' :.:.- -,:::;-- en . .’.' 1535;25- i, ‘2; '5 l COLLEGE STUDENTS’ KNOWLEDGEABILITY AND OPINIONS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH IN 1962 AND 1971 Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DOROTHY L. SMITH 1972 ''''''''' . I III IIIIIIIII I“ I II III! “III III I . , L m ,. R Y Michigan Stab University 'III!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILIIIIIII “my Michigan Stew University ' BINSING BY ‘5 ‘ HUAG & SUNS' ‘ 00K BINDERY INC. ' 13mm! amoens .................. ABSTRACT COLLEGE STUDENTS' KNOWLEDGEABILITY AND OPINIONS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH IN 1962 AND 1971 BY Dorothy Lee Smith The problem of this investigation is to determine whether there has been a considerable change in mental health attitudes in the last decade. If there has been a change in attitudes about mental illness, in what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? A major purpose of this study is to give a more pre— cise and adequate account of the changes that have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade. The problem of this investigation evolved through a critical review of literature pertaining to attitude change concerning mental illness, and to empirical relationships between knowledge about mental illness and specific socio— logical variables. After the review of relevant theoretical literature, the Specific problem of this investigation, therefore, centered around two major questions concerning concepts of mental illness: 1. What changes have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade? Dorothy Lee Smith (a) In what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? 2. Are selected social characteristics of reSpondents related to knowledgeability concerning mental health? For comparison purposes, two samples were used in this investigation: Sample 1962 consists of students en- rolled in selected Michigan State University sociology courses during the 1962 summer term (N=215). Sample 1971 consists of students enrolled in the same sociology courses at Michigan State University during the 1971 summer term (N=3l9). The data were subjected to two main analyses: 1. For each of fifty-six mental health Opinion items, the mean response for 1962 was compared to the mean response for 1971; differences were statisti- cally significant for twenty items. 2. The relationship between knowledgeability (a score based on accord with the consensual Opinion of mental health experts regarding ten of the opinion items) and each of ten social characteristics of respondents was investigated for each sample. Results of this investigation led to two major con- clusions: First, to the extent the sample subjects can be Dorothy Lee Smith viewed as comparable, there appeared to have been little change in mental health attitudes in the last decade among students at a large university. Of the fifty-six items the only apparent change taking place was evident in the results of twenty statistically significantly different mean responses to opinion items, varying in degree and direction of attitude change. Second, that knowledge about mental health concepts is only weakly related to the ten social characteristics used in this study, with the exception of age where a somewhat stronger relationship was found. The investigation was concluded with a discussion of contributions and suggestions for future research. COLLEGE STUDENTS' KNOWLEDGEABILITY AND OPINIONS ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH IN 1962 AND 1971 BY } Dorothy LSLSmith 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 am grateful to Professor Donald W. Olmsted of the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University for the extreme interest and worthy suggestions he extended as chairman of my committee. In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to the other members of my committee: Professor James B. McKee of the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University and Professor Wilbur B. Brookover of the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University. I also wish to express my gratefulness to Dr. Richard J. Morse of the Department of Sociology at Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley State College, Fort Valley, Georgia, for the inspiration and encouragement he extended during my entire stay at Michigan State University. My association with these and others has been a re- warding and valuable experience. To these and others I extend my sincere appreciation. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . V LIST OF GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS . . . . . . . ix Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem . . . . . . . . . 5 Importance of the Problem . . . . . 6 Review Of Literature . . . . . . 7 Plan and Content Of the Thesis . . . . l3 summary 0 O O O O O O O O O O 14 I I O METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O O O O l 5 Contents of the Chapter . . . . . . 15 The Samples . . . . . . . . . . 15 The Variables . . . . . . . . 17 The Knowledgeability Score . . . . . 18 The Substantive and Operational Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . 21 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 23 III 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O I O O O O O 24 Contents Of the Chapter . . . . . . 24 Part I O O O O O O O O O O O 24 Tests Of Opinion Items . . . . . . 24 Summary . . . . . . . . . . 