44 0.06 0.26 -0.56 0.42 0.50 0.53 -0.32 -0.04 0.29 0.20 0.06 -0.37 0.31 0.22 0.21 0.38 0.29 0.44

-0.05 0.08 0.04 -0.10 0.05 0.10 0.31 -0.01 0.09 0.19 -0.01 0.08 -0.02 -0.04 -0.05 0.09 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.21 -0.04 -0.03 0.09

0.37 0.03 0.04 0.2 I 0.12 0.03 0.37 0.00 0.20 -0.04 0.07 0.08 0.37 0.04 -0.03 0.30 0.1 I 0.14 0.03 0.26 0.08 0.13 0.34 0.22

0.06 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.10 -0.07 0.05 0.07 -0.22 0.11 0.02 0.17 0.14 0.07 0.13 -0.04 -0.01 0.05 0.08 -0.04 0.08 -0.24 -0.06 0.06 0.22

14 -43 45 IO1

0.19 -0.19 0.33 0.17

0.17 0.22 0.02 -0.11

-0.07 0.01 0.05 0.03

0.06 0.18 -0.29 0.07

0.44 -0.34 0.40

0.20 0.05 0.13

0.06 0.13 -0.02

0.02 0.12 -0.16

-2 -6 -9 -11

0.23

-0.05

0.1 I

0.05

0.05

S. B. G.

588

EYSENCK and

J. A. OPOLOT

Ugandaian Adub EPQ (101 ilems): Promax-rotated factor loadings factors for males and females Males (n = 921) P

E I

0.13 0.20 -0.08 -0.06 -0.31 -0.1 I 0.26 0.05 -0.19 0.18

5 10

I5 I8 -22 26 -30 34 38 42 -46 50 54 58 62 66 70 77 92 96

-0.11 0.01 0.08

P

E

N

0.10

0.02

0.05

0.32

0.01

-0.06 -0.14

0.41

-0.02 -002 -0.01 -0.04 0.22 0.03 0.22

0.04

EPQ

(101

-0.15 0.20

-0.06

-0.09

0.34

-0.09

-0.43 0.1 I 0.25 0.22

0.32 -0

19

0.29 -0.16

0.17 -0.08 0.04

0.04 0.11 -0.23 0.09 0.08

0.24

0.43

-0.10

0.15

0.01

0.09

002

0.55

009

0.15

0.25

0.12

0.22

0.09

-0.12 0.01 I2

-0.03

-0

-003 0.10

-028 0.41

-0.02

-0.13

-0.19

0.40

0.06

-0.06

-030

0.46

0.01

025

008 -0.11

0.25

0.27

0.04

0.05

0.21

0.18

--0 IO

0.41

001

-003

0.45

0.06

000

0.05

0 44

0.55

0.08

009

0.03

045

0.23

0.06

-0.18

0.02

0.28

irems):

0.03

0.07 -0.07

0.14

-0

-0.03

0.12

-0.05

-0.07

0.37

0.15

0.02

-0.05

0.44

0.12

0.46

-007

-0.23

-0.07

0.34

-0.14

L

I6

0.43

0.09

0.03

0.01

-0.24 -0.05

-0.05

-0.03

0.39

0.19

Adulr

-0.32

(n = 555)

L

-0.15

4

Ugandan

0.45

Females

N

E 0.35 0.37 0.45 0.42 0.33 -0.28 0.,37 -0.10 0.40 0.41

of E items on the 4 personahty

0.11 -0.20

-0.04

028

0.01

024

0.02

0.43

-006 0.05 -0.13 0.12

-0.06 -0.06 0.00 0.30 0.13 -0.09 -006 -0.04 0.06 -0.10

Promax-rotated factor loadmgs of N stems on the 4 personality factors for males and females

.~~

Males

N 3 7 I2

P -0.04 0.12 -0.26

(II= 921)

