Self-Portraits as Presentations of Self

Leonardo

Self-Portraits as Presentations of SelfAuthor(s): W. Ray Crozier and Paul GreenhalghSource: Leonardo, Vol. 21, No. 1 (1988), pp. 29-33Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578412 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 18:34

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The MIT Press and Leonardo are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toLeonardo.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.248.187 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 18:34:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1578412?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Self-Portraits As Presentations of Self

W. Ray Crozier and Paul Greenhalgh

Abstract-Questions concerning the psychological meanings of self-portraits are discussed in terms of three current social psychological theories that emphasize self-awareness, self- presentation, and the social construction of the self. The social constructionist perspective implies that self-portraits will have different meanings at different epochs due to changing conceptions of the self and the complex relationships between social and economic conditions, ideas about appearance and the significance of portraits. Self-presentation theory implies that self-portraits will be read in terms of motives for self-presentation. Some relevant findings are discussed from a study that asked students to attempt to distinguish between portraits and self-portraits made by the same artists. Respondents were more accurate with Modern than with Baroque pictures and seemed to base their identifications on imputed artists' intentions and the sitters' psychological expressions.

I. INTRODUCTION

Much research in the psychology of art has followed the method instigated by Fechner [1], that is, a search for the objective correlates of aesthetic apprecia- tion. There has been a corresponding neglect of the meanings conveyed by artworks. Our concern is to consider

paintings within the framework of certain recent social psychological theories; thus we focus on self-portraits to ask whether such theories can provide insights into viewers' responses to self-portraits. We examine three approaches to the self: self- awareness theory, self-presentation theory and social constructionist theory.

II. SELF-AWARENESS THEORY

In its original form [2] the self- awareness theory proposed that attention is directed either to the self or to the environment. Self-focussed attention can be induced when people are in the

presence of mirrors, television cameras or an audience. This is an unpleasant state because it brings to one's attention discrepancies between one's standards and one's current state-it reduces self- esteem and generally makes one more self-critical. Carver and Scheier [3] countered that self-focussed attention is not necessarily aversive, rather it induces a process of comparison with salient standards, and this might or might not

W. Ray Crozier (psychologist), School of Psychology, Lancashire Polytechnic, Preston PR1 2TQ, U.K.

Paul Greenhalgh (art historian), Faculty of Art and Design, South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Cardiff CF2 ISP, U.K.

Received 29 March 1986.

lead to negative affect. They also introduced a distinction between the private self and the public self as objects of awareness: when one is conscious of one's private self, one is attentive to one's inner thoughts and feelings; when one is conscious of one's public self, one is aware of one's self as a social object.

Superficially, this theory is highly relevant to the study of the self-portrait; to create such a picture the artist may spend considerable time observing him- or herself in a mirror (or arrangement of mirrors or, in more recent times, a photograph) and hence may create the picture while in a state of objective self- awareness. If such prolonged exposure were likely to produce an aversive state or

negative thoughts, then these should be

captured in the completed picture- either because the picture is expressive of the artist's psychological state or because the artist copies an adopted pose, facial

expression, etc., which communicates a negative emotional state.

There are, however, problems with this account. First, it does not distinguish clearly enough between self-attention and task attention. The artist is not just engaged in self-reflection but has a job to do, and it would be inaccurate to say that the artist is attending to the self in each case. The artist has to translate his or her

appearance in the mirror into some representation. Any expression that typifies a self-portrait may be a product of task demands (e.g. concentration, a pose easy to adopt or to maintain) rather than a consequence of objective self- awareness.

Second, self-awareness theory may be criticized on logical grounds. Harre has pointed to its "failure to distinguish between an awareness of self and an

awareness of aspects of self' [4]. The theory tends to prevaricate over which aspects of the self are being attended to: is the painter of the self-portrait 'self-aware' or aware of some aspects of the self, such as facial expression or the light falling on the face? Further, rather than there being automatic consequences of the state of self-awareness, the person's intentions and the attitude taken to the self surely matter. To make a representation of one's self entails taking a certain stance towards the self, and this stance is more properly described as an objective one.