32 Part II 0 I O O O O O O O O 47 Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . 47 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 64 IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 66 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 71 Contributions . . . . . . . . . 71 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research . . . . . . . 72 iii Page BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 APPENDICES Appendix A. Mental Health Opinion Items . . . . . 76 B. Mental Health Opinion Items with Greatest Amount Of Consensus Among the Pro- fessionals . . . . . . . . . . 82 C. Demographic Data: 1962 and 1971 Samples of Summer School Sociology Students, Michigan State University, with Statis- tical Significance of Differences . . 83 D. Scattergram: Plotting Of Item Means Ob- tained from Fifty-six Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . . . . . . . 85 E. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Ten Social Variables . . . 86 F. Mean Distribution of Responses Obtained From Fifty-six Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . 96 G. Scattergram: Plotting of Means Obtained From Twenty Significantly Different Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . . 97 H. Categories Of Mental Health Opinion Items: Contents of the Items, Mean Values for 1962 and 1971, and Values of T-Statistic . . . . . . . . . 98 I. Standard Deviation for Fifty-Six Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . . . . . 105 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Categories of Opinion Items, and Statistical Significance . . . . . . 26 2. Summary of the Twenty Significantly Different Opinion Items in 1971 . . . . 44 3-A. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Age, in Percentages, 1962 . . 48 3-B. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Age, in Percentages, 1971 . . 48 4-A. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Sex, in Percentages, 1962 . . 50 4-B. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Sex, in Percentages, 1971 . . 50 S-A. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Year in School, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . . . 51 5-B. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Year in School, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . . . 51 6-A. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Academic Major, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . . . 53 6-B. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Academic Major, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . . . 53 7-A. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Marital Status, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . . . 55 7-B. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Marital Status, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . . . 55 Table 8-A. B-Bo lO-A. lO’B. ll-A. ll-B. 12-AO lZ-B. 13. Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Type, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Type, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Size, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Size, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Suburban Residence, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Suburban Residence, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Friends Mentally Ill, in Percentages, 1962 . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Friends Mentally Ill, in Percentages, 1971 . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Family Members Mentally Ill, in Percentages, 1962 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Family Members Mentally Ill, in Percentages, 1971 . . . Summary of the Relationship Between Social Variables and Knowledge- ability . I O O O O O O 0 vi Page 56 56 58 58 59 59 61 61 63 63 65 Table B.l. Percentage Response to Ten Mental Health Opinion Items with Greatest Consensus Among the Professionals . . . . . DemOgraphic Data: 1962 and 1971 Samples of Summer School Sociology Students, Michigan State University, with Statis tical Significance of Differences . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Age, 1962 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Age, 1971 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Sex, 1962 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Sex, 1971 . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Year in School, 1962 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Year in School, 1971 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Academic Major, 1962 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Academic Major, 1971 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Marital Status, 1962 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Marital Status, 1971 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Type, 1962 . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Type, 1971 . . . vii Page 82 83 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 90 9O 91 91 Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Size, 1962 . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Community Size, 1971 . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Suburban Residence, 1962 . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Suburban Residence, 1971 . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Friends Mentally Ill, 1962 Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Friends Mentally Ill, 1971 Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Family Members Mentally Ill, 1962 . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Knowledgeability Score and Family Members Mentally Ill, 1971 O O I I O O O O 0 Mean Distribution of Responses for Fifty-six Opinion Items at Time I and Time II . . . . . . . . Categories of Mental Health Opinion Items: Contents of the Items, Mean Values for 1962 and 1971, and Values of T-Statistic . . . . . . . Standard Deviation for Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . . . . . . viii Page 92 92 93 93 94 94 95 95 96 98 105 Graph 1. 10. LIST OF GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS Comparison of Attitude Change, in Per- centages, at Time I (1962) and Time II (1971), Opinion Item 1 . . Comparison of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 17 . Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 20 . Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and I tem 9 O O O 0 Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 18 . Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 21 . Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 40 . Comparison of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 49 . Comparison Of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 2 . . Comparison of Attitude centages, Time I and Opinion Item 29 . Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Opinion Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, Change, in Time II, ix Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Per- Page 33 33 34 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 Graph 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 55 . . . . . Comparison Of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 33 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 25 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 47 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 51 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 11 . . . . . Comparison Of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 45 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 42 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 43 . . . . . Comparison of Attitude Change, in centages, Time I and Time II, Opinion Item 48 . . . . . Scattergram: Obtained from Fifty-six Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . . . Scattergram: Plotting Of Item Means Plotting Of Means Obtained from Twenty Significantly Different Opinion Items, 1962 and 1971 . Page Per- . . . . 39 Per- . . . . 39 Per- . . . . 40 Per- . . . . 40 Per- . . . . 41 Per- . . . . 41 Per- . . . . 42 Per- . . . . 42 Per- . . . . 43 Per- . . . . 43 . . . . 85 . . . . 97 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study of mental health is concerned with the study of information about the areas of psychotic, neurotic, and mentally deficient behavior. In recent years psychologists have shown increasing concern with the public's belief about mental illness, al- though fewer studies have probably been devoted to this problem than any other in the field of social psychology. Considering the manifest importance of this problem, there has been little systematic research directed toward the finding of relationships between knowledge about mental illness and related social variables. Research of this kind depends on the adequate conceptions and objective measurement of attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally ill. The present research has sought to meet such needs. Even though causes, effective therapy, diagnosis, classification, and social effects of mental disorder are professional matters of concern to mental health professionals, the opinions and attitudes of the citizenry--the man in the street-~are of critical im- portance. Although college students are not a cross—section of the general population, a study of the Opinions and attitudes of college students is of grave importance for the following reasons: 1. College students constitute a segment of our soc- iety and are not completely different. 2. We can determine to what extent they accept or re- ject mental illness and the mentally ill. 3. We can determine to what extent the opinions and attitudes of college students are in accord with the mental health professionals. 4. College students may become influential leaders in the community, in the organization of modern mental health programs and community-based treatment of mental disorders. Considering that college students constitute a seg- ment of our society, an assessment of the opinions and at- titudes of college students enables one to make careful inferences relative to the entire pOpulation. According to Halpert, the current emphasis on community-based treatment of mental disorders and on viewing mental illness in terms of social malfunction has focused increased importance on community attitudes about mental illness, the mentally ill and those who treat them. An appraisal of the present status of public Opinions and at- titudes of mental illness is essential in planning effective educational programs designed to reach specific target audiences, each with its own background and special frames of reference.1 Are college students more knowledgeable about mental illness today than they were ten years ago? A review of studies reveals that a larger prOportion of the public seemed to be more knowledgeable about mental illness and to have more enlightened attitudes today than ten years ago. Expression of enlightened attitudes is an important advance in public behavior related to mental