o O . on... o. .7. .I ....o ..r . .II. ..II. . .. .. . _ . . . . . . .. . _ .I.. I. .I..I.I.I. .III I¢II III. I. .I.. I I I...I.I.....II 0.0.. In .. ..I ............ .. .... . . . . .... ... .o... . I.. . . . I ._. in ._ . . . . . . ... .. ...I 4. .- . I . . :AI I I. . I . II. I .I .- >.. . .I . . II . . . ,.__ . I I I . I .. . . . ... . . I . I .. .I . I...I. . . . ...a. .IIJII (I. o .. u .. . u . ... . I . I . . .. . . . I .. I . .o' 0" . . I .I. . . . . _ o I I I I o o I I I I I ~ I.. I . a . I a .o .- o. I I ..Q.I-IJ 1.. . I I I I . . _..I . . . . . . . u . I I III I. . .p4I..I...o¢I’I . a I . I . I I I .I . I o I . . o. _ . I II In I . 5.”. 0.. . _ . . o n I . I . o O . .. I: on. ... w. ... . . . . .. . . . .. . . I. ... . .. . . . I I . . o . .. o I“ I .. . r. o . I . I . _ . I . I I a I . .u . o 0.. 0 IF: w o .Is I o . . I o L _ . . I I .I I 0.. 4 I . .I c g I I . I . . . o I I. I w . . I I. I .II.I. . _ a. . o I .... .. . . I . n I o . Q . . - . III‘ a I A o I I . . . . . . _ I . _ . . . ... . . .- . . I I. . . .. I . . I“ a I I a I I I I. ¢ . . o I . AI I .. II .I. II “ I O a . I . I . . I . I .— 9 o a. . . . . . I . . . I . .. . a o 4: I . 0 w . . I o o I u . . v .. I o .I . I . . . .. I . .. . . I ‘ . . I . I I v v . . . .. .. . . I . I I3...- I . I . . I u o. I . . .. o I . . 0o. . . . . . . ._ . I . . . . a . . . . . . o . I . . _V .I . I o I . . . y . . I I _ I I o .o I I V ' o O r O I I. 0 v I o I . . I . . . I . I . .I . . ._ . I I v . ~ I .. D . * I . I. a. .I . I.I o. I. . I a I I u a. O ‘ _ _ . .. .. I I. I. .I. ..l w . . I (I. I. ..o . v o I. . _. . . . I I. I . I. I . . I .. I... .. .o. II I . . . . I .o .. _ II o .. . . . I I I .4 I I . . I I - P . .I o I . . . .04 I nr.o I. .o . . .. . m G ‘I. . I I I a- CI. 4 _ a I . I U . .I I. . . I . . . . I I 0...; I. . I o S o . I I I I I. I II . . _ _ I . . r o I . I I. _ I . . .I b . . .. . I I O I a I I. o I. oII . ..I. . .I a I O o I . a u 1.. . . I“ . I g o 0’ Jolt I O I . I I ~ 4 .I I c I .I .00 Q r! I I .. . . . . . ... I . w. . . - I II. II...- .o' m I . . a .V .A . . I. v . I I I I o I . .Io . o .- U . I l . I I I n V I I '3650 STUDENTS TOWARD MENTAL HEALTH; CONCEPT; ; . I .v I . .I I. II . I I II o I . o .' . . . I . . I I . I I I . . y I II '4 I _ . n. c. I .?.I I .I I u «I I] -I I I . . I I I I o , I , . I I. f 0 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY TlAL. STUDY I gree I 1972 - AAQO-4 C--fl4c‘qw-~n.o~ ..- ”a..-“ olnafivp. sammnc DIFFEREN KATHERINE JDUR I . . _ . . o v. I' l I . .I I l . I U o a . It ' I I I It r I I . c I I u I nI. . a I I I I. . I I ' . I . I _ I . II .p I I — . i '0 ' u m . I I I The-sis for the De A STABILITY AND CHANGE IN THE W ‘9 ---o—-.~—.'_.———I-vq,-..— I . “cg ’ n o. . . 4 . . .. a l u 0 .. . . o I . I I. . I I I [I II 'I O. . iI . . .I . . .. I II . I I I . .v I ' . . . I . . . .. I I I I . o-.I o... .0... .0 .I o. I. . . I III . I ‘ . (VI 0 . I I IIIIJICI'. I I... q I. .. .. 0.1... . . II. . 3 o I a —. . . I . I c . a I .5. I“... .2 . . Y ... I~I I :IIII. .0. IIA 7...? flo—EVW‘I‘.’ I'I I V IIIIII '0 I OIIO‘IAIL: II "II \ . InIIIoII u .I . I ... .. .I‘. .I I. . a. a .I I. IICQ‘I. .0 I . ..O . _ O . on . I I I. I. )I.’". "(IIQ‘ 5 'II ’1 I .I-.t.iCIY. II).II..r.IIvIIIII I..IIO....I.II .II'vso .l....... .V: 0.....I31IIIII IIIIII 0:0..7- ’=\.IIJ0¢O. OI‘MIIIEIOIIV!II;O .I..ICII.II'IIIAII VWIYHIIIHFrIoI ”IIIP....... flank-r. ..I.sP..9a..-.(.. .fflq.......o\..._. I.I.0.IIIoIIIOIIHIO.II’IO%,OI..I..O..I$V.QQ..I/Iooo ...o.o o.)I .I....II ....~.I.IV-QIIIIII.‘Q5.I. . J'.‘ .u.I~.o OI.“ III. I ll’lf it I, ABSTRACT STABILITY AND CHANGE IN THE VIEWS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS TOWARD MENTAL HEALTH CONCEPTS: A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL STUDY BY Katherine Durham During the last two decades more attention has been turned toward the problem of mental disorders in our society. Mental health programs and out-patient services have been organized to help the mental patient adjust to the "outside world" again once released from a mental hospital. The views the public have toward mental illness and the mentally ill, are very important in the support and success of these programs. Once a mental patient returns to the community, his family, friends, and others with whom he interacts, will have a great deal to do with his successful re-adjustment. Some research studies have been done concerning the views held by the public toward selected aspects of mental illness, but they are not very numerous. This study investigates the views of two comparable samples of college students at Michigan State University at two points in time, 1962 (N=215) and 1971 (N=319). Katherine Durham The Semantic Differential Technique was used to obtain data from both samples. The four general hypotheses were: Hypothesis 1: There will be general similarity between the responses of both samples--that is, the views will show considerable sta- bility over the period. Hypothesis la: The order of "favorableness" for concepts will be the same for both samples. Hypothesis lb: The scales will have the same general order for both samples. Hypothesis 2: There will be a trend toward more "favorableness" in the 1971 sample. Hypothesis 1, la, and lb, were supported by the data and Hypothesis 2 was refuted. Contrary to Hypothesis 2, responses of the 1971 sample were somewhat "less favorable" than responses of the 1962 sample. STABILITY AND CHANGE IN THE VIEWS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS TOWARD MENTAL HEALTH CONCEPTS: A SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL STUDY BY Katherine Durham A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1972 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my chairman, Dr. D. W. Olmsted. I am indebted to him for his untiring patience, concern, and guidance in helping me to prepare this thesis. My appreciation is also extended to the members of my committee, Dr. James B. McKee and Dr. Frederick B. waisanen, for consenting to serve and for their helpfulness. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. O O O O O O I O O O O 0 Chapter I 0 THE PROBLEM. O O O O O O O O O O 0 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . III. THE SAMPLE AND THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT. . . IV. GENERAL HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . v 0 ANALY S I S OF DATA 0 O O C O O O O O 0 VI. CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Demographic Data, 1962 Sample and 1971 Sample of Summer School Sociology Students, Michigan State University, With Statistical Significance of Differences. . . . . . B. Comparison of Mean Scores, Illinois Sample (Nunnally, 1958) and Michigan Sample (1962), For Ten Scales and Four Concepts, on Semantic Differential. . . . . . . . iii Page vi 14 19 21 53 57 59 62 Chapter Page C. Comparison of Mean Scores, Illinois Sample (Nunnally, 1958) and Michigan Sample (1971), For Ten Scales and Four Concepts, on Semantic Differential . . . . . . . . 64 D. A Study of Word Meanings (Semantic Differ- ential Questionnaire) . . . . . . . . 66 iv LIST OF TABLES Mean Scores for 1962 Sample on Semantic Differential Scales and Concepts (N=215) . Mean Scores for 1971 Sample on Semantic Differential Scales and Concepts (N=3l9) . Mean Differences on Semantic Differential Scales and Concepts, 1962-1971 . . . . Probability Levels, Statistically Significant Differences Between Means for 1962 and 1971 Data (T-Tests) . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Semantic Differential Factors, 1962 Sample (N=215) . . . . . . . . Mean Scores on Semantic Differential Factors, 1971 Sample (N=3l9) . . . . . . . . Mean Differences on Semantic Differential FaCtorS, 1962-1971 a o o o o o o 0 Demographic Data, 1962 Sample and 1971 Sample of Summer School Sociology Students, Michigan State University, With Statistical Significance of Differences . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores, Illinois Sample (Nunnally, 1958) and Michigan Sample (1962), For Ten Scales and Four Concepts, on Semantic Differential . . . . . . . Comparison of Mean Scores, Illinois Sample (Nunnally, 1958) and Michigan Sample (1971), For Ten Scales and Four Concepts, on Semantic Differential . . . . . . . Page 23 24 25 31 48 49 50 59 62 63 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Semantic Differential Scale-Concept Means for 1962 Sample (N=215) and 1971 Sample (N=319) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 26 2. Mean Scores for Eight Concepts, on Semantic Differential, 1962 and 1971 Samples. . . . 28 3. Mean Scores for Twelve Scales, on Semantic Differential, 1962 and 1971 Samples. . . . 29 4. Mean Scores for Concepts "Doctor" and "Insane People" . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5. Eight Profiles of Semantic Differential Concepts, 1962 and 1971 Samples . . . . . 40 vi CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM For centuries man has been concerned with disorders of an immediate, visible kind--the physical disease that pain, debilitate, and kill. At the present rate of progress, the not-too-distant future should see man living in a world relatively free from major physical disorders and diseases. As this gradually comes about, attention is shifting to the least understood human malfunctions--the mental disorders--and to mental health generally-—human happiness and social effectiveness. Since the attention is shifting, more funds are being allocated to research on mental health by the Federal Government. Research focusing on the "causes" and "cures" of mental illness, as well as the views of the public toward it. The Mental Health Act of 1955 directed the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health, as chosen by the National Institute of Mental Health, to analyze and evaluate the needs of the mentally ill in the United States and make recommendations for a national mental health program. 