III. SELF-PRESENTATION THEORY

The self-presentation theory proposes that claims to identity through presentations of self are a necessary element in social life. Self-presentation may be defined in terms of those aspects of a person's behavior that are designed to influence the impressions that other people will form of that person. It must be stressed that one is not talking about premeditated or Machiavellian strategies designed to manipulate others' reactions; self-presentation strategies are held to occur routinely in all social interactions and to be essential for the monitoring and regulation of everyday activities and for the maintenance of an orderly society.

Should self-portraits be read as self- presentations? After all, they are largely produced not for private purposes but for public exhibition. One way to approach the question is to consider the motives for producing self-portraits. Although some authors [5] emphasize practical ends, Harr6 [6] argues that self-presentation motives cannot be reduced to practical matters and that "the pursuit of reputation in the eyes of others is the

? 1988 ISAST Pergamon Journals Ltd. Printed in Great Britain. 0024-094X/88 $3.00+0.00

LEONARDO, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 29-33,1988



overriding preoccupation of human life". What are the motives for producing a self-portrait? Our own deliberations have produced this, no doubt partial, list:

(a) To indicate authorship of a work that is not primarily concerned with self- portraiture, as when a scribe introduces a self-portrait into a manuscript illustra- tion.

(b) To provide a convenient subject- matter; the artist does not need to find or pay for a model (many artists in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries learnt how to paint facial expressions by studying their own).

(c) To obtain commissions for portraits by demonstrating competence at obtaining likenesses.

(d) To continue a historical tradition: the self-portrait, as with the nude, has become a genre in its own right.

(e) To make an artistic statement, as in Diirer's self-portrait of 1506 with its religious connotations, or Otto Dix's self- portrait in the manner of Diirer's painting to make a comment on the German tradition.

(f) To deepen self-knowledge by expressing some psychological truth.

(g) To allow for narcissism or exhibitionism, which is perhaps likely to occur when artists feel themselves to be undervalued or ignored.

This partial list of motives implies that self-portraits are not necessarily self- presentations. However, the matter is not that simple. There have been historical changes both in the motives for producing self-portraits and, as we shall discuss, in the attitudes towards the self. The motives in the list that seem least likely to be the reasons for producing contemporary self-portraits, such as indicating authorship of a work or obtaining commissions, seem to involve self-presentation the least. The motives that might best characterize current practice do seem to reflect self- presentational concerns; but the self to be presented is not just one role or mask, nor is the goal simply to enhance one's reputation in the eyes of others but to tell the truth about oneself both to oneself and to others. This apparent authenticity is still a form of self-presentation according to theorists such as Goffman [7]; however, it may be a form that is related to a historically contingent view of the self, an argument that we now consider.

IV. SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIST THEORY

Gergen has summarized the central tenets of the social constructionist theory:

The terms in which the world is understood are social artifacts, products of historically situated interchanges among people. ... For example, historical investigation has revealed broad historical variations in the concept of ... romantic love ... and of self. ... Such changes in conception do not appear to reflect alterations in the objects or entities of concern but seem lodged in historically contingent factors [8].

In a similar vein, Hallowell has argued that "the individual's self-image and his interpretation of his own experience cannot be divorced from the concept of self that is characteristic of his society" [9].

Logan has drawn psychologists' attention to marked historical shifts in conceptions of the self. The self as an object of awareness and the self as a unique self-contained individual are, in Logan's thesis, a recent 'invention' dating from late-eighteenth-century Romantic- ism. He has traced changes in the self- concept from the autonomous 'I' of the Middle Ages to the contemporary person, alienated from oneself: "The nineteenth century seems to see the full tilt of the balance toward the self as object, and the kind of awareness of self ('me') that most today take as a simple and obvious given in their phenomenal world" [10]. For the artist this is associated with Romanticism, as reflected in a concern with 'personality' and the 'inner life'.