illness, although it is not clear that this advance indicates a greater accept- ance of the mentally ill. Knowledgeability indicates a correctness of beliefs based on professional Opinion. The purpose of a knowledge- ability score is to determine if some students are more knowledgeable about mental health concepts than others. Al— though a group of respondents may indicate any Opinion de- sired on mental health items, there is a further question of the correctness of those views. For example, peOple could 1Harold Halpert, "Surveys of Public Opinions and Attitudes About Mental Illness," Public Health Reports, Vol. LXXX (July, 1965), 589. believe that poor living conditions cause mental disorder. This opinion would be viewed by mental health professionals as incorrect. Although the question of correctness is not always easy to assess, one could establish not only what an opinion is but whether or not it is correct. We cannot only observe whether attitudes and opinions change, we can observe how close or far apart they are from the mental health professionals. Therefore, this aspect of the study is analyzed in view of the develOpment of a knowledgeabil- ity score. Since our society is composed of individuals with various social characteristics, there is the further question of whether knowledgeability is related to selected social variables. For example: 1. Is knowledgeability related to the different age levels of the respondents? That is, will older re- spondents be more or less knowledgeable than younger respondents? 2. Is knowledgeability related to the sex (male-female) of the respondents? 3. Is knowledgeability related to the type of com- munity the respondent resided during most of the first eighteen years of his life? (a) on a farm; (b) in the Open countryside, but not on a farm; (c) town or city. 4. Is knowledgeability related to whether any good friends of the reSpondent have ever been mentally ill? And finally, 5. Is knowledgeability related to whether any member of the respondent's family has ever been mentally ill? It is assumed that those with direct contact with the mental patients will tend to be more knowledgeable about mental illness and generally more understanding toward the mentally ill. Considerable attention has been given to public attitudes about mental illness in the United States in re- cent years. With the emergence of new emphasis and treat- ment of the mentally ill, the public's attitude has assumed critical importance. Public understanding and favorable attitudes are somewhat essential for Optimum utilization of the new types of mental health facilities and for acceptance of a greater number of mentally ill persons who can now be treated in the community. The present study, being among the most recent, will focus upon the attitudes of college students at Michigan State University. The Problem The problem of this investigation is to determine whether there has been a change in mental health attitudes concerning various aspects of our society, in the last decade. If a change in attitudes has evolved, what is the direction and degree of this change? The problem of this research emerged as a result of a critical review of literature pertaining to attitude change toward concepts of mental health and to the finding of empirical relationships between knowledge of mental health concepts and specific sociological variables. After a careful review of relevant theoretical literature, the specific problem of this research evolved around two major questions pertaining to conceptions of mental illness: 1. What changes have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade? (a) In what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? 2. Are selected social characteristics of respondents related to knowledgeability concerning mental health? Importance of the Problem The problem investigated in this research is impor- tant for at least three specific reasons. First, although college students do not represent a cross-section of the general pOpulation, an assessment of the opinions and at— titudes of college students enables one to make certain careful inferences relative to the general pOpulation. The Opinions and attitudes of college students are important for the several reasons advanced earlier in this chapter. Second, an especially valuable aspect of the problem is its concern with present conceptions of mental illness and the changes in these conceptions that have possibly evolved over a period of time, concerning various aspects of the society. The problem investigated in this study, if re- solved, will contribute considerably to a more precise specification of attitude change and the extent and direction this change has emerged in the last decade. Third, an important aspect of the study is to give a more precise and adequate account of the relationship be- tween knowledgeable conceptions Of mental illness and var- ious sociological variables. Relationships, however weak between sociological variables and knowledge concerning mental illness have been demonstrated. For example, pre- vious research supports our present claim that a weak re- lationship exists between knowledge of mental health con- cepts and the level of formal education, although empirical knowledge of this kind, concerning the finding of relation- ships between other variables and knowledge of mental health concepts is somewhat limited. Therefore, the present prob- lem will further contribute to a more precise specification of