1Jum C. Nunnally, Jr., Popular Conceptions of Mental Health (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1961), p. 1. 2Action For Mental Health (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1961), p. vii. The final report3 of the Joint Commission on Mental Health contains much material commenting on the public's interest in and knowledge of mental health and mental illness. The Joint Commission concludes that public information has increased the general understanding about human behavior, that mental health information has helped the public recognize and seek help for psychological problems, and that there is now a great demand for mental health service which is not being met. The Commission squarely faces the problem of the stigma against mental illness. Its stand is that there must be a change in public attitudes and concepts of responsibility, and that we must overcome rejection of the mentally 111 which interferes with the treatment process. According to the Commission, this is the primary responsi- bility of public education in the field of mental health. Simply telling the public the facts about the mental illness problem will not necessarily bring the desired reforms; the public is already acquainted with the extent of the problem. The basic difficulties in changing public attitudes are that people find it hard to see illness as having psychological forms, and also that the mentally ill lack appeal and are too uncomfortable to have around. The Commission recommends that we try to help people recognize mental illness and how to deal with it as one way of Ibid. overcoming the rejection and defeatism which makes the mental hospital an "endpoint" rather than a way station in treatment. The general assumption is that the well-being of mental patients is at least to some extent influenced by the social context. The success of reintegrating former mental patients into society is affected by the attitudes of the general public toward mental illness, and that these attitudes play a role in determining the support of mental health programs by the general public as voters and tax- payers. The media of mass communication are usually thought of as having considerable influence upon what the public thinks and believes. Some studies done on the mass media have shown that they tend to distort reality with the picture of mental health problems presented in many of the dramas, comedies, and other programs for the public. "Although the last two decades have seen a vast increase in the number of studies of functional mental disorder, there is as yet no substantial verified body of knowledge in this area."4 In our society today, it seems that the public continuously reject the mentally ill and want to keep as much distance between them as possible. 4Thomas J. Scheff, "The Role of the Mentally Ill and the Dynamics of Mental Disorder: A Research Framework," Sociometry, XXVI (1963), 436-53. Social life is pleasant and indeed possible only when our interactions with others achieve a high measure of predictability, coupled with the feeling that we understand what is going on and that others understand us. Mental illness threatens this pre- dictability and understanding. It manifests itself in interpersonal difficulties and it tends to disrupt our most intimate and significant relationships. This research investigation is based upon research summarized by Jum C. Nunnally, Jr. in Popular Conceptions of Mental Health, 1961 (there has not been a comparable book to date); and The Final Report of Concepts of Mental Health: A Pilot Analysis by Dr. Donald W. Olmsted and Robert K. Ordway (Report to NIMH, Grant M-5880(A), June, 1963). The study by Dr. Olmsted and Robert K. Ordway, done in 1962, used college students at Michigan State University as the sample. Thus, this prompted the decision to do the study again in 1971 using a sample of comparable college students at Michigan State University, to see if any changes occur in responses. It is understood that the broader question con- cerning views toward mental illness cannot be answered by this research study alone. However, if any changes have occurred in views since 1962 it should be reflected in the responses of young college students who represent many sectors of the larger society as a whole. Therefore, it 5Elaine Cumming and John Cumming, Closed Ranks (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,'19§7), p. xi. is felt that their responses can be generalized to some extent as the view of the general public. in this 1. More specifically, the problem under investigation study is centered around two basic questions: Has there been a shift in views toward mental illness over time (1962-1971) as viewed by two comparable samples of college students at Michigan State University? What is the image of the Psychiatrist as viewed by these samples? CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Research findings concerning popular views toward mental illness are not very numerous. The past decade has witnessed several major shifts in the conception, care, and treatment of hospitalized mental patients. There has been a move toward "open" hospitals, milieu therapy, patient government, and patient work programs. Mental health has come to be recognized as a part of public health. This recognition has added impetus to efforts to go beyond the treatment of mental illness and to look toward the possible preventions of such illness and toward minimizing the consequences of mental illness. The public health approach entails the application of scientific knowledge to community efforts to deal with the mass aspects of disease.7 Elaine and John Cumming (1957) undertook an inter- esting project in Prairie Province, Canada. "Our study was designed to investigate to what extent and in what direction attitudes toward mental illness are changed by O O I 8 an 1nten31ve educat1onal program." 6Jacob Cohen and E. L. Struening, "Opinions About Mental Illness in the Personnel of Two Large Mental Hospitals," Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, LXIV, No. 5 (May, 1962), 349—60. 7Cumming and Cumming, op. cit., p. ix. 8Ibid., p. 8. They were aware that ignorance and fear of mental illness are widespread but they were not aware of the feelings and functions underlying public attitudes toward mental illness. They point out that the ignorance and fear are not merely the result of the lack of information about mental illness, but are derived from and maintained by personal and community needs. The experiment in mental health education which Elaine and John Cumming here report represented a concentrated effort to change attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally ill in a single community. Their goal was both concrete and practical. They had observed the coldness of many communities to patients returning from mental hospitals: patients, released as recovered or markedly improved, are often unwelcome, feared, isolated. Changing such attitudes would favor more complete rehabilitation of former patients. Generally, they concluded that the six-month edu- cational program, in its all-out attempt to improve attitudes toward mental illness, was not successful. It produced virtually no change in the social problem of mental illness or toward the mentally ill themselves. "One of the most ambitious studies of public attitudes toward mental illness was conducted over a six- year period (1954-1959) by a team of research investigators at the Institute of Communication Research, University of Illinois."10 9John Clausen, in Cumming and Cumming, 0p. cit., p. x. 10Harold P. Halpert, Public Opinions and Attitudes About Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, This survey was made up of an "opinion panel" of some 400 people, most of whom were from central Illinois, but selected so as to be representative of the United States as a whole with regard to education, sex, income, religion, and race. Attitudes were measured with the use of a 50-item questionnaire, devised by the Illinois group to study public attitudes toward the mentally ill. The Illinois survey revealed that attitudes toward the mentally 111 were found to be largely negative. The mentally 111 are regarded with fear, distrust, and dislike, and are thought to be unpredictable. The Illinois group concluded that the public is uninformed rather than misinformed about mental illness, they are unsure of their opinions and depend upon the experts for assurance. Negative attitudes toward the mentally 111 are based on the unpredictability of sick behavior. The public places value on the mental therapist, but not his methods. They want information to help relieve the personal threat that mental illness poses for them. They want solutions, not anxiety. Destruction of pre-existing information without providing new information results in negative attitudes. Another survey,11 conducted in 1960, of pOpular opinions and knowledge about mental illness produced and welfare, Public Health Service Publication 1045 (May, 1963): pp. 11-14. 