1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Feedback and Breakdowns as Breakthroughs In Dyadic Communication
Julia M Di Stefano
Humanities and Social Sciences Department
New Hampshire College
Manchester, New Hampshire 03106, USA
Abstract
This paper shows that viewing dyadic ication from the persp of ser h and
system dynamics rather than the cybernetics perspective (see Richardson, 1991,128) allows deeper
insights into the complex process of human conversations. Instead of viewing feedback from the
ve as the infl of input back on output (Richardson,128) we view dyadic
communication as a closed system, with positive and negative feedback loops. This point of view
helps us to better understand how to use feedback to achieve one’s communication goals. A case
study based on the short story The Revolt of Mother by Mary Wilkins Freeman, illustrates the
reciprocal (not linear) nature of dyadic communication, and the role of breakdowns in revealing its
structure. This analysis has implications for Managers who engage in conversation in which they
create, take care of, and initiate new within an ion (Winograd and Flores,
1991,151).
Information Systems, page 9
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Feedback and Breakdowns as Breakthroughs in Dyadic Communication
The concept of feedback has different meanings for system dynamacists than it does for
social scientists. This has been shown clearly by Richardson ee who states that the notion of
feedback among social scientists tends towards “phil ion rather than
direct application to societal phenomena”(96). The social see according to Richardson, tend to
view Sedk in terms of “the influence of output back on input, and in terms of information
” (128). This approach is illustrated in linear, transmission models, like that
shown in fi; igure 1 below. In contrast, system dynamicists, led by Forrester, use “a feedback point of
view not merely for the analysis of a model, but for model P and
Feedback is present at the creation of the model and its presence makes a difference in the way
reality is perceived. For system dynamacists feedback is “a different sort of lens through which to
see the world” (159).
An analysis of the li on interp 1 icati icularly dyadic
supports } Richardson’s ‘that social scientists tend to view feedback in terms
of i d in In ks and journal articles on managerial and
business communication, there is much theoretical discussion of feedback, but a notable lack of
insight and guid: ing the direct ication of feedback to help one achieve one’s goals in
dyadic conversation. The main reason for this, is that the paradigm of all Western theories of
communication is based on a transmission model of the process. More specifically, it is based on
the Shannon-Weaver Nae model, shown i in figure 1 below, which was originally designed to
explain the ph, and radio signals.
MRIALON sa srertecn
RECEIVED
SIGNAL
‘NOISE,
SOURCE
Fig. 1—Schematic diagram of a general communication system,
FIGURE 1. The Shannon-Weaver model.(From THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF
COMMUNICATION, 1949, 7).
The Shannon-Weaver model “has been pressed into general service because of its seeming
simplicity and its foundation in scientific principle’(Bowman and Targowski, 1987, 23). Yet this
model, as usefull as it was to explain the transmission of electronic signals, is less useful as an aid to
ion because it says nothing about meaning, and because it
“ignores the surrounding environment ...[and] assumes that is a literal hing [of
signals] rather than making [of meaning]” (McLuhan & Powers, 1989,75). .
According to Beamer, the “signifier is the ...sensorially perceived signal without meaning ye!
attached, The signified is the meaning. The relationship between the signifier and signified is
arbitrary”. (287) In other words, the Process of dyadic communication is a matter of matching
signs and meanings that are held in the “reservoirs” of the sender and receiver. When there is neither
identity nor similarity in the signifiers, there is no understanding between the parties.
Information Systems, page 10
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Reacavoine oF sions
(] [EJ
ICENTICAL @ianinER — sicnuricn
Limaeo TO KNOWN vO.
monrice, =
UNKEO SIGNIFIER NOT LINKED.
oy To sommes
Fig.2.The Cognitive Matching Process Figure 3. Noise.(Zolten &Phillips (Beamer,288).
Figure 3 illustrates how semantic “noise” inhibits understanding. “The sound ‘box’
could mean (a) two fighters battling | i out in the ring, (b) two or more bottles of strong, aged, brown
beer, or (c) that b lo the great Pp Johann Sebastian Bach.”(Zolten and
Phillips, 1985, 4-5).