Females

E

N

0.10

0.34

-0.02

0.25

-0.16

-0.07 0.04

0.30

L

0.01

I6

0.20

-0.05

0.22

-0

20

0.12

-0.11

0.35

-O.Oh

24

0.07

0.04

0.48

-0

0.04

0.44

002

28

-0.28

13 II

E

N

0.09

0.31

P -0.07 0.01 -0.24 0.13 -0.11 0.02 -0.16

0.36

-0.25

-0.00

0.23

-0.12

-0.11

0.35

-0.07

-0

IO

0.42

-0.01

0.05

0.48

-0.07

0.03

0.41

0.02

0.39

0.03

0.32

0.02

0.27

-0.07

0.43

0.10

027

-002

36

0.31

-0.06

0.27

0.04

020

-0

-0.03

0.46

0.05

-0.17

-0.02

0.29

0.09

44 52 60 64

-0.25 0.37 -0.20 0.26 -0.01

68

0.10

72

0.18

75

0.16

0.08 -0.03 0.09

0.06 -0.01

-0.01

0.34

-0.08

039

0.36

-0.25

-0.12

-0.03

0.34

-0.26

-0.01

0.48

-0.02

-021

0.01 0.06

0.47

-0.07

0.14

0.29

-0.00

0.19

0.04

0.28

-0.08

-0.05

0.23

-0.16

0.06

0.02

0.28

-0.15

-0.04 0.07

0.10

0.28

0.04

86 89

0.08 -0.02

-0.02

0.47

-0.04

94

0.00

-0.06

0.08 0.02

0.23

027

0.47

-0.20

14

004

-0.10

48 56

-0

0.39

-0.02

-0.06

98

004

0.30

0.37

-0.12

IO

0.31

82

79

0 33

L -0.16

-0.06

32 40

(n = 555)

-0.15 0.35

-0.05

0.41

-0.05

0.33

0.05 0.05

0.10 -014

0.03 -0.12

0.46

0.39

-005 -0.02

0.26

-0.26

0.04

0.12

0.18

-0.24

0.03

0.28

-0.14

-0.05

0.24

-0.20

0.01 -u.u3

0.52 ~_. U.24

0.04 -U.l6

-0.08

0.51

-0.10

0.20

-0.19 0.03 -0.06

0.37

-0.03 0.02

0.01 -0.20

Comparative

Ugondan

Adult

EPQ

(101

study

of Ugandan/English

personality

589

ikms): Promax-rotated factor loadings of L scale items on the 4 Dersonalitv factors for males and females

Males Cn = 921) L

P

-4 -8 13 -17 21 -25 -29 37 -41 -49 -53 -57 61 -65 -69 -76 -80 87 -91 -95 99

0.04 0.03 -0.01 0.08 0.20 -0.22 0.25 0.04 -0.42 -0.04 -0.14 0.05 -0.14 -0.10 -0.03 0.25 -0.16 -0.10 -0.37 -0.19 -0.25

33 73 -83

-0.07 -0.13 -0.05

E

N

L

P

0.23 0.02 -0.03 -0.01 0.21 -0.03 0.11 0.16 0.07 0.17 0.03 0.09 0.12 0.10 0 16 0 05 0.06 0.07 -0.08 -0.13 0.09

0.06 0.06 0.02 0.06 0.02 -0.01 0.1 I 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.01 0.10 0.13 -0.03 0.15 0.06

-0.18 -0.48 0.36 - 0.45 0.44 -0.54 -0.36 0.42 -0.36 -0.39 -0.50 -0.21 0.35 -0.45 -0.41 -0.44 -0.18 0.43 -0.41 -0.38 0.38

0.02 0.14 0.13 0.16 0.16 -0.09 0.36 0.10 -0.44 0.01 -0.05 0.03 -0.15 -0.03 -0.11 0.25 -0.20 -0.01 -0.29 -0.22 -0.34

0.14 0.19 0.05

0.18 0.19 0.09

0.40 0.36 -0.52

-0.14 -0.12 0.02

E 0.28 0.07 0.13 0.05 0.15 0.16 0.11 -0.03 0.00 0.15 0.07 0.22 0.09 0.21 0.12 0.13 0.09 0.1 I

N

L

0.07 0.04

0.12 0.00 0.06 0.06 -0.08 0.14 -0.01 -0.03 0.09 -0.04 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.0 I

-0.10 -0.47 0.45 -0.44 0.45 -0.45 -0.36 0.44 -0.26 -0.38 -0.57 -0.19 0.37 -0.40 -0.31 -0.32 -0.23 0.44 -0.33 -0.33 0.28

0.29 0.16 0.10

0.13 0.15 0.07

0.49 0.41 -0.50

-0.01