197}

A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL MEASUREMENT OF CAREGIVERS'*

ATTITUDES TOWARD THE ALCOHOLIC

by

JOHN DERIS ALGEO, B.A.

A THESIS

IN

SOCIOLOGY

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Texas Tech University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for

the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Approved

Tlay, 1973

F

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Appreciation is extended to several people who con­

tributed to the construction and completion of this thesis.

I am grateful to the thesis committee, Walter

Cartwright, Ph.D., Charles Chandler, Ph.D., and especially

Brent Roper, Ph.D., for their helpful suggestions, directioi

of the study, and editing of the manuscript.

Appreciation is extended to Jack Tubbs for con­

ducting the computer analysis.

Finally, I would like to thank Bill Green for his

encouragement, constructive criticism, and suggestions

for more effective writing.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ' l i

L IST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES v l l l

CHAPTER «

I. INTRODUCTION •. . . 1

Purpose of Study 4 Scope and Limitations 6 Definition of Terms 7

II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9

Attitudes Toward Alcohol 9 The Alcoholic 14 The Nurse 17 Mental Health 25 The Police 33

III. METHODS AND PROCEDURES 37

Semantic Differential 37 Development of the Semantic

Differential 39 Development of the Questionnaire . . . 42 Instructions for the Semantic Differential and Questionnaire . . . 42

Administration of the Semantic Differential and Questionnaire . . . 44

Selection of Sample 4 5 Analysis of Data . ^ 47 Reliability and Validity 49

IV. FINDINGS 52

Normal Man 52 Alcoholic Man 55 Normal Woman 59 Alcoholic Woman 61

• • •

111

CHAPTER Page

Age 64 Sex 65 Education 66 Religion 68 Contact with an Alcoholic 70

V. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . • 72

Discussion 72 Conclusion 76

APPENDIX «

A. QUESTIONNAIRE 78 B. INSTRUCTIONS 79 C. AGE, SEX, EDUCATION, RELIGION, AND CONTACT

WITH AN ALCOHOLIC: CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH OCCUPATION 85

D. TABLES 87

BIBLIOGRAPHY 114

IV

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE Page

1. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Normal Man . . 88

2. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Alcoholic Man *.. 89

3. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Normal Woman 90

4. Means and Standard Deviations of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Alcoholic Woman 91

5. Evaluation of Differences Between Mean Scores of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Normal Man 92

6. Evaluation of Differences Between Mean Scores of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Alcoholic Man 93

7. Evaluation of Differences Between Mean Scores of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Normal Woman 94

8. Evaluation of Differences Between Mean Scores of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Occupations Concept: Alcoholic Woman 95

V

TABLE Page

9. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Age Groups Concept: Normal Man 96

10. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Age Groups Concept: Alcoholic Man 97

11. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Age Groups Concept: Normal Woman *. . 98

12. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Three Age Groups Concept: Alcoholic Woman 99

13. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Two Sex Groups Concept: Normal Man 100

14. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Two Sex Groups Concept: Alcoholic Man 101

15. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Two Sex Groups Concept: Normal Woman 102

16. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Two Sex Groups Concept: Alcoholic Woman 103

17. Mean Scores on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Education Groups Concept: Normal Man 104

18. Mean Scores on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Education Groups Concept: Alcoholic Man 105

VI

TABLE Page

19. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Education Groups Concept: Normal Woman 106

20. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Education Groups Concept: Alcoholic Woman 107

21. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential , Scales for the Seven Religion Groups Concept: Normal Man 108

22. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Religion Groups Concept: Alcoholic Man 109

23. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Religion Groups Concept: Normal Woman 110

24. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Religion Groups Concept: Alcoholic Woman Ill

25. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Contact Groups Concept: Alcoholic Man 112

26. Evaluation of Differences Between Means of Ratings on the Semantic Differential Scales for the Seven Contact Groups Concept: Alcoholic Woman 113

Vll

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE Page

1. Normal Man 54

2. Alcoholic Man 57

3. Normal Woman • 60

4. Alcoholic Woman - 62

Vlll

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A factor of increasing concern in the treatment of

alcoholism is the attitude, or meaning, that caregiving

professions associate with persons who have problems of *

alcoholism. Previous researchers on alcoholism basically

directed their attention toward the etiology of alcoholism;

however, investigators today are becoming increasingly

aware that alcohol problems and their treatment cannot be

thoroughly understood without reference to the complex

public and private attitudes toward the alcoholic (Cahn,

1970). The attitudes of police officers, nurses, psychol­

ogists, and psychiatrists are of particular importance

because these professions deal directly with the manage­

ment and treatment of the alcoholic. How these caregivers

perceive the alcoholic will directly affect the success of

the treatment and the cost to society.

Unfortunately, though these caregiving professions

generally recognize alcoholism as a major health problem,

many display a variety of disease, moralistic, and con­

demnatory attitudes toward the alcoholic (Dorsch, Talley,

Bynder, 1969). Like the general public, the caregiver

often views the alcoholic as not as deserving of help as,

say, persons with schizophrenia. In many ways the atti­

tudes toward the alcoholic are analogous to the attitudes

toward the welfare recipient; both groups are considered

to be personally responsible for their predicament and

thus are seen as undeserving (Cahn, 1970), As a result

of such ambiguous attitudes, the alcoholic does not

receive proper treatment and the number of alcoholics in

society continues to increase.

At the present time alcoholism ranks as the fourth

major health problem in the United States, surpassed only

by heart disease, cancer, and mental illness (Mann, 1970).

Latest estimates of the number of alcoholics in society

range from four to thirty million; but six million is

generally the most widely accepted figure (American

Psychiatric Association, 1967). Accurate statistics have

been difficult to obtain due to the stigma on alcoholism;

however, with the present trend toward greater under­

standing and societal responsibility, the extent and seri­

ousness of alcoholism is becoming better understood (Linsky,

1968). Regardless of questionable statistics one point

is clear; alcoholism is a serious social problem and it

is on the rise (Mann, 1970).

To combat this social problem, effective and well-

planned treatment programs must be available. Caregivers

must have a thorough and relatively uniform understanding

of alcoholism. The caregiver, or professional therapist,

must treat the alcoholic for alcoholism as a patient is

treated for any other ailment. A pessimistic attitude or

moral judgment on the part of the caregiver simply creates

barriers for a successful treatment program. Thus, the

attitudes and stereotypes directed at the alcoholic by

the caregiver should be thoroughly understood i^ the

treatment program's effectiveness is to be evaluated and

redirected if necessary.

Despite efforts at altering public and private atti­

tudes, large segments of the T^erican public still retain

some moralistic and condemnatory views (Cahn, 1970). As

a result of such fragmented attitudes, alcoholism still

remains an ambiguous and mysterious crippler, receiving

little public attention or adequate financial support for

quality treatment of the alcoholic. Thus, Plautt aptly

states:

American attitudes toward drunkenness and toward drinking continue to influence and complicate efforts to develop effective alcohol programs. These attitudes . . . must be understood and dealt with if progress is to be made in mobilizing professional interest and activity in this area (Boyd, 1970:888).

In the future, more attention should be directed

toward the attitudes of caregiving professions that pro­

vide treatment for the alcoholic. The fact that Alcoholics

Anonymous, staffed with volunteer personnel who wish to

work with such patients, contribute more to successful

rehabilitation than the professions, is attributed to

this positive attitude (Block, 1962). That is, the

psychological predisposition of the caregiver toward the

alcoholic plays a significant role in determining the

success of the treatment. Feelings, or attitudes,

between the caregiver and alcoholic may either Enhance or

destroy the potential for relating to one another (Mackey,

1969). An examination of the caregiver's attitudes

toward the alcoholic may provide valuable information

concerning the alcoholic's reception, likelihood of a

successful treatment, and possibly provide suggestions

for more effective treatment programs in the future.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the atti­

tudes of student nurses, police officers, and clinical

psychologists and psychiatrists toward the alcoholic,

particularly the existence of possible negative (moralistic

and/or pessimistic) attitudes. Using the Semantic Dif­

ferential, a highly generalized technique of attitudinal

measurement, each subject's perception of normal man,

alcoholic man, normal woman, and alcoholic woman was

tabulated and compiled to determine an attitudinal profile

of each concept by each occupation. In order to obtain

a more precise measurement of the way each occupation

viewed the alcoholic man and woman, the study also mea­

sured each subject's perception of normal man and normal

woman. A measurement of the deviant, in this case the

alcoholic, possessed little value without a norm to

measure against.

The attitudinal profile itself consisted"of seven­

teen descriptive scales to measure the optimism, moralism,

and general understanding, or stereotype, of each occupa­

tion toward the four concepts above. Having established

an attitudinal profile for each occupational group, the

study could then make comparisons between occupations on

the basis of the seventeen scales. Thus, it became

possible to study one or more factors (e.g., moral per­

ception of the alcoholic) of each occupation in relation

to the other two occupations.

In addition to examining the attitudes of each

occupational group, the researcher attempted to learn if

certain variables characteristic of the subjects related

significantly to attitudes. Such background variables

as age, sex, education, religious affiliation, and date

of last contact with an alcoholic by each subject were

recorded and statistically analyzed. The categorical

responses of each variable were then sorted and tabulated.

regardless of occupation, and analyzed to see how the

subjects responded. It then became possible to "stabilize"

the variable and view the significance of the variable on

the perceptions toward the alcoholic man and woman. No

attempt was made to determine causation or the degree of

each variable's Influence on attitudes because of the

number of interacting variables and the lack of balanced

representation of each occupation.

Scope and Limitations

There was no attempt to make broad generalizations

or conclusions concerning the attitudes of all caregiving

professions. Rather this study specifically concerned

the attitudes of the three professions and their associated

institutions. The sample population consisted of 93

subjects—50 student nurses, 35 police officers, and 8

clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in Lubbock, Texas.

The student nurses attended classes at Methodist Hospital

School of Nursing; the police officers worked for the

Lubbock Police Department; and the clinical psychologists

and psychiatrists were mental health professionals

practicing in the Lubbock area. As a result of the limited

size and source of the sample, the conclusions and state­

ments made in this study can apply only to the professions

mentioned above and their respective institutions.

The study attempted to gain an adequate representa­

tion of each profession, but the lack of cooperation from

certain individuals further limited the conclusions of

the study. The random sample of student nurses was com­

plete and presented a relatively accurate profile of the

student nurses' attitudes toward the alcoholic. The

random sample of police officers, however, presented less 4

reliable results because of the sample's limited size

(35) in relation to the universe (12 9). The study of the

mental health profession encountered similar difficulties

because of the sample's limited size (8) in relation to

the universe (16) of practicing mental health professionals.

Thus, the limited sample size, particularly the police and

mental health occupations, further limited any concluding

statements concerning the respective occupations and

their comparisons. A larger and more complete sample of

the two occupations might achieve more defined, or con­

flicting, results, and concomitantly broaden the boundary

within the study. The lack of response and cooperation

of certain subjects was unavoidable; but the unusual num­

ber of subjects who did not participate adversely

affected the study's scope and limitation.

Definition of Terms

The operational definitions for this study are as

follows:

8

1. Caregiver; an individual whose professional

duties include extending aid or treatment to an alcoholic.

2. Student nurse: an individual who is officially

enrolled at an accredited nursing institution which edu­

cates and trains people to become registered nurses.

3. Police officer; an individual officially

employed by a civilian police department whose prescribed

duties include the maintenance of law and order, and the

likelihood of contact with an alcoholic.

4. Mental health professional: a practicing clini­

cal psychologist or psychiatrist whose credentials

include a Ph.D. or M.D. degree from an accredited insti­

tution.

5. Alcoholic; an individual who habitually con­

sumes alcoholic beverages to such an extent that, as a

consequence, he (a) falls noticeably short of meeting

prevailing standards of social functioning and/or (b) has

seriously impaired mental or bodily health (Hoult, 1969:14)

6. Attitude: an individual's tendency to feel,

think, or react in a particular manner; feelings toward

attitudinal scales about normal and alcoholic persons.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

This chapter first reviews previous research con­

ducted on public attitudes in general toward the consump­

tion of alcohol, the alcoholic, and alcoholism in order

to establish the social climate in which alcoholism

exists. Then, the alcoholic and some of his character­

istics are reviewed. Finally, the chapter reviews

previous attitudinal studies of nurse, mental health,

and police occupations and their significant variables.

Attitudes Toward Alcohol

The consumption of alcohol has long been a moral,

emotionally-charged issue in American society. In

colonial days, society expected and fully approved the

moderate use of distilled beverages, but frowned upon

drunkenness as a moral defect indicating weak self-

control and even punished it as such (Trice, 1966).

During the Revolutionary and post-revolutionary

period, increased consumption of alcohol beverages

became the trend with the introduction of high-alcohol-

content beverages and the breakdown of social controls.

At the same time, however, the underlying American

10

ideals of self-reliance and individual achievement con­

tinued to prevail and conflict with drunkenness. These

ideals were part of what Max Weber called "the Protestant

ethic;" a nation established upon religious canons that

emphasized self-denial, hard work, and a distaste for

time wasted on frivolous activities (Weber, 1930). Thus,

as a result of such conflicting values, the consumption

of alcohol became an ambiguous issue compounded with

ambivalent attitudes. On the one hand, some persons

viewed alcohol as a temporary and desirable release from

the daily frustrations of life; and on the other hand,

others saw alcohol as a primary cause of deviation from

moral codes and respectable behavior.

The issue became further intensified and per­

plexing in the 1830s when the "drys" pressed for complete

prohibition of the manufacture and sale of alcohol. In

response, the proponents, or "wets," vehemently opposed

any such action and continued to support the individual's

right to consume alcoholic beverages (Straus and Bacon,

1953) .

The two factions continued to oppose each other for

the next several decades with neither side enlisting a

measureable number of converts or new recruits. At the

turn of the nineteenth century, however, the Prohibition­

ists developed an organized movement which redirected

11

its efforts toward effective legislative action. The

result of this organized movement, versus an unorganized

and relatively apathetic public, was the enactment of

the Eighteenth Amendment in 1917.

Contrary to the new amendment,. however, millions of

Americans continued to manufacture, sell, and consume

alcoholic beverages while the two militant factions con­

tinued to wage war and cloud the issue concerniilg the

effects of alcohol. Eventually the Volstead Act was

recognized as unenforceable and legislatures repealed

the Prohibition Amendment in 1933. The significant

factor of the amendment's repeal was that such action

was taken not because the moral issue had been resolved,

but because legislators perceived the futility and lack

of personnel to enforce the amendment. The paucity of

federal agents to patrol an 18,000-mile border and search

homes from coast to coast, the lack of cooperation from

state law enforcement agencies and corrupt local officials,

and most important of all, the overwhelming number of

Americans who consumed alcoholic beverages, made the

enforcement of the amendment impossible. So, the manu­

facture and sale of alcoholic beverages became legal once

again; and the moral issue remained unresolved, deterring

any coherent or objective understanding of the use and

misuse of alcohol.

12

In today's society, the consumption of alcoholic

beverages plays an important part during both man's

leisure and business hours. Social customs, prestige,

and fashions condone, as well as encourage, the use of

alcoholic beverages because of alcohol's potential to

create social interaction more easily, and to relieve

emotional ills, frustration, and physical discomforts

(Warner, 1966). Furthermore, approximately 70 percent

of the population indulges in drinking to some degree,

ranging from the person who drinks once a year to those

who drink daily (Mann, 1970). Whether it be social

drinking for amiable reasons, a toast to the signing of

an important contract, or simply as a means to unwind at

night, the use of alcohol occupies a very important place

in American culture today.

A heavy-drinking society that condones and even

encourages the use and misuse of alcoholic beverages

would appear to adopt a rather benevolent and sympathetic

attitude toward the individual who becomes a problem

drinker—the fallen alcoholic. However, attitudes toward

the alcoholic even today remain ambivalent and fractured.

Contemporary studies of public attitudes toward the

alcoholic and alcoholism record a multitude of responses

(Mulford and Miller, 1964; Jellinek, 1960; Linsky, 1968).

Explanations for alcoholism range from the biological

13

and hereditary to the psychological, environmental, and

moral fiber of the alcoholic. The most disabling of

these approaches to understand and explain the alcoholic's

plight is the moral explanation. While a maze of half-

truths and invectives continue to linger from previous

days, many Americans continue to believe that alcohol

problems develop because of a drinker's moral weakness or

lack of will power (Trice, 1966). •

Present-day attitudinal studies of professional

people who provide care and treatment for the alcoholic

have accumulated findings similar to public attitudinal

studies (Boyd, 1968; Bailey and Fuchs, 1960). These

attitudes are usually fragmented and ambivalent, without

a consensus of opinion concerning the alcoholic within

any profession. Questions concerning the causes of alco­

holism precipitate a plethora of responses. Typically,

subjects respond in erudite fashion with glib expressions;

but upon further investigation a more defined pattern

appears evident. Pessimism, coupled with moral under­

pinnings, conflict with the "learned responses" of the

profession to result in inconsistent responses.

In summary, the effects of alcohol and its negative

outgrowth—alcoholism--continue to mystify most Americans

today. One camp views the alcoholic as a medical problem,

and another sees him as a psychological casuality. Still

14

others, more importantly, continue to see the alcoholic

as simply lacking in will power or character. Although

observers report that twentieth century American society

is drifting in a secular direction, many citizens unknow­

ingly continue to live and espouse the Protestant ethic.

Shrouded in an affluent society that emphasizes luxury

and leisure time to pursue one's pleasures, many Ameri­

cans continue to pursue the traditional ideals of self-

reliance and hard work ("time is money"), to associate

any show of emotion with weakness, and to explain self-

inflicted illness (e.g., mental illness, suicide, alco­

holism) upon the basis of weak character, lack of will

power, and irresponsibility.

The Alcoholic

Any attempt to understand and explain the alcoholic

must be approached from an interactionist position. That

is, alcoholism is a process and not a single factor, one

way, cause and effect result. A great range of socio­

logical, cultural, and psychological variables contri­

bute to the existence and variance of alcoholism.

Alcohol, a relatively ineffective addictive agent which

usually requires many years of hard drinking to reach a

state of true addiction, must have a strong helping

hand from personality and cultural factors in order to

15

culminate in deep-seated alcoholism. The precise role of

these contributing factors have not been determined, but

each variable is closely intertwined with the other vari­

able and serves as a contributing factor in the develop­

ment of alcoholism (Cahalan, 1970). .

Investigators concerned with the psychological

profile of the alcoholic have been unable to determine

an alcoholic personality type. By and large, the reac­

tions to excessive drinking, which have a neurotic

appearance, give the impression of an alcoholic person­

ality; however " . . . they are secondary behaviors super­

imposed over a large variety of personality types which

have a few traits in common, in particular a low capacity

for coping with tensions" (Jellinek, 1952:683). In the

same vein, the alcoholic is commonly.viewed as dependent,

hostile, and characteristic of a manic-depressive person­

ality; but this condition probably stems from the alco­

holic's feelings of high tension and unresolved conflicts.

Clinicians experienced in the treatment of alcoholics

report that alcoholic patients characteristically have an

unusual amount of stress and experience difficulty in

tolerating frustration, and controlling their impulses.

Moreover, the alcoholic does not usually possess the

personality traits or ability to develop close inter­

personal relationships. There does not emerge, however.

16

any specific personality trait or physical characteristic

which inevitably leads to excessive drinking. There must

be a constellation of social and economic factors which

facilitate the development of alcoholism.

Specific studies of the association of sociocultural

factors in the development of alcoholism have produced

significant findings. A strong association is noted

between broken homes, economic deprivation, and exposure

to heavy drinking as factors in the development of alco­

holism (McCord and McCord, 1962; Robins, 1966; Swiecicki,

1968). Some of the strongest and most noted associations

between sociocultural factors and alcoholism appear in

comparative studies of specific ethnic groups, such as

the Irish, Jewish, old-country Italians, and Chinese.

The Irish-Americans display a high rate of alcoholism,

while the Jewish, old-country Italians, and Chinese have

some of the lowest rates of alcoholism in society (Snyder,

1958; Lolli, Serianni, Colder, Luzzatto, 1958). The

differences between these groups are attributed to their

different normative orientations regarding the act of

drinking, and alternatives to excessive drinking. The

Irish-Americans have no clear cut guidelines for proper

and improper drinking, and weak if any, sanctions against

drunkenness. The Jewish, Italian, and Chinese subcultures,

on the other hand, have clear distinctions of acceptable

17

and unacceptable drinking and strong sanctions against

drunkenness. Alcoholism, however, still exists even in

subcultures that display strong deterents to excessive

drunkenness, which suggest that personality characteristics

are an interacting factor (Cahalan, 1970). In short,

the choice of means of artificial escape from one's

daily problems is partially dependent upon the culture's

permissiveness concerning the use of alcohol. A person's

abuse of alcohol, however, is also dependent upon his

personality and his immediate environment.

In summary, the alcoholic can best be understood on

the basis of a process of sociocultural and psychological

factors closely interrelated. The alcoholic appears to

be an individual who (1) responds to alcohol in a certain

way by experiencing intense relief and relaxation, (2) has

certain personality characteristics (such as difficulty

in dealing with and overcoming depression, frustration,

and anxiety), and (3) is a member of a culture in which

there is both pressure to drink and confusion regarding

what kinds of drinking behavior are appropriate (Plaut,

1967).

The Nurse

Only in recent years have therapists concerned with

the treatment of alcoholism begun to recognize the impor­

tance of a strong, positive nurse-patient relationship.

18

In an attempt to increase the scope and refinement of

therapeutic techniques, therapists have begun to realize

that the treatment and success of alcoholism is largely

dependent upon the degree of rapport between the patient

and nurse. Nurses, largely due to their lack of knowledge,

generally have had the same moralistic, rejecting, and

judgmental attitudes toward alcoholics as the general

public and medical profession. With proper'orientation

and training, however, the nurse can be an important

member of the treatment team (Hirsch, 1967).

The alcoholic, who is characteristically unstable

and finds difficulty in establishing relationships, is

especially apprehensive and sensitive to the possibility

of rejection by the treatment personnel because of the

stigma associated with his illness. As a result, it is

important that the nurse, who represents the hospital

personnel and has the greatest amount of contact with the

alcoholic, be able to give the patient understanding,

acceptance, and support. With any sign of rejection, the

therapeutic value of nurse-patient relationships may be

weakened or nullified.

Upon this basis, Ernest Ferneau and Eluera Morton

examined the attitudes of twenty-four registered nurses

and ninety-four nursing assistants at a northeastern

sanatorium (Ferneau and Morton, 1968). Each subject

19

was asked to complete the Marcus "Alcoholism Questionnaire"

which consisted of forty attitudinal statements concerning

the consumption of alcoholic beverages, alcoholism, and

the alcoholic. Each subject responded to the statements

by checking a position on a scale that extended from

one to seven; one represented complete agreement with the

statement.

The mean scores of each group were then tabulated

for comparisons with each other and a population norm

group. The norm group consisted of 200 citizens randomly

selected from Toronto, Canada.

The comparisons of the registered nurse and nursing

assistant groups revealed significant differences on only

three factors. The nurse group seemed to possess a

stronger belief that alcoholism is an illness, that

alcohol is not a harmless indulgence, and that alcohol

itself is a highly addictive substance. With regard to

treatment, the nurse group was more inclined than the

nursing assistants and norm group to feel that alcoholics

do recover and can be helped to recover.

Contrary to the addictive view toward alcohol, how­

ever, the registered nurse and nursing assistant groups

were more inclined to view the alcoholic as weak-willed

but able to control his drinking than the norm group.