Similar arguments have been proffered in literary and historical studies. For example, Trilling [11] has traced the relationships between the increasing social mobility of the sixteenth century and changes in people's consciousness of their individuality. We should note too that this period also witnessed the rise of the autobiography in literature and the self-portrait in painting. Sennett [12] has distinguished public and private orders of life, arguing that there has been a marked shift in the balance between the two orders since the eighteenth century. He proposes that at that time civility was the standard for public behavior and that the public persona was governed by con- vention and did not express 'personality'. Personality in our modern sense was not at issue in private or public life, since a person's behavior was believed to express common natural sentiments.

The balance between public and private was eroded by the social changes of the Industrial Revolution; the public realm came to be seen as inferior to the private realm, and the private became the yardstick for evaluating the public. Today it is no longer authentic to be an 'actor', and appearance is no longer

conventional but is part of the self-it is a presentation of self. We now evaluate public affairs in terms of intimacy: we expect intimacy throughout our social encounters, and social relationships are judged authentic the closer they approach the inner psychological concerns of each person. Intimacy leads to narcissism and self-absorption: we cannot see social encounters as excluding the self, and we try to authenticate ourselves as social actors through our personal qualities. What distinguishes the accounts of Trilling and Sennett from that of Logan is they explicitly recognize the social and economic origins of the changes they chart rather than describe them purely in terms of some unexplained evolution of the self.

The implication of all this is that the self-portrait will have different meanings for people at different times. Wider social and economic changes lead, on the one hand, to changes in the concept of self and in the significance of appearance, and these are reflected by changes in portraiture. On the other hand, they lead to changes in the role and self-conception of the artist, and these are evident in the rise in popularity of the self-portrait and in the decline of the portrait. The following points support such an account: the relationship between artist and client is closer in portraiture than in other art forms and hence is more susceptible to changes in patronage and economic relationships; the rise of individual portraiture in the Renaissance is associated with changes both in the concept of self and in the relationship between artist and client; the emergence of the self-portrait as an independent art form in the sixteenth century reflects changes in the social position of the artist.

The psychological meaning of a self- portrait is a complex one. It needs to be explained in terms of theories which do justice to the social dimension. One might even say that the self-portrait literally can lose its meaning if the significance of such factors as patronage, style, status of the profession, religion or wider social and economic trends are ignored. While heavy brushwork or tearful eyes might be thought to lend a portrait a feeling of intensity, these elements could simply be the artist's response to Titian or van Dyck, or a reflection of either the artist's training or contemporary fashion.

V. SELF-PORTRAITS AS SELF-PRESENTATIONS

The self-presentation and social constructionist theories converge on the hypothesis that contemporary self-

Crozier and Greenhalgh, Self-Portraits 30



portraits should reflect self-presentational concerns, that the spectator will expect to

glean certain information about the self from them. The portraiture of past centuries takes a different stance towards the self: the sitter's appearance is conventional and reveals role and status. In contemporary depictions, however, appearance is a self-presentation and reveals personality. We addressed these issues in two empirical studies of

interpretations of self-portraits. Our

strategy was to choose a self-portrait and to match it with a portrait painted by the same artist at approximately the same date. We asked participants to attempt to

identify the self-portraits and to tell us how they did this.

One motive for this research strategy was stimulated by the claims that have been made by some art historians about the information that the self-portrait conveys, even to the naive viewer [13]. However our principal objective was to elicit the kinds of expectations that viewers had about self-portraits from different historical periods. Hence we avoided the use of rating scales, since this would have imposed terminology upon our participants. We chose two historical periods: the Baroque (c.1580-1680) and the 'Early Modern' (c.1870-1914). Five artists were chosen from these two

periods and each was represented by black-and-white reproductions of two

pictures: a self-portrait and a portrait. We mounted each reproduction on a card, trimming them to omit extraneous details that might provide clues to their status as

self-portraits, such as the accoutrements of artistic practice, or the wealth or status of the sitter. The pictures are listed in Table 1.