Like Beamer and Zolten and Phillips, most writers of textbooks and journals on interpersonal
communication discuss the process using the Shannon-Weaver linear model; they explain
communication in terms of the transmission of signals from one black box , the sender, through a
channel, to another black box, a receiver. But while there are distinct senders and receivers in the
transmission of electronic signals, in the case of dyadic communication both Parties are
ly senders and ivers. In fact, interpersonal communication is a “reciprocal process
in which both (or all) persons act and react, ‘receive,’ and “send,” in such detail and complexity that
these terms lose their meaning as verbs of individual action”(Watzlawick and Beavin, 1977, 57).
A major weakness of many analyses of dyadic communication -- particularly i in their pictorial
-- is the i paid to the role of feedback in the process. When
feedback is discussed, and when it is represented pictorially, it is usually subordinated to the sender,
the receiver, and the message. (See figure 4 a, b,c, and d below). In both the discussions and in
pictorial representations of conversations, feedback is not central, but peripheral. The addition of
the feedback element to diagrams of the process are minor variations of the Shannon-Weaver model
shown in figure 1.
message
Figure 4a Figure 4b
Information Systems, page 11
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Situation
Figure 4c
A CASE STUDY
‘0 di that dyadic ication is more clearly understood when viewed as a
reciprocal process, and when the patterns of behavior are traced to its feedback structure
(Richardson,159), this paper will use as a “case study” the short story “The Revolt of Mother” by
Mary Wilkins Freeman. The case shows how a conflict between a New England farmer and his wife
was resolved when she found a way out of a positive feedback loop. A breakdown in conversation
ly resulted in a breakthrough, and an achi of shared meaning or confluence of
interpretation.
ROLE OF CONTEXT& CULTURE IN DYADIC COMMUNICATION
Mr. Penn discovered a difference in his world view or mental model and that of Mrs. Penn,
his wife, when she challenged him about building a new barn where he had promised, forty years
before, to build a new house. His response was to tell her to go into the house and “tend to [her] own
affairs”; after that he said “not another word” (Freeman,32) . The domains of responsibility and
power are clearly delineated at the outset : In this nineteenth century New England village, farmers
wives are expected to tend to cooking,cleaning, and sewing inside the house, while their husbands ar
expected to make decisions about when to buy more cows and when to build more barns. t is
significant that Sammy, their young son, still a schoolboy, knew about Mr. Penn’s plans three
months before Mrs. Penn found out. And she found out not because her husband discussed his plans
with her, but rather when she observed workers digging a cellar for the new barn.
But Mrs. Penn knows her place, and is resigned to the fact that, in their culture, women knov
nothing more than men think they do. When her daughter ,Nanny, protests that her fiance would
not be as deaf to her requests as her father is to Mrs. Penn’s, the latter explains to her that wives
ought to “reckon men-folks in with Providence, an’ not complain of what they do any more than
..of the weather’(Freeman,33). Mrs. Penn knows it is useless to complain because men “don’t look
at things” the way women do(Freeman,33). In other words, she recognizes that there are basic
differences in the way men and women view the world. Yet she is determined to try to show her
husband that it isn’t right for him to build a larger bam when what the family really needs is a larger
house.
After dinner that day, when the children have gone out and they are-alone, Mrs. Penn again
tries to plead her case for a larger house. She first points to the tiny size and shabby condition of
their parlor-dining room, which is the only room Nanny has to have her company in and have her
wedding in. She also shows him her “small ill-lighted pantry”(Freeman,36) which is all the space she
has to store food, dishes, and the milk-pans where she has been taking care of the milk of six cows.
How will she manage, she asks him, when he buys more cows and gives her more milk to process in
her tiny buttery? Then she asks him to look at the two unfinished attic rooms,not as warm and tigh
as his horse’s stall, which are all Sammy and Nanny have had as bedrooms. “You're lodgin’ your
dumb beasts better than your own flesh and blood,” she tells her husband. I want to know if you thin.
it’s right”(Freeman,37). After she p her he respond bt “T ain’t got
nothin’ to say”(37).
Information Systems, page 12
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
Mrs. Penn saves her strongest suit for last : her concern that Nanny is too frail in health to
take on the workload of a farmer’s wife. “I’ve always took the heft of everything off her,” she says,
worrying that her daughter will be “all worn out inside of a year (37). If they do not build another
house, Nanny will have to live far away from them, and Mrs. Penn doesn’t think she could accept
that because she would then be unable to help her daughter with the heavy work.