11Paul V. Lemkau and Guido M. Crocetti, "An Urban Population's Opinion and Knowledge About Mental Illness," findings considerably different from most of the earlier surveys. The health authorities in Baltimore decided to secure information about public attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally ill, before establishing a plan to provide emergency and home care services for psychiatric patients, because the success of such a plan would depend to a large extent on community acceptance. Previous studies had characterized these attitudes as "denial, isolation, and rejection," but the Baltimore survey (1960), failed to support this point of view. The interview technique and a standard questionnaire was used to secure data about the opinions and beliefs of the sample. The population sampled was from a relatively low socioeconomic group with a median family income of $4,730. Forty per cent of the respondents were Black, the majority of whom had migrated to Baltimore from the South. Respondents in the study reported about the same degree of acquaintance with people who had been in a mental hospital as did the respondents in the National Opinion Research Center. There was a household survey done on the public image of mental heatlh services in New York City (1963), which tapped the public's knowledge and opinion about American Journal of Psychiatry, CXVIII, No. 8, (February, 1962), 692-700. 10 mental health care, appraisals of mental health facilities and professionals and attitudes toward the mentally ill.12 The findings showed that mental illness is not perceived as so strange a phenomena as may once have been the case. One out of two adults in New York City person- ally has known someone who has had help for mental or emotional problems. Yet not all the old views about mental illness have been completely dispelled. The public shares the view expressed in the report of the Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health that mental illness tends to repel people; but, interestingly, only a small minority admit to being repelled themselves by mental illness. It was also found that the mentally ill are not uniformly rejected. Guarded opinions, are expressed as to how closely one should associate with those known to have been mentally ill. At one extreme, seven out of ten would be willing to have former mental hospital patients as co-workers or neighbors; but less than one in four say they would be willing to share an apartment with a former mental hospital patient or to agree if someone in the family wanted to marry such a person. Many, however, qualify their opinion on this matter of "social distance" by saying it 12Jack Elinson, Elena Padilla, and Marvin E. Perkins, Public Image of MentalHealth Services (New York: Mental Health Materials Center, Inc., 1967)} p. xiv. 11 would depend on the nature of the illness a person has had. Despite the manifest importance of this area, there has been little systematic research directed toward the finding of relationships between attitudes toward the mentally ill and such variables as symptom reduction, successful rehabilitation of former patients, hospital discharge rates, etc. Research of this kind depends upon the adequate conception and objective measurement of attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally 111.13 In addition to taking a look at the views of the people toward the mentally ill, researchers have also been interested and concerned about their opinions of the mental health professional who treats them, the Psychiatrist. This too, can have a great deal to do with the successful treatment and recovery of the mentally 111. During the summer of 1950 a study was made of the attitudes of the citizens of Louisville, Kentucky, on the general subject of mental health. It was found that, "most people favored trying the family doctor, the clergyman, members of the family, or friends before 'resorting' to psychiatry for help with emotional disorders."l4 Nunnally and Kittross in 1958, did a semantic differential study to assess public attitudes toward mental 13Cohen and Struening, op. cit., pp. 349-60. 14Albert Q. Maisel, "When Would You Consult a Psychiatrist?", Colliers Magazine (May 12, 1957). 12 health professionals.15 Questionnaires were sent to 239 panel members of the Institute of Communication Research, and 207 (87 per cent) returned it. The findings revealed a very high, positive, public attitude toward the pro- fessionals as a whole. Attitudes were moderately high toward the mental health professionals, although they valued professional workers who treat physical disorders more than those who treat mental disorders. (A comparison of their data with the data obtained from this is presented in Appendix Tables B and C.) The report of findings of the household survey on public image of mental health services in New York City had this to say concerning the mental health professionals: There is considerable ignorance and confusion as to the roles played by the various mental health pro- fessionals and as to what their qualifications are. For example, many still cannot distinguish between psychiatrist and psychologists, nearly half the public not knowing that psychiatrist is a medical doctor. Mental health professionals are not very well known to the general public as personal acquaintances on a social level, in contrasts with such health pro- fessionals as physicians, dentists, and nurses. The public is rather unaware of some of the leading institutions for the care of the mentally ill in the city. When considering the general standing of vari- ous occupations, the public rates psychiatrists lower than physicians, but higher than psychologists. Physicans are rated as high as judges, but not quite as high as scientists, who are rated highest. Psychiatrists are rated about the same as lawyers and dentists.16 15Jum C. Nunnally and John M. Kittross, "Public Attitudes Toward Mental Health Professionals," American Psychologist, XIII (1958), 589-94. 16Elinson, Padilla, and Perkins, op cit., p. xiv. 13 One of the problems in communicating information is the lack of clear and concise terms about mental health phenomena. Terms currently in use tend to be misleading, people are not sure what they mean, and some have strong negative connations. Nunnally recommends the construction of a new set of terms which will translate mental health phenomena into terms the public already understands. He also believes that the experts need to compile a list of new things to tell the public about mental illness and suggests the possibility of a series of "good" soap operas to be presented via the mass media. Nunnally states that whatever messages about mental illness are transmitted must be clear, interesting, and authoritative, and must sound certain, provide solutions, and reduce anxiety. CHAPTER III THE SAMPLE AND THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT This study investigates two samples of summer school students in sociology courses at Michigan State University, at two points in time; 1962 and 1971. The 1962 sample consisted of 215 students, and the 1971 sample consisted of 319 students. (Demographic characteristics of these samples are given in Appendix Table A.) When one does a study over or replicates a study, two questions usually arise: (1) Should one do it the same way it was done the first time, or (2) Should one change the procedures and instruments to alleviate some compli- cations that were revealed the first time? In this case, it was decided to do the research in 1971 the same way it‘ was done in 1962 for greater comparability. These samples are considered to be comparable for four basic reasons: 1. The investigations were conducted during the summer term of both years. 14 15 2. The samples were selected from the same courses (Sociology 241, 471, 432). 3. Both samples were administered the same instru- ments. 4. Both samples were asked the same questions regarding social background data. These investigations were conducted during the summer term of both years because of the somewhat older population and greater heterogeneity of the students who usually attend, thus providing a wider range of views. The instrument used to obtain data from these samples was the Semantic Differential Technique. (A c0py of the instrument is found in the Appendix. Notice that for half of the concepts the "favorable" end of the scales are listed first (relaxed-tense), and for the other half the "unfavorable" end of the scales are listed first (tense-relaxed). This was done to keep the respondents alert.) General Discussion of Instrument: The Semantic Differential The "Semantic Differential" is a combination of word associations and scaling techniques developed by 7 Osgood, Suci, and Tannenbaum (1957).1 It is a limited 17Charles E. Osgood, George J. Suci, and Percy H. Tannenbaum, The Measurement of Meaning (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1957). 