Furthermore, the nursing assistant, more than the

20

registered nurse, appeared to see the alcoholic as weak-

willed, while the general population seemed less prone

than the nursing assistants to characterize the alcoholic

in this manner. Lastly, the registered nurse and nursing

assistant group, in contrast to the general population,

believed that neither excessive drinking nor membership

in lower socio-economic strata was necessarily charac­

teristic of the alcoholic.

A similar but more extensive investigation was con­

ducted by Edith Heinmen and Robert Rhodes (1967) to deter­

mine the attitudes of a hospital staff at Firland Sana­

torium. The investigators attempted to learn the nurses'

empirical knowledge concerning alcoholism, attitudes

toward the treatment of alcoholism, alcoholics, and

alcoholism and moderate social drinking. In addition,

the following variables for each subject were recorded

and examined for possible relationships: (1) occupational

level, (2) length of service at the sanatorium, (3) age,

(4) education, (5) religion, (6) specific training in

alcoholism, (7) marital status, and (8) amount of per­

sonal contact with alcoholics outside the sanatorium.

The questionnaire administered to the seventy-seven

subjects consisted of three separate scales to measure

the three general topics mentioned above. Each scale

had a range from zero to eight, with a theoretical

21

midpoint of four. The larger the score, the more favor­

able the attitude.

The scale concerning attitudes toward the treatment

of alcoholism was basically concerned with optimism and

the outcome of treatment. The scale on attitudes toward

the alcoholic and alcoholism included statements about

the kind of person the alcoholic appeared to be, the

extent to which he should receive understanding and sym­

pathy, and how one should respond to alcoholism.

The tabulation of the three scale scores indicated

a positive response on each of the three topics. With

regard to treatment of the alcoholic, the nursing per­

sonnel recorded a rather favorable attitude (6.01) on

such questions as, "Is treatment likely to be effective?"

"How much effort should be spent on treatment?" "Is

treatment only the concern of the individual's family?"

and "Should medical resources be used for the problem?"

On attitudes toward alcoholism and the alcoholic,

the staff presented a slightly favorable score (5.15).

This indicated that the staff had only a slightly favor­

able or constructive attitude in this broad area. A

favorable attitude on this scale reflected understanding

for the alcoholic and his problems.

The third topic, moderate social drinking, reflected

an average attitude—half way between militant opposition

and complete approval of moderate social drinking.

22

The analysis of the eight variables produced sig­

nificant relationships between attitudes and personal

characteristics. Favorable attitudes on each of the

three scales varied positively with level of occupation,

level of education, and secularity of religious denomina­

tion. Favorable attitudes varied inversely with age and

length of service at the sanatorium. The remaining three

variables (marital status, personal acquaintance with

alcoholics, and specific training in alcoholism) seemed

to have little or no relationship to attitudes toward

alcoholism.

As a part of a study of attitudes and treatment of

alcoholics, David Pittman and Muriel Sterne (1965)

examined whether the training and experience of specific

occupations affected perceptions of alcoholism with

regard to the concept of motivation. Physicians, social

workers, and nurses were asked to complete a questionnaire

consisting of open-ended questions that concerned motiva­

tion in the treatment of alcoholism. More specifically,

the concept of motivation was examined in order to

(1) assess the importance associated with the alcoholic's

motivation in the treatment of alcoholism, (2) determine

the meaning of motivation in relation to alcoholism, and

(3) compare the relationship of varying conceptions of

motivation to the respondent's professional status, occu­

pation, and other attitudes regarding alcoholism.

23

The sample study, 115 administrative and non-

administrative personnel, indicated some differences in

their views of motivation from non-professional workers

in public and voluntary agencies. These differences,

however, were not statistically significant. With

regard to the comparisons between the three specific

occupations, the physicians and social workers, with

exception of the nurses, ascribed less importance to

motivation as crucial to the recovery from alcoholism.

Moreover, the physicians and social workers were more

likely to specify orientations to motivation and predic­

tive criteria. The nurses, on the other hand, were less

likely to cite criteria indicative of a dynamic orienta­

tion. Furthermore, the nurses were significantly more

moralistic (61%) than the physicians (39%) or social

workers (32%) , but less moralistic than non-professional

agency employees (89%) (Pittman and Sterne, 1965:57).

The remaining attitudinal studies of nurses and

their perceptions of the alcoholic and treatment of the

alcoholic concern specific personality types. Philip

Moody (1971) conducted a study of eighty-three nurses

and nursing assistants to examine authoritarian person­

ality types in relation to attitudes toward the alcoholic

Each subject completed a questionnaire which consisted of

the Custodial Attitude Inventory (CAI) for assessing

24

attitudes toward alcoholics and Srole's version of the F

scale of authoritarianism. Upon the tabulation of scores

and statistical analysis of the data, a general pattern

of response was noted. The positive correlations between

the Custodial Attitude Inventory and .Srole's F scale

(authoritarianism) indicated that the higher the nurse's

authoritarianism, the more custodial were her attitudes

toward the treatment of the alcoholic. Furthermore, the

analysis of each nurse's socio-economic status reported

a strong positive relationship between CAI and F scores

in subjects of the middle social class. Weaker relation­

ships existed in the upper and lower socio-economic

classes.

Bernard Chodorkoff (1967) completed a study of

nursing and senior medical students to learn if psychiatric

training for alcoholism had any impact on authoritarian

personality types. The two groups were assigned to a

psychiatric institution that treated alcoholics for an

eight-week period. Upon completing the eight-week

assignment, each subject was administered an attitudinal

questionnaire to complete. The statistical analysis of

the two groups reported the nursing students to have

significantly higher scores than the medical students,

demonstrating more favorable attitudes toward alcoholism

and the alcoholic patient. Similarly, the nursing students

25

also displayed significantly high F scores, meaning they

were more authoritarian in nature than the medical

students. Lastly, the medical students improved their

knowledge of alcoholism to a significantly greater

degree than did the nursing students-. The medical

students and nursing students as a whole, however, failed

to change their attitudes significantly toward alcoholism

and the alcoholic patient.

In summary, the previous studies of the occupational

nurse and her attitudes toward the alcoholic display

rather ambivalent findings. The nurse views alcoholism

as an illness, and alcohol itself as a highly addictive

substance, but considers the alcoholic relatively weak-

willed, able to control his drinking, and responsible

for his condition as a result. Similarly, the nurse

displays an optimistic attitude toward the possibility

of a successful treatment of the alcoholic, but reflects

little understanding for the alcoholic or his problems.

Moreover, the alcoholic is held accountable for his own

treatment; if the motivation is not present, then the

program's failure is his fault.

Mental Health

The predisposition, or attitude, of the therapist

is the key determinant of a program's successful rehabili­

tation of the alcoholic. Surprisingly enough, however.

26

previous attitudinal studies of therapists' attitudes

toward the alcoholic have consistently accumulated negative

and pessimistic findings (Ludwig, 1967; Pattison, 1966;

Bailey, 1971; Rabiner, Reiser, Barr, Gralnick, 1971).

Experience has shown that many therapists encounter

difficulties in attempting to maintain an accepting and

non-judgmental role with the alcoholic patient. Profes­

sional people are usually endowed with endles5 patience

when dealing with a schizophrenic or demanding neurotic,

but become only angry and impatient when attempting to

treat an alcoholic (Moore, 1961).

Earl Freed (1964) conducted a study of 303 freshmen

and sophomore college students and 521 psychiatric hospital

staff members to learn how each group viewed alcoholism,

mental illness, and physical disability. Each subject

was instructed to complete one of three forms of the

Attitude Toward Disabled Persons Scale (ATDP) and a brief

questionnaire concerning background data. The ATDP con­

sisted of twenty attitudinal statements to which the

subject expressed his agreement or disagreement on a

six-point scale.

The tabulation of scores and group comparisons for

the three scales revealed no significant differences

between the mean scores of the college students and the

hospital personnel. Both groups appeared to be more

27

accepting of physical disability than of mental illness

or alcoholism. The students were slightly, but not

significantly, more accepting of alcoholism than of

mental illness. The hospital personnel displayed a

similar trend, but the difference was statistically

significant.

On the basis of sex, neither the staff nor student

male and female group mean scores on the alcoholism and

mental illness scales equalled or exceeded fifty-five,

the median score between the extremes of acceptance and

non-acceptance of illness.

In summary, both groups significantly accepted

physical disability more than the other two illnesses.

The students accepted slightly, and the hospital personnel

were significantly more acceptive of alcoholics than of

mentally ill people but the mean scores of both groups

on both scales were still within the non-accepting range.

The students, assumed representative of the general

population, incurred less contact with individuals

possessing these characteristics. As a result, the

investigator hypothesized that contact was an insignifi­

cant variable because neither of the two groups differed

in their generally non-accepting attitudes toward these

people.

28

Richard Mackey (1969) conducted a study to determine

how mental health professionals viewed the alcoholic man

and woman in relation to police officers, welfare workers,

and guidance counselors. Each subject completed a form

of the Semantic Differential, which consisted of sixteen

bipolar adjective scales descriptive of persons with

problems of mental health. The scales ranged from one

to seven with four as the theoretical, or neutral, mid­

point.

Between the mental health and caregiving groups,

Mackey found twenty-six significant differences in the

ratings of alcoholic man. The three caregiving groups

associated less passivity and femininity with alcoholic

man than did the mental health group. Police officers

and guidance counselors viewed alcoholic man as more

mysterious, strange, and unpredictable as well as less

delicate, tense, and feeble. While welfare workers

associated more complexity with the alcoholic man, police

officers associated less complexity with him. Both of

these caregiving groups, however, judged the alcoholic

man less hopeless than did the mental health group.

Compared to mental health professionals, caregivers

did not rate the alcoholic woman with as much passivity

and feebleness. The police and guidance groups viewed

her as more mysterious and strange, while the police and

29

welfare groups viewed her with less hopelessness. Police

officers rated the alcoholic woman as more foolish and

welfare workers rated her as less foolish.

The study noted a scattering of significant differ­

ences when other variables such as age, years in line of

work, and formal education were controlled. These differ­

ences showed no particular patterns and may have been

produced by chance factors alone.

When sex differences were held constant, however,

women respondents ascribed more weakness, tenseness, and

complexity to both alcoholic man and woman than did men.

Women also considered the alcoholic man more excitable

and rugged while men considered the alcoholic woman less

delicate and more aimless. Although the sex of a respondent

appeared to have more impact on the ratings than other

factors, sex did not account for as many differences as

occupational affiliation.

Based on the assumption that treatment outcome for

the alcoholic depends on the function and concensus of

staff attitudes and patient attitudes, Mogar, Helm,

Snedeker, Snedeker, and Wilson (1969) conducted a study

to determine the characteristic attitudes toward alcoholism

among various psychiatric staff and alcoholic patients.

The psychiatric staff included psychiatrists, physicians,

psychologists, social workers, and nurses. The

30

nonprofessional personnel included technicians, nursing

service workers, and secretaries. In total, the study

population consisted of seven independent samples from

various mental hospitals in California.

Each subject was asked to complete the Staff Atti­

tudes Toward Alcoholism Questionnaire. The questionnaire

consisted of twenty-nine items rated on a scale from

zero (strongly disagree) to four (strongly ^gree). The

questionnaire had two sections; the first concerned

optimism and pessimism with regard to treatability, and

the second concerned the moral and disease approaches

to the explanation of alcoholism.

The accumulated data from the seven samples of

patients and staff permitted a comparative analysis of

attitudes toward alcoholism both within groups and

between groups. That is, the expatients belonging to

Alcoholics Anonymous significantly exhibited more optimism

about their potential recovery than either of the two

professional alcoholism staffs. The Alcoholics Anonymous

expatients had the most optimistic and the least pessi­

mistic and moralistic attitudes of all the groups

studied. They strongly endorsed the disease model of

alcoholism as did all the professional staff groups and

inpatients. The two professional staff groups actively

involved with treatment of alcoholic patients differed

31

from this group of expatients only in being less optimistic

about potential recovery.

In contrast, both nonprofessional staff groups

differed significantly on all four scales from the

Alcoholics Anonymous members, being highly pessimistic

and moralistic. These two groups of staff members,

however, also differed from each other. The staff working

with the alcoholic exhibited significantly les*s pessimism

and more disease-orientation than the staff that had no

contact with these alcoholic patients.

No differences were found in the attitudes of the

two professional staffs. The professional staff, however,

that did not work with the alcoholics were significantly

more pessimistic than the active staff member. When the

scores of these three professional groups were combined

and compared to the scores of the two nonprofessional

staff groups, a significant difference was obtained on

all scales except optimism. The professional groups were

more disease-oriented and less pessimistic and moralistic.

When the attitudes of the complete alcoholism staff,

both professional and nonprofessional, were compared to

the inpatient views, a general congruence was found.

The two inpatient groups, however, differed from the

staff in being more pessimistic about their chances of

recovery.

32

In summary, an inverse relationship was found between

professionalism and moralism. Within the professional

group, those who did not work with alcoholic patients were

slightly more moralistic and significantly more pessi­

mistic than their active colleagues. That is, the greater

the contact, or work with alcoholics, the stronger the

optimism and a disease-oriented approach toward alcoholism.

This indicated that moralism and pessimism were related

to ignorance and a stereotyped view of the alcoholic.

As a result, the investigators concluded that work with

alcoholics was the prime determinant of a more positive

attitude and approach toward the alcoholic patient (Mogar,

et al., 1969).

A survey of the literature indicates that few

studies have attempted to learn the specific attitudes

of mental health professionals toward the alcoholic;

however, all studies conducted leave no doubt that

therapists' attitudes toward the alcoholic patient influ­

ence the outcome of the treatment. These studies also

indicate that most mental health professionals display

moral and pessimistic attitudes toward the alcoholic.

Such variables as sex, occupational affiliation, and

contact with an alcoholic appear to be most significantly

related to attitudes, particularly moral, pessimistic

and disease approaches to the alcoholic.

33

The Police

The police have traditionally viewed the alcoholic

offender from strictly a legal approach with little or

no concern for his therapeutic treatment. The alcoholic

offender is considered a potential threat and danger to

the community, and is incarcerated to preserve the safety

of all citizens (Miller, 1968). Undoubtedly, with the

exception of traffic and parking violations, mote people

are charged in the United States with the violation of

laws relating to public intoxication than with any other

offense category. Moreover, approximately 10 percent

of all the nation's drivers are alcoholics; and 50

percent of all fatal traffic accidents, 28,000, are

believed to be caused by drunken drivers who are alcoholic

(Mann, 1970:3). To date, punitive measures have been

employed by police systems to curb this serious social

problem and make the drunken offender a law-abiding

citizen.

Often referred to as the "revolving door policy,"

chronic drunks are picked up by the police, thrown in

"the tank" to sober up, and whisked through lower courts

with little concern for legal procedures, sentenced to a

short jail term, and eventually released to repeat the

cycle once again. As a result the drunken, or alcoholic,

offender is continuously arrested and jailed; casualty

34

statistics continue to climb. Furthermore, police man­

power is overburdened; lower courts are congested; penal

institutions are overcrowded; and the alcoholic offender

continues to receive no treatment for his ailment (Miller,

1968).

Today, however, the more progressive police systems

are beginning to adopt a referral policy toward the «

chronic drunk, with the understanding that the alcoholic

offender is a social rather than legal problem. Such

cities as St. Louis and Detroit have developed systems

where police case inebriates are sent to out-patient

treatment centers for treatment of their drinking problem.

The purpose of such programs is to remove the punitive,

and futile, attempts to correct the alcoholic offender

and emphasize treatment as the solution to a serious

social problem.

If such programs are to achieve any success, how­

ever, the police officer must first be properly trained

to cope with the situation, then be able to recognize

the possible alcoholic and professionally direct him to

an agency that provides treatment for alcoholism. This

requires that the police officer be educated on the

subject of alcoholism, have a positive attitude toward

the alcoholic, and have the desire to help the alcoholic

35

offender become a productive citizen in the community

once again (Miller, 1969).

Richard Mackey (1969) recently completed a study

of police officers, guidance counselors, public welfare

workers, and mental health professionals to compare

their attitudes toward the alcoholic. The purpose of the

study was to compare the attitudes of caregiving professions •a

toward the alcoholic with those of the mental health

profession, and emphasize how attitudes, or preconceived

stereotypes, can affect the success of treatment programs

for the alcoholic.

The study sample—sixty-nine police officers, fifty-

nine guidance counselors, forty-three public welfare

workers, and forty-eight members of the mental health

discipline—completed a questionnaire, which was a form

of the Semantic Differential. The instrument consisted

of sixteen bipolar adjective scales for four concepts:

normal man, normal woman, alcoholic man, and alcoholic

woman. The subjects rated each of the person concepts

with the bipolar scales, which included seven spaces

between the bipolar adjectives. The closer the space to

the adjective, the stronger was the association of the

adjective with the concept. The middle, or fourth, space

represented a neutral, or reference, point.

36

The profile of the ratings for normal man and woman

by the four occupational groups displayed moderately

desirable characteristics. In contrast, their ratings

on the concepts associated with alcoholism were made in

the direction of undesirable characteristics such as

foolish, weak, and passive.

Few significant differences were recorded between

the four occupations for the concepts normal*man and

woman. The police, in comparison to the mental health

group, viewed the normal man as more wise, active, and

rugged, as well as less excitable, familiar, and motivated.

The mean ratings of the police and mental health groups

revealed a similar pattern for normal woman. The police

viewed the normal woman as more wise, active, and hopeful,

as well as less predictable and calm.

The police group displayed a greater number of

significant differences to the mental health group's

ratings on the alcoholic concepts than the other two

occupations. The police viewed the alcoholic man as less

tense, excitable, passive, as well as more mysterious,

strange, dangerous, and unpredictable than the mental

health profession. Similarly, the police also viewed

the alcoholic woman as more strange, dangerous, and

unpredictable, and less complicated, hopeless, and feeble

than the mental health group.

CHAPTER III

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

This chapter concerns the selection of the sample,

the Semantic Differential and its development for this

particular study, and the administration of the instru-

ment. The method of analysis is then presented to explain

how each of the five variables characteristic of the

subjects and the seventeen scales of the four concepts

were analyzed for possible relationships. Lastly, the

reliability and validity of the instrument is presented.

Semantic Differential

The Semantic Differential is one of several methods

used to measure attitudes of individuals toward other

individuals or objects. It consists of concepts and

scales of bipolar adjectives which measure, or judge, the

concepts. The concepts are the stimuli, and the scales

of bipolar adjectives record the response. Because

there are no standard concepts or universal scales to

measure all phenomenon, the Semantic Differential is "a

highly generalized technique" (Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum,

1957:76). That is, the concepts and scales employed in

each particular investigation vary according to the

37

38

purpose of the research project. For example, a study

concerned with attitudes toward political candidates

(concept) may concern itself primarily with such atti­

tudinal characteristics as activism, strength, and fair­

ness. The investigator, then, might create such descrip­

tive scales as "honest-dishonest," "active-passive," and

"strong-weak" to measure each individual's attitudes

toward political candidates. Thus, the concepts*and

ad hoc scales utilized in the Semantic Differential

technique are a creation of the investigator and dependent

upon the purpose of the research project.

Most authorities generally agree that attitudes

are learned and implicit. More important, however,

attitudes are predispositions to respond. That is, atti­

tudes are tendencies of approach or avoidance, or more

simply, favorable or unfavorable (Allport, 1967). Atti­

tudes have both direction and intensity, and consequently

should be adaptable to some basic bipolar continuum with

a neutral or zero reference point. Assuming that atti­

tudes are predisposed toward an evaluative response, the

Semantic Differential attempts to quantitatively scale

attitudes on this basis.

Each scale consists of two bipolar adjectives with

seven designated spaces between the two adjectives. One

adjective has a positive connotation and the other has a

39

negative connotation. The seven spaces represent different

degrees of intensity in the association of the adjective

with the concept; that is, the closer the space to the

adjective, the stronger is the association of the

adjective with the concept. The middle, or fourth space,

represents a neutral or zero reference point. Each

individual of the sample population is then requested to

check the space which best describes his feelings of the

particular adjective in relation to the concept. Each

space is assigned a numerical value according to one of

two patterns for analysis. First, the spaces may be

numbered one through seven, with the adjective with a

positive connotation receiving a progressively larger

numerical value and the neutral reference point assigned

the value four. Or the neutral point may be given the

value zero, with the extreme positive pole receiving the

value of positive three, and the extreme negative pole

the value of negative three. The particular pattern

adopted for analysis is dependent upon which pattern the

investigator feels will yield the most productive findings

for his purposes.

Development of the Semantic Differential

In the present study the overall objective of the

semantic differential method was to identify negative

40

attitudes of caregivers toward the alcoholic. The majority

of the scales provided a general attitudinal profile of

the alcoholic; however, a few specific scales were con­

cerned with the respondent's moral attitudes toward the

alcoholic. For example, "Does the alcoholic suffer from

a sickness or a sin?" "Is the alcoholic a hopeless

case?" "Is weak character rather than emotional insta­

bility the alcoholic's problem?" In an attempt: to answer

these questions, six attitudinal scales were developed.

The six scales, "moral-immoral," "spineless-forceful,"

"hopeful-hopeless," "weak-willed-firm," "curable-incurable,"

and "virtuous-corrupt" were included in the Semantic

Differential to learn if such moralistic and pessimistic

attitudes existed among caregiving professions. There

were a total of seventeen scales used in the study.

The person concepts employed in the study included

NORMAL MAN, ALCOHOLIC MAN, NORMAL WOMAN, AND ALCOHOLIC

WOMAN. Each concept was assigned a separate page with

the seventeen descriptive scales below to measure the

concepts. The concepts NORMAL MAN and NORMAL WOMAN were

included so the investigator could measure each respondent's

perception of what is normal against abnormal, or the

alcoholic. For example, a respondent might strongly

associate "immoral" with both the normal and alcoholic

man, resulting in spurious conclusions with the absence

41

of a measurement of what is normal for that person. Thus,

by first establishing what each respondent perceived as

normal, it was then possible to determine any significant

attitudes toward the alcoholic.

In addition, the alcoholic's sex was specifically

designated so as to establish clarity, alleviate con­

fusion, and learn if a "double standard" existed among «

respondents.

To prevent a "halo effect," the polarity direction

of the scales was alternated. For example, the first

scale of bipolar adjectives appeared as "mysterious-

understandable," the second as "active-passive," and the

bhird as "immoral-moral." In other words, the order and

iirection of the scales were rotated so as to prevent

:he formation of positive references. Later, after all

:he scores were tabulated to determine an attitudinal

)rofile of the four concepts by each of the three pro-

iessions, all the scales with a positive connotation were

issigned a position to the right of the zero, or neutral,

•eference point and the negative connotation of each

scale was assigned a position to the left of the reference

)oint.

The investigator obtained a large portion of the

iescriptive scales from previous studies of alcoholism

.nd the scales dealing specifically with moralistic and

42

pessimistic attitudes were a creation of the investigator

with the aid of Roget's Thesaurus (1962). An attempt to

make all of the scales of equal "weight" with one another

was emphasized.

Development of the Questionnaire

A questionnaire concerning the personal profile of

each subject was developed and included with the test.

Each subject was asked to provide his age, sex, education,

occupation, religious affiliation, and date of last con­

tact with an alcoholic. Previous attitudinal studies of

alcoholism found that each of these variables was a

significant factor in people's attitudes toward the

alcoholic and alcoholism (Heinmen and Rhodes, 1967;

McCord and McCord, 1960; Skolnick, 1958; Linsky, 1970).

The attitudinal study of the specific occupations in this

study included an examination of these variables on the

basis of previous findings. As a result, the question­

naire included the above information in an effort to

learn if these variables were significant in this atti­

tudinal study (for complete questionnaire see Appendix A).