“She had pleaded her little cause like a Webster... [but] her opponent employed that
obstinate silence which makes eloquence futile with mocking echoes.” Mr. Penn’s response to his
wife was simply,"1” ‘ve got to go off after that load of gravel. I can’t stan’ here talkin’ all day”(37).
As is in many long-t ips, Mr. and Mrs. Penn are trapped in a positive
loop, a reinforcing, vicious circle. The more she challenges her husband’s decision to build a new
barn instead of a new house, the more he digs in his heels, asserting by his actions and his refusal to
talk about it his prerogative as head of the family to make that decision unilaterally. Both know that
the traditions and mores of the community will support Mr. Penn’s actions, and it appears that
Mrs. Penn will have to swallow her resentment, and submit to her husband’s will.
But let us look again at the conversations between the couple. When Mrs. Penn first
questioned her husband about the men digging a cellar, he told her to mind her own business, which
meant taking care of the house and the children. The second time she challenges him, he seems not
to hear any of her arguments, saying he can’t waste time talking all day. Ironically, he has not said
aword. According to his mental model, men act -- they load and unload wagons, they build barns,
and they buy more cows and horses. Women, in contrast, “yak.” Certainly he understands the literal
meaning of all of Mrs. Penn’s words and sentences, but against a social background that expects men
to be decisive and act with resolution, and women to be submissive to their husbands, he knows he
does not need her approval. He allows her to air her complaints, but her assertions have little validity
for him because, after all, women don’t know much about running a farm.
No amount of talking or complaining by Mrs. Penn will change Mr. Penn; on the contrary,
her “yakking” reinforces his view that though she (and women in general) may have time for
palaver, he “can’t stan’ here talkin’ all day’’(37). And his reply to Mrs. Penn’s entreaty that he
“have a house built there instead of a barn” elicits only another, “I ain’t got nothin’ to say”(38).
This breakdown, however, turns out to be a blessing. As some researchers into the nature of
and have ly observed, we do not observe the structure of language
activity when we are engaged in lias The “structure t visible only when
there is some kind of breakdown’(68).... .[Thus] serve an
cognitive function, revealing to us the nature of our practices....In this sense they function i ina
positive rather than a negative way” (Winograd and Flores,77-78).
REFRAMING THE STRUCTURE OF DYADIC COMMUNICATION
Re-framing, or seeing the conflict from a different perspective, takes place at more than one
level for Mrs. Penn. Initially, her daughter’s pettish remark that they might have the wedding in the
new barn instead of their tiny, shabby kitchen sparks Mrs. Penn’s imagination. She begins to see the
barn as their new house, rather than instead of their new house. At another level, seeing the
impossibility of reaching shared understanding by talking to her husband (who has no respect for
women’s talk), she decided that she needed to take resolute action.
The opportunity to act decisively presented itself when the barn was completed, the day
before Mr. Penn planned to move his stock into it. On that day he received a letter from
Mrs.Penn’s brother in Vermont, informing him of a chance to buy just the kind of horse he’d been
looking for. As he was leaving on his three or four day trip, he told his wife that she should have
Sammy put the new cows in the new barn. It is clear Mr. Penn regretted not being there to lead his
new cows into his new barn, and to enjoy the admiration of his neighbors for his ’fine edifice”(38).
After preparing Mr. Penn’s Sunday suit and his lunch, and bidding him a safe journey, Mrs.
Penn returned to her kitchen to continue her baking. When she noticed how pale and sickly Nanny
looked, the mother made up her mind to seize her chance. She reasoned that her husband’s being
called out of town at this moment was an act of providence, an “unsolicited opportunit [y]” and a
“guide-post of the Lord to the new roads of life”(40). Strong in her conviction that she is doing what
is best for her family, and that she could persuade Mr. Penn that her action is justified, she takes the
Information Systems, page 13
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
outrageous step of moving her dishes, her furniture, and her children into the new barn. Frustrated
because her husband refused to see it was not right to house his livestock better than his children, she
appealed to a higher authority. After taking the matter to the Lord in prayer, she , like their Puritan
ancestors, acted on the basis of faith in her own interpretation of Scripture and of God’s will. Asa
faithful Protestant she knows that her primary responsibility is to obey her own conscience; that
“nobody but the Lord is goin’ to dictate to [her]”(43).