16 association test measuring the meaning of a concept on bipolar adjectival scales (usually seven-point scales). When a concept is decoded by a subject, a complex reaction is assumed to occur, consisting of a pattern of these alternative bipolar reactions elicited with varying intensities. When the subject encodes this semantic state against the differential, his selection of directions (i.e., good vs. bad; strong vs. weak, etc.) is assumed to be co-ordinate with the reactions elicited by the concept, and his degree of polarization or extremeness (how far along the scales he checks) to be co-ordinate with the intensity of these reactions. Osgood suggests that the instrument measures connotative rather than denotative aspects of meaning. More precisely, he states: "It is also apparent that, contrary to my early expectations, these factors are more reactive in nature than sensory, more broadly affective than discriminatively cognitive and thus closer to connotative than to denotative aspects of meaning."18 Osgood, ep_al., in evaluating this instrument against the criteria of measurement, found some evidence to support the fact that it has objectivity, reliability, and validity: 18James G. Snider and Charles E. Osgood, eds., Semantic Differential Technique (Chicago, Ill.: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), p. 305. 17 l. Objectivity. The Semantic Differential yields quantitative data which are presumably verifiable, in the sense that other investigators can apply the same sets of scales to equivalent subjects and obtain essentially the same result. 2. Reliability. In the test form data for the factor analysis were collected, 40 of the 1,000 of them were selected at random and repeated. None of the subjects were aware that this had been done. The reliability coefficient was .85. 3. Validity. All of the data collected so far on severa problems display convincing face-validity and several direct experimental checks are planned. An instrument may be said to have face validity (Osgood, et al., 1957) to the extent that the distinctions ithrovides correspond with those which would be made by most observers without the aid of an instrument. Osgood, et a1. (1957) have given examples to support face val1dity of the semantic differential, where there is agreement between common-sense distinctions and those provided by the instrument.19 A series of recent experiments has attempted to determine the generality of the affective semantic space. Osgood and associates (1957) have reported the three dominant factors of meaning, which appear to organize this space. These most salient factors of meaning, labeled Evaluation, Potency, and Activity, have been found in many population samples with differ- ent linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Kumata and Schramn, 1956; Kumata, 1958; Miron, 1961; Osgood, 1962; Oyama, et al., 1962; Sagara, et al., 1961; Tanaka, 1962; Tr1andis and Osgood, 1958; Watanbe, et al., 1959). These previous studies offer empir1cal evidence that human beings utilize a similar semantic frame of reference irrespective of their linguistic and cultural background.20 Generally, the results are factor analyzed to arrive at a reduced number of factors believed to represent the main dimensions of "meaning" in terms of which the subjects respond. Osgood and associated report the lgIbid., p. 34. 20Snider and Osgood, op. cit., p. 289. 18 recurrence in many studies, using many different concepts and scales, of three general factors: Activity, and Potency. Evaluation, A fourth factor, Understandability, has occurred frequently in the studies of mental health concepts. The finding of understandability as a factor in ratings of mental health concepts was an important development in our studies. Understandability or rather the lack of it, is a very important component of public reaction to the mentally ill.21 The following chart will show which scales, used in this study, are found under each of these factors. FACTORS Evaluation (E) Potency (P) Activity (A) Understand- ability (U) Valuable- Worthless Clean- Dirty Safe- Dangerous Wise- Foolish Sincere- Insincere Relaxed-* Tense Strong- 9. Weak Rugged-** 10. Delicate Warm- Cold Fast- Slow 11. 12. Fred.- Unpred. Simple- Compli- cated *Secondary loading on Activity Factor. **Secondary loading on Evaluation Factor. 21 Nunnally, op. cit., p. 43. CHAPTER IV GENERAL HYPOTHESES Despite the increase in the number of studies concerning mental problems during the past two decades, there has been very little research dealing with con- ceptions and views towards mental illness and the mentally ill. As the researcher stated earlier, there has not been any comparable literature since Nunnally's book, Popular Conceptions of Mental Health, appeared in 1961. But with the little research that has been done, has come some increase in knowledge about mental illness. Because of this increase in knowledge one might reasonably expect comparable peOple to be somewhat more favorable or accepting toward the mentally ill. Much of the research concerning views toward mental illness has used the Opinion questionnaire to obtain data. Few, if any, has used the Semantic Differential Technique, thus providing no theoretical grounds for more specific hypotheses regarding scales and concepts. Since Osgood suggests that the instrument measures the connotative aSpects of meaning, and given the 19 20 reliability and stability of the scales, one would not expect very many changes in a short period of time. However, it is expected by the researcher that some changes will occur. The analysis at this point is exploratory to see just where these changes occur. Even though there were not any specific hypotheses formulated with respect to specific scales and concepts, there were four general hypotheses set forth. They are: Hypothesis 1: There will be general similarity between the responses of both samples--that is, the views will show considerable sta- bility over the period. Hypothesis 1a: The order of "favorableness" for concepts will be the same for both samples. Hypothesis lb: The scales will have the same general order for both samples. Hypothesis 2: There will be a trend toward more "favorableness" in the 1971 sample. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA The hypotheses stated in the preceding chapter imply the comparability of the two samples. Data are available for each sample with respect to: (1) age, (2) sex, (3) martial status, (4) major field of study, (5) year in school, (6) home community type, (7) home com- munity size, (8) whether or not home community is a suburb, (9) whether or not the student reported having had good friends who were mentally ill, and (10) whetheror not the student reported that any member of his family had ever been mentally ill (see Appendix Table A). There were statistically significant differences (by Chi—Square test) between the 1962 and 1971 samples with regard to six of the above characteristics; the exceptions--those indicating no difference--were: (6) community type, (7) community size, (9) friends mentally ill, and (10) family mentally 111. Although the foregoing could raise questions about the comparability of the samples, and various quantitative operations could be performed to "equate" the too samples 21 22 with respect to each of the above social characteristics, it was decided to directly compare the two samples without manipulation. An important factor in this decision was the fact that the samples were very similar with respect to the last two characteristics 1isted--friends mentally ill and family mentally 111. This matter is discussed further in the conclusions. There are twelve scales and eight concepts used in this study. All concepts were differentiated on the same twelve scales with scores ranging from 1 to 7. The concepts used in this study are: Most People, Psychiatrist, Mental Patient, Doctor, Average Man, Ex- Mental Patient, Insane People, and Me. The scales used are ("favorable" end listed first and assigned a value of 7): Relaxed-Tense, Strong-Weak, Predictable-Unpredictable,* Clean-Dirty, Fast-Slow,* Wise-Foolish, Safe-Dangerous, Warm-Cold,* Sincere-Insincere, Valuable-Worthless, Simple- Complicated,* Rugged-Delicate.* Hypothesis 1 states: There will be general similarity between the responses of both samples. Results: The relevant data are shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and in Figure 1. In Figure 1, the high corre- lation between the 96 scale-concept means for the two samples (shown in Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 1) is apparent. . *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbi- trar11y ass1gned on these scales, since they are not "evaluat1ve" scales. 23 wm.4 m4.m mo.m em.4 mm.4 o~.4 Ha.m m4.m m4.m x a ~4.N m4.m om.“ om.~ ma.m mo.m 4m.m oo.w mm.m umpmouaasooumaaeflm mm.m mm.m mm.m m~.m ao.4 mw.m em.m 44.4 «m.m omcmeucmxmamm ma.4 4N.N eo.m mm.4 $4.4 54.4 m~.4 ms.m Mm.m manmpoflnmuacsu.nwpm o~.4 m4.m am.m m4.4 Ho.4 mm.4 mm.4 40.4 mm.4 mpmofiamaucmmmsm 44.4 mm.m mm.m mm.4 44.4 No.4 em.m ma.4 me.m xmmzwwcorpm om.4 ow.m Ha.m 4m.4 NN.4 a4.4 am.4 m4.m mm.m scam-4..a Ne.4 Hm.m mo.m 44.4 Ne.4 mo.4 4e.m ~4.m no.4 amaaooa-mmwz mm.4 ma.m No.4 wa.4 44.4 mo.m 4m.m mm.m m4.m uaoouepwz ao.m ww.m N©.m om.m e4.m em.m ao.m ofl.o wa.o macromcwauwmmm m~.m 44.4 mm.4 aa.4 mm.m Ha.m am.m mH.o 40.6 whoocfimcH-wpmocam w4.m aH.4 m4.4 mm.m Hm.m 44.m 44.4 am.4 om.o Appfiauqamflo mm.m mm.4 mm.4 m~.m oo.m oe.m mo.o mm.m mm.o mamanuuozwmanmsams VA J JR dN d. V .d N G . mm 3 m; 4.1.... T .4 a m mm“ an am... mm m m m. a a u T. a u u an I. a moamom n... 4m“. 8 w... .L m. S 1. mudoocoo L . . yipu‘ .Amamuzv mumoocoo can mmamom HmwucoquMflo cavemamm co onEMm mmma you monoum cmwzxu. .H mqmzar 24 >4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 mm.m 4m.m 44.N 40.4 m>.m 44.m 4N.m m4.m 4m.m topmofladsoonmaas4m mm.m wa.m mo.“ Hm.m 4~.m ~4.m 04.: mm.m m>.4 mmcmaupmxmamm f"\ N o F'\ 44.4 44.4 04.