Instructions for the Semantic Differential

and Questionnaire

The investigator constructed an instruction sheet

to accompany the Semantic Differential test which explained

the purpose of the test and provided written instructions

43

for completing the test (see Appendix B). A sample was

included to illustrate and simplify the proper method for

completion. At the top of each page was a concept

(NORMAL MAN, ALCOHOLIC MAN, NORMAL WOMAN, ALCOHOLIC

WOMAN) with seventeen scales of bipolar adjectives below.

The subject was instructed to check, only once, the space

on each scale, in order, that best represented his

immediate feelings in relation to the concept at the top

of that page. The direction towards which to check, of

course, depended upon which of the two ends of the scales

seemed most characteristic of the concept. In addition,

each subject was instructed to make each scale a separate

and independent judgment and work at a fairly high speed

through the test. Lastly, each subject was encouraged

to refer back to the instruction sheets if he became

confused over the "degree" that each space represented.

The questionnaire accompanying the Semantic Differ­

ential test included a short explanation and introduction

of the study. The investigator verbally instructed the

subjects to check the space or complete the blank with

the information requested of the appropriate question.

Subjects completed the questionnaire before completing

the test. The investigator did not verify the information

on each questionnaire but assumed that each respondent

provided the correct information.

44

Administration of the Semantic Differential

and Questionnaire

The investigator administered the questionnaire and

test to all of the subjects in the police and student

nurse samples. The purpose of the study and how to com­

plete the questionnaire were first explained, second the

proper method to complete the semantic"differential test,

and finally, a simple example to clarify the iseue was

presented. Upon the completion of the directions, the

subjects were then encouraged to ask questions if they

were confused or uncertain about any aspect of the

questionnaire or test.

The investigator did not personally administer the

questionnaire and test to the clinical psychologists and

psychiatrists. Instead, the secretary of each subject

was provided the questionnaire and test, and requested

to submit the survey to her employer. The survey

included written directions for the proper completion of

the requested information which was assumed to be suffi­

cient for this particular occupational group. The investi­

gator did, however, include his name and telephone number

on each questionnaire with the understanding that the

subject should contact the investigator if he was confused

over any aspect of the questionnaire and test.

45

Selection of Sample

The study population consisted of student nurses,

police officers, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists

in Lubbock, Texas. Permission was pbtained from the

Director of the Nursing School at Methodist Hospital

and the Chief of Police of the Lubbock Police Department

to sample the student nurses and police officers, respec-

tively. The clinical psychologists and psychiatrists

were directly contacted and requested to complete the

questionnaire and test.

The instrument was submitted to 50 of the 152

student nurses enrolled at the nursing school chosen

through a random procedure, without replacement, and with

the aid of a Random Numbers Table (Dixon and Massey,

1969) .

Fifty of the 129 police officers were selected,

using the same method as that of the student nurses,

to complete the questionnaire and test. Police officers

in the Juvenile Division, Service Division, Detective

Division, Non-Rotating and Parking Control Division, and

Training Division were excluded from the sample because

their assigned duties did not include possible contact

with an alcoholic. Thirty-eight of the 50 projected

subjects were contacted by the investigator and requested

to complete the questionnaire and test. Two subjects

46

refused to complete the questionnaire, one subject com­

pleted the questionnaire improperly, and one subject

did not return the questionnaire. The remaining twelve

subjects could not be contacted because of illness or vaca­

tion and the final police sample consisted of thirty-five

subjects.

The investigator established contact with all

sixteen of the practicing clinical psychologists and

psychiatrists in the Lubbock area; however, contrary to

expectations only eight subjects completed and returned

the questionnaire. The remaining eight subjects claimed

busy schedules which did not allow their participation

in the study. As a result, only eight subjects repre­

sented this occupational group.

In total, the sample population consisted of 93

subjects: 35 police officers, 50 student nurses, and

8 clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. The pro­

jected sample size of 118 was not achieved for several

reasons. The investigator's inability to contact all

the selected subjects, the improper completion of

questionnaires, and the lack of cooperation of some indi­

viduals, were responsible for the twenty-five absent

subjects. AS a result, only the student nurse and police

samples were properly represented in the study.

47

The unusual lack of cooperation from the mental

health profession made the later group comparisons of

attribute data rather weak and incomplete. The analysis

of the variables, sex, education, and religious affiliation,

was impossible; and it became necessary to analyze each

of the five variables upon the basis of categorical

responses recorded within each respective variable. In

short, occupation was not held constant and only signifi­

cant differences between the categorical responses could

be determined. Factor analysis was then employed to

determine the scales that most strongly correlated with

each categorical response group.

Analysis of Data

Upon the return of all questionnaires, the responses

on the semantic differential scales were tabulated and

recorded on computer sheets for key punching at a later

date. After this procedure was completed, the various

responses on the questionnaire sheet were categorized

and coded with numerical values for the statistical analysis

of possible relationships between attitudes and attribute

data.

The attribute data and the scores (1-7) on the

scales were coded and punched onto IBM cards and separated

for each occupation so that there were three separate

48

decks. The one deck for each of the three occupational

groups was then separately processed through the computer

for the computation of means, standard deviations, and

standard errors of the means for each scale by every

concept.

The next procedure was to submit the scores of each

occupation for the sixty-eight scales to the computer for

analysis. The program, analysis of variance,*determined

if significant differences existed between the three

occupations for each scale by every concept. The program

also included Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Duncan,

1955) which pinpointed the occupations that differed the

most. In several cases, however, the first program,

analysis of variance, designated no significant differences

between the three occupations while the second program,

Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, designated differences

between two or three occupations. In this particular

situation, Duncan's New Multiple Range Test was ignored

if the analysis of variance did not specify a significant

difference between the occupations. Only when the first

program designated significant differences between the

three occupations was Duncan's New Multiple Range Test

employed to pinpoint the differences.

The .05 level was considered statistically signifi­

cant in this study. That is, obtained differences between

49

the three occupations were considered statistically signifi­

cant only if there was a probability that they had

occurred by chance alone 5 percent of the time or less.

The attribute data was statistically analyzed by

the same procedure as the scale scores of each occupation.

The scores of each categorical response for each respective

variable were submitted to the computer for the analysis

of variance. If the analysis designated that* significant

differences existed between the categories, then Duncan's

New Multiple Range Test was employed to determine the

specific categories that differed.

Reliability and Validity

If an instrument measures what it is intended to

measure that measurement is said to be valid. If that

measure, whether it has proven to be valid or not, is

reproduced when the instrument is readministered to a

subject, the instrument is considered reliable (Mackey,

1966) . These two definitions are relatively correct,

but are over-simplifications within the realm of psycho­

social phenomenon. That is, validity and reliability

are relative measures which are greatly dependent upon

the nature of the phenomenon being measured. In this

particular study the more appropriate question might be,

"To what degree is. an instrument which deals in psycho­

social phenomena valid or reliable?"

50

Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957), the creators

of the Semantic Differential, completed extensive research

at the Institute for Communications Research at the

University of Illinois to prove that the technique was

valid and reliable. Several methodological studies

involving the test re-test procedure repeatedly demon­

strated that "the average errors of measurement of the

semantic differential scales are always less %han a single

scale unit" (Osgood, et al, 1957:131). Osgood concluded

that ". . .we can expect subjects, on the average, to

be accurate within a single unit of the scale, which for

practical purposes is satisfactory" (Osgood, et al,

1957:131).

To the question of validity, Osgood argues that

the semantic differential shows "face validity" as well

as correlation with certain external criteria. In

reference to "face validity" Osgood observes that "we

have found no reasons to question the validity of the

instrument on the basis of its correspondence with the

results to be expected from common sense" (Osgood, et al.,

1957:141). Comparisons of semantic differential data,

particularly between scores on the evaluative factor and

independent measures such as Thurstone and Guttman-type

scales, support the argument for face validity. Further­

more, in a study concerning voting preferences the

51

instrument was shown to have highly accurate predictive

value when scores on select scales were later compared

with actual voting behavior (Osgood, et al., 1957:141-14 3,

192-195). It would seem from the results of Osgood's

work that the technique of semantic differentiation is

reliable in respect to the reproducibility of scale

scores for a subject. There are also indications of

validity as a measure of attitude when scales representing

other criteria which include independent measures and

empirical observation. As an explanation and defense for

the instrument employed in this study, Osgood's argument

for face validity and reliability was accepted.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

This chapter reports the tabulated mean scores of

each occupational group for the four person concepts, and

the statistical analysis of significant differences and

apparent similarities on each of the sixty-eight scales.

(For a profile of the four person concepts see Tables 1-4,

Appendix D.) A figure of each person concept based on

the ratings of each occupational group accompanies each

description. The attitudinal profile and the statistical

analysis of the categorical responses of the five vari­

ables, characteristic of the study population, are then

reported. (For a profile of each occupation based on

these variables see Appendix C.)

Normal Man

Each of the three occupational groups similarly

viewed the normal man in a desirable manner. That is, the

scale scores for each of the three occupations were to

the right of the reference point, which connotes a posi­

tive response (see Table 5, Appendix D). Only one scale,

the complex-simple scale, displayed scores to the left

of the reference, or neutral, point. (The instrument

52

53

employed in this study made it necessary to assign the

bipolar adjective "complex" a negative connotation,

though in reality this was the more desirable response.

This also applies for the following three concepts and

all other phases of analysis.)

Each occupation generally viewed the normal man as

understandable, healthy, and safe, as is apparent in

Fig. 1. With regard to character traits of the normal

man, each occupation viewed him as quite moral and virtu­

ous, and slightly independent. Similarly, each occupation

also described the normal man as hopeful, relaxed, and

curable, as well as complex and predictable.

In some cases the mental health and student nurse

groups appeared more homogenous and more strongly asso­

ciated with certain bipolar adjectives than the police

group. That is, both the mental health and student nurse

groups viewed the normal man as slightly more active,

forceful, and firm than the police group viewed him.

Also, the mental health and student nurse groups saw the

normal man as slightly more familiar, motivated, and

responsible than did the police group.

In summary, each of the three occupations assigned

desirable characteristics to the normal man and viewed

him as healthy, moral, and virtuous, and displayed an

air of optimism toward his treatment, familiarity, and

Fig. 1.—NORMAL MAN

54

Mysterious ^

Passive \

Immoral

Sick

Strange

Dangerous

Hopeless

Tense

Complex

Spineless

Weak-willed

Aimless

Unpredictable

Incurable

Irresponsible

Corrupt

Dependent ,

1

Understandable

Mental Health Police Student Nurse

55

character. With regard to the variation of positive, or

desirable, characteristics ascribed to the normal man,

the police group leaned more toward the neutral point

than the other two occupational groups. The police group

viewed the normal man as significantly less motivated,

forceful, and active than the mental health and student

nurse groups. The student nurse group, on the other •m

hand, displayed the most consistent and positive responses

toward the normal man, particularly his aggressiveness

(motivated, firm, forceful). The mental health sample

fluctuated between the other two occupational groups

and did not appear unique on any particular scale. The

mental health sample did, however, view the normal man as

slightly more understandable and less curable than the

student nurse or police groups.

Alcoholic Man

Each of the three occupational groups viewed the

alcoholic man in a similar and an undesirable direction

with approximately 80 percent of the responses were to

the left of the neutral, or reference, point (see Table 6,

Appendix D). The statistical analysis of each occupational

group's scores for the seventeen scales designated a

general agreement on eight scales. A similar pattern for

the scale scores of two groups existed on nine scales,

while the third group exhibited a significantly different

56

pattern for the same nine scales. One scale, the immoral-

moral scale, defined two subsets—one group appeared

statistically similar to each of the other two groups

though the other two groups did not appear similar. As

a result, the statistical conclusions, or reported

similarities and differences between the three groups,

sometimes differed from the general profiles presented

in the table.

The eight scales which each occupation group

appeared to view in a similar fashion concerned the treat­

ment and character of the alcoholic man. The groups

viewed the alcoholic man as sick, slightly hopeless

though curable, and weak-willed, as is apparent in Fig. 2.

Also each occupation described the alcoholic man as passive,

irresponsible, and spineless, as well as dependent.

The nine scales on which one group statistically

differed from the other two groups concerned their fam­

iliarity with the alcoholic man and a few of his person­

ality characteristics. The student nurse and police

groups viewed the alcoholic man as mysterious, aimless,

and unpredictable while the mental health group viewed

him as undesirable, motivated, and predictable. The

mental health and police groups viewed the alcoholic man

as neither strange nor familiar, and neither corrupt nor

virtuous, while the student nurses viewed him as slightly

57

Fig, 2,—ALCOHOLIC MAN

Mysterious

Passive

Immoral

Sick

Strange

Dangerous

Hopeless

Tense

Complex

Spineless

Weak-willed

Aimless

Unpredictable

Incurable

Irresponsible

Corrupt

Dependent

Understandable

Responsible

Virtuous

Independent

Mental Health Police Student Nurse

58

strange and corrupt. In addition, the mental health and

police groups viewed the alcoholic man as less dangerous

and less complex than did the student nurses. The

student nurse and mental health groups viewed the alcoholic

man as quite tense while the police group saw him as

slightly relaxed.

In summary, no one group attached a significant num­

ber of desirable characteristics to the alcoh'olic man.

The majority of scale scores of each group described a

negative perception of the alcoholic man. The most

affirmative response was the mental health group's per­

ception of the alcoholic man as understandable. The

mental health group also ascribed a larger number of

desirable characteristics (seven) to the alcoholic man

than did either of the other two occupations. The student

nurses presented a more consistent and undesirable per­

ception of the alcoholic man than the other two occupations.

The police group displayed a similarly undesirable pattern,

but ascribed a few desirable characteristics to the

alcoholic man. The mental health group viewed the alcoholic

man as moral, while the police saw him as immoral. The

student nurses viewed the alcoholic man as both immoral

and moral; statistically, however, the general trend

displayed an immoral view.

59

Normal Woman

Each of the three occupational groups viewed the

normal woman in a similarly desirable direction (see

Table 7, Appendix D). Approximately 85 percent of the

scale scores were to the right of the reference point,

as is shown in Fig. 3. The three occupational groups

appeared to display no significant differences on six

scales, all of them viewing the normal woman a% familiar,

relaxed, virtuous, complex, forceful, and predictable.

On the remaining eleven scales no statistical differences

between two groups were discernable, while the responses

of a third group differed significantly. The mental

health and student nurse groups appeared to view the

normal woman alike on eight scales. The responses of

the police group differed significantly, specifically in

relation to the student nurses. The mental health and

student nurse groups viewed the normal woman as under­

standable and independent, while the police group saw

her as mysterious and dependent. Similarly, the mental

health and student nurse groups were more inclined to

describe the normal woman as more healthy, curable, and

hopeful than the police viewed her. With regard to

character traits, the mental health and student nurse

groups saw the normal woman as responsible, motivated,

and safe. The police group viewed the normal woman in a

similar direction, but to a significantly less degree.

Fig. 3.—NORMAL WOMAN

60

Mysterious

Passive

Immoral

Sick

Strange

Dangerous

Hopeless

Tense

Complex

Spineless

Weak-willed

Aimless

Unpredictable

Incurable

Irresponsible

Corrupt

Dependent

Understandable

Independent

Mental Health Police Student Nurse

61

The police and mental health groups appeared to

view the normal woman alike on two scales. That is, they

were less inclined than the student nurses to see the

normal woman as either active or moral.

In summary, each occupational group viewed the

normal woman in a similarly desirable direction. The

student nurse group displayed a more consistent and posi­

tive response on each of the seventeen scales han either

of the other two groups. Specifically, the student

nurses displayed greater familiarity (understandable,

familiar, safe) and optimism (healthy, curable, active,

motivated) toward the normal woman. The police, on the

other hand, assigned less positive responses to the normal

woman and displayed greater pessimism (mysterious, unpre­

dictable, less curable, or hopeful). The mental health

group fluctuated between the other two occupational groups,

but appeared to view the normal woman as less active and

predictable than did either of the other two groups.

Alcoholic Woman

Each of the three occupational groups viewed the

alcoholic woman in a similar and undesirable direction,

as is shown in Fig. 4. Statistically, each occupation

appeared to respond similarly on eleven scales. A

pattern of two groups being homogenous and a third group

significantly different appeared to exist on six scales.

Fig. 4.—ALCOHOLIC WOMAN

62

Mysterious

Passive

Immoral

Sick

Strange

Dangerous

Hopeless

Tense

Complex

Spineless

Weak-willed

Aimless

Unpredictable

Incurable

Irresponsible

Corrupt

Dependent

^ Understandable

Active

Moral

. Healthy

Familiar

Safe

Hopeful

\ Relaxed

^ Simple

j Forceful

Firm

^ Motivated

I Predictable

\ Curable

\ Responsible

\ Virtuous

\ Independent

Mental Health Police Student Nurse

63

Though significant differences between the three groups

existed, the negative connotation of the responses gen­

erally remained unaltered (see Table 8, Appendix D).

Each occupational group perceived the alcoholic

woman as complex, irresponsible, and mysterious, as well

as dangerous and aimless. With regard to treatment and

optimism, each occupation viewed the alcoholic woman as

curable but hopeless. The occupations similarly viewed

the alcoholic woman as immoral, dependent, and corrupt.

The six scales that recorded differences between

one occupational group and the other two homogenous groups

concerned familiarity with the alcoholic woman and her

appearance. The police and student nurses described the

alcoholic woman as slightly strange and quite unpredictable

while the mental health group viewed her as familiar and

predictable. The police and mental health groups viewed

the alcoholic woman as less sick, less weak-willed, and

less spineless than did the student nurses. The student

nurse and police groups, another homogenous group,

appeared to view the alcoholic woman as strange and unpre­

dictable, while the mental health group viewed the alco­

holic woman as familiar and predictable. Lastly, the

mental health and student nurse groups described the

alcoholic woman as quite tense, while the police viewed

the alcoholic woman as neither tense nor relaxed.

64

In summary, each of the three occupational groups

viewed the alcoholic woman in an undesirable direction.

The statistical analysis of the seventeen scale scores

of each occupation revealed six significant differences

between the three occupations, but the negative connota­

tion of the responses generally remain unaltered. Each

occupation viewed the alcoholic woman as mysterious

(strange, dangerous, complex) with pessimistic overtones

(hopeless, immoral, corrupt). The mental health group,

however, described the alcoholic woman as slightly

understandable and predictable. With regard to character

traits, each occupation similarly viewed the alcoholic

woman as spineless, weak-willed, and dependent.

Age

The statistical analysis of the variable age

revealed no significant differences. The three age groups,

18-20, 21-30, 31+, responded similarly on each of the

sixty-eight scales for the four concepts (see Tables 9-12,

Appendix D). Like the occupational groups, the three age

groups viewed the normal man and woman in an undesirable

manner. The alcoholic woman received slightly stronger

negative scores than the alcoholic man, but the general

pattern of response on the seventeen scales for each

concept remained the same.

65

Though not statistically proven, a survey of the

mean scores for each age group revealed the 18-2 0 age

group to display slightly stronger, positive scores for

normal man and woman, and slightly stronger, negative

scores for the alcoholic man andwoman. Neither of the

other two age groups appeared to display a consistent

or unique pattern of responses in relation to the

remaining two groups. *

The statistical analysis of the variable sex

revealed significant differences between the male and

female groups for the four concepts (see Tables 13-16,

Appendix D). The general responses of each group, however,

displayed a pattern similar to the three occupational

groups' view of the four concepts. That is, each sex

viewed the normal man and woman in a desirable manner

and the alcoholic man and woman in an undesirable manner.

The male and female groups differed significantly

on eighteen of the sixty-eight scales. The female group

viewed the normal man as more active, familiar, and

aggressive (forceful, firm, motivated) than did the male

group. Similarly, the female group also viewed the

normal woman as more optimistic (active, safe, hopeful)

and aggressive (firm, motivated, independent) than did

the male group.

66

With regard to the alcoholic man and woman, the

female group viewed both subjects as more tense and com­

plex than the male group viewed them. Also, the female

group viewed the alcoholic man as more corrupt and the

alcoholic woman as more sick than the male group, which

responded similarly but to a significantly less degree.

In summary, the female group viewed the normal man

and woman in a more positive manner, and the alcoholic

man and woman in a more negative manner than the male

group. The significant differences between the two groups

basically concerned the general appearance (tense, complex,

sick) of the alcoholic man and woman. Otherwise, the two

sex groups similarly viewed the alcoholic man and woman

as mysterious (strange, unpredictable) lacking in moral

fiber (immoral, weak-willed, dependent) and relatively

hopeless, but curable.

Education

The statistical analysis of education revealed few

significant differences between the seven progressively

educated groups and their responses on the sixty-eight

scales (see Tables 17-20, Appendix D). There were no

significant differences between the seven groups for the

normal man and woman concepts. Eight scales, however,

reported significant differences for the alcoholic man

and woman.

67

The significant differences between the various

education groups concerned the general appearance of the

alcoholic man and woman. The group with a high school

education viewed the alcoholic man as relaxed and simple,

while the groups representing different years of college

education viewed the alcoholic man as tense and complex.

The other group significantly different from the other

groups, those with eight years of college or more,

viewed the alcoholic man as motivated and familiar, while

the high school and college educated (one to five years)

groups viewed the alcoholic man as strange and aimless.

Similarly, the group with eight years of education or

more, viewed the alcoholic woman as familiar and predictable,

while the less educated groups viewed her as relatively

strange and quite unpredictable. Also, the group with a

high school education viewed the alcoholic woman as

relaxed and simple, while the other college educated

groups viewed her as tense and complex.

Aside from the differences between the seven educa­

tion groups on the eight scales, the seven education groups

viewed the four concepts in a pattern similar to the

occupational groups. That is, the education groups

similarly viewed the normal man and woman in a desirable

manner, and the alcoholic man and woman in an undesirable

manner.

68

Religion

The statistical analysis of the seven religion groups

and their attitudinal profiles for the four person concepts

revealed few significant differences (see Tables 21-24,

Appendix D). Like the occupation groups, the religion

groups viewed the normal man and woman in a desirable

manner, and the alcoholic man and woman in an undesirable -4

manner. The significant differences between the seven

groups concerned the normal man and woman and alcoholic

man. Each group viewed the alcoholic woman in a

similarly undesirable manner with no significant differ­

ences.

The groups ascribed to the normal man desirable

characteristics on each of the seventeen scales except one;

all seven of the groups viewed the normal man as complex.

Furthermore, the seven groups differed significantly in

their perception of the normal man as motivated and

curable. The Baptist group viewed the normal man as

quite motivated while the None (have no religion) and

Other (no definite religion) groups viewed the normal man

as only slightly motivated. The other four groups (Church

of Christ, Methodist, Catholic-Lutheran, Presbyterian)

fluctuated between the two "extreme" responses and

represented the theoretical mean score of the seven groups.

With regard to the curable-incurable scale, the Methodist,

69

Baptist, and None groups viewed the normal man as quite

curable, while the Catholic-Lutheran group viewed the

normal man as only slightly curable. The remaining groups

(Church of Christ, Presbyterian, Other) fluctuated between

the two extremes.

The groups viewed the alcoholic man in a similarly

undesirable manner, but differed significantly on three

scales. The Catholic-Lutheran, Baptist, Church of Christ,

and Methodist groups viewed the alcoholic man as quite

aimless and irresponsible, while the Other and None groups

viewed the alcoholic man as only slightly, or neutral,

aimless and irresponsible. The Presbyterian group viewed

the alcoholic man as slightly aimless and irresponsible,

and represented the mean score of the seven groups. With

regard to the corrupt-virtuous scale, the Baptist group

viewed the alcoholic man as slightly corrupt, while the

Other and None groups viewed the alcoholic man as slightly

virtuous. The remaining four groups (Church of Christ,

Methodist, Catholic-Lutheran, Presbyterian) fluctuated

between the neutral and slightly corrupt direction.