Before the next morning everyone in the village knew she had moved into the barn, and
everyone had something to say about it; some thought her i insane, others lawless and rebellious.
Clearly, she had violated the mores of her by di ig her b ly, the
minister was sent to chastise her, lest other women follow her example. But her dignified,
and her that the matter was between her and God and her husband
made the minister retreat apologetically.
When Mr. Penn returned with his newly purchased horse, he found the door of the house
fastened, and no sign of his family, until he opened the barn door. When he asked why they were
there, his son said they had come there to live. His wife maintained they had as much right to live
there as new horses and cows, and that he would need to put in some windows and buy new furniture.
Then she helped him get ready for supper.He was so shocked to see his family housed in the barn, anc
supper served there, that he had to be reminded to say the customary grace before meals.
After supper he sat down on the step in front of the smaller door of the barn and wept.
“Why mother,” he said hoarsely, “I hadn’t no idee you was so set on’t as all this comes to”(45”.
LIMITATIONS OF LINEAR COMMUNICATION MODELS
In the end, Mr. Penn does receive the message that Mrs. Penn was really “set” on the need
for a larger house for the family. But the linear, transmission model which dominates the literature i:
limited in showing how she achieved her goals .
The case of the Penns illustrates some of the limitations of linear,
communication models. For example, as we look again at the Shannon-Weaver schematic of a
general communication system, and their discussion of three levels of communication problems, we
see that they were primarily d with the technical problem of hing the
signals with the received signals. Only secondarily are they concerned with the semantic problem of
“[(hlow precisely...the transmitted symbols convey the desired meaning” and only thirdly do they
ask “How effectively does the received meaning affect conduct in the desired way?”(Shannon and
Weaver, 1977,4).
According to Weaver, “In oral speech, the information source is the brain, the transmitter is
the voice mechanism producing the varying sound pressure (the signal) which is transmitted through
the air (the channel). So where did Mrs. Penn fail in transmitting her message to Mr. Penn ? Was
there noise in the farmyard so he could not hear her words? Or was the “noise” in Mr. Penn’s head,
i.e., in his preoccupation with loading and unloading his wagon? Or was the problem that the signal:
or symbols or words she used were not in the reservoir of meanings of Mr. Penn? (see figure 2
above). Certainly, Mr. Penn knows what his wife means by the words and concepts barn, house, anc
horses. It is equally clear that he understands his wife is upset about his building a new barn, for he
indicates as much to his son. But he also indicates he does not understand the reason for her distress.
Linear models of communication show input and output and channels and noise, but they do
not show adequately how “behavior is continuously controlled by conditions and conditions are in
turn continuously altered by behavior” (Richardson,77). For that we need models that more clearly
show dyadic asa i ive process. Mi , it is a process that takes
place in a social context, in a society, , and is influenced by the mores and traditions of that society.
And it is only in the context of human social groups that we can speak of making meaning, and
sharing meaning.
ere is a radical difference, argues Jerome Bruner, between “the construction of meaning”
and “the processing of information”. He maintains that in the ruling metaphor of computer science,
“information comprises an already precoded message in the system. Meaning is preassigned to
messages”(Bruner, 1991,4). In contrast, he says, in the realm of human development and human
Information Systems, page 14
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
nature, we cannot realistically discuss meaning apart from culture. Meaning is constructed within
human cultures. Quoting Clifford Geertz, Bruner agrees “there is no such thing as human nature
independent of human culture”(12). It is only “by virtue of participation in culture [that]
meaning is rendered public and shared. Our culturally adapted way of life depends upon shared
meaning and shared concepts and depends as well upon shared modes of discourse for negotiating
differences in meaning and interpretation”(13). The i ion between Mr. and Mrs. Penn takes
place in a culture, a community which subscribes to a system of vaules and beliefs. This culture is
represented in figures 5 and 6 below by the box labelled ‘ENVIRONMENT.’
