PERCEPTION : IMPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION

Shedon S. Zalkind & Timothy W. Costello* Management practice is being increasingly influenced by behavioral science research in the areas of group dynamics problem solving and decision making and motivation. !ne aspect of behavior "hich has not been fully or consistently emphasi#ed is the process of perception particularly the recent "ork on person perception. $n this paper "e shall summari#e some of the findings on perception as developed through both laboratory and organi#ational research and point out some of the administrative and managerial implications. We discuss first some basic factors in the nature of the perceptual process including need and set% second some research on forming impressions% third the characteristics of the perceiver and the perceived% fourth situational and organi#ational influences on perception% and finally perceptual influences on interpersonal ad&ustment. '(T)*+ !, T-+ .+*C+.T)(/ .*!C+SS What are some of the factors influencing perception0 $n ans"ering the 1uestion it is "ell to begin by putting aside the attitude of na2ve realism "hich suggests that our perceptions simply register accurately "hat is 3out there4. $t is necessary rather to consider "hat influences distort one5s perceptions and &udgments of the outside "orld. Some of the considerations identified in the literature up to the time of 6ohnson5s 7899 revie" of the research on ob&ect perception :"here distortion may be even less e;treme than in person perception< led him to suggest the follo"ing about the perceiver= 7. -e may be influenced by considerations that he may not be able to identify responding to cues that are belo" the threshold of his a"areness. ,or e;ample a &udgment as to the si#e of an ob&ect may be influenced by its color even though the perceiver may not be attending to color. >. When re1uired to form difficult perceptual &udgments he may respond to irrelevant cues to arrive at a &udgment. ,or e;ample in trying to assess honesty it has been sho"n that the other person5s smiling or not smiling is used as a cue to &udge his honesty. ?. $n making abstract or intellectual &udgments he may be influenced by emotional factors @ "hat is liked is perceived as correct.

Source= (dministrative Science Auarterly B September 78C> >7DE>?F. *eference have been omitted for convenience.

9. -e "ill "eigh perceptual evidence coming from respected :or favored< sources more heavily than that coming from other sources. F. -e may not be able to identify all the factors on "hich his &udgments are based. +ven if he is a"are of these factors he is not likely to reali#e ho" much "eight he gives to them. These considerations do not imply that "e respond only to the subtle or irrelevant cues or to emotional factors. We often perceive on the basis of the obvious but "e are 1uite likely to be responding as "ell to the less obvious or less ob&ective. $n 78FD Gruner citing a series of researches described "hat he called the 3'e" /ook4 in perception as one in "hich personal determinants of the perceptual process are being stressed. Gruner summari#ed earlier "ork and sho"ed the importance of such sub&ective influences as needs values cultural background and interests on the perceptual process. $n his concept of 3perceptual readiness4 he described the importance of the frame"ork or category system that the perceiver himself brings to the perceiving process. Tapping a different vein of research Cantril described perceiving as a 3transaction4 bet"een the perceiver and the perceived a process of negotiation in "hich the perceptual and product is a result both of influences "ithin the perceiver and of characteristics of the perceived. !ne of the most important of the sub&ective factors that influence the "ay "e perceive identified by Gruner and others is set. ( study by Helley illustrated the point. -e found that those "ho "ere previously led to e;pect to meet a 3"arm4 person not only made different &udgments about him but also behaved differently to"ard him than those "ho "ere e;pecting a 3cold4 one. The fact "as that they simultaneously "ere observing the same person in the same situation. Similarly Strickland indicated the influence of set in determining ho" closely supervisors feel they must supervise their subordinates. Gecause of prior e;pectation one person "as trusted more than another and "as thought to re1uire less supervision than another even though performance records "ere identical. ,!*M$'I $M.*+SS$!'S !, !T-+*S The data on forming impressions is of particular importance in administration. (n administrator is confronted many times "ith the task of forming an impression of another person @ a ne" employee at his desk a visiting member from the home office a staff member he has not personally met before. -is o"n values needs and e;pectations "ill play a part in the impression he forms. (re there other factors that typically operate in this area of administrative life0 !ne of the more obvious influences is the physical appearance of the person being perceived. $n a study of this point Mason "as able to demonstrate that people agree on "hat a leader should look like and that there is no relationship bet"een the facial characteristics agreed upon and those possessed by actual