VI. STUDY ONE

The 20 pictures were presented to 18

college students in individual sessions. They were instructed to look through the

pictures one by one, attempting to decide for each whether it was a self-portrait or a

portrait. They could work through the cards in any order and at their own speed. No feedback was provided, and at the end of the session participants were asked to

explain how they had set about the task. Their comments were recorded and subsequently classified into different categories. The identification task proved a difficult one, and the overall identification rate (53% correct) did not exceed what could have been obtained by guesswork (z=1.00, P=0.16) [14]. The identification rate for Modern pictures (58%) was significantly higher than the rate for Baroque pictures (48%; Treat- ment x Subjects ANOVA, F =5.843,

Table 1. Artists and pictures

El Greco (1541-1614)

Rembrandt (1606-1669)

Velazquez (1599-1660)

Rubens (1577-1640)

Murillo (1617-1682)

Kokoschka (1886-1980)

Ensor(1860-1949)

Matisse (1869-1954)

Kollwitz (1867-1945)

Nolde (1867-1956)

Portrait of a Gentleman, c. 1600-1610 Self-Portrait, c. 1590-1600

Portrait of Philips Lucasz, 1635 Self-Portrait, 1635

Portrait of Juan de Pareja, 1650 Self-portrait, detail from Las Meninas, 1656

Justus Lipsius Self-portrait (both images from The Four Philosophers, 1611-1612)

Portrait of a Gentilhomme, c. 1670-80 Self-Portrait, 1675

Portrait of Etlinger, 1912 Self-Portrait, 1917

The Painter Willy Finch, 1882 Self-Portrait in a Flowered Hat, 1883

The Young Sailor, 1906 Self-Portrait, 1906

Woman with Folded Hands, 1898 Self-Portrait, 1910

Detail from Brother and Sister, 1918 Self-Portrait, 1917

Table 2. Study one: Responses to Baroque and Modern pictures

Picture Presented Response Baroque Modern Total

Self-portrait 66 110 176

Portrait 114 70 184

Number of occasions on which 180 180 360 pictures were presented

Table 3. Percentages of reasons in eight categories

Sample: Art Students Non-art Students Pictures: Baroque Modern Baroque Modern Categories Psychological Expression 35 37 20 22 Artist's Intention 20 20 22 24 Painting Style 8 19 20 26 Incidental Details 14 1 19 6 Direction of Gaze 8 3 14 13 Pose 9 1 4 4 Looks like an Artist 7 12 0 4 Recognition 0 7 1 0

Number of Statements Coded 123 114 138 156

d.f.=1,35, P<0.05) [15]. Inspection of the

responses revealed a pronounced bias towards responding that Baroque pictures were portraits and that Modern pictures were self-portraits (the value of Chi-

square was 21.70, P<.001) [16]. This bias was more pronounced for Baroque pictures; for example, if a Baroque self- portrait was presented it was twice as likely to be called a portrait than a self- portrait; the effect was present for Modern pictures but was less extreme (see Table 2).

When asked to explain the reasons for their choices, our participants gave a

range of responses which could be classified into eight categories. These

categories are presented in Table 3. The reasons that were most frequently mentioned used psychological terms that described the artist's personality or expression, particularly as seen in the eyes. These terms included confident, solemn, self-conscious, awkward, honest, contemplative, tired, sad, worried, sad eyes, wildness in the eyes, a look in the




eyes, more character in the eyes. Direction of gaze was referred to with the

implication that the subject of a self- portrait looks directly out of the picture; in fact, this was not a very predictive clue for this set of pictures. An example of an account by one participant was:

Some faces are self-conscious, have a posed quality, therefore they are self- portraits [pause] awkwardness, pre- tentiousness, contemplate the meaning of life. Some looked at the 'camera', focus on a mirror rather than on another person, like a convergence of the eyes; these are self-portraits.

Style and method of painting were also mentioned often but without consistency; degree of'accuracy' or abstract style were cited as evidence for both types of pictures.