In order to achieve her communication goals, Mrs. Penn, thinking about the breakdown of
discussions on the matter of the new barn, reframes the conversation. She examines the problem and
the possibilities from new perspectives, and designs a strategy that will both provide her family with
the sorely needed large house and will engage her husband in ingful ion. |
there has been no meaningful dialog with Mr. Penn on this matter. “Meaning is created by active
listening...rather than [by] conveying information” (Winograd and Flores, 57). In the earlier verbal
encounters (not dialogs) between Mr. and Mrs. Penn, it is clear that Mr. Penn is not an active
listener. He merely allows his wife to vent while he is thinking about his busy schedule and his
unfinished chores. We see more clearly how Mrs. Penn achieved her communication goals by
looking at the feedback loop shown in figure 5 .
oO)
ne ep Meine rt
(
hie. Pre appeais MIB P's appealg
to higher authorily
» -%
* Mrs. P's sues, oo
Figure 5. Mrs. P.’s strategy
ENVIRONMENT
ahered semantics
shared understanding
sation
ima ana oy rte
nea
Trecursive ret
oo
congruent concepts } ete a
24 serid view
\ () Pe ate
dha log *
oe ci The CONFLUENCE modet of communication
ia Interpretation
Figure 6. CONFLUENCE model
Information Systems, page 15
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
As her concern for her children’s well-being i icularly with the
wedding of her daughter--her appeals to her husband to reconsider his plans to build a barn become
more impassioned; and as she appeals again, and even more passionately, Mr. Penn becomes more
intransigent. We see that Mr. and Mrs. Penn are caught in a Positive loop, a vicious circle. Their
dilemma exemplifies the observation by psychologists that “in most ongoing relationships, it
b obvious on that the behaviour of each participant is predicated on that of the
other”(Watzlawick and Beavin, 1977, 56).
The more the wife pleads her cause, the more the husband deliberately tunes her out; and the more he
tunes her out, the more motivated she is to get him to listen to her. Eventually, Mrs. Penn stops
talking to her husband about the barn. But when he is called away for three or four days on the day
the construction of the barn is completed, she takes this as an act of providence, and a sign from the
Lord to take advantage of this “unsolicited opportunity” to find a new path, a new approach to the
problem. As her concern for her family, especially her daughter’s health increases, Mrs. Penn’s
stress increases, motivating her to take her appeals to a higher authority than her husband, namely,
to the Lord. Specifically, she prays about whether she should countermand her husband’s instructions
to move the cows into the barn, and move her children and herself in there instead. Acting on her
belief that she is acting according to God’s will, and to what her conscience tells her is morally
right, she revolts against her husband” s will, and the mores of her community. It is important to
that the religi ‘ions she invokes are also those to which her husband and the rest o
the community subscribe.
The “revolt of mother” earns her the ion of the whole ity. More imp
it wins her Mr. Penn’s serious attention, and a i to listen thically to her
on behalf of the family’s needs. inn the words of Mary Wilkins Freeman, Mr. Penn “was like a
fortress whose walls had no active resistance, and went down the instant the right besieging tools wer
used”(45). The breakdown was an opportunity for Mrs. Penn to understand that the practice of
trying to talk to her husband about the barn was being perceived as meaningless jawing, typical
female complaining. She needed to design “the right besieging tools” to tear down his prejudice about
the value of what his wife had to say. Her revolt, it appears, was justified, for in the end, Mr. Penn’s
intransigence crumbles, as he promises to put up the partitions in the barn and do everything his wift
wants to make it a comfortable home.
CONCLUSION
This analysis of dyadic communication, using the case of Mr. and Mrs. Penn, shows how the
escaped from the “vicious circle” typical of so many long term relationships, in families, as well as i
business organizations. By seeking and receiving approval for her actions from a higher authority
than her husband, Mrs. Penn ul ly d her goals. Her strategy has
implications for managers.
