197} - TDL
Transcript of 197} - TDL
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.