The groups viewed the normal woman in a similarly

desirable manner as normal man, but differed significantly

on three scales. The Baptist, Church of Christ, and

Methodist groups viewed the normal woman as quite moral

and healthy, while the Presbyterian and None groups

70

viewed the normal woman as only slightly moral and

healthy. Similarly, the Methodist and Baptist groups

also viewed the normal woman as quite firm, while the

Church of Christ, Other, and None groups fluctuated

between a neutral and slightly firm view of the normal

woman.

In summary, the more sacred religion groups (Baptist,

Methodist, Church of Christ) viewed the normal man and

woman in slightly more desirable characteristics, and the

alcoholic man in slightly more undesirable characteristics.

The more secular or unaffiliated groups (Other, None,

Presbyterian) viewed the normal man and woman in either

relatively neutral or slightly positive terms, and the

alcoholic man and woman in relatively neutral or slightly

positive and negative terms. On the whole, however, the

religion groups viewed the four person concepts in a

pattern similar to the occupational groups.

Contact with an Alcoholic

The statistical analysis of the variable, last con­

tact with an alcoholic, revealed no significant differ­

ences between contact with an alcoholic and attitudes

toward the alcoholic man and woman (see Tables 25-26) .

Subjects who had last seen an alcoholic one week ago,

ten years ago, or never, viewed the alcoholic man and

71

woman similarly on each of the thirty-four scales for the

two concepts. Like the occupational groups, the seven

contact groups viewed the alcoholic man and woman in an

undesirable manner. The alcoholic man received slightly

stronger negative scores than the alcoholic woman, but

the general pattern of response on the scales remained

the same for both concepts. That is, the alcoholic man

and woman were viewed as mysterious (strange, complex),

weak-willed (spineless, passive, immoral), and hopeless

but curable.

Though not statistically proven, a survey of the

mean scores for each categorical response revealed the

"Never" (never had experienced contact with an alcoholic)

group to display slightly stronger negative scores for

both alcoholic man and woman than the other six groups.

The "Never" group, however, had a slightly higher, or

more positive, score for the perception of alcoholic man

and woman as curable than the other six groups. The

group of subjects that had seen an alcoholic less than a

week ago did not necessarily display the most positive,

or least negative, mean scores for alcoholic man and

woman in comparison with the other six contact groups.

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This chapter surveys the similarities and differ­

ences of the ratings by occupation of respondent for the

four person concepts presented in the previous chapter

and presents possible explanations for their occurring

differences.

Discussion

Each of the three occupations ascribed desirable

adjectives to the normal man and woman concepts and

undesirable adjectives to the alcoholic man and woman

concepts. The ratings for each of the four concepts

displayed one particular pattern, or direction; but the

varying responses of the three occupations displayed

unique differences between the occupations. The variations

of these occupational ratings are now examined with

suggested explanations for their differences.

Each of the three occupations viewed the normal

man in a similarly desirable direction; however, the police

group displayed ratings that were consistently less

positive than the student nurse or mental health groups.

That is, the police viewed the normal man as less

72

73

aggressive (forceful, active, motivated) and less under­

standable (familiar, predictable) than the other two

occupations. This view of normal man as considerably

less aggressive and less understandable might best be

explained on the basis of occupational orientation and

the clientele associated with this occupation. That is,

the police officer is more likely to encounter subjects

who appear docile and relatively passive because of the

power and authority he represents. Moreover, the police

officer works in an arena where violence and other

explosive events occur daily—presenting no stable or

predictive quality. Furthermore, the atypical clientele

and their "senseless" acts of crime which the police

officer must deal with, perhaps make the police officer

rather apprehensive and uncertain and less likely of

understanding the normal man.

The student nurse group, on the other hand, displayed

the strongest and most consistent ratings for the normal

man. The student nurses viewed the normal man as quite

aggressive (active, forceful, motivated) and optimistic

(curable, hopeful, healthy), which might be attributed

partly to the nurse's occupational orientation and

socialization (experience, companionship) with normal

man. The statistical analysis of the variable sex

displayed a profile of the female subjects consistently

74

rating the normal man as more aggressive and independent

than the male group rated the normal man, which would

tend to support this statement. The air of optimism

which the student nurses displayed, perhaps was due to a

combination of occupational orientation and the naivete

associated with youth. The student nurse, preparing for

a profession that generally deals with the more depressing

side of life—attending to sick and terminal patients who

generally display despondent or depressed appearances—

must adopt an optimistic and enthusiastic attitude to

meet this situation.

The mental health group's most unique characteristic,

in relation to the other two occupations, was their

perception of normal man (as well as alcoholic man and

woman) as understandable, familiar, and predictable.

The student nurse and police groups, on the other hand,

viewed each of the three person concepts as mysterious,

strange, and unpredictable. Again, occupational orienta­

tion appears to account for the significant difference.

The psychiatrist, whose professional training includes

several years of extensive observation and study of

psychopathic behavior, usually finds most forms of

behavioral abnormalities relatively familiar and under­

standable. In contrast, most other professional people

generally experience less contact with individuals who

75

suffer severe and overt psychological traumas and naturally

tend to see these subjects as mysterious and strange.

Each of the three occupations similarly viewed the

alcoholic man negatively; however, the police group

associated less tension and complexity with the alcoholic

man. This difference might be attributed to occupational

orientation and the setting in which contact occurs. The

police officer, whose occupational duties dictate social

control, views the alcoholic (synonomous to many unsophis­

ticated persons with "drunkard") as a potential threat to

the social order in terms of behavioral, or surface,

appearance: the sessile alcoholic simply has had too

much to drink, but must be incarcerated because of the

potential threat he represents. The student nurse and

mental health professions, on the other hand, deal with

the alcoholic in a different capacity and in a different

professional setting. The professional training of these

occupations dictate the need for greater comprehension

of the alcoholic who is received as a patient for treat­

ment and re-socialization. More precisely, the student

nurse and mental health occupations see the alcoholic as

an individual who suffers from unresolved mental conflicts

of some nature; the over-consumption of alcohol is only a

symptom, not a cause, of the problem. As a result, rather

than a threat to the social order, the student nurse and

76

mental health professions perceive the alcoholic as a sick

person who is tense and complex and whose problems extend

beyond inebriation.

Conclusion

This study was based on the premise that successful

care and treatment of the alcoholic largely depends upon

the attitudes of caregiving professionals who work directly

with the alcoholic. Implicit in this statement was the

assumption that present attitudes of caregivers toward

the alcoholic must be clarified, and redirected if

necessary, in order to improve future treatment programs.

The present study addressed itself to the former problem.

This study had as its goal, then, assessment of attitudes

toward the alcoholic of police officers, student nurses,

and mental health professionals (clinical psychologists

and psychiatrists), and especially to discover possible

negative and pessimistic attitudes of these groups.

The study found that each of the three occupations

held definite moral and pessimistic attitudes toward the

alcoholic man and woman. The alcoholic subjects were

described as "weak-willed," "spineless," "immoral," and

"hopeless," but "curable." These descriptions, charac­

teristic of the Protestant ethic in conflict with contem­

porary professional optimism, display a moral approach to

the explanation of the alcoholic.

77

Although the variables sex, education, and religion

displayed significant differences in relation to scale

scores for the alcoholic man and woman, the variable

occupation appeared to account for the prevailing differ­

ences among the three professional groups. The occupa­

tional orientation and the resulting perspective in which

each caregiving group perceived the alcoholic appeared to

account for the differences. The nature of the three

occupational groups' views did not seem to be related to

other factors such as age and contact with an alcoholic.

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of these questions is to obtain infor­mation about professional people who administer aid to alcoholics. The information will be used in a Master's Thesis at Texas Tech University, and your responses will be strictly confidential. Your co-operation in this survey is greatly appreciated.

Age; 18-20 21 31 and over

Sex:

Occupation;

Education: (Circle year finished)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12;

C o l l e g e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 o r more

Religious Affiliation;

When was the last time you had contact with an alcoholic?

78

APPENDIX B

INSTRUCTIONS

The purpose of this study is to measure the meanings of certain things to various people by having them judge them against a series of descriptive scales. In taking this test, please make your judgments on the basis of what these things mean to you. On each page you will find a different concept to be judged and beneath it a set of scales. You are to rate the concept on each of these scales in order.

Here is how you are to use these scales:

If you feel that the concept at the top of the page is very closely related to one end of the scale, you should place your check-mark as follows;

Ideal Mother

fair X ; ; ; ; ; : unfair

or

fair ; ; ; ; ; ; X unfair

If you feel that the concept is quite closely related to one or the other end of the scale (but not extremely) you should place your check-mark as follows:

strong : X ; ; ; ; ; weak

or

strong : : : : : X ; weak

If the concept seems only slightly related to one side as opposed to the other side (but not really neutral) then you should check as follows:

active : :_2 : •* • ' passive

or

active : : : '_^ • * passive

79

80

The direction toward which you check, of course, depends upon which of the two ends of the scale seem most charac­teristic of the thing you are judging.

If you consider the concept to be neutral on the scale, both sides of the scale equally associated with the con­cept, or if the scale is completely irrelevant, unrelated to the concept, then you should place your check-mark in the middle space:

safe : : : X ; : : dangerous

IMPORTANT: (1) Place your check-marks in the middle spaces, not on the boundaries;

THIS NOT THIS

: ; X : ; ? :

(2) Be sure you check every scale for every concept—do not omit any.

(3) Never put more than one check-mark on a single scale.

Sometimes you may feel as though you've had the same item before on the test. This will not be the case, so do not look back and forth through the items. Do not try to remember how you checked similar items earlier in the test. Make each item a separate and independent judgment. Work at fairly high speed through this test. Do not worry or puzzle over individual items. It is your first impressions, the immediate "feelings" about the items, that we want. On the other hand, please do not be careless because we want your true impressions.

The concepts on the following pages will consist of NORMAL MAN, ALCOHOLIC MAN, NORMAL WOMAN, and ALCOHOLIC WOMAN. Beneath each concept will be several descriptive scales like those presented in the instructions. You are to judge each scale in relation to the concept above and check the space that best represents your immediate feelings. If you become confused about the "degree" that each space represents, feel free to refer back to the instructions. Again, please make your judgments on the basis of what these scales mean to you!

81

NORMAL MAN

Mysterious

Active

Immoral

Sick

Familiar

Dangerous

Hopeful

Relaxed

Complex

Forceful

Weak-willed

Motivated

Unpredictable

Curable

Irresponsible

Virtuous

Dependent

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • •

• « • • ' • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • •

; I • • • •

z • • • • *

; : : : • -

: ; : : - -

; ; ; : : '

: : : : : :

Understandable

Passive

Moral

Healthy

Strange

Safe

Hopeless

Tense

Simple

Spineless

Firm

Aimless

Predictable

Incurable

Responsible

Corrupt

Independent

82

ALCOHOLIC MAN

Mysterious

Active

Immoral

Sick

Familiar

Dangerous

Hopeful

Relaxed

Complex

Forceful

Weak-willed

Motivated

Unpredictable

Curable

Irresponsible

Virtuous

Dependent

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • Z • • • •

• • • * * ; : • • •

• • • • ! : • • • •

• • • • * : I • • •

• • • * *

Understandable

Passive

Moral

Healthy

Strange

Safe

Hopeless

Tense

Simple

Spineless

Firm

Aimless

Predictable

Incurable

Responsible

Corrupt

Independent

83

NORMAL WOMAN

Mysterious

Active

Immoral

Sick

Familiar

Dangerous

Hopeful

Relaxed

Complex

Forceful

Weak-willed

Motivated

Unpredictable

Curable

Irresponsible

Virtuous

Dependent

• • • • •

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• « • • • • • • « •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

• • • : t » • • • •

• • • ?

• • • • •

• • • • • • • • • •

Understandable

Passive

Moral

Healthy

Strange

Safe

Hopeless

Tense

Simple

Spineless

Firm

Aimless

Predictable

Incurable

Responsible

Corrupt

Independent

84 ALCOHOLIC WOMAN

Mysterious

Active

Immoral

Sick

Familiar

Dangerous

Hopeful

Relaxed

Complex

Forceful

Weak-willed

Motivated

Unpredictable

Curable

Irresponsible

Virtuous

Dependent

: « . . . .

; • . . . .

• _______ . . . .

* . . . . . .

• * . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . •

. . . . . . • . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . . • . . . . .

. . . . . .

: . . . . .

; . . . * *

: ; ; : : :

: ; : : : '

; . . . • •

Understandable

Passive

Moral

Healthy

Strange

Safe

Hopeless

Tense

Simple

Spineless

Firm

Aimless

Predictable

Incurable

Responsible

Corrupt

Independent

APPENDIX C

AGE, SEX, EDUCATION, RELIGION, AND CONTACT WITH AN ALCOHOLIC: CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH OCCUPATION

Occupation with Characteristics Statistics

Police (N=35)

Mean age (approximate years) 21-3 0

Sex 35 males

Education high school 12 college

one year 9 two years 8 three years 1 four years 3 five years 2

Religion Baptist 13 Church of Christ 6 Methodist 5 Catholic-Lutheran 3 Presbyterian 2 None 2 Other 2

Contact with an Alcoholic Less than a week ago 24 Less than one month ago 4 Less than one year ago 2 4-10 years ago ^ No answer •*-

Student Nurses (N=50)

Mean age (approximate years) 21-30

QQX ^ males 4 3 fei}aales

85

86

Occupation with Characteristics Statistics

Education college one year 14 two years 2 0 three years 11 four years 3 five years 2

Religion Baptist 19 Church of Christ 5 Methodist 10 Catholic-Lutheran 4 Presbyterian 4 None 2 Other 6

Contact with an Alcoholic Less than one week ago 9 Less than one month ago 7 Less than one year ago 15 2-3 years ago 8 4-10 years ago 4 Never 5 No answer 2

Mental Health (N=8)

Mean age (approximate years) 31+

QQX ^ males 1 female

Education college eight years or more 8

Religion Methodist ^ Presbyterian ^ None ^ Other ^

Contact with an Alcoholic Less than one week ago 3 Less than one month ago 2 Less than one year ago 3

APPENDIX D

TABLES

88

w w 1-^ < u w

^ H EH ^

S w fa fa 2:

U h l H < EH S

^ S < O S 53

t •

(i) EH W PH EH W

U S S o o

fa O W h^ ^ s m H O < EH H EH IC^ EH

fa D O U

U

w o 53 O W

lAT

I T

HR

E

> fa fa p m

EH

< o Q fa 3 EH W

Q

2 •K W

§ s

(n o

i H fd

u w

0) ^ u in

•H n rH II 0 IS 04 ^

w (U CO

u ^ o in -P II C 2 Q) - -

-P w

.c: -p rH <d

m 00 II

<-i ^ (d ^ -p c

(0 0)

rH (d u w

• Q

w

c (d 0)

• Q

W

C (d 0)

• o

•

d (d

0) H j:5 fd

T5 C (d •P > i Ui Q) xi h > rH 4J (1) -H Id iH TJ -P >H rd C O 0 OJ D <: s w

in o in -^ i n i n - ^ 00

iH rH rH iH

rH iH H iH m o> iH n

in - r in in

CN i n CO o i n CM ^ (N

rH H iH H

•«;r CM o o fo r^ iH 00

in in in in

•«J< V O C h C M r- o <y» ch

i H

ro 00 ro ro VO rO rH V£)

in in in in

CO 13 0

•H <U rH U > (^ Q) •'-i U •P Ui 0 X Ui Ui B 0 > i Id e -H S f^ H W

U (d r-\n3

•H J3 (U rH MH >< •H <U Q) Id g MH CUiH (3 fd 0 Q) fa w m PH

00 i n O rH CM VO rH i n

rH H rH rH

vo o iH cr> VD VD Cr> CO

^ ' r in '>r

r- rH <3 in ro r 00 rH ,-i r^ rH

VO O VD VO •^ CO rH - ^

in in vo in

o o C3 r-CM CM a> vo

r-i r-i r^

o o CO in o in CO r-

in in in ' *

Ui p w

<U 0 w C7> JH 0) C Q) iH (U fd tn 0) w >H C D c: 4J fd 0 Q) W Q EC tH

' 0 rH 0) :3 +j

(U MH fd rH Q) > D u e -H g M n -p

•H 0 -H 0 w fa fa S

CM 'sj' CM O rO rH '^r CN

r-i T-i t-{ t-i

r^ CO ^ VO rH vo t^ CM

ro * * ^ in

rH r- ro ^ vo <r» CM o

H rH iH

vo (N O CO rH i n vo rH

CO in in vo

in r^ r- ^ CN o o t^

rH rH rH

CO o o ro rH O O vo

CO in in in

•a Q) m f-\ Ui rH

:>< <U -H w 0) rH IS CO rH 0) 1 Q) D4 C ^ rH e - H fd g 0 a <U -H U W IS <

(U 0) -P rH rH C XI .Q Q) (d -H en fd 4J Q) w :3 c O H C 0 0)

•H X5 0 3 CU tJ fd D4+» a) Q) JH CO >H TJ }-l 13 (U -H C OH U « > H

<r» Tj* <T\ rH i n CO o in "^ t^

rH rH rH rH rH

<y> VO r^ o o CM ^ CO O '«;r

'i;r in in in '^

r- rH CM vo in vo CM O rH CO

rH rH rH rH rH

* * CM CO VO VO CO ^ <T> ro o

^ in in in in

vo vo ^ <y» t^ r^ ro CO CT» vo

rH rH

o ro CO ro in O rH CO rH CM

in in in in ^

(U 0)

Xi Xi fd -H 4-> Q) CO 4-> U rH C C

•H XI O -P Q) fd fd a 04^3 0) M M p C >H :3 0) VH <u 04 O H M a (:: C h 0 Q) D H H U Q

(U

•H x: (u o 4J 4J > O U -H • (I) » CO r^

• r - i O CO Tl O Id C fd • D4 fd

' ^ XJ >H - + > Id 1^ w

rH O :3 0) 0 rH 0 JH 04 0) -H 0

•H X3 >H e XI <U

Q) -P >H (U CO (0 0

x : fd > i -P (U g o

>H O tJ u * • M Q) • rH fd T l Q)

0 CO -H fd +j c - - x :

Id -P CO 0) -P 0) g MH CO CO (U CO fd CO r H 0)

u d) o xi Q) C • -P XI

•H ^^ • O -P

cr> o -P o C -P c

•H <U CU C +> > fd fd --H o ^ (U 4->

> u w <U -H (U C XJ -P - n fd •P O TJ Q)

fd fd IS:

o •. n o 0) (d • . 1 _ l 1 • rH rH rH

"^ X3 O fd fd 04 M

0) tJ -H -P > C XI 3 O fd Q) XJ -P 0) c fd CO j : :

M -P CO 0 ) 0 ) -H CO a 'd fd c h o Q) :3 (d o JH ^ . O ^ 0 -^ C • +J

-H Q) MH • QJ 0

CO -H CO C ^ fd C fd o fd (U -P ^ 0) g x: u g

D G CO -H -H < < u •K CO

0) tn • x: c ---P -H .

•P o o fd -p

1 -P M (U

89

w fa ^ L) W

^ H EH IS

s fa fa fa H

2 g

Q U H

U 1^ H O EH W

2: o

EMA

en fa ffi EH

• • EH 04 fa

2 U O

CM cn

fa o

IS o u

i-:i IS w « H 2 < EH O

^ g fa

H EH

< 04

o o U w u IS o o H EH

H

fa § K

> H W Q W

g m EH

<: pj p o IS < EH

cn Q 2 <

* W

fa

CO d)

H fd u Ui

(U ^ o in

•H ro rH 11 O 2: 04 ^

CO

CO u 3 - -IS O

in •P 11 G IS Q) - -

tud

w

x; •p

fd (U ^ m 00

II rH IS fd ^ 4J

Men

CO Q)

r-i fd u w

•

p •

c fd cu

•

p w

c fd (U

• P

en

d fd 0)

(D rH X3 fd

TJ c fd +» >i CO 0) x : M > rH +J Q) -H fd rH TJ -P 1 fd C O 0 (U D <; s w

* * r^ CM ' f in ro H rH

r-{ r-\ r-{ r^

^ CTi -^ CO r^ CO in CN

CO CN ro CN

o r- vo in r- in -^ rH

rH rH rH rH

^ O CN 00 ro ro r- r CO ro CO rH

^ in vo ^ vo in o CO

r-i r-i ,-i

CO 00 ro ro CO CO vo rH

<«:i« CN ' ^ CN

CO J3 0

•H 0) rH >H > Id (U -H »H +) CO 0 . i^ CO CO g u > i Id g -H S 04 H W

U Id rH Tl

•H ^ 0 ) rH UH X •H Q) (U Id g MH O4H fd fd 0 0) fa w HI pc:

'sr 0 vo cr> vo ^ in vo

H rH rH rH

CT\ ^ ro rH VO rH VO i n

ro ro ro ^

^ 0 r- CN ro ro 'sf ^

rH rH rH rH

CN CN 0 CN cy» in 0 ro

CM c>j ro CN

vo '^ 0 ro 0 r^ CM cy>

H t-i

ro ro 0 0 vo vo in in

* * ro CM CM

CO :3 CO

(U 0 ui IT< JH <U C CU rH Q) fd tp 0) CO M P: 04 a •P fd 0 Q) W P W EH

Tl rH Q) :3 +J

0) MH fd rH (U > O4 0 g -H g M fi -P

•H 0 -H 0 W fa fa S

ro in 0 r r« CM CM rH

rH rH rH H

t^ CT) n^ r-i r^ 00 in in

ro ro CM CM

ro rH 'cr r-in vo rH 0

T-i r-i ,-i f-i

0 CN vo CO i n ro CN * *

CN ro CN CM

rH 0 cr> CJ ro CN C7 vo

r-\ r-i t-\

0 CO CO CO in ro CO ro

ro ro CN 'sj'

Tl <D

CO rH CO H

X 0 -H CO Q) H IS CO

•H (U 1 <U O4 C , i^ H g - H Id g 0 0 . <U -H 0 W IS <

0) 0) -P H rH C X} XI <U Id -H CO Tl 4J (U CO 3 C 0 rH C 0 (U

•H XI 0 P O4 TJ fd 04-P Q) <U H CO M Tl }H J3 0 -H C O4 U « > H

ro •«;r CN rH 0 vo vo CN ro in

r-\ r^ r-i r-i r-i

0 0 VO r « VO vo 00 CN t ^ ' ^

CM 'iJ' CM ro CN

rH rH 0 CO CO r^ Cy\ CN rH rH

r-i fi r-t t-{ r-i

•«* CO 00 0 - ^ VO ro CM CM rH

CN '5J* CN ro CM

CM CO a> CM vo cr> in cr> in r*

rH r-i

00 in ro CO 0 ro CM rH ro 0

^ ^ CO '^ CM

0) CU rH T-\ XI XI Id -H •P (U CO -P 0 rH C C

•H X) 0 -P cu Tl fd O4 O4TJ 0 }H CO :3 c M P (U M CU O4 0 M >H O4 t: c: }H 0 cu P H H U P

(U > (U

-H X! +J 0 cu

•p

^ • r o O Tl cd

u fd

r-{

0 •

''^

^ 0

0 rH O4 Q)