>

leaders. $n effect "e have ideas about "hat leaders look like and "e can give e;amples but "e ignore the many e;ceptions that statistically cancel out the e;amples. $n the sometimes casual al"ays transitory situations in "hich one must form impressions of others it is a most natural tendency to &ump to conclusions and form impressions "ithout ade1uate evidence. )nfortunately as Jailey sho"ed unless such impressions are based on important and relevant data they are not likely to be accurate. Too often in forming impressions the perceiver does not kno" "hat is relevant important or predictive of later behaviour. Jailey5s research further more supports the clichK that accurate or not first impressions are lasting. Ienerali#ing form other research in the field Soskin described four limitations on the ability to form accurate impressions of others. First the impression is likely to be disproportionately affected by the type of situation or surroundings in "hich the impression is made and influenced too little by the person perceived. Thus the plush luncheon club in "hich one first meets a man "ill dominate the impression of the man himself. Second, although impressions are fre1uently based on a limited sample of the perceived person5s behavior the generali#ation that the perceiver makes "ill be s"eeping. ( third limitation is that the situation may not provide an opportunity for the person perceived to sho" behaviour relevant to the traits about "hich impressions are formed. Casual conversation or 1uestions for e;ample provide fe" opportunities to demonstrate intelligence or "ork characteristics yet the perceiver often dra"s conclusions about these from an intervie". ,inally Soskin agrees "ith Gruner and Cantril that the impression of the person perceived may be distorted by some highly individuali#ed reaction of the perceiver. Gut the pitfalls are not yet all spelled out% it is possible to identify some other distorting influences on the process of forming impressions. *esearch has brought into sharp focus some typical errors the more important being stereotyping halo effect pro&ection and perceptual defense. Stereotyping= The "ord 3stereotyping4 "as first used by Walter /ippmann in 78>> to describe bias in perceived peoples. -e "rote of 3pictures in people5s heads 4 called stereotypes "hich guided :distorted< their perception of others. The term has long been used to describe &udgments made about people on the basis of their ethnic group membership. ,or e;ample some say 3-erman Schmidt :being Ierman< is industrious.4 Stereotyping also predisposes &udgments in many other areas of interpersonal relations. Stereotype has developed about many types of groups and they help to pre&udice many or our perceptions about their members. +;amples of stereotypes of groups other than those based on ethnic identification are bankers supervisors union members poor people rich people and administrators. Many unverified 1ualities are assigned to people principally because of such group membership.

$n a research demonstration of stereotyping -aire found that labeling a photograph as that of a management representative caused an impression to be formed of the person different from that formed "hen it "as labeled as that of a union leader. Management and labor formed different impressions each seeing his opposite as less dependable than his o"n group. $n addition each side sa" his o"n group as being better able than the opposite group to understand a point of vie" different from its o"n. ,or e;ample managers felt that other managers "ere better able to appreciate labor5s point of vie" than labor "as able to appreciate management5s point of vie". +ach had similar stereotypes of his opposite and considered the thinking emotional characteristics and interpersonal relations of his opposite as inferior to his o"n. (s Stagner pointed out 3$t is plain that unionists perceiving company officials in a stereotyped "ay are less efficient than "ould be desirable. Similarly company e;ecutives "ho see all labor unions as identical are not sho"ing good &udgment or discrimination.4 !ne of the troublesome aspects of stereotypes is that they are so "idespread. ,inding the same stereotypes to be "idely held should not tempt one to accept their accuracy. $t may only mean that many people are making the same mistake. (llport has demonstrated that there need not be a 3Hernel of truth in a "idely held stereotype. -e has sho"n that "hile a prevalent stereotype of (rmenians labeled them as dishonest a credit reporting association gave them credit ratings as good as those given other ethnic groups. Gruner and .erlmutter found that there is an international stereotype for 3Gusinessmen4 and 3teachers4. They indicated that the more "idespread one5s e;perience "ith diverse members of a group the less their group membership "ill affect the impression formed. (n additional illustration of stereotyping is provided by /uft. -is research suggests that perception of personality ad&ustment may be influenced by stereotypes associating ad&ustment "ith high income and malad&ustment "ith lo" income. -alo +ffect The term 3halo effect4 "as first used in 78>L to describe a process in "hich a general impression "hich is several specific traits. The 3halo4 in such cases serves as a screen keeping the perceiver from actually seeing the trait he is &udging. $t has received the most attention because of its effect on rating employee performance. $n the rating situation a supervisor may single out one trait either good or bad and use this as the basis for his &udgment of all other traits. ,or e;ample an e;cellent attendance record causes &udgments of productivity high 1uality of "ork and so forth. !ne study in the )S (rmy sho"ed that officers "ho "ere liked "ere &udged more intelligent than those "ho "ere disliked even though they had the same scores on intelligence tests. We e;amine halo effect here because of its general effect on forming impressions. Gruner and Ta1uiri suggest that it is likely to be most e;treme "hen "e are forming impressions of traits that provide minimal cues in the individual5s behavior "hen the traits have moral overtones or "hen the perceiver must &udge traits "ith "hich he has had little