the relationships, however small, between knowledge of mental health concepts and selected social variables. ”Review of'Literature- Since the establishment of the National Institute of Mental Health, various surveys have been conducted to assess the American public's Opinions and attitudes about mental illness. These surveys have been made at different times, with different investigators, different research de- signs, and different pOpulations. Although comparisons are difficult, the general impression conveyed by the results of these studies is that the public is more knowledgeable about mental illness today than it was a decade or two ago and that it expresses more tolerant attitudes toward the mentally ill. Unresolved questions remain, however. Is increased knowledge about mental illness equivalent to increased understanding of such disorders? More important, in considering the role of the pulilic, is expression of more tolerant attitudes equivalent to tincreased acceptance of mentally ill persons in the com- muriity, in the home, and in places where people work and congregate?2 The answers to these and other questions do nOt: appear to be unqualifiedly in the affirmative. 2Harold Halpert, "Public Acceptance of the Mentally Ill," Public Health Reports, Vol. LXXXIV (January, 1969), 59. Harold Halpert argues that mental health education programs often have been based on a premise congruent with findings concerning mental health attitudes.3 Assuming that attitudes about mental illness are linked to the level of formal education and knowledge of psychiatric concepts, those who have planned such programs have stressed providing the public with the facts about mental illness. However, a 1960 report raised serious ques- tions about the validity of this assumption. The survey, conducted by the Washington Public Opinion Laboratory, was designed to answer two questions: (1) Are the opinions that peOple have about mental illness related to the level of their knowledge of the technical vocabulary of psychiatry?4 Findings from 438 interviews of a sample population revealed that "Opinions regarding the etiology and preven- tixbn of mental illness are only slightly, if at all, related tC> the level of formal education and only weakly related W11:h knowledge of the technical vocabulary of psychiatry." The only strong relationship was between level of formal Edllcation and knowledge of the technical vocabulary of psy— (filiatry.5 Lemkau, in his survey, found a small but 3Halpert, "Surveys of Public Opinions and Attitudes About Mental Illness," p. 589. 41bid. 51bid., p. 590. 4‘ ldv‘ a p.. at. I. med 4 uy: l.‘ I" IHV tun IthI c ; .I‘ I you: Rm Vb I“ “I 10 significant tendency for persons with more formal education to hold less derogatory attitudes toward the mentally ill.6 A broad survey of popular thinking about mental ill- ness by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) from the University of Chicago indicated that, in general, interest- ing differences in attitudes, revealed by the survey, were traceable to the exposure of information about mental ill— ness. Its goals were to describe the characteristic ideas about mental illness that are current in our society and to explain the formation of these concepts. The survey revealed the following: The views of the peOple who reported that they had a great amount of ex- posure to information about mental illness from various sources were more likely to approach professional views. The amount of formal education of the respondent was directly correlated with his knowledge about mental illness, and the number of information sources from which he derived that knowledge. At every educational level, however, people who derived their information from a variety of sources were more knowledgeable than their educational peers. High school graduates with high exposure were more apt to recog- nize mental illness than college graduates with low 7 exposure. 6Paul Lemkau, Social Psychiatry (New York: Grune and Stratton, 1968), p. 352. 7Halpert, "Surveys of Public Opinion and Attitudes About Mental Illness," p. 591. ll NORC respondents who knew persons receiving psy- chiatric treatment tended to be more knowledgeable about mental illness. Those who knew noninstitutionalized psy- chiatric patients read and listened to more information about mental illness. If contact with patients receiving noninstitutionalized psychiatric care is correlated with knowledgeability, one may expect changes in attitudes as the number of community-based psychiatric treatment centers increase. The general impression conveyed by these surveys is that peOple are more knowledgeable about mental illness today than a decade ago, and there is a better understanding of mental illness and greater tolerance or acceptance of the mentally ill. Dohrenwend and Chin-Shong9 question whether there has been a gain over time in public knowledge of mental ill- ness or whether the apparent historical shift is more of a superficial change in pOpular labeling of more types of deviant behavior of mental illness. There exists important differences in the way psychiatrists and the public view mental cases. Results indicated that, while there may be an increasing tendency for peOple to use the label "mentally 8Ibid. 9Bruce P. Dohrenwend and Edwin Chin-Shong, "Social Status and Attitudes Toward Psychological Disorder: The Problem of Tolerance of Deviance," American Sociological Review, XXXII (February, 1967), 423. 