•H XI XI

(U x: +J

Tl }H

^

<u >

•H CO CO fd

• 0 0

• r-

c O4 Id

^ CO 3 0

•H

u Q>

(U -P CO fd (U }H 0 cu fd T l

^ 0 •p

CO

<u CO Id

CO

a fd CU g

Ui > 1

g ^ •

(U •

•H *~^

•p MH

cu CO rH Q) <

u u a •H

• ^*-v

•

cu X3

XI +J

0 u 0 g M 0

0 0

• H

F: fd x: -p

CO CO 0

t-i

0 •P XI

0 en 0 -P c +>

•H +> fd

u cu

(U

^

cu >

•H XI -P -p

0 0

• * *

cu >

•H 4J 0

<u • n 0 T l fd

^

cu rH XI fd

<U T l > 0 XI fd

(U

+J 0 c CJ Id 0

CO

c fd 0

fd S

JH fd

t-\

0

• H fd

O4 )H •H

C XI Id •p cu CO Xi

u CU

4-»

CO T l T3 fd 0) >H

u a •H

CO

c fd (U

a 13

^ •

CU «

•H ^-^

-p gx: CO < *

u fd ^ 0 +J

cu CO fd

cu u 0

tn C •H

u Q) xi •p

0 •p

•H

CO

en c

•H -p fd

u

4J p 0 c: CO

•H

0 0

• ^

MH 0

c fd 0 g

<

m

^-^ •

0 +J 0

ro

fa ^:i m < ^

SC

AL

ES

LN

TIC

D

IFF

ER

EN

TIA

L

IMA

L W

OM

AN

§ O W IS en fa •• m EH t* 04

fa 2 U O IS

o en u CJ S en H IS E^ O rtj H K Ert

< fa O4 0 D

U en u IS 0 0 H fa EH W

H m > EH

fa P fa

X

DA

RD

O

R T

IS fa f^ i-i

en P S <

«

en IS <

§

II

CO 0

tw4

Id

u en

oli

ce

N=

35)

04 ^

CO 0 CO

u IS 0

i n •P II G IS 0 ^

T l ;3

en

X I 4J rH fd 0 ^ K 00

II rH IS fd ^ • p G 0

•

P •

en

G fd 0

•

P •

en

G fd 0

• P

en

G fd 0

CO 0

r-\ fd 0

en

1

0 r-\

Xi fd

Tl G fd •P > i CO 0 .G M > rH 4J 0 -H fd rH TJ -P M fd G 0 0 0 D < S W

in <r> in cr> cr> '^i* CO ^

rH rH iH rH

cr» Tl* rH r>-CO a> rH rH

ro ';!' in in

cj> r» i n 0 r* ro rH CM

r-i t-i r-i r-i

0 CM CO •«:l< (y\ VO VO CO

'^r i n in in

vo ^ vo 0 ro CO 0 CM

H rH H

ro CO ro 0 rH CO vo in

rj« ro '^r i n

CO :3 0

-H 0 rH JH > fd 0 -H JH

•P to 0 ^J CO CO g u > i Id g - H S 04 H en

U fd rH T J

•H 13 0 r-{ MH X •H 0 0 fd g MH O 4 H fd fd 0 0 fa en tC 0;

0 rH r - rH VO " ^ H r-

r-^ f-\ r-\ r-i

^ - ^ "5* rH i n cTk r- r^

^ '?!' i n " ^

r^ 0 CM ro i n i n <T> ^

rH rH iH

CN - ^ vo CN rvj r- CN rsi

i n in vo in

CM r- CM i n o^ rH cj\ in

H r^

ro i n ro CO vo CN vo CO

•«;j< i n i n ""^

to 0 Ui

0 0 to tJ^ JH 0 a Q) f-^ Q) Id tP 0 to M G O4 G 4-> Id 0 0 en P m EH

' d r-i 0 13 4J

0 MH fd H 0 > O4 0 g -H g ^ M -P

•H 0 -H 0 . W fa fa s

yo en m r-i CN CM i n «*

r^ r-i t-i T-i

r^ a> r^ 0 r- vo r^ CM

CN ^ - ^ i n

00 ov ro CO r» 0 cr> r»

H r-i

vo CO r r 0 r-i c^ ^ 0

ro in in vo

0 CM ^ CN CM in vo in

rH

0 ro ro CO 0 vo rH ro

ro ^ in in

na 0

CO T-i Ui rH

x; 0 -H CO 0 H IS CO

H 0 1 0 O4 G .i"^ rH g - H Id g 0 O4 0 -H U en IS rt:

0 0 -P rH rH G X I X I 0 fd -H CO ' d -P 0 CO 3 G 0 rH G 0 0 •H XI 0 3 0 . T l Id 04 -P 0 0 JH CO j-( TJ U :i Q) -ri a 0* U « > H

CN ro in rH vo 00 ^ r* i n 0

r-\ r-i t-i t-H t-i

r- ^ "«* rH ro ro cr> rH rH CM

ro ' ^ i n in ro

o\ ro rH r^ ro 0 CN rH (y> en

CM rH rH rH

0 0 CO ^^ ^ t-i KD r^ IT) r~i

^ i n i n i n ^

CM r^ * * r » CN cT» 0 vo 0 cy»

r-H rH

ro 0 CO 0 ro vo 0 00 0 vo

" in in in ro

0 0 rH T-i X I X I fd -H •P 0 to -p U rH G G

-H XI 0 -P 0 f d fd O4 O4TI 0 M (0 3 G M P 0 ^ 0 O4 U M M O4 G G ^ 0 0 D H H U P

0 - ' > 0 ^ .

•H X3 0 0 -P -P > 0 CJ -H • 0 * CO r -

• n o to T l 0 fd G fd • O4 fd

^ X! JH ^ - P f d ^ CO

rH 0 :3 0 0 rH 0 JH O4 0 -H 0

•H XI JH g X) 0

0 -P V 0 CO (0 0

X ! fd > i •P 0 g 0

U 0 T l 0 ^ •

s to

war

* ea

ns

de^

t

(i.e

. th

an

1

0 g MH to CO 0 CO Id CO rH 0 0 < rH JH 0 u x : 0 G • -P XI

•H ^— • 0 +J

Cn 0 -P 0 1 G -P G

•H Q) Q) C •P > fd fd *--H 0 JH 0 -P

> 0 CO Q) -H Q) G

X! -P - n fd •P U ' d 0

Id Id :E:

0 ^ ^^ 0 0 rd •

• rH rH rH ' T . 0 0 Id

Id O4 JH 0 T l -H +J > G X3 3 0 fd 0 X5 4-» 0 G Id CO .G

JH -P CO 0 0 -H CO TJ f d fd G H 0 0 3 Id 0 u ^ . 0 ^ 0 - ^ G • -P

-H 0 MH • 0 0

to -H to G - ' fd G fd 0 Id 0 -P M 0 g x : 0 g

cn G to -H -H <

< u •K CO

0 tn • x: G '-^ -P H .

-p 0 0 fd -P +» JH 0

90

91

fa ^A

en fa

< u en

< H E H

g fa fa fa H P

U U H

1 ^ o w o u

fa f-q en <:

w E H

s

g

E H IS

IS

o

04 fa U IS

en o O u IS H en

IS O

fa <: O 04

P en u

O O

H > fa P

g P

% iri en

fa

EH

fa

EH

O fa

•K en

CO 0

I-{

fd u en

0 ^ u in

•H ro rH II 0 2 04 ^

CO

0 CO JH J3 ^ IS o

in -P II G S 0 >--

tud

en

x: +)

eal

ffi ^ 00

H II fd IS 4J ^

Men

f

CO 0

r-\ fd o en

• P

• en

G fd 0

• P

en

G fd 0

• P

• en

G fd 0

0 rH XJ fd

T l G fd •p > 1

w 0 x: JH > rH 4J 0 -H Id H

TJ 4J JH fd G U 0 0 ID <: s ffi

CM CN O ^

vo in in 'ij' r-{ r-i r-\ r-\

ro t^ VO cy> o r* CM ^

ro CM ro CN

in CN CN CN 1^ 1< ' ^ o

rH rH H rH

00 CO CN VO r- VO rH VO

CM CN ro rH

^ o <y» "* vo vo <T> 00

f-i r-i

ro o CO ro rH in 00 rH

^ ro ro CN

to :3 0

•ri <a i-{ JH > Id 0 -H JH •P CO o ,i4 CO CO g U > i fd g -H S 04 H en

U Id H Tl

-H J 0 H MH X -H 0 0 fd g MH 04rH Id fd 0 0 fa en ffi «

(X) vo CO (7 in in r^ <y>

rH H rH rH

ro r^ «* ro CM ro ro o

ro ro ro 'd^

ro c ^ in CM ro CM "^ rH

r H r H r H r H

O VO CO 00

r- r* rH o CM CN ro CM

CO cn o * * CM rH ro vo

rH rH rH

in CO ro ro t^ cn ^ r-\

-^ ro CN CN

CO :3 CO

0 0 to tP JH 0 a Q) r-i <l> Id d^ 0 to ^ G 04 G HJ fd 0 <u en p ffi EH

T3 rH 0 3 -p

0 MH fd r-^ Q) > 04 U g -H g H P -P

-H 0 -H 0 en fa fa 2

CM r-"- " ^ "St vo vo '51' vo

r-i ,-i r-{ >-\

yo -^ Kt o^ •^ i^ r* CO

ro ro CM CN

PH vo iH in CO -<* CM rH

rH rH rH rH

CO VO ' r o CO <r» rH in

CM CM CM CM

cn rH o in ^ ro CM 00

r H rH i H rH

in o o ro CN in o vo ro ro ro ro

Tl 0

to rH to rH

X 0 -H CO 0 rH IS CO rH 0 1 0 04 G .i>4 rH g - H fd g 0 04 0 -H U en IS <

0 0 -p r-{ r^ C XI XI 0 Id -H CO TJ 4-> 0 to :3 G U rH G 0 0

•H XI 0 P 04 Tl Id 04-P 0 0 JH CO JH T l J-l J3 0 -H G 04 U rt > H

r CO in cr> CO ro CO ro vo in

,-i ,-{ r-{ r-i T-i

' r "<* '^ rH ro ro in ro in ^r

CM t l ' CM ro CM

CO vo in <er vo ro <Tv CM rH ro

r-{ >-\ r-{ ,-{ r-{

VO VO CN CO VO CM in CO rH cn

CM ^ CM ro rH

o> rH in - r »* vo ';»• CM in vo

r-i ,-\ r-\

o o ro o 00 in in rH o 00 ^ ^ ro ' r rH

0 0 rH t-i XI X5 fd -H 4J 0 CO 4J U rH G G

-H XI 0 -P 0 Tl fd O4 04Tt 0 M to 3 G VH P 0 JH 0 O4 0 JH M O4 G G H 0 0 D H H U P

0 x: 4-»

0 >

• H • P O 0 *

• |—>o T l O fd •

o o

u fd

o O H O4 0

•H Xi X5

0 XI -P

Tl JH

0 > H • CO r -CO fd G O4 fd

Xi

CO

0 CO fd 0 JH o 0

13 O

• H JH 0 -P CO > i g o

o

0 U o g u o

fd fd

o +J

CO 0 CO Id 0 U u G

• H

CO G Id 0 g CO

d^ u G -P

•H 0 • p fd U 0

• rH 0

• G •H fd

H-) -P MH CO 0 to

n-i 0 rH

0 X: 0 •P Xi O -P -P O

G G fd

0 >

•H X I -P •P U

Cd

• H U 4J (J CO 0 G

•ro fd T l 0 fd S

o ^ J o 0 Id

^ XI fd

0 T l > o

Xi fd

o O4

•H XI G

Id • p to u

0 0 to fd TJ

G 3

0 x; • p

fd 0 JH O G

• H

to G fd 0 g

CO

0

-p x: d^

• H VH

0 x : - p

o -p

u fd

o • p

fd JH H->

0 G

CO - H

o o

•

MH O

G fd 0 g

CO cn . G ^

•H • •P O fd H-) M 0

92

in fa tA m <

u H EH t _ Is < IS S ^ fa s en

h^

fa !< U s EH S

O ^ 2 O

en •• O EH IS 04 H fa EH U

a o u fa

O en IS

en o fa H 05 EH O < U 04 en D

u IS u < o fa § fa

fa m S E-" EH W fa S PQ EH

•K 0^ en o fa fa u Is en fa fa

fa < fa u fa en H P 1^

< fa H

EVALUATION 0

DIFFERENT

CO 0

r-i fd u en

0 •H •P fd «

fa

0 ^ u in

•H ro H II 0 IS 04 ^

CO 0 CO JH 3 ' -IS o

i n -P II G IS 0 ^ Tl

4J en

x: •P rH fd 0 ,-s m 00

• 1

II H IS Id ^ +> G 0

<

CO 0

rH fd

en

G

Mea

G

Mea

G fd 0

0 rH Xi Id TJ G Id •p > 1 tn 0 x: JH > H -P 0 -H Id rH

TJ 4J ^ Id G U 0 0 D < s m

i n Tj« o «si< rH r- O rH

o ro o rH

r H r H r H r H ro <n rH ro

i n ' ^ i n i n

^ CM o o ro r- rH 00 in in in in

ro CO ro ro \D cn r-i *^

in in in in

to j3 0

•H 0 rH JH > fd 0 -H JH -P to o , 4 CO CO g u > i fd g -H S 04 H en

JH fd rH T l

-H 13 0 rH MH X •H 0 0 fd g MH O 4 H fd fd 0 0 fa en lu 0

rH r^ CO i n CO rH r - ro

ro CM 0 CN

vo 0 rH cn vo vo cn CO

^ ^ i n ^

vo 0 vo vo 'sj* r o r H "!*•

in in vo in

0 0 00 i n 0 i n CO r-

i n i n i n "^

to 3 to

0 0 to 0^ JH 0 C Q) r-i <D Id 0^ 0 to M G O4 G +J fd 0 0 en P W EH

Tl rH 0 3 -P

0 iH fd rH 0 > O4 0 g -H g M C -P

-H 0 -H 0 en fa fa s

0 '^ in ^i* 0 in vo in 0 r- ^ i^

r» ro '^ vo rH vo I ^ CM

ro ^ -" in

vo CM 0 CO rH i n vo r H

ro in in vo

ro 0 0 ro rH 0 0 vo

ro in in in

Tl 0

to t-i Ui rH

X 0 -H to 0 H IS to rH 0 1 0 O4 G ,i4 H g - H fd g 0 O4 0 -H 0 en IS <:

0 0 -P rH rH G X5 X3 0 Id -H CO fd •P 0 to 3 G U rH G 0 0

•H X I 0 13 0 . f d Id O4+J 0 0 JH to M TJ U 0 Q) -ri C Oi U O4 > H

CO i > r^ r* CM CM CM ^ CO r-

rH 0 CN 0 rH

cn VO r^ 0 0 CN '^ ro 0 "^

^ in in in ^

t;!' CN 00 vo vo 00 ' r cn ro 0

'^i' in in in in

0 ro CO ro in 0 rH CO rH CN

in in in in ^

able

ible

4-> 0 to 4-1 0 rH G G

•H X) 0 -P 0 TJ Id O4 O4TI Q) U Ui 0 G JH 13 0 JH 0 O4 0 JH JH O4 G G M 0 0 p H H U P

0 •H -P fd JH

fa

0 x: 4J

iw •H

TJ 0 +J to

•H X 0

to G 0

•H 4J fd

cup

0 0

0 0 u xi •p

0 x: 4J

G 0 0

0 • X5 <y»

• to i n 0 r-i U II G ^ 0 0

0 -MH IN MH ^-^ •H i n TJ <n

•p fa * G fd G

gnific

er tha

•H 4-> en Id •ic 0

JH d^

CO Id ^

93

u tn IS ^ g fa U en H

H^ fa O m ffi Ert O

u o 3 en o •• ^ EH H 04 EH W

K IS O

fa U O

en en s fa O « H O E^ u < en 04

vo CD IS u

fa <U •^ W O m s < w EH IS fa

fa 2 fa w § EH E^ fa fa

CQ W Eri

-K en rt fa O U fa 2 fa en o; fa fa J fa <i fa u H en P

fa 2 O H

EH IS S O fa H 2 EH fa < fa ID fa 1^ H !< Q > fa

CO 0

r-i Id o en

0 •H 4-> fd

fa

0 . - . o in

•H ro rH II 0 IS 04 ^

CO 0 CO

u 1 3 ^ IS o

in -P II G IS 0 - -^d 3 4J

en

x: HJ rH Id 0 ^ m CO

II rH IS fd ^ •p G 0

s

CO 0

t-i fd o en

G fd 0

G Id 0

G fd 0 2

0 H XI fd

TJ G fd +» >i to 0 JH U > r-i +i Q) -ri {(i r-i

Tl -P JH fd G O 0 0 D < 2 m

cn O CM CM rH Ch CM r^

ro O CN rH

^ cn ^ ro r~ CO in CN

ro CN ro CM

^ O CM CO ro ro r^ r*

ro ro ro rH

CO 00 ro ro CO CO vo iH

'S' CM ^ CM

to 0 0

•ri Q) r-i JH > fd 0 -H JH •P to 0 ri»i CO CO g u > i fd g -H S 04 H en

U fd rH fd

-H 0 0) t-i MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH O4H fd fd 0 0 fa en ffi rt

ro rH 0 CO CM cn CO cn

vo ro CM CN CM

-K *

cn ^ ro iH vo rH vo in

ro ro ro ^

CM CN 0 CM en in 0 ro

CM CM ro CM

ro ro 0 0 vo vo in in

';r ro CM CN

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d^ JH 0 G 0 rH 0 fd d> 0 to JH G O4 G 4J fd 0 <U en P sr; EH

•d rH 0 0 -P

0 MH fd r-i Q) > O4 U g -H g JH fi -P

•H 0 -H 0 en fa fa 2

CO 0 CM r-CO ro CM 4*

vo rH rH cn

r-- ro rH rH r-» CO i n i n

ro ro CM CM

0 CM vo CO in ro CN ^

CN ro CN CM

0 CO CO CO i n ro 00 ro

ro ro CM "sr

Tl 0

CO r-i Ui r-i

X 0 -H CO 0 rH ^ CO

rH 0 1 0 O4 G ^J H g - H fd g 0 O4 0 -H U en IS <<

0 0 4-» r-i r-i C XI XI 0 (d -H to fd -p 0 to r i G 0 rH G 0 0

-H XI 0 13 O4 fd fd 04-P 0 0 JH to J fd JH 3 0 - H G O4 U O4 > H

o^ 00 o^ ro o^ CO vo 00 vo r^

ro 0 rH ^ 0

0 0 vo r-. vo vo CO CM r* - ^

CM *;»« CN ro CM

' ^ CO 00 0 ^ vo ro CM CM rH

CM ^ CM ro CM

00 i n ro CO 0 ro CM rH ro 0

* * »* ro ' T CM

0 0 r-i rH Xi XI fd -H •P 0 to -P U H G G

•H XI 0 -P 0 TJ Id O4 Oifd 0 JH to p G ^ 13 0 M 0 O4 U M JH O4 G G JH 0 0 D H H U P

0 •H -P fd u fa

0 XI •p

MH •H

TJ 0 -P to

•H X 0

to G 0

-H •P fd 04 0 0 0 0

0 0 JH

XJ •P

0 X! -P

G 0 0 > -P 0 • X5 <n

to •

in 0 r-i 0 G

II

0 0 U <n 0

MH MH -H -d

^ CM

in cn

• -P fa G fd 0

G fd

•H xi MH -H G

•P

u d> 0

•H en •K

Xi fd 0 JH d^

to Id ^

1 0 0

•H •P JH fd O4

CO •H Xi •p

JH 0

MH

CO O4 0 0 JH d>

t-i fd G 0

•H 4J fd O4 0 0 0 0

0 ^ +J

)H 0 x: •p 0

0 Xi •p

g 0 JH

IH

Tl 0 JH 0

MH IM •H TJ

> 1 r-i +J G fd 0

•H MH •H G d^ .

•H 0 en rH •K (d -K 0

CO

JH fd

r-i

94

fa Hi an < hi

u H E^ S IS

fa o en IS

en g

to 0

rH fd u en

0 •H -P

&

fa

0 <-. u in

-H ro rH II 0 IS 04 ^

to 0 to U 0 ^ IS O

i n •P II G IS 0 ^

f d 0 -P en

X5 +J rH fd 0 ^ jrj 00

II rH IS fd - ' -P G 0 S

to 0

rH fd u en

G fd 0

G fd 0

G fd 0 2

0 r-i Xi fd

TJ G fd 4J > i CO 0 4^ JH > rH +J 0 -H fd rH Tl -P M fd G O 0 0 p fo: s K

ro vo vo r^ ro in CO vo

ro vo ro CM

cn ^ rH r^ CO cn rH rH

ro ^ in in

O CM CO '^r cn vo vo 00

^ in in in

ro CO ro o rH CO vo in

"«;t« r o ^ i n

to 0 0

-ri Q) r-i M > Id 0 -H JH -P to 0 Ai CO CO g u > i Id g -H S 04 H en

JH Id rH fd

•H 0 0) H MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH O4H fd fd 0 0 fa en ffi rt

m <n in CM rH rH (N rH

CN ro ro rH

' ^ ' ^ ' ^ rH i n cn r^ r--

^ o* in in

CN * * vo CN CM r- CM CM

i n in vo in

ro in ro CO vo CN vo CO

^ m in ^

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d^ JH 0 G 0 H 0 Id d^ 0 to JH G O4 G +J Id 0 0 en p ffi EH

TJ r^ 0 0 -P

0 MH fd r-i 0) > O4 U g -H g h fi -p •H 0 -H 0 en fa fa S

^ in vo in vo i n CM CN

0 rH ro vo

r- <n r* 0 r- vo r-» CM

CM ^ ^ in

vo 00 ^ 0 rH 0 ^ 0

ro in in vo

0 ro ro 0 0 vo rH ro

ro '<* in in

Tl 0

to rH CO rH

X 0 - H CO 0 rH IS to

rH 0 1 0 O4 G ^: rH g - H fd g 0 O4 0 -H U en IS <

0 0 -P rH H G X5 X) 0 Id -H CO fd -P 0 CO p G U rH G 0 0

-H XJ 0 3 O4 fd Id 04-P 0 0 JH w H fd U 0 0)-ri G O4 U OJ > H

in r» <n 0 in rH CO -«* vo r-

CM CM CM r H CM

r^ 'ii* ^ rH ro r o en rH rH CM

ro ^ in in ro

0 0 CO ^ ^ r-i KO t^ IT) r-i

';r in in in ^

ro 0 CO 0 ro vo 0 CO 0 vo

"si* i n in in ro

0 0 r-i rH XI XI fd -H •P 0 CO -p 0 H G G

•H XI 0 -P 0 fd fd O4 O4TJ 0 JH CO 3 G M 13 0 J 0 O4 U JH VH O4 G G h 0 0 p H H U P

o • H -P fd JH

fa 0

XI - p

MH - H

TJ 0 +J to

•H X 0 CO G O

•H -P fd 04 0 u o O 0 0 u xi -p 0 x: -p

G 0 0 -p 0 XI en CO i n 0 r^ O II G 0 JH 0

MH CM »w -^ -H TJ

o cn

in cn

fa -P G fd o

-H MH •H G U d^ 0

-H

G fd x: -p

en He

-P fd 0 u d^

CO fd

CO

fa

<

EH

U H IS Er* < IS 2

gg fa en u

fa EH

H 1^ O W

o IS u O :l en CJJ IS H EH

fa O

EH 04 fa U IS o u

en en

g o u en

O H EH < 04

IS P <: u fa u s o

fa IS fa

IS w EH EH fa PQ fa

* Eri en fa 04

O fa

u

S en fa fa fa yq fa ^ H u P en

H E^

fa EH O: < fa

fa O

IS o

p

h:|

fa

fa fa

CO

0 rH fd u en

o - H H-> fd

0^

fa

0 ^ o in

•H ro rH II o IS 04 ^

CO

0 CO

J H

0

- P G 0

f d

0 -p en

o in II IS

X! • p r^ Id 0 ^ ffi CO

II rH IS f d - -•P G 0

2

to 0

r H fd o en

G fd 0

G fd 0 2

G fd 0

0 H XI fd

TJ G fd •P CO 0 XJ

> H 4J H fd H

TJ -P JH fd G U O 0

p <: s m

u 0

JH fd rH f d

•H 0 0) H MH X •H 0 0 fd g MH 04rH fd fd o 0 fa en ffi p;