e;perience. ( rather disturbing conclusion is suggested by Symonds that halo effect is more marked the more "e kno" the ac1uaintance. ( some"hat different aspect of the halo effect is suggested by the research of Irove and Herr. They found that kno"ledge that the company "as in receivership caused employees to devalue the higher pay and other"ise superior "orking conditions of their company as compared to those in a financially secure firm. .sychologists have noted a tendency in perceivers to link certain traits. They assume for e;ample that "hen a person is aggressive he "ill also have high energy or that "hen a person is 3"arm4 he "ill also be generous and have a good sense of humour. This logical error as it has been called is a special form of the halo effect and is best illustrated in the research of (sch. $n his study the addition of one trait to a list of traits produced a ma&or change in the impression formed. Hno"ing that a person "as intelligent skillful industrious determined practical cautious and "arm led a group to &udge him to be also "ise humorous popular and imaginative. When "arm "as replaced by cold a radically different impression :beyond the difference bet"een "arm and cold< "as formed. Helley5s research illustrated the same type of error. This tendency is not indiscriminate% "ith the pair 3politeEblunt4 less change "as found than "ith the more central traits of 3"armEcold4. $n evaluating the effect of halo on perceptual distortion "e may take comfort from the "ork of Wishner "hich sho"ed that those traits that correlate more highly "ith each other are more likely to lead to a halo effect than those that are unrelated. .ro&ection ( defense mechanism available to everyone is pro&ection in "hich one relieves one5s feelings of guilt or failure by pro&ecting blame on to someone else. !ver the years the pro&ection mechanism has been assigned various meanings. The original use of the term "as concerned "ith the mechanism to defend oneself from unacceptable feelings. There has since been a tendency for the term to be used more broadly meaning to ascribe or attribute any of one5s o"n characteristics to other people. The pro&ection mechanism concerns us here because it influences the perceptual process. (n early study by Murray illustrates its effect. (fter playing a dramatic game 3Murder4 his sub&ects attributed much more maliciousness to people "hose photo graphs "ere &udged than did a control group "hich had not played the game. The current emotional state of the perceiver tended to influence his perceptions of others% i.e. frightened perceivers &udged people to be frightening. More recently ,eshback and Singer revealed further dynamics of the process. $n their study sub&ects "ho had been made fearful &udged a stimulus person :presented in a moving picture< as both more fearful and more aggressive than did nonE fearful perceivers. These authors "ere able to demonstrate further that the pro&ection mechanism at "ork here "as reduced "hen their sub&ects "ere encouraged to admit and talk about their fears.