12 ill" in describing different types of deviant behavior, sharp differences in judgements of the seriousness of the problems remain. Whereas, psychiatrists' evaluations center on the amount of the individual's underlying psychOpath- ology, the public tends to judge seriousness in terms of the overt threat to others.10 11 found that popular attitudes Lemkau and Crocetti toward mental illness and the mentally ill are changing, although the present study, being among the most recent reflects only a slight change. They argue that, if a change in public Opinion about mental illness and the mentally ill has occurred, then an important theoretical implication must be considered, namely a possible change in the perceptual context in which the public views mental illnesses and the mentally ill. A review of studies of opinions toward mental illness, by Bates,12 from 1952 through 1962, revealed evidence of changing attitudes. Slight differences were found among respondents in different age and educational sub-groups. lOIbid., p. 432. 11Paul V. Lemkau and Guido M. Crocetti, "An Urban P0pulations Opinions and Knowledge About Mental Illness," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. CXVIII (June, 1962), 698. 12Josephine Bates, "Attitudes Toward Mental Illness," Mental Hygiene, Vol. LII (January, 1968), 250. 13 Personal orientation to deviant behavior, extent of liberalism in one's general outlook, occupational frame of reference, social customs in one's own primary reference group, and the intrapsychic needs of the person are im- portant. These factors appear to be important as increased knowledge in determining a person's behavior when directly confronted with his own or someone else's emotional diffi- culties. HOpefully, the proximity will lead to changes in the way people seek help for mental illness, and the changes may in turn lead to changed attitudes. Plan and Content of the Thesis In the introductory chapter the problem of the in- vestigation was set forth, the importance of the problem advanced, and a review of literature delineated. Chapter II is concerned with the methodological pro- cedures used in the study. In this chapter the following four major aSpects of the thesis are elaborated: (l) a description of the samples used in the investigation; (2) an explanation of selected sociological variables; (3) a brief explanation of the knowledgeability score; and (4) a statement of the ten substantive hypotheses used in the investigation. Chapter III constitutes the core of the investi- gation. It is considered central to the investigation because it deals with the statistical tests of the twenty l4 statistically significant opinion items and the ten hypo- theses developed to test the relationship between know- ledgeability and social variables. Chapter IV is the concluding chapter. This chapter consists of a brief summary of all the chapters that pre- ceded it. The primary focus of this chapter, is upon the findings of this study and the implications they hold for the problem. The thesis is concluded with a brief dis- cussion of the contributions of the investigation and sug- gestions for future research. Summary In this chapter the major problem of the thesis was introduced. The problem was developed through a critical analysis of existing literature concerning the empirical relationship between social variables and knowledge about mental illness, and conceptions of mental illness in rela- tion to attitude change. It was stressed that despite the considerable importance of this problem, there has been little systematic research directed toward the finding of relationships between knowledge about mental illness and related sociological variables. The importance of the in-' vestigation was further elaborated in terms of relevant theoretical literature. The major thesis of the investiga- tion will be further elaborated in the following chapter, where the samples, variables, and major hypotheses are set forth. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY Contents of the Chapter In this chapter the methodological procedures used in the investigation are presented. This presentation con- sists of four main parts. The first part gives a brief description of the samples used in the investigation; the second part gives selected social characteristics; the third part provides an explanation of the knowledgeability score; the fourth part of the chapter provides a statement of the substantive hypotheses. The following chapter in- cludes the analysis and findings of the investigation. The Samples The instrument for data collection used in this in- vestigation is primarily based on Jum C. Nunnally's (1961) work.13 (See Appendix A for questionnaire used in the in- vestigation.) The instrument consists of fifty—six Opinion items, with provision for one of seven responses, from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree." 13Jum C. Nunnally, POpular Conceptions of Mental Health (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961). 