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 44. 04004400-004404 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 m4404040.4040-.4044 04.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 04. 40.4 44.4 04.4 40431400444 04.4 44.4 44.4 04.4 40.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 3044:4400 44.4 04.4 44.4 04.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 4444oomuom42 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 0400:0442 40.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 44.4 40.4 0.4 44.4 44.4 400404cm0ummmm 04.4 44.4 44.4 04.4 40.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 04.4 090004ms4umpmoc44 44.4 04.4 04.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 40.4 44.4 44940-04040 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 44.4 00.4 44.4 mmm4npuozum4pma4m> x. 4.4 4.4. .44 4.4 44 4 .4 4 OS n+u OS 1.. UB K 0 d W 1.1. d n... IN I o 1. mmeom T. 88 T. 88 B u. 0 . 38 HT. 8 uu cd I. J n... 1...... a E B 1. T. 1 1L. 8 n... mpaoocoo .4444uzv mummocoo can 004004 HmwucmumMMHo 049cmsmm co mHQEMm 4044 404 004004 cmmzun.~ a 25 44. 44. 44. 04. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 4 440444444404 4 44. N4. 40. 40. 04. 40. 04. 44. 44. 44440444200-444444 0m. 40. 44. 44. m. 44. 44. 44. 44. magma-4044444 44. 44. 44. 40.- 44. 40.- 44. 44. 04. 44444044444:4-.4444 44. 40.- 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44404440-444444 44. mm.- 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 40.- 44. 4442-440444 44. 44.- 44. 44. 44. 44. 44.- 44. 44. 2044-4444 44. 40. 44. 44. 44. 44. 04. 44. 44. 4444004-4444 44. 44. 40.- 44. 44. 44.. 44. 04.- 44. 4400-5442 cm. mo. 44. mm. m4. Om. 40. m4. mm. machowawoummwm mm. :4. m4.- 44. am. 04. 00. em. on. mumon4mcH-mhmoc4m 44. 40. 40. mm. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44. 44440-44440 44. 00. 40. 40. 44. 44. 44. 40. 44. 444444402-44445444 X. .dI d” .dN ran”. uAv Mu W nOU ) .ww Wm mm m”. Wm M W 439% m 44.4.. .44.... .4... am 44 w .4. H . 88 WT. 8 WW 8 B 9 B 1- J I U m s O n... mv mpnmocoo .4444IN444 .mummocoo nan mm4mom 4MHucm4mmm4a 04uamsmm no mmocmnmmmwn cums- .m manta 26 7.0 XX 6.0 {5:1 X x g .1‘: g‘x H K . x f . .33 4’85 2. x“ ‘5‘ g () §¥§z .' 81-. x 39‘ x x I ’(F' .x lg * xx 1' I 0982 '8 1" m K K 3.0 ,‘ J‘ i X “5.5 f ’9‘ 2.07 9.0 3.0 11.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 Scale-Concept Means, 1971 Figure 1. Semantic differential scale-concept means for 1962 sample (N=215) and 1971 sample (N=319). 27 The Pearsonian Correlation Coefficient is .982. Hy- pothesis 1 is supported. Hypothesis 1a states: The order of "favorableness" for concepts will be the same for both samples. Results: The data in Tables 1 and 2 have been rearranged so that means for concepts (and scales) are in descending order, from "more favorable" to "less favorable"; from left to right as shown in Tables 1 and 2, and in Figure 2. The order of concept means is identical for both samples. Hypothesis la is supported. Hypothesis 1b states: The scales will have the same general order for both samples. Results: The data in Tables 1 and 2 have been rearranged so that means for scales (and concepts) are in descending order, from "more favorable" to "less favorable"; from left to right as shown in Tables 1 and 2, and in Figure 3. The order of scale means is identical for both samples with the exception of two scales, "Rugged-Delicate" and "Predictable-Unpredictable." Hypothesis 1b is sup- ported. Hypothesis 2 states: There will be a trend toward more "favorableness" in the 1971 sample. Results: Table 3 shows 1971 means subtracted from comparable 1962 means. Of the 96 differences, all but 10 1962 1971 5'50 Doctor - 5.30 k"‘~""“““‘-‘~“-----# P Me d Doctor 5,10 Psychiatrist 1 b 90 ’ Me h.70 AVOPBFO Man 4 Psychiatrist Ex-Mental Patient Moat Peoole Average Man Ex-Mental Patient Most People h.3o C. . J‘ O h.30 3.90 3.70 Mental Patient, 3.50 Insane People - Mental Patient 3.30 , Insane People Figure 2. Mean scores for eight concepts, on semantic differential, 1962 and 1971 samples. 29 5 90 1962 1971 5'70 Valuable-Worthless - 5‘50 Clean-Dirty mq mufiafinmnoum--.q mamas 32 Concepts 1. Doctor-—The highest rated concept for both samples (6.55, 1962; 6.34, 1971). He is viewed as being favorable on all scales partaking of the "favorableness" dimension. The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) occurred on these scales: Rugged-Delicate* .55; Relaxed-Tense .47; Sincere-Insincere .46; Warm-Cold* .44; Safe-Dangerous .38; Wise-Foolish .31; Clean-Dirty .29; Valuable-WOrthless .21. In each case, there was a decline in "favorableness" from 1962 to 1971. 2. Hef-Respondents in both samples considered them- selves to be toward the "favorable" end on all scales (except "Simple-Complicated"). However in the 1971 sample, the scale "Relaxed-Tense" had a mean score of 3.95, which indicates they viewed themselves as slightly tense. The statistically significant changes occurred on these scales: Predictable-Unpredictable* .69; Rugged-Delicate* .56; Clean-Dirty .28; Wise-Foolish .26; Sincere-Insincere .26; Safe-Dangerous .18. With respect to each of the scales, all means were greater than 4.00-—that is, toward the "favorable" end for both samples. 3. Psychiatrist--There was a relatively great decline across all scales for this concept, with the exception of *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 33 "Fast-Slow,"* where there was a slight increase in mean score for 1971 (4.39, 1962; 4.55, 1971). The Psychiatrist is viewed as "less favorable" than the Doctor by both samples. This seems to support previous findings that people tend to view those who treat physical disorders more favorably than those who treat mental disorders. This concept had the largest number of statistically significant shifts. They are on these scales: Warm— Cold* .68; SinCere-Insincere .66; Safe-Dangerous .62; Predictable-Unpredictable* .55; Valuable—Worthless .51; Wise-Foolish .50; Rugged-Delicate* .45; Clean-Dirty .43; Relaxed-Tense .31; Simple-Complicated* .30; Strong-weak .28. Since the psychiatrist is the key professional person involved in mental health matters, and since the Semantic Differential is viewed as capable of revealing rich connotative material (resembling projective data), it may be useful to attempt to characterize the image of the psychiatrist which these data suggest: a. In both years, the overall evaluation is clearly "favorable," but this is tempered by indication that there is definitely greater favorableness *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 34 accorded "Doctor," and slightly greater favorable- ness accorded "Me." Within this favorableness context, the data suggest that, relative to other dimensions covered by the scales used, "Psychiatrist" was seen as somewhat less "safe," less "warm," less "fast," and more "tense" than would have been expected from the response trends to all the concepts presented the subjects. These indications occurred for both years. Although the general indication of the data was that the eight concepts, as differentiated by the twelve scales, were remarkably similar in the two samples, the concept "Psychiatrist" was the least_ stable: (1) the general "favorableness" of psychiatrist declined from 1962 to 1971 more than any other concept (the mean difference for Psychiatrist was .42 units on a seven-unit total scale--see bottom line of Table 3), and (2) on eleven of twelve scales the decline in "favorable- ness" for psychiatrist was statistically signifi- cant--see Table 4--more than any other concept. An ad_hoc summary interpretation might be that: (1) despite his professional identification, the image of the psychiatrist is somewhat "tainted" by 35 reflective association with the characteristics of his clients, and (2) in a generally high stable attitudinal sector (popular conceptions of mental health), the psychiatrist may be undergoing some perceptible decline in status. 4. Average Man--Respondents in both samples view the average man as being relatively tense (3.83, 1962; 3.47, 1971). The scale, "Simple-Complicated"* is the lowest rated scale for both samples. The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) occurred on the following scales: Sincere-Insincere .40; Warm-Cold* .39; Relaxed-Tense .36; Safe-Dangerous .30;‘Wise-Foolish .25; Clean-Dirty .25; Fast-Slow* .24; Strong-weak .23; Rugged-Delicate* .19. 5. Ex-Mental Patient--In the 1971 sample the scales "Relaxed-Tense" (3.63) and "Rugged-Delicate"* (3.74) were toward the "unfavorable" end. They considered the ex- mental patient to be tense and delicate. The statistically significant changes are: Predictable-Unpredictable* .43; Safe—Dangerous .42; Rugged-Delicate* .38; Relaxed-Tense .35; Wise-Foolish .29; Clean-Dirty .18. 6. Most People--Both samples considered most peOple to be complicated and tense. In addition the 1971 sample viewed them as foolish, weak, and delicate. The *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 36 statistically significant changes (1962-1971) are: Sincere-Insincere .59; Warm-Cold* .55; Wise—Foolish .54; Strong-weak .38; Safe-Dangerous .35; Clean-Dirty .33; Relaxed-Tense .41; Rugged-Delicate* .23; Fast-Slow* .18. 7. Mental Patient-~This concept was viewed favorably on only four scales by both samples. They are: "Valuable- Worthless," "Clean-Dirty," "Sincere-Insincere," and "Warm- Cold."* The statistically significant changes are: Strong-Weak .56; Fast-Slow* .48; Rugged-Delicate* .36; Relaxed—Tense .28; Wise-Foolish .18. 