3 0 MH

r-i 0) 04 O g JH

-H O en fa

- H fa

Tl 0 -p fd >

•H •P O

2

c n r - r ^ c N o i n c o c o r H o c n o ' ^ C N v o i n

00 r> rH r-t^ O '^

0 r-i Xi fd •p o •H Tl 0 U 04

VO

0 r^ XI fd u 0

0) T-i Xi •H CO G O 04-P CO u

G 0

to fd 0 o 0

0)

u « •H >

G 0 04 0 TJ G H

o o CO cn o ^ in CM

C M r H O i n r ^ - C M O C O r H C N r O C M C n O r H r H r H

*

r o r ^ v o o ^ r o r > ^ r o o r - C M ' * C M r o r o o

v o ^ ^ c n ' ^ ^ ' ^ T r H r o ' ^ r ^ r - ' o o r o i n r o i n ^

r o c N r o c N r o r o r o - ^ rorocMCN C M ' ^ c N r o c M

CO CO CM vo r- vo rH vo

O vo CO CO r^ r>- rH o

C 0 V 0 ' « l * O V O V O C M C O V O c o c n r H i n c M i n r o r H c n

C M C M r O i H C M C M C O C M C M C M C M C M C M ^ C N C O r H

ro o 00 ro rH in CO rH

in 00 ro ro r- ro vo rH

in o o rvj in o

ro vo

o o ro in in rH

O 00 O CO

^ r o r o c M ^ r o c M C M r o r o r o r o ^ ^ r o ^ r H

to 0 0

•H U 0 +J to

0 >

•H to CO

> i fd S 04

Tl 0

fd u o

o •ri en

0 d^ G fd

to 13 o u 0) r-i d> 0 G 04 fd o

CO CO

0

CO CO

en P W

0 CO G 0 EH

X 0 -H 0 rH IS rH 0 1 QACX g -H fd 0 0 4 0 U en IS

CO CO

0 r H

g • H

0 rH XI fd -p u

•H Tl 0 U

0 r H XI fd M 0

04 O G G P H

0 r H XJ • H CO +J G G O -P 0 O4 O4TJ

0 G JH

O

CO 0 JH U H

0 O4 0

U P

0 •H -P fd JH

fa

0 XI •P

MH •H

TJ 0 +J CO

•H X 0

CO G 0

•H -P fd 04 0 0 u 0

0 0 JH

XJ H->

0 XI +J

G 0 0 ^ •P 0 • XI <n

CO «

i n 0 rH 0 G

II

0 0 JH 0

MH MH •H Tl

cn ^

CN

i n cn

* -P fa G Id U

G fd

-H Xi MH •H G

4J

JH d^ 0

-H en He

4-) Id 0 JH d^

Ui fd ^

1 -13 U

•ri -P JH fd O4

to •H Xi Xi

u 0

MH

CO O4 0 0 U d^

rH fd G 0

•H -P • fd O4 0 0 0 0

0 ^ +J

JH 0 XI HJ 0

0 XJ •P

g 0 JH

MH

f d 0 U 0)

MH MH •H TJ

> i rH -P G Id 0

•H MH •H G d> •

•H 0 en rH •IC fd •K 0

CO

JH fd

r-i

95

96

cn

fa

S EH

fa

fa en fa fa fa yq

P U en

fa O

-K

o H EH

3 fa

CO 0

r-i fd

o en

0 •H -p fd 0:J

fa

+ a\ r-i CN ro II

5

o .-^ ro vo

21-

(N=

4

o *-» CN CO

18-

(N=

l

,

to 0

r-i fd o en

G

Mea

G

Mea

G

Mea

:

0 rH XJ fd Tl G fd H-> > i CO 0 XJ JH > rH +J 0 -H fd rH fd -P JH fd G O 0 0 P < 2 ffi

rH <n cn ro r^ o CM 'd'

O rH O CM

CM r » r-« CO vo rH O CM

in in in in

vo r-» •51' r-CM ro o in

in in in in

r^ CO CO CM rH r- r- CN

in in in vo

CO 0 0

•ri 0) r-i M > fd (D -ri U •^ Ui 0 M Ui Ui B 0 > i Id g -H 2 04 H en

u fd H "d

-H 0 0) r-i MH X •H 0 0 fd g MH O4H Id Id 0 0 fa en ffi «

ro 0 0 00 ro 0 rH 0

CN 0 0 vo

rH ro 0 0 ro 0 rH H

in in vo in

ro r- 0 r^ CO 0 0 CO

^ in vo "^

^ ^ *S> r-i in 0 0 rH

in in vo vo

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to tr^U 0) a Q) <-i 0) fd d> 0 to JH G O4 G +J Id 0 0) en p ffi EH

Tl r-i 0)

X 0 -P 0 MH fd

H 0 > O4 0 g -H g M P +J 0 0 -H 0 U fa fa 2

0 0 CM r-~ ro in rH in rH vo ^ vo

rH cn ro rH ro vo cn ro cn "^ ^ m

vo m H 0 CN rH rH CO

ro in in in

r» ro 0 0 vo 00 0 i n

CM in vo vo

'd 0

CO r-i Ui r-i 0 -H CO

0 H IS to rH 0 1 0 O4 G A : rH g-H Id g

•H O4 0 -H en en IS <:

0 0 -p rH r^ a XJ X3 0 Id -H to fd •p 0 to p G 0 rH G 0 <U

•H XI 0 13 O4 fd fd O4-P 0 0 V4 to JH fd M ;3 0 -H G O4 U Oi > H

rH r^ r - ^ CN in rH 'cr <n 0 0 rH rH 0 vo

vo vo CN 00 0 r - VO i n CN rH

^ in in in ' ^

CN •<!»• CN ^ 0 r^ CN t^ 0 r-»

^ in in in ^

CO "^ r» 0 0 CN 'd' rH in cn

^ in vo in in

0 0 r-i rH XI XI Id -H •P 0 to -P 0 rH G G

-H XI 0 -P 0 fd Id O4 0 4 f d 0 JH to 3 G M 13 0 ^ 0 O4 0 JH M O4 G G JH 0 0 P H H u P

0 •H 4J fd JH

fa

0 XI 4J

»W •H

to O4 13 0 U d^ 0 d» fd

0 0 u Xi 4J

0 XJ -p

G 0 0 ^ 4-» 0 XJ

TJ 0 •P CO

-H X 0

CO

• cn

• i n

0 r-i 0 G

II . - N

0 0 U <n 0

MH MH •H TJ

^ CN *—

in cn

• •P fa G fd U

G fd

-H JH MH -H G

-P

u d^ 0

•ri

en •ic

•p fd 0 u tr> CO fd 1

97

fa Hi

1 ^ < H EH IS

g fa fa fa H P

IS U < H 2 EH S U i=i H 2 h fa O en ffi

o fa u UJ E^

S

u IS g

o •• E-i

en 04 O fa S U H IS E^ O

U

en fa 04 O P

O en OJ

fa fa 2 O IS fa fa

g EH

E^ fa

fa en ffi fa EH

oi o fa

fa fa en fa fa H 1^ p <J

u fa en

•ic

o H EH

P

I fa

CO 0

rH fd O en

o •H -P fd Oi

fa

+ o rH CM ro II

5

O ^-v ro vo

21-

(N=

4

O ^-v CM CO

18-

(N=

l

CO 0

r-i fd o cn

G

Mea

G

Mea

G

Mea

;

0 rH XJ Id Tl G fd •p > i to 0 .G JH > rH -P 0 -H fd rH TJ -P JH fd G U O 0 P < 2 ffi

o^ o^ ^ o o 'd' ro CM

"sl* O O rH

o 'St o ro o rH en o

•'1' ro ro CN

vo 00 r- <n r* en vo o

ro CM ro CM

r - cn rH rH vo ro vo vo

CM ro ro rH

to 0 o

•ri 0) rH JH > fd 0) •ri U •P to O ri4 to to g u > i fd g -H 2 04 H en

U fd rH fd

-H 0 0) rH MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH O rH Id Id 0 0 fa en ffi o;

en i n 00 CN i n 00 CN rH

ro rH o ro

CN ^ ro rH r- CM o <;r

ro ro ro ro

'sj' o o r ** t^ ro ro

ro CN ro ro

vo rH r- CM in vo rH CM

CN CN ro CN

to 0 Ui

0 o to d> JH 0 G 0 rH 0 Id d» 0 to h G 04 G 4J fd 0 (U en p W EH

Tl r-i 0

X 13 +J 0 MH fd r-i 0) > 04 U g -H g JH fi H-> 0 0 -H 0 U fa fa 2

o o vo o H ro rH ro

rH o H in

in in rH '^i' ^ in ^ CM

ro ro CM ro

rH cn * * CO cn in in ^

CM ro CN CM

r o CO vo r-» CO CN O rH

CM ro CM CN

TJ 0

CO rH to r-i 0 -H CO

0 rH ^ CO rH 0 1 0 04 G ^ rH g - H fd g

•H 04 0 -H en en IS i<

0 0 -P r-i rH C XI XI 0 Id -H CO f d -P 0 to :3 G O rH G 0 0

•H XJ 0 P 04 fd fd O44J 0 0 JH to JH f d U 0 0)-ri c O4 U Oi > H

vo CN rH CO in r r cn vo r

• 0 0 0 ^ 0

0 ** CN ro rH rH CM in 0 ^

ro ^ CM CN

in ^ r- en vo vo r rH ro CN

CM ^ CM ro CM

vo ^ 0 0 ' J" in '^ in 0 en

CM - ^ CM ro rH

0 0 rH rH XI XI Id -H 4J 0 to 4-» U H G G

•H XI 0 -P 0 f d fd O4 O4TI 0) U Ui 0 C h 13 0 M 0 O4 0 M VH O4 G G JH 0 0 P H H U P

o • H H-» fd u fa

0 x: 4J

MH • H

CO O4 0 O JH d>

0 d> fd

0 0

- P

0 XJ - p G 0 0

$ 0

XI

Tl 0 +J to

•ri X . 0 <n

• CO in 0 rH U II G 0 u 0)

MH CM MH ^ • H • d

O <n

in en

fa -P G fd O

•ri MH •H G U d^ 0

•H H-»

G fd X 4J

en fd 0 JH d>

CO fd

98

fa

OJ

I-:} < H Eri IS

g fa fa fa

o

g

to 0

rH fd u en

o •H 4J fd Oi

fa

+ cn rH CM ro II

IS

G fd 0 2

o --X ro vo I •<*

rH II CM 2 ;

o ^-» CM CO

I rH 00 II rH IS

G fd 0 2

0 rH XJ fd

T l G Id Xi Ui 0) u 0

> •H

•d -p G O p <

> 1 XJ

rH Xi Id H M fd O 0 2 UJ

u fd rH f d

-H :3 0 r-i MH X -H 0 0 Id g MH O 4 H fd fd o 0 fa en UJ o;

0 0 -p rH rH G

fd X I X I 0 rH 0 fd -H CO f d

x : 3 - P 4 J 0 i o : 3 G 0 M H fd U r H G O 0

r H 0 > - H X J 0 : 3 0 4 0 4 U g - H f d f d O 4 - p 0 g M f i H J 0) U Ui UTi 0 0 - H O J H : 3 0 - H G U f a f a 2 O 4 U 0 i > H

ro vo o ro CM in CM CO

in ro o in o r^ vo CN

r^ in vo r* rH ro cn vo

in in CM rH en CM cn ro ro in

r H r H ^ - ^ CMrOVOCM r H r H O r ^ O C M r H ^ O

C M O O " ^ v o o v o c N r H r o o r ^ c ^ O r H r o c n i n e n O r H v o o v o t ^ r o c o o o o c n c M c o v o

'?i ' ' ! i ' inin ^ i n i n ^ r o M ' i n i n ^ ^ ^ i n ^ r o

o ^ i n c M cn W) \o rH vocoroco ^ i n r » c o r o CNCMroin oorocnen c n i ^ r H r ^ t^rovo'«i*vo

' ^ r i n i n i n ^ i n i n ^ c N ^ i n i n r o i n i n i n r o

G fd 0 2

CO 0

rH fd o en

or^-voro vor^cNr- rHooocM cnrooocor^ o v o o r o inrHr-»vo vocNincM cocor^r-rH ininvovo invovoin cNininvo rominin-^i '

CO CO

CO 0

0 o d> JH 0 G 0 rH fd d^ 0 JH G O4 G 4J fd o 0 en p m EH

0

T l 0

CO rH Ui rH 0

0 CO

to to 0

0 rH XI fd -p o

•H IS

rH 0 i O4 G . ^ rH g - H fd g

•H O4 0 -H U) Ui ^ (^

0) rH XJ •H

0 CO G

-p G

•H X I O H-) 0 f d fd O4 0 4 ' d 0) U Ui 0 G JH J3 0 JH 0 O4 U JH JH O4 G G M O 0 p H H U P

O •H -P fd u fa

0 x: 4->

MH • H

CO O4

0 o u d i 0 d» fd

0 0 JH

XJ +J

0 XJ H->

G 0

0

0

XI

TJ 0 Xi CO

-H X •

0 cn

CO i n 0 rH o II G ^ 0) u 0

MH CN MH ^ -H TJ

O

en

i n cn

fa

G Id

XI -P

-p G fd o

• H MH • H G JH tj\ 0

•H Xi Ui fd -K 0

JH d^

to fd 1^

99

CN

fa 1 ^ OJ < E^

en EH O 04 2i fa H U Eri IS < O 2 u fa en O 04

P o Pi e5

fa

fa

en

fa 2

IS fa

E^ fa W pq EH

en fa fa m u IS

g Pi o fa fa fa fa en H fa °^ fa u O en •K IS o H EH < P

fa

CO 0

r-i fd u en

0 -H 4-) fd Pi

fa

+ o rH CVJ ro II

o - ro vo 1 -^

rH II rvi IS

o - CM 00 1 l-i

00 II rHg

CO 0

rH fd o en V

1

G

Mea

G

Mea

G

Mea

:

0 rH X3 fd

TJ G fd -p > i to 0 45 JH > rH HJ 0 -H fd H

Tl -P JH fd G U 0 0 P < 2 m

CM en 0^ <n in r^ ro r*

rH rH rH '<T

CO rH <n 00 ro CM in ^

ro ro ro rsj

'5j« r* ro vo CT\ in rH en

CM CM ro rH

o r- ' ^ cn in vo cn ro

CM CM CM rH

to 0 0

•ri 0) rH JH > Id 0 -H JH •P to 0 .ic; CO CO g u > i fd g -H 2 04 H en

JH fd H fd

•H 0 0) t-i MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH 04rH fd fd 0 0 fa en m Pi

' r vo rH in ^ O CM O

ro in o vo

CM vo rH 00 vo vo ro ro

ro ro ro ro

vo en o rH a\ 00 CN cn

CM CM ro CM

o ' j* o r-in '^ o vo

CM CM ro rH

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d> JH 0 G 0) <-H 0) fd d> 0) to JH G 04 G 4J fd 0 (U cn P SJ EH

Tl rH 0

X 13 Xi 0 MH Id

rH 0) > 04 O g -H g JH C -P 0 0 -H 0 U fa fa 2

^ o cn CO ro r^ iH ro

o o ro ro

r- en ro CO rH in en CM

ro ro CM ro

o t^ CO cn o rH CM in

ro ro CM CN

cn r- vo CO ro rH O CM

ro ro CM CM

Tl 0

CO H CO rH 0 -H CO

0 H IS CO H 0 1 0 04 G . i^ H g - H fd g

•ri 04 (U -H en cn IS <

0 0 -p rH rH C XJ XJ 0 fd -H to f d .p 0 CO 3 G O rH G 0 0

•H XJ 0 ;3 04 fd fd 04-P 0 0 JH to JH TJ JH p 0 -H G 04 U Pi > H

ro rH tn * * o in ro CO vo in

CM O rH i n ^

o in vo ro -^ o ro r^ o CM

ro ^ CM ^ CM

^ en r^ ro cn CM in rH rH ro

CM '?r CM ro CM

CO CO en i« CO CM r- ro en CN

CM '^r CM CM rH

0 0 H H Xi XJ Id -H •P 0 to -P O r H G G

-H XI 0 4-» 0 fd fd O4 O4TI 0 JH to 3 G H 13 0 M 0 O4O M JH O4 G G M 0 0 P H H U P

o •ri -P fd u

fa

0 XJ +J

MH • H

to O4 13 O JH d>

0 d> Id

0 0

0 x: Xi

G 0 0

a 0

Xi

TJ 0 4J to

• H X • 0 cn

to in 0 rH u II G - -o

en 0 JH 0

MH CM m ' - ' • H T l

in en

fa -P G fd o

•H MH •H G U d> 0

•H 4-»

G fd

XI •P

en fd 0 u d^

to fd

100

EH ^

g fa fa fa H P

U H EH 2: IS ^

fa h^ en < fa K £ij O EH S

s o •• EH en 04 O fa IS u H IS EH O

g" ro en H fa 04

O P fa O hq en Pi PQ IS O < < Eri fax

2 fa en

IS fa o fa IS ^ EH EH

fa fa PQ W

EH

en fa Pi

u o IS fa

S en fa fa fa j- l fa < H L) P en fa o H( ^

o H EH < P lA < > fa

to 0

rH fd

o cn

o -H -P fd Pi

fa

0 ^ rH -^ Id ' ^ g II 0 S fa ^

^ - s

0 en

Mai

(N

=4

CO 0

rH Id

, o ' cn

G

Mea

G

Mea

0 H XI Id

TJ G Id •P > i W 0 XJ JH > rH 4J 0 -H Id rH

TJ +J ^ fd G U 0 0 P < 2 JU

rr "<d' o r-O rH O 'il'

O vo O rH

* •K

en in rH o ro r- rH CO

in in in in

He -K

ro VO o ro ro O rH -^

in in in in

CO 13 0

•H 0 rH JH > fd 0)-'H U Xi Ui 0 X Ui Ui e D > i f d g -H 2 04 H en

U rd rH f d

-H 0 0) rH MH X •H 0 0 fd g MH 04rH fd fd 0 0 fa en £U pi

o i< CO vo ro ^ rH CO

i n rH rH CM

He •K VO r- VO ro • ^ CM rH ^

in in vo in

* -K CM VO ' r VO CO 00 en en

^ Til i n '51'

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d> JH 0 C 0) t-i 0) fd d^ 0 to JH G 04 G -P Id 0 0 en P ffi EH

Tl rH 0

X 0 Xi 0 MH fd

rH 0) > 04 U g -H g H C 4J 0 O -H 0 U fa fa 2

CO r^ cn CO ^ cn vo CN

o ro in CN r-i rH

He -K -K He He He

r- r^ r^ rH CM i n i n CM

ro in in vo

He He He * He *

VO VO CM rH o r» en ^

ro '=1' ^ in

Tl 0

CO rH Ui rH 0) -ri Ui

0 rH IS CO rH 0 i 0 (hfH X rH g - H Id g

-H O4 0 -H en cn IS icC

0 0 rH rH XI XJ +J fd -H CO G •P 0 CO :3 0 U H G 0 T l

•H XJ 0 :3 04 fd fd a - P 0 0 JH to JH TJ JH 13 0 -H G O4 U Pi > H

CO cn 0 ' ^ en r^ CM o^ ^ 0

CN 0 CN 0 ^

He He

VO 00 CO 0 ^ en ^ en ro rH

"sr in in in in

He He

r^ in ro CM cn ro ro in rH ro

' ^ in in in ^

0 0 H ,-i XJ XI fd -H 4-> 0 CO Xi U rH G G

-H XI 0 -P 0 fd Id O4 04fd 0 JH CO :3 G M :3 0 ^ 0 O4 0 JH JH O4 G G h 0 0 P H H U P

0 •H Xi fd JH

fa 0

XI Xi

MH •H

CO O4 0 0 u d>

X 0 CO

0 ^ +> 0

Xi •P

G 0 0 1 4-» 0

XJ

Tl 0 Xi Ui

•ri X • 0 CN

cn CO • 0 ro U II G - -0 rH U en 0 ^

MH rH MH ^ -H in fd cn

• HJ fa G Id G 0 Id

-H x : MH -P •H G U d^ 0

•H Xi Ui fd He 0

JH d^

CO Id ^

04 0 0 u d^

X 0 CO

JH 0

XI •P 0

0 XJ Xi

g 0 JH

MH

Tl 0 JH 0

MH MH -H ' d

> i rH Xi G fd 0

-H MH •H G tji

•ri en He He

101

**

fa H J PQ < Er*

E^ IS

fa fa fa

U M EH

fa en

u H

o fa o E^ ^

< IS o

• • en EH (J) 04 S fa H U

IS O U

s

en IS

fa 2

g

fa en O 04

P O Oi

XI fa

IS en fa

E^ Er* fa PQ fa

en EH fa U Oi IS O fa fa en fa fa fa Hi H <; P u

cn fa o He IS o H E^ < P

> fa

CO 0

rH fd o cn

o • H -p fd Pi

fa

0 ^ rH ^ fd ^ g II 0 IS fa ^

^ _ x

0 en

Mai

(N

=4

CO 0

r H Cd o cn

G

Mea

G

Mea

0 rH XI fd

TJ G fd -P > i to 0 jrj h > rH 4J 0 -H Id H Tl -P JH Id G U 0 0 p < 2 m

^ ro cn •i;!' vo ro rH CN

O rH O rH

CO O O ^ " r ro 00 CO

ro ro ro rH

vo ^ r^ o r- cn vo rH

ro CM ro CM

to 0 0

•ri 0) rH VH > Id 0 -H JH -P to 0 rixj CO CO g u > i Id g -H 2 04 H en

U Id rH f d

-H 0 0) rH MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH 04rH fd fd 0 0 fa en UJ Pi

ro rH ^ ^ o ro o * *

ro rH O si* rH

He He

r - CO VO VO O vo rH * *

ro CN ro CM

He He

rH O CM O VO O CM CO

ro ro ro ro

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d^ JH 0 G 0 rH 0 fd d^ 0 to M G 04 G 4-) fd 0 <u cn P W EH

Tl rH 0

X 0 Xi 0 MH fd

rH 0) > 04 U g -H g JH P -P 0 0 -H 0 U fa fa 2

CO vo en o en o CN o

o o o o CM

He He O CO 'sl' VO cn "^ cn yo CM r o CNJ CM

He He VO in r^ in r- in ^ vo

ro ro CM CM

TJ 0

to rH Ui rH 0 -H to

0 H IS to rH 0 1 0 04 G ri^ H g - H Id g

•H 04 Q) -H en en IS <

0 0 -P rH rH G XI XJ 0 Cd -H to fd 4J 0 CO 13 G O rH G 0 0

•H XJ O :3 04 fd fd 04-P 0 0 M to v fd JH J3 0 -H G 04 u Pi > H

ro in o CO CM CM rH rH en CN

o rH o ro o

He He

00 CN cn i n CO vo ro ro CN rH

CN ^ CM ro CM

He He

VO rH rH VO rH 00 r^ ro r- ro

CN ^ CM ro CM

0 0 rH rH XI XI fd -H 4-> 0 CO Xi i) r-i G G

-H XI 0 H-> 0 fd fd 04 04 TJ 0) U Ui 0 G JH 13 0 JH 0 04 O JH H 04 G G M 0 0 P H H U p