15 16 Sample 1962 (see Appendix C for demographic data) consists of students enrolled in selected Michigan State University sociology courses during the 1962 summer term (N=215). Summer school students were used in order to get a broader range of subject characteristics than would have been obtained during the regular academic year. These data are analyzed in the report by Olmsted and Ordway.14 Sample 1971 (see Appendix C for demographic data) consists of students enrolled in the same sociology courses at Michigan State University during the 1971 summer session (N=3l9). Although the students in the samples cannot be said to represent strictly a random sample of all students in sociology courses at Michigan State University at each point in time, the courses were selected to represent both intro- ductory and more advanced levels, and there seems to be no reason to think that the subjects are unrepresentative of all such students with reSpect to mental health Opinions. To what extent the opinions of students in the samples would differ from those of a random sample of all MSU students at each point in time is unknown; it would seem likely that such differences would be considerable. 14Donald W. Olmsted and Robert K. Ordway, "Concepts of Mental Health: A Pilot Analysis," Final Report, Project M-5880(A), NIMH (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Univer- sity, Department of Sociology, June, 1963). 17 The 1962 and 1971 samples are comparable in the sense that the respondents constituted approximately 90 per cent of the students enrolled in the "same" courses. Simi- larities and differences in opinions between the 1962 and 1971 data can thus be said to represent stability and change in the Opinions of "MSU summer sociology students" over the 1962-1971 interval. The Variables In this investigation, ten sociological variables were used. The social variables were used in order to determine whether social characteristics of respondents were related to knowledgeability. For example: 1. Is knowledgeability related to the different age levels of the respondents? That is, will older re- spondents be more or less knowledgeable than younger respondents? 2. Is knowledgeability related to the sex (male-female) of the respondents? 3. Is knowledgeability related to the type of com- munity the respondent resided during most of the first eighteen years of his life? (a) on a farm; (b) in the Open countryside, but not on a farm; (c) town or city. 18 4. Is knowledgeability related to whether any good firends of the respondent have ever been mentally 111? And finally, 5. Is knowledgeability related to whether any member of the respondent's family has ever been mentally ill? It is assumed that those with direct contact with the mental patients will tend to be more knowledgeable about mental illness and generally more understanding toward the mentally ill. The above ten variables were statistically analyzed in relation to the four different levels of the knowledge- ability score (see Appendix E for the relationship between knowledgeability score and the ten social variables). The Knowledgeability Score The fact that responses were available from a set of 176 mental health experts; 25 of the same Opinion items used in this research15 provide the basis for the develop- ment of a "knowledgeability score" for each respondent in this study. From the 25 Opinion items, the 10 items with the greatest amount of consensus among the professionals were chosen. Examination of the re5ponse distribution to the items by the professionals indicated that to 15 pp. 32-340 Nunnally, Popular Conceptions of Mental Health, ea‘ uv‘ Afl‘ I .u“. IE "a HI I! I: a. l9 mechanically take the size of the standard deviation as an indication of consensus would often be misleading. For example, the magnitude of the standard deviation of the re- sponses does not indicate whether the distribution would resemble a J curve toward either agree or disagree, or whether the most frequent responses would be in the neutral response category (see Appendix I for standard deviations for the 56 Opinion items). Therefore, a measure of consen- sus was derived by eliminating the Opinion items with a high number of "4" or "neutral" responses and by choosing the highest percentages of expert responses in 2 adjacent categories falling toward either end of the "neutral" point on a scale ranging from 1-7. (1 on the scale indi- cates "disagree" with the Opinion, and 7 indicates "agree- ment" with the opinion). The percentages of responses in 2 adjacent categories ranged from 59-95 (refer to Appendix B for opinion items with greatest consensus among the pro- fessionals). We thus selected the 10 items on which there was the greatest consensus by the experts as to the appropriate response. Such responses are viewed as "correct" by pro- fessional consensus. This response was then viewed as a response indicating knowledgeability by the student in the sample concerning the item. If the response of one of the students in our data was "correct" (the same as that of the experts) he received a score of 5 for that item; if his 20 response was one category away from the 2 "officially cor- rect” response categories, he received a score of 4; and so on down to a score of 0. For example, supposing that cate- gories 6 and 7 ("Agree") were the "correct" answers by pro- fessional consensus; then the score received by an individ- ual for his response on that item would be: Response Category: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Score On "Agree" Item: 0 l 2 3 4 5 5 The maximum score obtainable by an individual for the 10 items was 50; the minimum score was 0. A low score indicates relatively low accord with the experts' responses; a high score indicates relatively high accord with the ex— perts' responses. Accord with expert Opinion is thus the Operational measure of knowledgeability. For data analysis, the knowledgeability scores were divided into the following four categories on