8. Insane People--Rated the lowest among all eight concepts. The scale "Valuable-Worthless," had the same mean score for both samples (4.59). Which says they are considered to be valuable. Only three of the twelve scales were viewed toward the "favorable" dimension; they are: "Valuable-Worthless," "Clean-Dirty," and "Sincere- Insincere" (only in 1962). The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) are: Safe—Dangerous .65; Sincere- Insincere .54; Warm-Cold* .31. This concept has the least number of significant changes. Figure 4 gives a graphic presentation of mean scores in both samples for the concepts, "Doctor" and "Insane PeOple." They represent the two extremes of *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 1962 37 Key: ® Doctor 5) Insane PeOple Valuable-Worthless Clean-Dirty Sincere-Insincere Safe-Dangerous Warm-Cold Wise-Foolish Fast-Slow Strong—Weak Rugged-Delicate 10 Predictable-Unpredictable WK: ll Relaxed-Tense a ‘ l2 Simple-Complicated 6.0 'gggb \OOD-QO‘UIF’le-J 5.0 a" “*1. a $3 ‘ 5b! LLOO $6 “‘1 00s CM 6%).) 300 . 140 f; Q§a ?.0 ‘ 2.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 6.0. 1971 Figure 4. Mean scores for concepts "Doctor“ and "Insane People." 38 of responses revealed by the data. In Figure 5, a small profile of each concept is presented showing the mean scores on Semantic Differential scales for both samples. Scales l. Valuable-Worthless-—The highest rated of the twelve scales with a somewhat higher mean score in the 1962 sample than in the 1971 sample (5.63, 1962; 5.48, 1971). "Doctor" (6.55) and "Psychiatrist" (6.08) are the concepts with the higher mean scores on this scale for 1962. For 1971 "Doctor" (6.34) and "Me" (5.90) have the higher mean scores. In both cases Doctor is considered the most valuable. For all concepts except "Insane People," which remained the same (4.59), there was a decline in favorable- ness from 1962-1971 for this scale. The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) occurred on these concepts: Psychiatrist .51; Doctor .21. 2. Clean-Dirty--The concept "Insane People" is rated lowest for both samples. The concepts "Doctor" (6.56, 1962; 6.27, 1971) and "Me" (6.29, 1962; 6.01, 1971) have the higher mean scores for both samples. The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) occurred on the following concepts: Psychiatrist .43; Most People .33; Doctor .29; Me .28; Average Man .25; Ex-Mental Patient .18. 3. Sincere-Insincere--The concepts with the higher mean values for both samples are, "Me" (6.15, 1962; 5.89, 39 Figure 5. Eight profiles of Semantic Differential Concepts, 1962 and 1971 Samples. o - 1962 x - 1971 Valuable Clean Sincere Safe Warm Wise Fast * Strong :1- Rugged Predictablese Relaxed Simple -* 7 Valuable s Clean Sincere Safe Warm * Wise Fast 5: Strong :1- Rugged Predictable Relaxed a- Simple a- 40 "DOCTOR" "ME" *Non Significant Changes Worth le s 3 Dirty Insincere Dan.erous Col Foolish Slow Weak Delicate Unpredictable Tense Ccmplicated Worthless Dirty Insincere Dangerous Cold Foolish Slow Weak Delicate Unpredictable Tense Complicated o - 1962 x - 1971 Valuable Clean Sincere Safe Warm Wise Fast. * Strong Rugged Predictable Relaxed Simple 7 Valuable * Clean Sincere Safe Warm Wise Fast Strong Rugged Predictable * Relaxed Simple * *Non Significant Changes 41 "PSYCHIATRIST" "AVERAGE MAN" Worthless Dirty Insincere Dan,erous Col Foolish Slow Weak Del icate Unpredictable Tense Complicated Worthless Dirty Insincere Dangerous Cold Foolish Slow Weak Delicate unpredictable Tense Complicated 42 o - 1962 x - 1971 "EXFMENTAL PATIENT" Valuable a Clean Sincere % Safe Warm * Wise Fast * Strong s: Rugged Predictable Relaxed Simple fl- 1 "2:3. x "MOST PEOPLE" Valuable * Clean Sincere Safe Warm Wise Fast Strong Rugged Predictable * Relaxed Simple & *Non Significant Changes Worthless Dirty Insincere Da erous Col Foolish Slow Weak Delicate Unpredictable Relaxed Complicated Worthless Dirty Insincere Dan erous Col Foolish Slow Weak Delicate Unpredictable Tense Complicated 43 o - 1962 x - 1971 "MENTAL PATIENT" 7 6 1 Valuable * Worthless Clean a Dirty Sincere * Insincere Safe * Dangerous Warm fi- 001d Wise Foolish Fast Slow Strong Weak Rugged Delicate Predictable.: Unpredictable Relaxed Tense Simple * Complicated "INSANE PEOPLE" 7 64 S h 3 2 l Valuable :: Worthless Clean a Dirty Sincere ' Insincere Safe ‘~::~ ” Dan erous 'Warm ‘(gififfd Col Wi se -..- ‘ Fooli sh Fhst & Slow Strong .. ‘ >, Weak ZRugped w 11 Delicate iPredictable we 1‘34 Unpredictable Relaxed w ‘42; Tense Simple * Complicated *Non Significant Changes 44 1971) and "Doctor" (6.06, 1962; 5.60, 1971). The re- spondents of both samples seem to consider themselves to be most sincere. The statistically significant changes are: Psychiatrist .66; Most People .59; Insane People .54; Doctor .46; Average Man .40; Me .26. 4. Safe-Dangerous--The concepts "Me" (6.16, 1962; 5.98, 1971) and "Doctor" (6.12, 1962; 5.74, 1971) have the higher mean scores. In both cases respondents considered themselves safest of all. The statistically significant changes are: Insane People .65; Psychiatrist .62; Ex-Mental Patient .42; Doctor .38; Most People .35; Average Man .30; Me .18. "Insane People" has the greatest amount of change. 5. Warm-Cold*--"Insane People" is the lowest rated concept for both samples and it had the least amount of change. The higher mean scores for both samples, were on these concepts, "Me" (5.55, 1962; 5.65, 1971) and "Doctor" (5.48, 1962; 5.04, 1971). The statistically significant shifts are: Psychiatrist .68; Most People .55; Doctor .44; Average Man .39; Insane People .31. "Psychiatrist" has the greatest amount of change. 6. Wise-Foolish--"Mental Patient" (3.69) and "Insane PeOple" (3.31) are considered more foolish in the 1962 *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 45 sample. "Most People" (3.90), "Mental Patient" (3.51), and "Insane People" (3.30) are considered foolish in the 1971 sample. The concepts with the higher mean values are, "Doctor" (6.08, 1962; 5.77, 1971) and "Psychiatrist" (5.74, 1962; 5.24, 1971). The Doctor is viewed as wisest of all. The statistically significant changes are: Most People .54; Psychiatrist .50; Doctor .31; Ex-Mental Patient .29; Me .26; Average Man .25; Mental Patient .18. 7. Fast-Slow*--The lower rated concepts are "Mental Patient" and "Insane People." The higher mean scores for both samples are for the concepts, "Doctor" (5.33, 1962; 5.17, 1971) and "Me" (5.13, 1962; 4.69, 1971). The sta- tistically significant changes (1962—1971) are for these concepts: Mental Patient .48; Average Man .24; Most People .18. 8. Strong:Weak--"Mental Patient" and "Insane People" are viewed as extremely weak. "Doctor" (5.73, 1962; 5.60, 1971) and "Psychiatrist" (5.37, 1962; 5.09, 1971), have the higher mean scores. "Doctor" is considered to be the strongest of all. The statistically significant changes are: Mental Patient .56; Most People .38; Psychiatrist .28; Average Man .23. *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 46 9. Rugged-Delicate*--Higher mean scores are on the concepts, "Doctor" (4.92, 1962; 4.37, 1971) and "Me" (4.61, 1962; 4.05, 1971). The statistically significant changes are: Me .56; Doctor .55; Psychiatrist .45; Ex— Mental Patient .38; Mental Patient .36; Most People .23; Average Man .19. 10. Predictable-Unpredictable*--"Mental Patient" and "Insane People" are viewed as extremely unpredictable. "Doctor" (5.33, 1962; 5.23, 1971) and "Me" (5.18, 1962; 4.49, 1971) have the higher mean scores. The statistically significant changes are: Me .69; Psychiatrist .55; Ex— Mental Patient .43. ll. Relaxed-Tense-—"Average Man," "Most People," "Mental Patient," "Insane People,’ are viewed as tense by respondents in the 1962 sample. In the 1971 sample "Me," "Average Man," "Ex-Mental Patient," "Most People," "Mental Patient," "Insane PeOple,' are viewed as tense. The concepts "Psychiatrist" (5.27, 1962; 4.96, 1971) and "Doctor" (5.22, 1962; 4.75, 1971) have the higher mean scores. In this case the Psychiatrist is considered the most relaxed. The statistically significant changes (1962-1971) occurred on these concepts: Doctor .47; *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 47 Most People .41; Average Man .36; Ex-Mental Patient .35; Psychiatrist .31; Mental Patient .28. 12. Simple—Complicated*--The lowest rated scale for both samples. For the 1962 sample the higher mean scores are, "Average Man" (3.03) and "Mental Patient" (2.92); for 1971, "Average Man" (2.96) and "Most People" (2.76). The means across all concepts are toward the "unfavorable" end. The statistically significant change occurred on the concept "Psychiatrist" (.30). "Second Analysis," on Semantic Differential Factors A second analysis was performed to see what differ— ences occur using the factors rather than the individual scale responses. For the Evaluation factor, scores were averaged over the scales valuable-worthless, clean—dirty, sincere-insincere, safe-dangerous, wise-foolish, relaxed- tense. For the Potency factor, scores were averaged over the scales strong-weak, and rugged-delicate.* For the Activity factor, scores were averaged over the scales warm-cold,* and fast-slow.* For the Understandability factor, scores were averaged over the scales predictable— unpredictable* and simple-complicated* (see Tables 5, 6, and 7). *The "favorable" and "unfavorable" ends are arbitrarily assigned on these scales, since they are not "evaluative" scales. 