Sears provides an illustration of a some"hat different type of pro&ection and its effects on perception. $n his study pro&ection is seeing our o"n undesirable personality characteristic in other people. -e demonstrated that people high in such traits as stinginess obstinacy and disorderliness ended to rate others much higher on these traits than did those "ho "ere lo" in these undesirable characteristics. The tendency to pro&ect "as particularly marked among sub&ects "ho had the least insight into their o"n personalities. *esearch thus suggests that our perceptions may characteristically be distorted by emotions "e are e;periencing or traits that "e possess. .laced in the administrative settings the research "ould suggest for e;ample that a manager frightened by rumored organi#ational changes might not only &udge others to be more frightened than they "ere but also assess various policy decisions as more frightening than they "ere. !r a general foreman lacking insight into his o"n incapacity to delegate might be over sensitive to this trait in his superiors. .erceptual Jefense (nother distorting influence "hich has been called perceptual defense has also been demonstrated by -aire and Irunes to be a source of error. $n their research they ask in effect 3Jo "e put blinders on to defend ourselves from seeing those events "hich might disturb us04 The concept of perceptual defense offers an e;cellent description of perception distortion at "ork and demonstrates that "hen confronted "ith a fact inconsistent "ith a stereotype already held by a person the perceiver is able to distort the data in such a "ay as to eliminate the inconsistency. Thus by perceiving inaccurately he defends himself from having to change his stereotypes. C-(*(CT+*$ST$CS !, .+*C+$M+* ('J .+*C+$M+J We have thus far been talking largely about influences on the perceptual process "ithout specific regard to the perceiver and his characteristics. Much recent research has tried to identify some characteristics of the perceiver and their influence on the perception of other people. The .erceiver ( thread that "ould seem to tie together many current findings is the tendency to use oneself as the norm or standard by "hich one perceives or &udges others. $f "e e;amine current research certain conclusions are suggested= 7. Hno"ing oneself makes it easier to see others more accurately. 'orman sho"ed that "hen one is a"are of "hat his o"n personal characteristics are he makes fe"er errors in perceiving others. Weingarten has sho"n that people "ith insight are less likely to vie" the "orld in blankEandE"hite terms and to give e;treme &udgments about others.

>. !ne5s o"n characteristics affect the characteristics he is likely to see in others. Secure people :compared to insecure< tend to see others as "arm rather than cold as "as sho"n by Gossom and Maslo". The e;tent of one5s o"n sociability influences the degree of importance one gives to the sociability of other people "hen one forms impressions of them. The person "ith 3authoritarian4 tendencies is more likely to vie" others in terms of po"er and is less sensitive to the psychological or personality characteristics of other people than is a nonEauthoritarian. The relatively fe" categories one uses in describing other people tend to be those one uses in describing oneself. Thus traits "hich are important to the perceiver "ill be used more "hen he forms impressions of others and to the amount of "eight given to these categories. ?. The person "ho accepts himself is more likely to be able to see favourable aspect of other people. This relates in part to the accuracy of his perceptions. $f the perceiver accepts himself as he is he "idens his range or vision in seeing others% he can look at them and be less likely to be very negative or critical. $n those areas in "hich he is more insecure he sees more problems in other people. We are more likely to like others "ho have traits "e accept in ourselves and re&ect those "ho have the traits "hich "e do not like in ourselves. 9. (ccuracy in perceiving others is not a single skill. While there have been some variations in the findings as Iage has sho"n some consistent results do occur. The perceiver tends to interpret the feelings others have about him in terms of his feeling to"ards them. !ne5s ability to perceive others accurately may depend on ho" sensitive one is to differences bet"een people and also to the norms :outside of oneself< for &udging them. Thus as Taft has sho"n the ability to &udge others does not seem to be a single skill. .ossibly the results in these four aspects of person perception can be vie"ed most constructively in connection "ith earlier points on the process of perception. The administrator :or any other individual< "ho "ishes to perceive someone else accurately must look at the other person not at himself. The things that he looks at in someone else are influenced by his o"n traits. Gut if he kno"s his o"n traits he can be a"are that they provide a frame of reference for him. -is o"n traits help to furnish the categories that he "ill use in perceiving others. -is characteristics needs and values can partly limit his vision and his a"areness of the differences bet"een others. The 1uestion one could ask "hen vie"ing another is= 3(m $ looking at him and forming my impression of his behaviour in the situation or am $ &ust comparing him "ith myself04 There is the added problem of being set to observe the personality traits in another "hich ht perceiver does not accept in himself e.g. being some"hat autocratic. (t the same time he may make undue allo"ances in others for those of his o"n deficiencies "hich do not disturb him but might concern some people e.g. not follo"ing prescribed procedures.