VII. STUDY TWO

In a second study, two modifications were made to the design of the experiment. The 10 matched pairs were

presented one pair at a time and the participants asked to indicate which of the two was the self-portrait. This was to test for the differences in identification rates for the Baroque and Modern pictures without the response bias. After each decision, participants were asked to articulate the reason(s) for the choice. They were gently prompted if they omitted a reason, but were not otherwise encouraged in any particular direction. Following the experiment, the reasons were coded into the eight categories identified in the first study. The codings were carried out independently by one of the investigators and a third person; a high degree of reliability of codings was obtained. The task was carried out with a fresh sample of 15 college students enrolled in non-art courses and 11 college students enrolled in art and design courses. Art students performed sub- stantially better than non-art students (63% versus 49%), and both groups were more accurate with Modern than with Baroque pictures. To test the statistical significance of these results, a two-factor mixed design ANOVA was carried out on the number of correct judgments. There was a significant difference between the two groups of students (F=6.56, d.f.= 1,24, P<0.5) and between Baroque and Modern periods (F=9.74, d.f.=1,24, P<.005). The interaction term was nonsignificant (F<1.0), indicating that both groups of students performed better on the Modern pictures.

The art students claimed to recognize more pictures than the non-art students

(on eight occasions as opposed to one). This recognition rate is very low, and re- analysis of the judgments taking it into account showed that it had no bearing on the results.

The accounts given by both groups of subjects were coded, and the numbers in each category tabulated. Table 3 summarizes the percentages in each category for the two groups, subdivided by the two historical periods. Differences between the two periods were tested. First, we counted the number of statements in each category made by each participant when judging Baroque pictures and when judging Modern pictures.

Taking each of the eight categories in turn, we then used the Sign Test [17] to test the null hypothesis that statements of that type would be distributed equally between Baroque and Modern pictures. The only differences in category use were that Baroque pictures attracted more statements referring to Incidental Details (P<.001), while Modern pictures elicited more statements relating to Looks like an Artist (P<.005). The differences in Painting Style (P<.06) and in Recognition (P<.07) approached the conventional significance level. In the latter case, differences in recognition rate were

marked, but overall there were few statements of this kind. All these tests were two-tailed.

There were also differences between the two samples of students. These differences were tested by calculating the

proportion of each participant's statements that fell into each category and then testing for mean differences in proportion between the two samples for each of the eight categories in turn. Art students used more Psychological Ex-

pression terms (t=2.07, P<.05), more Recognition terms (t=2.91, P<.01) and more Looks like an Artist terms (t=3.63, P<.01; all tests two-tailed, d.f.=24). The two samples did not differ in use of any of the other categories, although tendencies for non-art students to make more Painting Style statements (t=1.87, P<. 10) and more Direction of Gaze statements (t= 1.86, P<. 10) approached significance.

To summarize the quantitative aspect of these accounts, there is a similar rank order in their use by the two groups with a predominance of statements relating to psychological expression and the intention of the artist. The heavy use of Incidental Details in considering pairs of Baroque pictures may reflect the difficulty of these judgments and a search among details for clues; these difficulties may have arisen from the relative absence of information that would match expecta-

tions about the subject-matter of self- portraits. Such expectations may underlie the increased use of the category referring to the sitter looking like an artist when the Modern pairs were presented. Next we turned to a closer examination of the two categories that were most frequently used.

VIII. ARTISTS' INTENTIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPRESSIONS

A list of artists' intentions statements was drawn up and scrutinized to see if any dominant themes emerged. Three such themes could be identified:

(a) Being true to oneself: references to honesty, being true to oneself, self- analysis and self-criticism, for example, "More intense as if the artist is trying to bring out something he wishes to express, his inner self'.

(b) 'Self-presentation': references to presenting a flattering picture of oneself, how one would like to look rather than how one does look; for example, "Artists tend to paint themselves as they think artists look".

(c) More technical considerations: the difficulty of the task or constraints upon the task; for example, "Capture a look that is difficult for the artist", or "When an artist paints someone else, he tends to concentrate more".

Finally, the psychological expression statements reiterated the themes from the first study, and similar trait words were produced by the two groups of participants. There were references to the following characteristics of the artist: intense, deep, thoughtful, open, honest, penetrating, self-critical, more feeling and more character.