•H -P fd U

fa

0 XJ •P

MH •ri

Ui 04 0 O JH d X 0 CO

o ^ •p

0 XI Xi

G 0) 0) ^ Xi 0

X I

TJ 0 Xi Ui

•ri X • 0 CM

en CO • 0 ro O II G^ 0 rH JH en 0 ^

MH rH MH ^ •H in fd en

•

•P fa G fd G o fd

-H Xi MH xi -H G U d^ 0

•H -P en fd He 0

JH d^

CO fd ^

04 0 0 u tn X 0 CO

JH 0

X! -P 0

0 XJ -P

g 0 M

MH

f d 0 JH 0

MH MH • H TJ

> i r H Xi G fd C)

• H VW - H G d^

• H en Hc He

102

in

rH

fa

PQ < E^

Ui Er* O 04 IS fa H U

IS o u s fa cn O 04

en IS

fa

g

P o Pi

fa 2 X

fa en

EH E^ fa PQ W

en EH

u Pi O fa

fa cn fa fa fa H P fa o He IS

o H EH < : p vA

fa

u cn

CO 0

rH fd u en

o -H H->

&

fa

0 ^ rH " r fd ^ 6 1 0 IS fa ^

,^^ 0 en

Mall

(N

=4

CO 0

fd n en

G

Mea

G

Mea

:

0 H XJ fd

T l G fd H-» > i to 0 XJ JH > rH +J 0 -H Id rH Tl -P H fd G 0 0 0 P »^ 2 K

rH CO ro O ^ ro o CN

vo r- ro ro

He He He He VO '51' rH CM en VO VO CO

^ in in in

He He He He o ^ VO ro o CO rH ro

^ ^ in in

to 0 9^

0 .^ (Q ^ ^ > fd 0 -H JH H-> to 0 A^ to CO g u > i fd g -H 2 04 H en

JH fd rH f d

•H 3 0 rH MH X -H 0 0 fd g MH 04rH fd fd 0 0 fa cn UJ P i .

r * r H CO 00 cn ro * * 00

CM '^ in o

He He He He

rH ro r^ VO CM r* CN rH

in in vo in

He He He He

i n o 00 VO vo r H r - 00

^ in in "^

CO 0 Ui

0 0 to d> JH <U G 0 rH 0 Id di 0 to JH G 04 G +J fd 0 0) cn P U! EH

Tl rH 0)

X 3 -P 0 MH fd

rH 0) > 04 O g -H g ^ M 4J 0 0 -H O U fa fa 2

CM en in ro vo O O 00

CM CM i n r o r H

He He He He

r^ r^ VO r-CM O " ^ O

ro in in vo

HC He He HC

VO '^ o r-[^ r- en CN

CN " ^ 'sf i n

•d 0

CO r H CO r H 0 -H to

0 H & to rH 0 1 0 04 G ^J rH g - H Id g

•H O4 0 -H en en IS <

0 0 H-> rH rH G XJ XJ 0 Id -H CO fd H-> 0 to 3 G 0 H G 0 0

-H XI 0 3 O4 fd fd 04H-> 0 0 JH to JH Tl U 0 0)-ri G 04 u p; > H

VO CO rH r- ro rH '^ CM rH en

CM r o CM r H •si'

He He

CO r-- r^ 00 CO rH m t^ ^ rH

•>* in in in ^

He He

en VO in 0 r*-in 0 ro 04 ro

ro in in in ro

0 0 rH rH XI XI Id -H xi Q) Ui Xi 0 rH G G

-H XI 0 -P 0 fd Id 04 O4TJ 0 M to 3 G M 3 0 JH 0 O4 0 VH JH O4 G G JH 0 0 p H H CJ p

0 •H Xi fd JH

fa

0 XI -P

IW •H

to O4 0 0 u tn

X 0 to

0 ^ -P

0 XI -p

G 0 0 ^ Xi 0)

XI

TJ 0 Xi Ui

•ri X 0

• to CN 0 cn u • G ro 0 II JH - -0 rH

MH en MH ^ •H rH T J ^

in > 1 CJ

r H +J fa G fd G 0 Id

•H XI MH 4-> - H G U d^ 0

•H +J en fd He 0

JH tn

to fd 15

• O4 0 0 u tn

X 0 to

u 0) Xi Xi 0

0 XJ -p

g 0 JH

MH

f d 0 JH 0

MH MH •H TJ

> i rH Xi G fd 0

•H MH • H G d^

-H en HC He

103

KJ < H EH IS

g fa fa fa H P

U H E^

IS

g o IS ^

g fa en

fa UJ Eri

u H H I O UJ

o u k^

g < O

Ui O Z H Eri

S VO rH fa

o fa HJ en PQ IS

• • EH 04 fa U

o u cn 04 p o p ;

EH fa O 2

IS fa 1

X fa en O

EH ^ fa PQ

Eri

fa en UJ fa u IS

g fa fa fa H p

fa o He 2

o H EH <: p • ^ <: > fa

EH

PI O fa

cn fa ^

u cn

to 0

H fd o en

o • H - p fd Pi

fa

0 ^ r-i •«* fd ' ^

i fa

II IS

0 cn rH ^ fd II 2 S

G fd 0

2

G fd 0

2

CO 0 rH fd o en

0

XI fd

TJ G fd -p >1 CO 0 JH JH > rH +J 0 -H fd rH

TJ +J JH fd G U 0 0 P < 2 UJ

JH fd rH "d

•H 0 0) rH MH X •H 0 0 Id g MH 04rH fd fd 0 0 fa en UJ Pi

X 0 0) MH

rH 0) 04 O g M O O

TJ 0 Xi fd >

g - H JH +J

U fa fa s

0 0 H-> rH rH G XI XI 0 ICI -H CO fd 4-J 0 CO p G O rH G O 0

•H XJ O 3 04 fd fd Oi+J 0 0 JH to JH fd JH 3 0 - H G 04 U Pi > H

ooinr-^ro rH^^oo';!' cnrHoooo o o v o r o o

r H O O O C N C n O C n V D VOCNrHCM r H O r H r - ~ r ^

O O O V D r O r H O i n r O r H C M O o o o o o

HC He

rH in cn 00 <n r-« o vo

He He

incnvorH r-»rHrovo r o i n v o i n o r^oororH r-rHCMvo ^ I ' l n ' ^ c N O

C M C M r O r H C M C N r O C N C M r O C M C M C M ^ c f C N r O C M

HC He He He

vocMt^rH r ^ o o ^ i n i n r ^ r o c N r o i n i n c n i n o c o r o r o rorHO«5i« ^ ' ^ v o o o in in ro^ i icM

rocNcocN r o r o r o r o rorocMC^J CM'^rvjrofvj

CO 0 o

• H J H 0

- P CO

0 > H CO CO

> i fd 2 04 H

X O

• H en

0 d> G Id JH -P en

CO CO 0

CO 0 o JH 0 d^ 0 G 04 Id O P US

0

CO CO 0

T l 0

• H IS

0 CO G 0 E^

rH 0 1 04 G. i^ g - H fd

•H 04 0 en en IS

CO CO 0 rH

g •H

0) rH XI

fd

u • H ' d 0 JH

0 rH XI fd JH

0 04 U G G P H

0 rH XI •H CO H-> G G O HJ 0 04 04TJ

3 G JH O

CO 0 J H J H

H u

0 O4 0 P

O • H • P fd U

fa

0 XJ 4-»

MH • H

CO O4 0 O JH d^

X 0

CO

Xi

0 XI HJ G 0 0 > •P 0 XI TJ 0 Xi CO

• H X • 0 ONI

cn CO • 0 ro O G 0 U 0)

MH MH •H TJ

en

in <n

fa Xi G fd u

• H MH • H G M d^ 0

- H

G fd

XJ - P

en He

•P fd 0 JH tn

CO fd

O4 0 O J H d ^

X 0 CO

u 0

XI 4J O

0 XJ Xi

g O J H

MH

fd 0 JH 0

MH iw - H T l

> i rH Xi G fd U

•H MH •H G d»

• H en He He

104

fa Hi PQ < E^

g

fa 2

F Ratio

Eight

or more

(N=8)

Five

years

(N=4)

Four

years

(N=6)

Three

years

(N=12)

Two

years

(N=28)

College:

one yr.

(N=23)

High

School

(N=12)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

vo vo 00 CO

^ ^ ^ ro o o o o

ro CO ro ro vo ro rH vo

in in in in

o o o o o o o in

vo m "r in

r*- r«- ro ro vo rH ro 00

in in in in

o o in CM in in CN ^

in in in in

'd' 00 r- vo rH vo o ^

in in in in

ro o CN vo rH ro CN en

in in in in

00 o CO ro in o o ro

in in in in

"sr ro CO rH en 00 in r-

o o o o

o o CO in o in CO c

in in in •«i'

in in in in CM CN r- CM

-^ in ^

o r-» ro r-O vo 00 rH

in in in in

in 00 o r» CM in in vo

in in vo in

^ 00 o in in vo o CN

in vo in

vo ro CN en H o CM

'sT in vo in

in CM o 00 r>. cn o o

^ 1* vo in

r^ rH rH r-CN ro CO CO

rH O O O

ro o o ro H o o vo

ro in in in

in in o in r* r-« in i^

CM M* in

r- o r- r rH O vo rH

CN in in

in O CM CM r- o ^ en

ro in in in

rH vo vo «* rH ro o

ro m in vo

vo ro cn r-en rH ro CO

CM in in in

in CO ro ro r- o 00 ro

ro m '^ in

vo rH CM CM O vo vo vo i' in

O O O rH O

o ro 00 ro in O rH 00 rH CM

in in in in ^

in o in o o r in r o o

^ ^ in 1* in

o r o ro o in rH in ro in

«;r in in in ^

CO o in 00 in o in CM in r^

in in in in ^

en o 00 cn sr 00 in vo CO in

^ in in 'i'

ro o <n cn vo rH CM O ro CM

^ in vo in in

CM o in CO CO '^ in r^ in in

^ in in in ^

0 XI • p

MH • H

CO 04 0 O JH d^

G O

•H -P fd o 13

•d 0 G 0 > 0 CO

0 XI -P

G 0 0 ^ +J 0

XJ • 00

f d rH 0 • JH CM fd II 0 ^ 04 vo Oioo fd *

vo CO " ^ 0 in O cn G 0 fa 0 G

MH Id MH XJ •H Xi TJ

U Xi 0 G -P Id fd U 0

•H U MH d^ •H G to d^ fd

•H ^ cn HC O

•H 4-» Id JH fa

105

fa UJ E^

Pi O fa

en fa HJ

S

^

u H < ^ u o en UJ

O iA u < 1^ H EH Z

g fa fa

CO fa rH H

P fa h^ U PQ H < Er^

<

EH 04 fa U IS o u en 04

Er* Z P O p;

fa iD Ui

IS fa O ffi Eri

IS O

HC

en

ORE

U en

2 rfj

H EH < U P P fa

VEN

fa en

F Ratio

Eight

or more

(N=8)

Five

years

(N=4)

Four

years

(N=6)

Three

years

(N=12)

Two

years

(N=28)

College:

one yr.

(N=23)

High

School

(N=12)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

rH en ro ^ en o ro o

rH rH rH rH

CO CO ro ro 00 CO vo rH

'^l' CM ^ CN

in o o o CN o o i n

in CM ro rH

r> ro ro ro rH 00 ro ro

^ CM 'a* CM

o o o o in in o o

ro ro ^ CM

CM vo t ^ i n ro «* in r>

ro ro ro rH

in en rH r ro o vo CO

ro ro ro rH

ro CO CM 00 ro i n ' ^ i n

ro CN ro CN

00 CN ro i n rH o en r^

CN CM o r>4

He HC He He ro ro o o VO VO i n i n

^ ro CN CN

in in o o CM CM o i n

ro ro CM ro

He He He He r>. o o ro VO in in ro

^ CM ro ro

He He

in ro CM o CM 00 ^ i n

ro CN ro CM

He He He He O rH <n rH o r- CM r-ro CM ro CN

HC He He He r* in ro o rH ro rH ro

ro CN ro ro

He He

t ^ r*- 00 ro rH vo i n CO

ro ro ro '^

i n CM ro t ^ o <n o cn

^ r H rH r o

HC He

O 00 00 CO

in ro 00 ro ro ro CM ^

He HC in o in in r- o CM r

rH -^ cn rH

HC HC

CO o o o ro in in o CN ro CM ro

He HC ro o CO CM ro i n o o^

CM ^ CM CM

He HC O >«* CO VO i n O rH * *

CM ro CM CM

He He ^ o a» en ';r ro ro ro

ro ro CM CM

HC He

r- o r^ ro vo o vo ro •• r ^ CM CM

CM i n i n i n ^ r-- rH ro o vo

rH rH r-i rH <D

CO in ro 00 o ro CN rH ro o

"sf ^ r o 'sf CM

i n i n o o i n r^ r^ o i n CM

ro ro CM ro CM

ro o r* o ro 00 i n vo i n ro

CN i n CN ro CN

i n CM ro r* ro r- en CO vo ro

CM ^ CN ro CN

00 o CO vo o vo o rH ro o

CM »* CNJ ro CM

en o cn CN vo ro r- o CM CM

CN ^ CM ro CM

ro o r« i n ro ro o rH r^ CO

CM i n CM ro CM

0 XJ HJ

MH •H

CO 04 13 0 U d^

G 0

•ri Xi fd

o 0 f d 0

G 0 > 0 10

0 XJ -p

G 0 0 ^ Xi 0) XI •

CO TJ rH 0 • JH CM fd II 0 ^ 04 vo 04 00 fd ^

vo CO ^ ^

0 in U <n G 0 fa JH 0 G

MH (d MH JH -H -P f d

JH •P 0 G 4J fd fd U 0

•H JH MH tn •ri G Ui tn fd

•H ^

en HC 0

-H H-> fd U

• CO 04 13 0 JH d^

G O

•H -P fd o 0

f d 0

JH 0

XJ Xi 0

0 XI 4J

g 0 M

MH

f d 0 JH 0

MH MH •H f d

> i rH Xi G fd

o •H VW •H G d^

• H

en He He

fa

106

cn rH

fa Hi PQ < En

g

F Ratio

Eight

or more

(N=8)

Five

years

(N=4)

Four

years

(N=6)

Three

years

(N=12)

Two

years

(N=28)

College:

one yr.

(N=23)

High

School

(N=12)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

CN -^ rH iH VO "i in *;»•

O rH H O

ro 00 ro o rH 00 vo in

^ ro in

in in in in CN CN CM r*-

' f in ^

ro r>. ro ro ro vo ro 00

in in in in

O 00 CO o o o in in in m in in

•^ vo rH ^ in •«d' vo in '^ in in in

CM CM rH CO CN CN vo r^

'd* in in in

O CN CO CN o ^ o 'fi'

^ in in in

00 vo r^ en en vo in in

o o o o

ro in ro CO vo CNJ vo 00

^ m in '

in in o o 0 4 r- o in

-^ ';!' vo **

o o r- o in in rH o in in vo in

ro 00 o in ro o o oj

in vo vo in

CM vo r« cn CO ro o 00

^ in vo '

CM <n CM cn CM ro CM ro

in in vo in

in 00 r- o CM o vo in

^ in in "?r

rH a^ rH rH TT in vo CM

o o o o

o ro ro 00 o vo rH ro ro in in

o o in in o o r>. r*«

ro in in in

ro o r- r-ro o vo vo

CM in in

CM o ro r-en in ro vo CN ^ in in

' r r^ rH in rH O CN r-»

ro in in in

ro 'si' vo o 00 o CN r-»

CM in in in

CM r- in CM ';!• vo r- -^

ro ^ in

rH CO vo r- I^ in vo rH vo cn

O rH rH o o

ro o 00 o ro vo o 00 o vo

^ in in in ro

in in o o in CM CM in in CN

ro 5;j« ^ CO

cn cn cn cn cn ro ro ro 00 ro

<«* in in in "si*

CO r^ CN in CM O vo CM ^

' in in in ro

vo in vo cn CM en CM cn CM ro

ro in in in -

r^ CO 00 CO CM in r^ ^ in

ro in in in ro

o r^ CO o r^ in vo o in rH ro tl* in in ro

0 XI 4-»

MH •H

CO 04 0 0 JH tn G o •H •P fd u 0 TJ 0

G 0 > 0 CO

0 XJ 4J

G 0 0 ^ Xi 0 XJ

TJ

• 00 rH •

0 CN Xi CO

II

•H VO X 0

to 0 O G

00 ^ vo in <n •

0 fa JH 0 MH

G fd

MH JH •ri +J Tl

-p JH 0

G -P fd O -H MH -H G

fd 0 U d

to d^ fd

•ri Ui HC

^

0 •H Xi fd

u fa

107

H En IS

g fa fa S fa < H 2 P O

IS CJ H CJ EH H S 1^ < O 2 UJ fa O en u

hq

H < UJ EH

• • S EH O 04

fa cn u O 2 IS O H U EH rtj cn 2 04

o p CM fa O

o p; fa o Hi cn pq IS IS < 1^ o EH W H

2 E^ <

IS u fa p fa p ^ fa Er^ fa IS mg en fa fa cn u IS fa fa UJ 2 E-t fa fa oi fa o H fa p

cn fa fa °^ He U IS en O H E^ < P ^ > fa

F Ratio

Eight

or more

(N=8)

Five

years

(N=4)

Four

years

(N=6)

Three

years

(N=12)

Two

years

(N=28)

College:

one yr.

(N=23)

High

School

(N=12)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

^ rH rH CM ro CN ro r^

rH rH rH rH

ro o CO ro rH i n 00 rH

^ ro ro CN

in in in o CM CN r-» i n

^ CM CM rH

ro t^ ro ro ro rH ro 00

ro ro i^* rH

in CM in 00 r» cn r- in

CM H Cvj rH

00 CM r- 00 vo 00 o vo

CM CM ro rH

o r^ in en r» 00 ro ro

CM CM ro CN

r« CN 00 r-iH <T» O vo

ro CN ro CM

o - i" in en ro CO ^ CN

CM rH O '^

He HC He He in 00 ro ro r^ ro vo rH

'cr ro CN CM

in in in in c^ r- r- CM

ro CM CM ro

HC HC He He ro o o o CO o in o

CM ro ro ro

He He He He CO CN O O i n en o in

CM CM ro CM

He HC He He CM CO CO rH CO VO rH CN

CM CM ro CN

He HC He He rH rH CM CO cr» <n in r>-

CN CN ro CM

He He

CN r- r^ ro <«;J« rH rH CO

cn ^ cn ^

0\ t^ a^ -<:{< r- CM ro CN

C4 O rH rH

i n o o ro CN in o vo

ro ro ro ro

in o in o r- o CM o

ro ro CM CM

o o ro o O O CO o

ro ro CN ro

He He i n i n CN CO CM CM cn i n

CM ro rH CM

He He r^ cn r- VO in CN o ro

CM ro CM CN

^ r- i n r^ "^ rH vo CO

ro ro CM CM

He He o in CN 00 in r- cn o

"^ ro CM ro

00 a» CM i n o CM ro ro

cn rH rH rH

HC He o o ro o in in rH o

^ <ci« ro ^

o in in in in r- CN r-

CM. ro CM ro

r- o r- ro vo o rH ro

CM i n CM CM

r^ o ro ro rH O 00 CO

CM in c«j ro

a\ o Q rf CM O O rH

CM '^ CM ro

in CM rH in ro CM vo ro

CM in CM ro

CO r- r- o O rH rH in

CM '^i* CM ro

0 XI +3

»w •ri

Ui 04 0 0 JH tn

G 0

-H -P fd o 13

Tl 0

G 0 > 0 CO

0 XI +J

G 0 0 ^ Xi 0) •

XJ CO H

TJ • 0 CN •P II CO ^-^

•H VO X CO 0 -

VO CO — ' 0 in o cn G 0) fa JH 0 G

MH Id MH Xi •ri Xi Tl

JH -P 0 G -P fd fd U 0

-H JH MH d^ •H G to d^ fd

-H ^ en * o

•H 4J fd JH

• to tn G

•ri Xi fd U

u 0

XI Xi 0

0 XJ Xi

g o JH

MH

TJ 0 JH 0

MH MH • H TJ

> i rH Xi G fd o

-H *W -H G tn

-H en He He

fa

108

CM

fa

en fa fa UJ u En

g p; o

fa fa fa fa en H P

fa

< fa u o cn HC

IS

o H EH

1-1

fa

O -H •P fd Pi

fa

JH ^ 0 CN

XI H-» O

rH II IS

0 r--G II O IS IS - -

>i G -^ XI fd r to -H II 0 M IS JH 0 — O. -P

u • H r H O

XJ - P fd u

G fd JH 0

XJ •P

0

•P CO

- H TJ O

XI -P 0 2

CO XI -H ^ O JH rH h XI rH 0 U II XJ IS CJ MH ^

O

-P CO

• H

OI fd PQ

CN ro

G fd 0 2

G fd 0 2

r o r o v o i n cnincNvo ^ r o o o v o r-»CNOrHCN voooo«>i< c N o r o ^ r o o c N C N ^ c N i n c n e n

O r H O O O O r H r H O C M r H C M O C N r H r H O

HC He

C o m o r o i n o o i n r ^ inrocNco i n i n i n i n o o o c M i n r o c M O i ^ r H r ^ o o c n o cMCMCMr»o

i n i n ^ i n m m m m c M ^ ^ m ^ m m ^ r m

G fd 0

2

G fd 0

2

G fd 0 2

He He He He

' ^ O O ' ^ r H o e n r o r o r o r o v o t ^ t ^ r o v o r H r H O O r H t ^ o c M « * ^ ^ ' s i ' c o m m ^ c o f ^

m m m m ^ m m ^ r o ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ m ^ r o

r ^ r o r o ^ ^ovoo^ro r o r H o r ^ r-^a^vorHvo m'^T'si'rH ^ c o c M ^ ' ^ r - ^ - o m m i H c o r ^ c o

m m m m m ^ v o m r o ^ ^ m m ^ m ^ s j * ' ^

rHvovor^ v o v o ^ r o e n v o o o c n r H t ^ e n o r~»oocom o o c o r H ^ C N C O O O c M r - m c N O

m m v r m ^ ^ v o ^ r o ' ^ m v o ^^ •^ un -^ m

G fd 0 2

G fd 0

2

He HC

cor -encN "<; I*CNOCN r H m m o o cn-^oorooo cor^cNoo c n r H O c o ^ v o r o r H m e n r H m o o