The .erceived /est "e leave the impression that it is only the characteristics of the perceiver that stand bet"een him and others in his efforts to kno" them "e turn no" to some characteristics of the person being perceived "hich raise problems in perception. $t is possible to demonstrate for e;ample that the status of the person perceived is a variable influencing &udgements about his behaviour . Thibaut and *iecken have sho"n that even thought t"o people behave in identical fashion status differences bet"een them cause a perceiver to assign different motivations for the behaviour. Concerning cooperativeness they found that high status persons are &udged as "anting to cooperate. $n turn more liking is sho"n for the person of high status than for the person of lo" status. .resumably more credit is given "hen the boss says 3Iood morning 4 to us than "hen a subordinate say the same thing. Gruner indicated that "e use categories to simplify our perceptual activities. $n the administrative situation status is one type of category and the role provides another. Thus the remarks of Mr. 6ones in the sales department are perceived differently from those of Smith in the purchasing department although both may say the same thing. (lso one "ho kno"s 6ones5 role in the organi#ation "ill perceive his behaviour differently from one "ho does not kno" 6ones5 role. The process of categori#ing on the basis of roles is similar to if not identical "ith the stereotyping process described earlier. Misibility of the traits &udged is also an important variable influencing the accuracy of perception. Misibility "ill depend for e;ample on ho" free the other person feels to e;press the trait. $t has been demonstrated that "e are more accurate in &udging people "ho like us than people "ho dislike us. The e;planation suggested is that most people in our society feel constraint in sho"ing their dislike and therefore the cues are less visible. Some traits are not visible simply because they provide fe" e;ternal cues for their presence. /oyalty for e;ample as opposed to level of energy provides fe" early signs for observation. +ven honesty cannot be seen in the situations in "hich most impressions are formed. (s obvious as these comments might be in forming impressions many of us nevertheless continue to &udge the presence of traits "hich are not really visible. ,re1uently the practical situation demands &udgments but "e are learning and be prepared to observe further and revise our &udgements "ith time and closer ac1uaintance. S$T)(T$!'(/ $',/)+'C+S !' .+*C+.T$!' Some recent research clearly points to the conclusion that the "hole process of interpersonal perception is at least in part a function of the group :or interpersonal< conte;t in "hich the perception occurs. Much of the research has important theoretical implications for a psychology of interpersonal relations. $n addition there are some suggestions of value for administrators. $t is possible to identify several characteristics of the interpersonal climate "hich have direct effect on perceptual accuracy. (s "ill be

noted these are characteristics "hich can be kno"n and in some cases controlled in administrative settings. Gieri provides data for the suggestion that "hen people are given an opportunity to interact in a friendly situation they tend to see others as similar to themselves. (pplying his suggestion to the administrative situation "e can rationali#e as follo"s= some difficulties of administrative practice gro" out of beliefs that different interest groups in the organi#ation are made up of different types of people. !bviously once "e believe that people in other groups are different "e "ill be predisposed to see the differences. We can thus find from Gieri5s and from *osenbaum5s "ork an administrative approach for attacking the problem. $f "e can produce an interacting situation "hich is cooperative rather than competitive the likelihood of seeing other people as similar to ourselves is increased. +;line5s study adds some other characteristics of the social conte;t "hich may influence perception. .araphrasing his conclusions to adapt them to the administrative scene "e can suggest that "hen a committee group is made up of congenial members "ho are "illing to continue "ork in the same group their perceptions of the goal directed behaviour of fello" committee members "ill be more accurate although observations of purely personal behaviour :as distinguished from goalEdirected behavior< may be less accurate. The implications for setting up committees and presumably other interacting "ork groups seem clear= Jo not place together those "ith a past history of ma&or personal clashes. $f they must be on the same committee each must be helped to see that the other is "orking to"ard the same goal. (n interesting variation in this area of research is the suggestion from +;5s "ork that perceptions "ill be more influenced or s"ayed by relatively unfamiliar people in the group than by those "ho are intimates. The concept needs further research but it provides the interesting suggestion that "e may give more credit to strangers for having kno"ledge since "e do not really kno" than "e do to our intimates "hose backgrounds and limitations "e feel "e do kno". The organi#ation and one5s place in it may also be vie"ed as the conte;t in "hich perceptions take place. ( study by Jearborn and Simon illustrates this point. Their data support the hypothesis that the administrator5s perceptions "ill often be limited to those aspects of a situation "hich relate specifically to his o"n department despite an attempt to influence him a"ay from such selectivity. .erception of self among populations at different levels in the hierarchy also offers an opportunity to &udge the influence of organi#ational conte;t on perceptual activity. .orter5s study of the selfEdescriptions of managers and line "orkers indicated that both groups sa" themselves in different terms "hich corresponded to their positions in the organi#ation5s hierarchy. -e stated that manages used leadershipEstyle traits :e.g. inventive< to describe themselves "hile line "orkers used follo"er type terms :e.g. cooperative<. The 1uestion of "hich comes first must be asked= Joes the manager see himself this "ay because of his current position in the organisation0 !r is this selfEpicture