First, good managers recognize that meaning is created in committed dialog, where the partic
are pledged to work toward consensus, toward shared understanding. They know that meaning is
created in empathic listening, and that creating meaning is not merely conveying information. An
ancient proverb explains that we have only one mouth but we have two ears because we should
devote more attention to listening than to speaking. That Mr.s Penn knows this is clear from her
decision to end her futile appeals to Mr. Penn, and to focus her efforts on finding a.way to make hir
listen empathically. In real life, effective managers know how to listen empathically, and to create
an environment of trust and openness so that parties espousing different views will feel comfortable
about sharing their ideas in order to work toward consensus. As we saw in the case of the Penns, the
process requires patience, and recognition of the proper time and place for appropriate action. Whe
Mrs. Penn served her husband : a hearty supper in the new barn, now their new home, Mr. Penn ‘was
ready to listen. Si dly, effective find that by i and
ing the situation, k fi d solutions to problems emerge. For
example, when Mrs. Penn began to see the barn as a new house, rather than instead of a new house,
she also found the means of reframing or restructuring the context of the dialog with her husband.
By acting instead of yakking she won his attention, and was then able to carry on a meaningful
dialog with Mr. Penn . Like Mrs. Penn, creative managers can sometimes find new uses of existing
Information Systems, page 16
1994 INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM DYNAMICS CONFERENCE
political
and systems of belief to which he and her whole community subscribed. In other words, while her
revolt temporaril dalized ity, she lly pe ded them, (especially after she
won her husband’s support) that she had acted in accordance with their highest values.
A generic model of communication illustrating the recursive, and essentially labor and time
intensive process of working towards shared understanding, is shown below in figure 6. This
CONFLUENCE model of communication shows some of the dynamics of the process of problem-
solving in situations where the parties involved approach the case at hand from different world views.
The model is based on the premise that the parties are committed to work toward consensus,
regardless of the turmoil and cost in effort and time. While initially, and on the surface, it did not
seem that Mr. and Mrs. Penn made a conscious pledge to work toward shared understanding on the
matter of the new barn, it is clear that they were both committed to do what was best for the welfare
of the family. The challenge for Mrs. Penn was to show her husband that a larger house, rather than
a larger barn, would best serve the needs of the family.
A ding to the confl model of ication, the parties, as they engage in dialog,
trying to solve the problem at hand, approach a confi of interp’ ion; in other words, their
“Streams of consciousness,” for the moment, are flowing together. Eventually, they may arrive at
gruent pts and shared ics. In the case of the Penn family, Mr. Penn agreed to put up
partitions to make bedrooms for his children instead of stalls for his stock. Most significantly, the
parties finally seem to approach a more closely shared world view, and have developed better
communication skills to further refine their shared ding ina process, as
new probl new di and new kd emerge.
REFERENCES
Beamer, L. 1992. Learning tural Ci ication C JOURNAL OF BUSINESS
COMMUNICATION 29 (3): 285-303.
Bowman, J.P. and A.S. Targowski. 1987. Modeling the Communication Process. JOURNAL OF
BUSINESS COMMUNICATION 24 (4): 21-34.
Bruner, J. 1990. ACTS OF MEANING. Boston, Ma.: Harvard U P.
Freeman, M.F. 1978. The Revolt of Mother. In THE EXPERIENCE OF THE AMERICAN
WOMAN. ed. B.H. Solomon. NY:NAL s
Lucas, S.E. 1983. THE ART OF PUBLIC SPEAKING. NY:Random House
McLuhan, M. and B. R. Powers.1989. THE GLOBAL VILLAGE. NY: OxfordRichardson, G.P. 1991.
FEEDBACK THOUGHT IN SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SYSTEM THEORY. Philadelphia: U of
Pennsylvania P.
Shannon, C.E. and W. Weaver. 1977. THE MATHEMATICAL THEORY OF COMMUNICATION.
Urbana, U of Illinois P. First published in 1949.
Watzlawick, P. and J. Beavin. 1977.Some Formal Aspects of Communication. THE
INTERACTIONAL VIEW. NY: W.W. Norton & Co.
Winograd, T. and Flores. 1986. UNDERSTANDING COGNITION AND COMPUTERS:A NEW
FOUNDATION FOR DESIGN. Norwood, NJ:Ablex,
Zolten, J.J. and G.M. Phillips. 1985. INSTRUCTOR’S GUIDE FOR SPEAKING TO AN AUDIENCE.
Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Educ. Pub.
Information Systems, page 17