T i < m m m ^ m v o m r o m m v o ^ m v o m * * ! *

rO '^ rO rH OOOOOO CnCMrHrH vooocNr^vo

r»-vor^cn r H r H O O o o o c n e n r o r H c o c N ' *

m ^ r t * m m m v o m r o ^ ' ^ t m ^ m m m m

He HC He He

o r - » o o c n cNvococn yo rH yo o r o v o r ^ v o - ^ in^ i ' rovo cNOCMrH O - N T V O O o v o e n m - " *

m m m m m m v o m r o m m v o m m m m ^

0 XJ -p

MH •H

CO 04 0 0 JH d>

G 0

•ri

tn •ri

rH 0 JH

G 0 > 0 CO

0 XI -P

G 0 0 ^ 4J 0 •

XJ 00 rH

TJ • 0 CN -P II to ^

•H VO X CO 0 -

VO CO ^-' 0 m u a\ G 0 fa U 0 G

MH fd MH JH •H Xi TJ

U Xi 0 G -P fd fd U 0

-H U MH d^ -H G to tn Id

-H > cn He 0

-H 4J Id U

,

• to d^ G

•H +J Id h

JH 0

XI xi 0

0 XI HJ

g 0 JH

MH

Tl 0 U 0

MH MH •H Tl

> i rH 4J G Id o

-H MH -H G d^

-H cn He He

fa

109

EH IS

g fa fa fa H P

U H

IS

u EH H S Hi g o

UJ fa O en fa UJ En

IS

u ^

• • E^

O 04

cn o

fa U IS

IS o H En

S CN CN fa

u en 04 P O

O Pi fa Hi en PQ IS

O

IS < < O E^ H

2 H o H

S K fa

P fa

g IS fa

PQ >

en fa u

fa cn fa

S UJ

g fa

EH

Pi fa o fa H

fa p cn fa o He IS o H EH < P

S > fa

fa S u cn

F Ratio

Other

(N=12)

None

(N=7)

Presby­

terian

(N=7)

Catholic-

Lutheran

(N=7)

Methodist

(N=17)

Church

of Christ

(N=ll)

Baptist

(N=32)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

vo 00 ' r r m CM r«- cn

o o o o

m o m r~» CN m CM vo

' ^ ro ^ rH

O vo O rH o CO o r-

'^l* CN 'il* CM

cn vo r H rH CM CO r- r^

ro cvj ro iH

vo o <n t^ 00 o CM m

ro ro ro rH

<>r CO 00 00 CN 00 00 CO

ro CN ro rH

m 00 r - CO m rH Ci rH

ro CO ro CM

vo cn vo vo m H vo o

ro ro ro CM

r~ '^ r- r« O ro rH CM

rH O O O

CN o ro m <n o ro CN

ro ro ro ro

t^ ^ vo ^ m rH CO rH

ro ro CN ro

vo vo ^ ro CO CO rH * *

ro CM ro CM

r* en m en m CM 00 CM

ro CM CM ro

cn ** ** o m cn CM o

ro CM ro ro

00 o o^ vo rH O O «*

ro ro ro ro

CO m rH m CO r^ ro CN

CM CM ro ro

vo rH m 00 vo o en 00

O rH rH CN

He He

ro CM CM O 00 a i "^ m

CM ro CN ro

He He

a\ rH "^ r-i CM r- rH I ^

ro ro ro ro

ro cn ro ^ '5t« CM »* rH

ro ro CM ro

r* en ^ ' f m CM H rH

ro 'si' ro CN

He HC

m m ^ m vo vo CM ro

CN ro CM CN

He He

i n sr ^ VO m vo vo ro

CM ro rH CM

HC He

rH <n ro 00 ro o ^ ro

cn cn c^ CA

rH m ro 00 ro en ^ CM r- CN

o o ro CM rH

He HC He He

CO o CO ro 00 m m m ro o

ro ^ ro ^ CM

ro vo r* ro en ^ CO m ' * CM

ro ro CM ^ ro

He He

o VO cn VO o O CO CM CO O

ro ro CN ro CM

He He He He

ro ro o 'vf en ^ '!;r O tH CN

CM * * CM ro CN

He HC He He

r* CO m en ^ <;!• CO ro m <n

CM n« r j ro rH

He He He He

r H 'cr CO r^ rH <n VO rH CM en

CM ^ CN ro rH

HC HC He He

r*- ro r- VO rH ^ vo cn o ^

CNl ^ rH ro CN

0 XI -p

MH •H

CO 04 0 0 u d>

G 0

•H d^

•H r'T 0 JH

G 0 > 0 CO

0 XJ Xi

G 0) 0) > Xi 0) •

X I 00 rH

Tl • 0 CM +J 11 CO ^ ^

•H VO X 00 0 -

vo CO -^ 0) m O en G 0 fa JH 0 G

MH Id vw XI •H Xi TJ

JH -P 0 G H-» fd fd U 0

•H JH MH d> •H G to d^ fd

-H ^ en * 0

-H 4J fd JH

.

• to tn G

•ri Xi fd JH

JH 0 XI -P o 0 XI Xi

g 0 JH

MH

TJ 0 JH 0

MH MH •H TJ

> i rH •P G fd u

-H vw •H G tn

•ri

en HC He

fa

110

ro CN

fa »^ PQ < En

S C5

F Ratio

Other

(N=12)

None

(N=7)

Presby­

terian

(N=7)

Catholic-

Lutheran

(N=7)

Methodist

(N=17)

Church

of Christ

(N=ll)

Baptist

(N=32)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

vo CM en r H ro ^ r* CO

O r H CM CM

He He He HC

o 00 ro CM o m ro ^

^ ^ ^ " ^

r- ro rH " r m ^ r- rH

^ ^ ^ m

vo ^ o o CO rH o o ^ m m m

He He

r^ H vo r^ m r^ 00 m

^ ^ m m

He He He He

VO ' ^ r H O o CM r- o

'^i ' m m vo

He He

ro VO VO 'd* r- 'a* ^ vo

<5i' m m m

HC He He He

en VO en "d* m vo vo en

-ev if) If) m

m 00 en cn r H vo cn 00

H r H CM O

He HC

o CM r* 00 o •^ rH m

^ vi* ih ^

He He

r H - ^ en r H r^ rH CM r^

•<* m m ^

^ ro ' ^ ro rH - ^ rH - ^

m m vo m

O rH vo o o r 00 o

m ^ m m

He He

'd* rH m m en r^ ro ro

"^ m vo m

^ CN o r-* vo CO O CM

i n m vo ';!•

HC He

r- VO rH <n cn vo ro rH

%!< m vo m

^ ON o en ro o "" r-

o H ro o

He HC

m r 00 f-r-- vo m rH

CM ^ "si* m

He He

r- en ro en m CN ^ CM

ro ^ "^ m

rH ro ro ro r^ ^ ^ ^

cs] ^ ^ m

'si* vo vo rH r H 00 CO r^

ro ^ ^ m

He He

CM CM r H 00 00 rH r^ CO

CM m m m

He He

r- ro ro rH CM r« r- en

ro ^ -^ m

He HC He He

o VO ro CM O rH vo I^

ro m m m

r* CO vo o CN en r^ vo •';»« m

O r H r H CM O

He He

ro o m 00 m ro m r^ m r-

ro ^ ^ -^ ro

He HC

^ r^ en rH en rH m CM r» CM

^ "si* m ' ^ ro

vo vo ^ vo 'Cj' CO 00 i H 00 r H

'^i* m m ^ ^

^ O '«;t* r> vo r H O r H m 00

ro m m m CM

HC He

CO CO r H O r H rH m r-- o r-

^ m m vo ro

CO r-~ vo r* CO r H CM •«* CM rH

ro m m m "^

ro vo ro r^ ^ o m o ' ^ 00

' r m vo m ro

0 XJ -P

MH - H

CO 04 0 0 JH tn

G 0

• H d^

• H rH 0 JH

G 0 > 0 CO

0 XJ Xi

G 0) 0 ^ +> 0 •

X I 00 H

TJ • 0 CM HJ II CO ^ ^

• H VO X 00 0 ^

vo to "--0 m U en G • 0 fa JH 0 G

MH fd MH JH •ri xi TJ .

U Xi 0) G H-» fd fd U 0

-H JH MH d^ -H G to d> fd

•H ^ en He O

•H •p fd JH

•

. CO d^ G

• H 4J Id JH

JH 0 XJ Xi 0

0 XJ 4J

g O JH

MH

f d 0 JH 0

MH MH •ri TJ

> i r H •P G fd u • H

MH •ri G tn

•ri Ui HC He

fa

Ill

H EH IS

g fa fa fa IS H < P 2

O U ^ H EH U S H

2 O fa m en o

u fa Hi UJ < EH

IS •• O E^

04 cn fa CD u ^ IS H O EH U

§ en • ^ 04 CM fa p

o o fa Pi kA en o PQ S < <: IS En W O

2 H O

IS H fa Hi gg EH fa IS PQ fa

> en fa fa en u IS fa fa UJ 2 EH fa fa Pi fa O H fa P

en fa fa

°S He U S en O H EH «: p

^ > fa

F Ratio

Other

(N=12)

None

(N=7)

Presby­

terian

(N=7)

Catholic-

Lutheran

(N=7)

Methodist

(N=17)

Church

of Christ

(N=ll)

Baptist

(N=32)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

r H rH r o CO r o " ^ CO CM

r H O O O

r o O CN CM

CO o cn <n ro ro ro rH

^ 'sr rH r*-rH rH r m

'^ ro ro CM

r- o <n o m o CN o

CM ro ro CM

rH en '^ o r^ CM H o

CN CN r o CM

rH en CO vo r- m rH o

CM CM ro CM

ro en CO o r- o rH o CM ro ro CM

r H cn - ^ r H 00 vo o en

CM CM CM r H

O VO O 00

m CN cn r-o o o o

r - CO 00 CO r H O O O

CN ro ro ro

cn ro vo vo CN "!l* CO CO

ro ro CM CM

r H vo *!• vo r^ CO r H CO

CM CM CM CM

r » r » VO VO m m CO CO

r o CM CM r o

m CM r - r H r o rH '^r "cl*

ro ro ro CM

00 rH 'sr r-rH en vo CM

ro CM ro CM

CO en rH 00 r o ro CO

CM ro ro CM

rH ro CM cn m rH ro vo

rH rH rH rH

CM ro ro r ' ^ r o 00 r H

CM ro CM ro

vo r» r- o CO m m o

CM ro ro ^

^ o ^ o H CM r H O

r o CM CM CM

ro rH cn ro •«;r r-« CM '^

'd* CM CM CN

r^ 00 r H CO r^ 00 ^ 00

CM r o CM CM

CM vo vo vo 00 * * ro '^

ro ro CM CM

ro CM en vo H CM H m

ro ro CM CM

m ro ON r* o vo ro ro o r*

O rH rH rH CD

o m r* r- CN o r» rH vo ' r

ro 'iT ro ro rH

^ yo KD yo a\ rH CO 00 00 CM

r o r o CM r o CN

r o ^ o r H vo ^ rH CD t^ CO

CN r o CN r o r H

r-. o cn r - '^r m o CM m r H

CM ' d ' CM r o CM

0> CO ON r H ^ CM r H CM r*» CM

CN m CM r o CM

m CM CM O 00 m 00 00 O r H

CM ' ^ r H r o CM

CM r o CO o ^ CM vo ro o ro

CM ^ CM r o CN

0 XJ Xi

MH • H

CO 04 0 0 u d G o

•ri

tn •ri r-i 0 u G 0) > 0) Ui

0 XJ 4-»

G 0 0 15 Xi 0

XJ

TJ

• CO rH

• 0 CM •p CO

II

•H vo X 0

CO 0 u G

00 ^

vo

m en

• 0 fa JH 0

MH G fd

MH XI -H Xi TJ

Xi u 0

G Xi fd

o •H MH •H G

fd 0 u tn Ui

tn fd • H

en He

^

o •H -p Id JH

fa

112

m CM

fa yA PQ < E^

Hi < H En ^

§ fa fa fa H IS ^ ^

U H U EH H IS iq ^ o 2 UJ fa O cn o fa < UJ EH

t •

^ EH O 04

fa en u O IS IS o H U EH ft Ui 2 04

P fa O o Pi

o en IS EH < o fa < 2 EH

S O fa U

EH fa

IS fa >

PQ fa en

en fa fa S EH

g Pi fa o fa fa fa H en P fa fa O

He

IS o H EH

> fa

U Ui

F Ratio

No

Answer

(N=6)

Never

(N=5)

Four-Ten

Years

(N=5)

Two-Three

Years

(N=8)

One

Year

(N=20)

One

Month

(N=13)

One

Week

(N=36)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

CN m ^ r m ^ en ro

rH o o o

r^ r^ ro o rH vo ro O

CN CM ro CM

o o o o vo CM vo vo ro ro CN rH

o o o o vo o CO vo * * ' ^ ro CN

CO ro o 00 ro rH m 00

ro ro ro rH

m m o o ' r CM en en

ro ro ro rH

rH 00 CO CO ro o o o

^ ro ^ CN

';r r-~ CO c^ vo en r~ en

ro CN ro rH

r-> vo 00 <n CM <n " ^ '51*

o O O H

r^ r^ r- ro rH yo rH cn

ro CM ro ro

o o o o CM O vo CO

ro CM ro CN

o o o o CM vo ^ O

ro CN ro ro

00 00 CO ro ro 00 ro rH

ro CM ro CM

m o m m o m r» m

ro CM CM CN

CM ro ' ^ rH vo CM m ro

ro ro ro ro

o CO en CN m o rH r-

ro ro ro ro

vo o m m o Tf o m

rH rH rH O

o r^ r- o o vo rH m ^ ro CM CM

o o o o vo CM O CM

ro ' J* CM CN

o o o o O O CO CN

CM sr rH CM

m m ro 00 CM CM r H 00

CM ^ r o CM

o m m m rH ro ro 00

ro ro CM CM

o <n en rH o vo vo ro

ro CM CM CM

r- vo vo CO rH m ro r-

ro ro CM CM

vo CM cn ^ vo o o en 00 ro

rH rH O rH rH

r« r- r- ro r^ rH rH vo CO vo

CM "1* rH ro rH

O O O O O ' ^ CM VO O VO

CM m rH CM CM

o o o o o 00 00 o o vo CN m ro ' ^ rH

m m o m ro r^ r- m CM vo

CM ^ CM ro CM

m m m m o ro vo ro ro m

CM Tl* CM ro CM

r* (-» ro CN CN r- r^ CM vo vo

ro ro CM ro rH

rH r* r- CM en 00 Tl* ^ r^ ro

CM ««!i* CM ro CM

0 XJ xi

MH •H

CO 04 0 0 U d i

Xi

o Id -p G 0 o G 0 > 0 CO

0 XI Xi

G 0) 0 > -P 0 XJ

•d

• CO rH

• 0 CM Xi Ui

•ri X 0

CO 0 o G

II .,—« VO 00

« k

vo '^-'

m <n

• 0 fa JH 0

MH G fd

MH JH •ri 'd 4-> G fd o •H

MH •H G

4-»

U 0) •P fd 0 JH d^ CO

d^ fd •H en HC

^

0 •H Xi Id JH

fa

113 3 3

vo CM

fa Hi PQ < En

E^ IS

g fa fa fa

u H En IS

u H Hi

2 O fa UJ en fa UJ EH

O U

2 ; •• O E^

04

en fa

S IS o u

H EH

<:

IS fa

g

en 04 p o p;

en CD

fa o

EH U

EH

O U

E^ IS fa fa PQ >

fa en cn fa U fa IS UJ

En

fa p; fa O fa fa H P en

fa fa 1^ O <

O He en

O H EH < : p

> fa

F Ratio

No

Answer

(N=6)

Never

(N=5)

Four-Ten

Years

(N=5)

Two-Three

Years

(N=8)

One

Year

(N=20)

One

Month

(N=13)

One

Week

(N=36)

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

Mean

vo ^ CN vo 00 VO ^ 00

O O rH O

o r» t^ o O rH H O

CN ro ro CN

o o o o CO O vo CM

CM CM rH rH

O O O O VO CO VO o

ro CN ro CN

ro CO CO ro vo CO 00 vo

CM CM CM rH

o o o O r- «;»• ' r cn

CN CM ro rH

'^r CM ro CM m en CM en

ro CM ro rH

•sl< r » CM rH r-i cj\ -^ cn

ro CN ro CM

o ro ro ro CN 00 r* vo

rH CM O H

r o o r» vo •>* O rH

CN CM ro ^

O O O O VO Nl* CO o

CM CM ro CM

o o o o "<* ^ CN CO

CN r o ^ CM

m o m 00 r- m CM ro

CM CM r o CM

m m o o vo 00 00 ro

CM CM CM CM

cn en o VO ro ro o ^

ro ro ro CM

O CM 00 CM m r- CM CM

ro ro ro ro

m vo r* m m CO vo '^

O rH o o

r- ro o ro vo CO m 00

ro CM CM CM

o o o o O vo vo CM

ro CN rH CN

o o o o vo CM O vo

CM ^ CM CM

m 00 00 o r* ro ro o

CM ro CN ro

m o o o CM CO ro m

ro CN CM CM

<n r^ vo ^ vo t^ "<* m

ro CM CN CM

^ rH cn r» en 00 vo en

CM ro CM CM

ON O r** ON ^ H en r- r- rH

rH (D CD rH rH

o ro o ro o o 00 o ro o

CM r o CM ^ CN

o o o o o vo CM vo CM vo

r H m CM CN CN

o o o o o O 00 O CM ^

ro m ro ro rH

ro m ro m 00 vo CN vo r- 00

CN m CM ro CM

o m m o o O ^ rH r- rH

CM sj* CM ro CM

o ro o CN * * o CM o en m

ro -tl* CM CM rH

r^ CM 00 rH m vo '^ m ro CN

CM CM ro CN

0 XI •p

MH •H

CO 04 13 0 JH d^

•p

o fd Xi G 0 o G 0 > 0 CO

0 XJ Xi

G 0 0 15 Xi 0 XJ

Tl

• 00 rH

• 0 CM xi Ui

•ri

II .—.« VO

X 00 0

CO 0 u G 0 u 0

MH

^ vo •—^

m en

• fa

G fd

MH X I -H Tl

-P G Cd

o •ri MH •H G

+> JH 0 Xi fd 0 u dN

to dN fd

•H en He

^

0 •H Xi fd JH

fa

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allport, Gordon. "Attitudes." Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement. Edited by Martin Fishbein. New York John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967.

American Psychiatric Association. The Treatment of Alcoholism: A Study of Programs~and Problems. Baltimore: Garamond-Pridemark Press, 1967.

Bailey, M. B. "A Survey of Medical and Psychiatric Practice with Alcoholics." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXXII (September, 1971) .

Bailey, M. B., and Fuchs, E. "Alcoholism and the Social Worker." Social Work, V (October, 1960), 14-19.

Block, Marvin. "A Program for the Homeless Alcoholic." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXIII (December, 1962), 644-649.

Boyd, J. Edwin. "A Multidimensional Explanation of Popular Notions of Alcoholism." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXXI (December, 1970), 876-888.

Cahalan, Donald. Problem Drinkers; A National Survey. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1970.

Cahn, Sidney. The Treatment of Alcoholics; An Evaluative Study. New York: Oxford University Press, 1970.

Chodorkoff, Bernard. "Alcoholism Education in a Psychiatric Institute." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXX (September, 1967), 657-664.

Dixon, Wilfrid J., and Massey, Frank J. Introduction to Statistical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.

Dorsch, Graydon; Talley, Ruth; and Bynder, Herbert. "Response to Alcoholics by the Helping Professions and Community Agencies in Denver." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXX (December, 1969), 905-919.

114

115

Duncan, D. B. "Multiple Range and F-Tests." Biometrics, XI (March, 1955), 1-42.

Ferneau, Ernest, and Morton, Eluera. "Nursing Personnel and Alcoholism." Nursing Research. XVII (Fall, 1968), 174-177.

Freed, Earl X. "Opinions of Psychiatric Hospital Personnel and College Students toward Alcoholism, Mental Illness, and Physical Disability: An Exploratory Study." Psychological Reports, XV (October, 1964), 615-61^: ^ ^

Heinmann, Edith, and Rhodes, Robert. "How Nurses View the Tuberculous Alcoholic Patient." Nursing Research, XVI (Fall, 1967), 361-365.

Hirsch, Joseph, ed. Opportunities and Limitations in the Treatment of Alcoholics. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas Press, 1967.

Hoult, Thomas Ford, Dictionary of Modern Sociology. Totowa, New Jersey; Littlefield, Adams and Company, 1969.

Jellinek, E. M. "Phases of Alcohol Addiction." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XIII (December, 1952), 673-684.

, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism. New Haven; Hillhouse Press, 1960.

Linsky, Arnold S. "Changing Public Views of Alcoholism." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXXI (September, 1970), 692-699.

Lolli, Giorgio; Serianni, Emilio; Colder, Grace M.; and Luzzatto-Fegis, Pierpadlo. Alcohol in Italian Culture. New York: The Free Press, 1958.

Ludwig, Arnold. "Studies on Alcoholism and LSD: The Influence of Therapist Attitudes on Treatment Outcome." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, XXXVII (March, 1967), 212-213.

Mackey, Richard A. "The Meaning of Mental Illness to Caregivers and Mental Health Agents; A Study of Four Different Occupational Groups." Unpublished D.S.W. dissertation. Catholic University, 1966.

116

_. "Views of Caregiving and Mental-Health Groups aEout Alcoholics." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXX (September, 1969), 665-671.

Mann, Marty. Marty Mann Answers Your Questions about Drinking and Alcoholism. New York; Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1970.

McCord, William, and McCord, Joan. Origins of Alcoholism. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1960.

Miller, Gary. "Alcoholism, Police, Courts; A Changing Phenomena." Police, XII (July/August, 1968), 84-86.

. "The Future Role of the Police in the Treatment of^Alcoholism." Police, XIII (January/February, 1969), 84-86.

Mogar, Robert; Helm, Stanley; Snedeker, Michael; Snedeker, Marilyn; and Wilson, Wayne. "Staff Attitudes toward the Alcoholic Patient." Archives of General Psychiatry, XXI (October, 1969), 449-4b4.

Moody, Philip. "Attitudes of Nurses and Nursing Students toward Alcoholism Treatment." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXXII (March, 1971), 1/2-175.

Moore, Robert. "Reaction Formation as ^ Counter- ^ Transference Phenomenon in the Treatment of Alcoholism. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXII (September, 1961), 481-486.

Morehead, Albert H. , ed. The New American Roget's Colleige Thesaurus. New York; New American Library, Inc., 1962.

Mulford, Harold, and Miller, Donald. "Measuring Public Acceptance of the Alcoholic as a Sick Person.' Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XXV (June, 1964), 314-323."

rN ^ /i rbavlP *?- Suci. F.; and Tannenbaum, P. The ° ' ^ ° ° ^ y ^ g S L S 2 n i k - "-'^-"- university of

Illinois Press, ly^/.

T:. M=«o^n "A Critique of Alcoholism Treatment ^-^^-!?[?:,^:.»r-^.^^;...VfTourLl of studies on Alcohol,

XXVII (March, 1966), 4y-'/i.

117 7

Plaut, Thomas, ed. Alcohol Problems; A Report to the Nation. New York; Oxford University Press, 1967.

Rabiner, Edwin; Reiser, M. F.; Barr, H. L.; and Gralnick, A. "Therapists' Attitudes and Patients' Clinical Status." Archives of General Psychiatry, XXVI (December, 1971), 555-572.

Robins, L. N. Deviant Children Growing Up. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1966.

Skolnick, Jeromeh. "Religious Affiliation and Drinking Behavior." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, XIX (September, 1958), 452-470.

Snyder, Charles R. Alcohol and the Jews. New York; The Free Press, 1958.

Swiecicki, A. "The Adjustment of Children from Alcoholic and Nonalcoholic Families: Ten Years Follow-up Study." Paper presented at the 28th International Congress on Alcohol and Alcoholism, Washington, D.C., September 15-20, 1968.

Trice, Harrison. Alcoholism in America. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1966.

Warner, Harry S. An Evolution in Understanding of the Problems of Alcohol. Boston; Christopher Publishing House, 1966.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York; Scribner and Sons, 1930.