48 A sm.s Hm.m ss.m am.s mm.s sm.s ss.s Ha.s mH.m 4 Amy speaspm 24 «Tm mm.m 3..” $.m m~.m oesm mmé mm.m uncmumsmmru. 4m.: mm.m wq.m wa.n Hm.4 wm.4 mm.q mm.: mm.m hmv mocopom ” as.s ss.mm ma.m sa.: Hm.s ss.s mm.s m.m os.m Ame spaswsoa oo.m ~©.m mm.m om.q mo.m Ho.m mm.m ab.m mo.b Abv soapmsam>m . :. zinll:?:] nuanced x manomm_ pcmflpmm manomm pcmfibmm sex pmwnp m: nepoom u mcemcH amuse: use: amuse: mmmnm>< nwflzehmm. uxm mpomocoo .Amamnzc mamemm «was .muouomm Hmaucmummman oaucmsmm no mmuoom Gmmzll.m mande 49 mH.4 :m.m um.m HH.: HH.4 mm.: mm.4 No.4 om.m x - Ame spaawrm mm.m mm.m om.m mm.m mm.m m~.m mm.m b:.m n.m -vsmpmcmecm mo.4 ma.m mo.m em.m mm.m bm.4 m:.g om.: wa.: Amv succeed m4.4 om.m m~.m H4.e em.4 sm.: mm.n om.m oa.m Ame messapoa as.s ms.m aa.m sm.s ms.s ma.s am.m :4.m 4s.m flee cessmgflqss ” «unseen x madomm pcmwpmm oadomm phoneme so: pmwsp nL nonooo I ocwmcH amuse: pmoz Hopscz mmmhm>< umflnommm I uxm mpaoocoo .Amamuzc mamsmm Haas .muouomm Hmaucoummmaa oaucmsmm co mmuoom :mmzun.m mamas 50 am. so. Hm. cm. 4m. Hm. mm. mm. M Ame spaawsm mH. mH. mo. mo.u Hm. m0. m4. mH. necmpmammcm em. ma.- es. cm. em. am. am. am. Ame escapes Hm. mo. om. um. 4H. mm. em. 0m. va spH>Hpor mu. mm. on. mm. mm. mm. om. mm. nee cespmsam>m whopomm x mHoomm cmwpmm mHoowm pcmemm cox pman heaven I mammsH House: pmoz Hmpcmz mmmnm> uchemmm nxm muomocoo .Hamaumemfl .muouomm Hmaucmummmao unnamEmm co mmocmummuna Gmmzll.h mam¢9 51 The evaluation factor is the highest rated for both samples; the understandability factor is the lowest rated for both samples, with the activity factor and potency factor falling between these extremes, respectively. There is a trend toward higher mean scores over factors in 1962. The greatest change in mean scores among factors from 1962-1971 occurred in the evaluation factor (.28 difference). The least amount of change was in the under- standability factor, (.19 difference). There seems to have been complete agreement between the two samples concerning the rating of the understandability factor across concepts. Among the concepts, "Doctor" is rated highest on all factors, though with low understandability on the understandability factor for both samples. To compare this concept with the other professional, the Psychiatrist, we find that this concept is rated lower (though favorably) on all factors. Even on the understandability factor. This is an interesting finding because this factor was found by Nunnally to occur most often in studies of mental— health concepts, and one expect the concept "Psychiatrist" to be rated slightly higher than the concept "Doctor" on this factor. The image of the Psychiatrist seems to have shifted even more over time (1962—1971) in comparison to that of "Doctor." Even though there was a decline in the overall mean score for the concept "Doctor" (.28) in 1971, 52 it was not as great as for the concept "Psychiatrist" (.39). The greatest shift for "Psychiatrist" was on the evaluation factor (.50), and secondly on the under— standability factor (.43). Toward the other extreme, we find the concepts "Mental Patient" and "Insane People." There seems to be agreement between the samples on these concepts, because they are rated lowest (unfavorably) and even more so in 1971. "Insane People" is rated lower than "Mental Patient" by both samples. An explanation for this could be that the concept "Insane PeOple" carries a somewhat "less favorable" connotation that the concept "Mental Patient." The least amount of change among concepts occurred with the concept "Insane People" (.07 diff.), which says that since 1962, views have not changed very much on this concept for this study. "Ex-Mental Patient" seems to go along favorably with the concepts, "Most People, "Average Man, and "Me." CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS we began this investigation with a look at the general problem concerning mental illness in our society today. Our purpose has been to see what changes occur in the views of two comparable samples of college students at Michigan State University, investigated at two points in time (1962 and 1971). Identical data were secured from 215 students in selected sociology classes in 1962 and from 319 students in the same classes in 1971. The Semantic Differential Technique was used to obtain data from the samples. The consideration involved in the choice of this instrument include: (1) it probes the psychological meanings and associative connotations of the scales and concepts in the language repertory of the subjects, thus avoiding, it is hoped, some of the "facade response" limitations of more direct questions; (2) at the same time, it provides the advantage of quantitative data; and (3) since this technique has been used very heavily in the investigation of a wide range of 53 54 social psychological questions, the present results can be compared and contrasted with a great amount of other research. There were four general hypotheses constructed. They are: Hypothesis 1: There will be general similarity between the responses of both samples--that is, the views will show considerable sta- bility over the period. ‘ Hypothesis la: The order of "favorableness" for concepts will be the same for both samples. Hypothesis lb: The scales will have the same general order for both samples. Hypothesis 2: There will be a trend toward more "favorableness" in the 1971 sample. Hypotheses 1, la, and lb, were supported by the data and Hypothesis 2 was refuted. A conclusion of importance is that the ordering of concepts were identical for both samples (1962 and 1971), and the ordering of scales were the same with the exception of "Predictable-Unpredictable" and "Rugged-Delicate." This stability of response patterns over a nine year period argues strongly for the reliability of data from the Semantic Differential Technique, when group means are used, and also indicates great stability in the views of college students with regard to mental health concepts. The Pearsonian Correlation between the 96 scale-concept means for 1962 and 1971 was startlingly high--.982. 55 The data revealed that the concept "Doctor" was rated higher than the concept “Psychiatrist" across the scales for both years. Those concepts that are directly related to mental illness, "Mental Patient" and "Insane People," were the lower rated concepts. "Ex-Mental Patient" was viewed favorably along with the concepts, "Most People," "Me," and "Average Man." For each concept there was a decline in favorableness" from 1962 to 1971.* This decline in "favorableness" could be a result of the differences between the samples in their social characteristics. The 1962 and 1971 samples differed significantly in age, sex, marital status, major, year in school, and whether or not their home community was a suburb. The two samples were nevertheless directly compared since: (1) The foregoing social characteristics are not independent of one another, but are complexly inter-related. An investigation of these relationships would have taken us far afield into an investigation of the assumption that these characteristics differentially affect Semantic Differential response tendencies. (2) From the purely sociological standpoint it can be argued that the foreoing is not immediately relevant inasmuch as the two samples are sociologically comparable by definition, *A second analysis was carried out using the average of the scales composing the various Semantic Differential factors. The results were highly similar. 56 as representing persons in the same position in a social system at two points in time. The data from this study tend to support the findings from previous studies, that people are still not very accepting toward the mentally ill despite the increase in knowledge about this area today. The professional (Psychiatrist) who treats them is not looked upon very favorably in comparison to the medical doctor. At the same time it should be noted that the ex-mental patient is viewed the same as essentially "normal" people. Since no one really knows whether college students' ideas are different from those of the general public, this could be an area for future research. However if they are not different, then the views of college students can be generalized. For those who are in college today will probably be the influential persons in their reSpective communities and set the tone of tomorrow. BIBLIOGRAPHY BI BLIOGRAPHY Action for Mental Health. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1961. Adis-Castro, Gonzalo, and Waisanen, Frederick B. "Attitudes Toward Mental Illness: Some Socio-Economic and Modernization Correlative." San Jose, Costa Rica (October 15, 1965). Cohen, Jacob, and Struening, E. L. "Opinions About Mental Illness in the Personnel of Two Large Mental Hospitals." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LXIV, No. 5 (May, 1962), 349-60. Cumming, Elaine, and Cumming, John. Closed Ranks. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. Elinson, Jack; Padilla, Elina; and Perkins, Marvin B. Public Image of Mental Health Services. New York: Mental Health Materials Center, Inc., 1967. Halpert, Harold P. Surveys of Public Opinions and Attitudes About Mental Health. Public Health Service Publication No. 1045, May, 1963. Hollingshed, August B., and Redlich, Frederick C. Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc., 1958. Lemkau, Paul V., and Crocetti, Guido M. "An Urban Popu— lation's Opinion and Knowledge About Mental Illness." American Journal of Psychiatry, CXVIII, No. 8 (February, 1962), 692-700. Maisel, Albert Q. "When Would You Consult a Psychiatrist?" Collier's Magazine (May 12, 1957). Marks, 1. M. Patterns of Meaning in Psychiatric Patients. London: Oxford University Press, 1965. 57 58 Nunnally, Jum C. Popular Conceptions of Mental Health. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1961. , and Kittross, John M. "Public Attitudes Toward Mental Health Professionals." American Psychologist, XIII (1958), 589-94. Osgood, Charles E.; Suci, George J.; and Tannenbaum, Percy H. The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1957. Rose, Arnold M. Mental Health and Mental Disorder. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1955. Scheff, Thomas J. "The Role of the Mentally Ill and the Dynamics of Mental Disorder: A Research Framework." Sociometry, XXVI (1963), 436-53. Snider, James G., and Osgood, Charles Ed., eds. Semantic Differential Technique. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969. Spitzer, Stephan P., and Denzin, Norman K. The Mental Patient: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1968. Zubin, Joseph, and Freyhan, Fritz, A., eds. Social Psychiatry, New York: Grune & Stratton, Inc., 1968. APPENDICES APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC DATA, 1962 SAMPLE AND 1971 SAMPLE OF SUMMER SCHOOL SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES TABLE A-1.--Demographic Data, 1962 Sample and 1971 Sample of Summer School Sociology Students, Michigan State Uni- versity, With Statistical Significance of Differences. 1962 1971 N % N % Age 18-19 15 7.0 39 12.2 20-21 53 24.7 122 38.2 22-29 81 37.6 126 39.5 30 and over 66 30.7 32 10.1 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = 40.737 p<.001 Sex Male 116 54.0 140 43.9 Female 99 46.0 179 56.1 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = 5.213 p<.05 Marital Married 101 47.0 111 34.8 Single 102 47.4 206 64.6 No Response 12 5.6 2 .6 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = 11.129 p<.001 Major Social Sciences 59 27.4 130 40.8 Education 114 53.1 78 24.5 All Other 42 19.5 111 34.7 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = 46.028 p<.001 59 60 TABLE A-1.--Continued. 1962 1971 N % N % Year in School Freshman and Sophomore 15 7.0 34 10.6 Junior 29 13.5 91 28.5 Senior 59 27.4 130 40.8 Master's Candidate 80 37.2 54 17.0 Doctoral Candidate 32 14.9 10 3.1 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = 64.842 p<.001 Community Type Farm or Country 46 21.4 63 19.7 Town or City 169 78.6 256 80.3 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = .212 Non Significant Community Size Less than 20,000 109 50.7 145 45.5 20,000-99,000 48 22.3 81 25.3 100,000 and over 58 27.0 93 29.2 215 100.0 215 100.0 Chi-square = 1.454 p<.50 Non Significant Suburb Yes 39 18.1 118 37.0 No 176 89.1 201 63.0 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square 21.987 p<.001 61 TABLE A-1.--Continued. 1962 1971 N % N % Friends Mentally Ill No 142 66.0 204 63.9 Yes 73 34.0 115 36.1 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = .246 Non Significant Family Mentally Ill No 162 75.3 232 72.7 Yes 53 24.7 _§1_ 27.3 215 100.0 319 100.0 Chi-square = .455 Non Significant APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF MEAN SCORES, ILLINOIS SAMPLE (NUNNALLY, 1958) AND MICHIGAN SAMPLE (1971), FOR TEN SCALES AND FOUR CONCEPTS, ON SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL TABLE B-1.--Comparison of Mean Scores, Illinois Sample (Nunnally, 1958) and Michigan Sample (1962), for Ten Scales and Four Concepts, on Semantic Differential. 62 Psychia- Mental Me trist Patient Valuable- Ill. E.%5 . .06 ,. Worthless Mich. 6.55 5.93 6.08 ho93 Diff. .11 ‘ -.h9 -.02 -.15 Sincere- I11. 6.b6 6.22 6.07 3.86 Insincere Mich. 6.06 6.15 5.89 h.93 Diff. .hO .07 .18 -.07 Safe- 111. 6.27 6.18 5.69 2.5L Dangerous Mich. 6.1? 6.16 5.09 3.62 Diff. .15 .02 .00 -.08 ( Warm- Ill. 5055 5059 h093 30h? 001d MiChe 504-18 5055 50211 (1007 Diff. .07 .0h .31 -.60 Fast- 111. 5.02 b.86 .32 3.55 510W Mich. 5.33 5.13 b.39 3.91 Diff. -.31 -.27 -.07 -.36 Strong- 111. 6.10 5.30 5.h5 2.75 Weak MiChe 5073 (4095 5037 3038 Diff. , .37 .35 .08 -.63 Rugged- I110 502, 4108’! (4.60 , .416 Delicate Mich. .92 h.6l h.33 3.59 Diff. .31 .23 .27 -.13 Predictable—Ill. 5.88 5.2h b.81 1.69 Unpredict. Mich. 5.33 5.18 b.78 2.67 Diff. .55 .06 .03 -.98 Relaxed- 111. 5.56 1.50 5.11 1.72 Tense Mich. 5.22 b.16 5.27 2.33 lefo 03h 0314 .141 “.61 63 TABLE B-l.--Continued, Simple- 111. 3.h6 h.h3 Complicated Mich. 2.53 2.60 lef0 .93 I 1.83 , 111. 5.61 .05 L93“ Mich. 5.32 .0h Dir L1 gig9 .01 TABLE C-1.--Continued, 65 Simple- Ill.‘ 3.b6 h.h3 Complicated Mich. 2.3h 2.h3 Diff. .12 Ill. 5.61 .0 Mean Mich. L5.01 h.82 Diff. .60 2.00 APPENDIX D A STUDY OF WORD MEANINGS' (SEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL QUESTIONNAIRE) Department of Sociology Michigan State University 7-71 A STUDY OF WORD MEANINGS The object of this study is to find out how you would describe various kinds of peeple. On each of the following pages there is a different kind of person for you to describe. You are asked to do so by putting a check mark between each pair of descriptive words, which ferm a scale. If you feel that the kind of peOple named at the top of the page are y§:y_ closely associated with one end of the scale, you would place a check mark as follows: FAIR_\f___:___:___;_:__:__ UNFAIR 9}; FAIR__:_:_:_:__:_:_\{UNFAIR If the kind of people seem only slightly related to one side as opposed to the other, you might check as follows: ACTIVE : : : :\/: : PASSIVEQE ACTIVE : :\/: : : : PASSIVE _~——~__ ‘_-.-**-_ .n..._._*—_— Remember: Put only one check mark on each scale. Check every item; do not leave any scale blank. Your first impression is what we would like. Spend no more than a few seconds marking each scale. We suggest you first form a picture in your mind of the kind of people mentioned at the top of the page, and then check each scale rapidly. Please insert here the last three digits of your student numberzgg CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE 66 TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY WISE DANGEROUS WARM SINCERE WORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED 67 MOST'PEOPLE CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE RELAXED WEAK PREDICTABLE CLEAN FAST FOOLISH SAFE COLD IHSINCEM VALUABLE COHPLICATED DBLICATE a... . WEAK PREDICTABLE fl... FAST FOOLISH [//SAFE COLD VINSINCERE COMPLICATED DELICATE 68 PSYCHIATRIS: CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY SLOW WISE DANGEROUS WARM SINCERE _ WORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY SLOW WISE DANGEROUS HARM SINCERE WORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED 69 MENTAL PATIENT CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE RELAXED PREDICTABLE C 1!}: (X 1“: EAST FOOLISH SAFE COLD INSILCERE ‘JALUABLE COMPLICATED DELICATE TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY SLOW WISE DANGEROUS WARM SINCERE WORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED 7O DOCTOR Ont-.- m m CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE n..- --. —— RELAXED WEAK FREDICTABLE CLEAN FAST FOOLISH SAFE COLD INSINCERE VALUAHLE CONFLICATED DELICATE RELAXED WEAK PREDICTABLE CLEAN FAST FOOLISN SAFE COLE INSINCERE VALUABLE COMPLICATED DELICATE 71 AVERAGE NAN TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY S LOU DANGEROUS W A RH SINCERE WORTHLESS SINFLE RUGGED RELAXED WEAK PREDICTABLE CLEAN PAST FOOLISH SAFE COLD INSINCERE VALUABLE COMPLICATED DELICATE 72 BX— 11111339 3:111 m .W- CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE .- .—---‘——. TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY SLOW NI SE DANGEROUS WARN SINCERE HORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED TENSE STRONG UNPREDICTABLE DIRTY SLOW WISE DANGEROUS WARM SINCERE WORTHLESS SIMPLE RUGGED 73 INSANE PEOPLE CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE RELAXED WEAK PREDICTABLE CLEAN FAST FOOLISH SAFE COLD INSINCERE VALUABLE ‘CONPLICATED DELICATE 74 ME LAXED : : : : : : TENSE WEAK : : : : : : STRONG PREDICTABLE : : : : : : UNPREDICTABLE CLEAN : : : : : : DIRTY FAST : : z. : : 1 SLOW FOOLISH : : : : : : WISE SAFE r : : t : : DANGEROUS COLD : : : : : : WARM INSINCERE : : : : : : SINCLRE VALUABLE : : L : : : WORTPLESS COMPLICATED : : 2 z : : SIMPLE DELICATE : : : : : ; RUGGED CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE 8. 75 GENERAL INFORMATION Student Number Age . 2. Male , Female Year in School: Fr. , Soph. , Jr. Sr. , Grad. M.A. , Grad. Ph.D. Major Married , Single , Widowed , Separated Divorced . In what size community did you live during most of the first 18 years of your life? (check one below) a. on a farm. b- _______in the open countryside, but not on a farm. c. town or city, (1) with approximate population of (please estimate) (2) is this a suburb? yes , no__*__. Have any of good friends ever been mentally ill? (circle appropriate category). a. No. b. Yes, a middle-age man. . Yes, a middle-aged woman. Yes, an elderly man. Yes, an elderly woman. Yes, a boy. Yes, a girl. Yes, several friends. 5'00th 00 Has any member of your family ever been mentally ill? (circle apprOpriate category). a. No. b. Yes, a grandparent. c. Yes, a parent. d. Yes, a husband or wife. e. Yes, a son or daughter. f. Yes, a brother or sister. g. Yes, some other relative. h. Yes, several members. THAT'S ALL. \ THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ”II11111711111811s