IX. DISCUSSION

Distinguishing between portraits and

self-portraits proved a difficult task, and those with less knowledge about art seemed effectively to be guessing. The students responded rather differently to the Modern and Baroque self-portraits. In the first study, there were pronounced biases towards categorizing Baroque pictures as portraits and Modern pictures as self-portraits, and in both studies identification rates were higher for the Modern pictures. Inspection of the

explanations offered by participants suggests that self-portraits are construed in terms of self-presentations and

psychological states: some 50% of

responses refer to the impression that the artist wished to convey and to the artist's

psychological expression. A common assumption seemed to be that when the artist paints him- or herself, the depiction




is of an inward-looking artist whose concern is self-knowledge of an intense and penetrating kind. Artists must be true to themselves. These pictures are approached with one set of readings primed; that is, with a set of expectations that a self-portrait 'means' something in particular. However, these expectations are less likely to be met by Baroque pictures, which were painted at a time when the objectives of the self-portrait were different because of different attitudes to the self as well as to art, portraiture and the role of the artist.

We accept that the findings from these pilot studies can at best be suggestive. Our objective has not been to provide a crucial test of these three theories; rather, we have examined different frameworks for the study of the self-portrait and have argued that an approach based on notions of self-presentation and historical changes in self-concepts is a productive one. Such a theoretical framework allows us to generate questions that are susceptible to empirical examination in ways that we would argue are less impoverished than the more traditional psychological approaches to the study of art. Our participants responded differently to pictures from different historical periods, not in terms of their preferences but in terms of their understanding of the meanings of artworks.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. G.T. Fechner, Vorschule der Aesthetik (Leipzig: Breitkopf and Haertel, 1876).

2. S. Duval and R.A. Wicklund, A Theory of Objective Self-Awareness (New York: Academic Press, 1972).

3. C.S. Carver and M.F. Scheier, Attention and Self-Regulation (New York: Springer- Verlag, 1981).

4. R. Harre, Personal Being (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983).

5. E.E. Jones and T.S. Pitman, "Toward a General Theory of Self-Presentation", in J. Suls, ed., Psychological Perspectives on the Self, vol. 1 (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1982).

6. R. Harre, Social Being (Oxford: Black- well, 1979).

7. E. Goffman, The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (Harmondsworth, Middle- sex: Penguin, 1982).

8. K.J. Gergen, "The Social Constructionist Movement in Psychology", American Psychologist 40, 266-275 (1985).

9. A.I. Hallowell, Culture and Experience (Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press, 1955).

10. R.D. Logan, "Historical Change in Prevailing Sense of Self', in K. Yardley and T. Honess, eds., Self and Identity: Psychosocial Processes (Chichester, Sussex: Wiley, 1987).

11. L. Trilling, Sincerity and Authenticity (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).

12. R. Sennett, The Fall of Public Man (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976).

13. See, for example, the claim that self- portraiture allows an artist like Rembrandt to penetrate to some deeper

spiritual truth (J. Rosenberg, Rembrandt: Life and Work [Oxford: Phaidon, 1964] pp. 37-38). Gerson (J. Gerson, Rembrandt [New York: Artobras, 1968]) and Muller (J.E. Muller, Rembrandt [London: Thames and Hudson, 1968]) have written in a similar vein; such claims are not restricted to Rembrandt and the Baroque period, but pervade much art- historical writing.

14. A z-score is a statistic produced by a test of the significance of the difference between two proportions; see J.L. Bruning and B.L. Kintz, Computational Handbook of Statistics (Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1968) pp. 222-224. In all the tests reported here P refers to the probability, under the null hypothesis of no difference, associated with the value of the reported test statistic. Conventionally a value of P less than 0.05 is taken as a statistically significant difference.

15. Treatment X Subjects and mixed design analysis of variance (ANOVA) techniques are appropriate where each subject makes judgments about both sets of pictures. These methods have the advantage of minimizing the variance caused by those differences between subjects that are irrelevant to the hypothesis being tested.

16. Chi-square is the appropriate test when the data are in the form of frequencies of scores in discrete categories. Here the data are frequencies of correct and incorrect judgments of Baroque and Modern pictures; see, for example, S. Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw- Hill, 1956) pp. 104-111.

17. For details of the Sign Test see Siegel [16] pp. 68-75.




Documents

Self-Portraits as Presentations of Self