an e;pression of a more enduring personal characteristic that helped bring the manager to his present position0 This study does not ans"er that 1uestion but it does suggest to an administrator the need to be a"are of the possibly critical relationship bet"een one5s hierarchical role and selfEperception. .+*C+.T)(/ $',/)+'C+S !' $'T+*.+*S!'(/ (J6)STM+'T Throughout this paper "e have e;amined a variety of influences on the perceptual process. There has been at least the inference that the operations of such influences on perception "ould in turn affect behaviour that "ould follo". CommonEsense &udgment suggests that being able to &udge other people accurately facilitates smooth and effective interpersonal ad&ustments. 'evertheless the relationship bet"een perception and conse1uent behaviour is itself in need of direct analysis. T"o aspects may be identified= :7< the effect of accuracy of perception on subse1uent behaviour and :>< the effect of the duration of the relationship and the opportunity for e;periencing additional cues. ,irst then from the applied point of vie" "e can ask a crucial 1uestion= $s there a relationship bet"een accuracy of social perception and ad&ustment to others0 While the 1uestion might suggest a 1uick affirmative ans"er research findings are inconsistent. Steiner attempted to resolve some of these inconsistencies by stating that accuracy may have an effect interaction under the follo"ing conditions= "hen the interacting persons are cooperatively motivated "hen the behaviour "hich is accurately perceived is relevant to the activities of these persons and "hen members are free to alter their behaviour on the basis of their perceptions. Where the relationship provides opportunity only to form an impression a large number of sub&ective factors i.e. set stereotypes pro&ections etc. operate to create an early impression "hich is fre1uently erroneous. $n more enduring relationships a more balanced appraisal may result since increased interaction provides additional cues for &udgment. $n his study of the ac1uaintance process 'e"comb sho"ed that "hile perception of favorable traits caused attraction to the perceived person over a fourEmonth period the early cues for &udging favorable traits became less influential. With time a much broader basis "as used "hich included comparisons "ith others "ith "hom one had established relationships such findings suggest that the "arnings about perceptual inaccuracies implicit in the earlier sections of this paper apply "ith more force to the shortEterm process of impression forming than to relatively e;tended ac1uaintanceE building relationships. !ne "ould thus hope that rating an employee after a year of service "ould be a more ob&ective performance than appraising him in a selection intervie" @ a hope that "ould be fulfilled only "hen the rater had provided himself "ith opportunities for broadening the cues he used in forming his first impressions.

7L

S)MM(*N= T"o principal suggestions "hich increase the probability of more effective administrative action emerge from the research date. !ne suggestion is that the administrator be continuously a"are of the intricacies of the perceptual process and thus be "arned to avoid arbitrary and categorical &udgments and to seek reliable evidence before &udgments are made. ( second suggestion gro"s out of the first= increased accuracy in one5s selfE perception can make possible the fle;ibility to seek evidence and to shift position as time provides additional evidence. 'evertheless not every effort designed to improve perceptual accuracy "ill bring about such accuracy. The dangers of too complete reliance on formal training for perceptual accuracy are suggested in a study by Cro". -e found that a group of senior medical students "ere some "hat less accurate in their perceptions of others after a period of training in physicianEpatient relationships than "ere an untrained control group. The danger is that a little learning encourages the perceiver to respond "ith increased sensitivity to individual differences "ithout making it possible for him to gauge the real meaning of the differences he has seen. Without vigilance to perceive accurately and to minimi#e as far as possible the sub&ective approach in perceiving others effective administration in handicapped. !n the other hand research "ould not support the conclusion that perceptual distortions "ill not occur simply because the administrator says he "ill try to be ob&ective. The administrator or manager "ill have to "ork hard to avoid seeing only "hat he "ants to see and to guard against fitting everything into "hat he is set to see. We are not yet sure of the "ays in "hich training for perceptual accuracy can best be accomplished but such training cannot be ignored. $n fact one can say that one of the important tasks of administrative science is to design research to test various training procedures for increasing perceptual accuracy. ****

77