the basis of the empirical distribution of scores: (Mean scores for the two samples were very similar: 43.34 for 1962 and 42.80 for 1971). Levels of Knowledgeability Score Very Low 28-38 Low 39-42 High 43-46 Very High 47-50 21 The Substantive and Operational Hypotheses This portion of the investigation is concerned with the development of specific hypotheses dealing with the re- lationship between knowledgeability and the ten social variables. Two types of hypotheses are used for the statis- tical analysis. The "substantive" and "Operational" hypo- theses. The substantive hypotheses are concerned with the terms "knowledgeable" and "knowledgeability," whereas the operational hypotheses are concerned with the "knowledge- ability score." Jum C. Nunnally has done a considerable amount of work in this specific area. Nunnally has discovered that sub-groups in the pOpulation have slightly different atti- tudes toward the mentally ill. He has sought to distinguish the differences between specific social variables in rela- tion to attitudes toward mental illness. Freeman16 has found that attitudes toward mental illness have been dis- covered to be associated with various sociological varia- bles. Although Nunnally has made a distinction between the kind of information held by old as compared with young people, and by more educated as compared with less educated people, the differences in attitudes of these and other 16H. E. Freeman, "Attitudes Toward Mental Illness Among Relatives of Former Patients," American Sociological Review, XXVI (1961), 59. 22 sub—groups are relatively small. He has found a small, but statistically significant tendency for more educated peOple to hold less derogatory attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally ill. None of the other demographic variables showed more than minor differences. He found some significant differ- ences (by t—test) between the mean reSponses of women and men. Although the differences formed no clearly inter- pretable pattern, and differences in one study sometimes were not found in other studies. Nunnally concluded that sub-groups in the population do not differ substantially in their attitudes toward mental illness and the mentally 111.17 Resulting from a critical analysis of literature, the following hypotheses were constructed: Hypothesis 1: Older respondents will be more knowledge- able about mental illness than younger respondents. Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between sex and knowledgeability. Hypothesis 3: Graduate students will be more knowledge- able than undergraduate students. Hypothesis 4: Education majors will be more knowledge- able about mental illness than all other majors. 17 pp. 32-34. Nunnally, Popular Conceptions of Mental Health, 23 Hypothesis 5: There is no relationship between marital status and knowledgeability. Hypothesis 6: There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and community type. Hypothesis 7: There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and community size. Hypothesis 8: There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and suburban residence. Hypothesis 9: Persons indicating friends mentally ill will be more knowledgeable than persons indicating no experience with friends mentally ill. Hypothesis 10: Persons indicating family members mentally ill will be more knowledgeable than persons indicating no experience with family members mentally ill. The above hypotheses were employed in an effort to investigate the relationship between knowledgeability and specific social variables. Summary The primary concern of this chapter was the pre- sentation of the methodological procedures employed in the investigation. Briefly, it consisted of (l) a description of the samples used in the investigation; (2) selected social variables were described; (3) an explanation of how the knowledgeability score was derived; and (4) a statement of the substantive hypotheses, employed to test the rela- tionship between knowledgeability and social variables. In the following chapter, the results of the investigation are reported. CHAPTER III RESULTS Contents of the Chapter In previous chapters the problem and methodology of the investigation were advanced. This chapter contains analysis and findings. This chapter is divided into two main parts designed to answer the two Specific questions of this investigation, advanced earlier in Chapter I. Part I of the chapter provides statistical data and tests designed in an effort to determine whether a change has taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade. Part II of the chapter will be primarily concerned with the restating of the ten hypotheses advanced earlier in the thesis, and the presenting of data and tests in support of hypotheses in an effort to determine whether knowledge about mental illness is influenced by social variables: Each analysis is concluded with a summary chart and a brief summary statement Of research findings. PART I Tests of Opinion Items Question 1: What changes have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade? 24 25 (a) In what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? In order to answer this question, the mean re- sponses to fifty-six Opinion items for 1962 and 1971 were statistically tested for significance (see Appendix F for mean distribution of responses for fifty-six opinion items, 1962 and 1971). Hypotheses were not employed in the analysis of Part I. Graphic presentations (1-20) show the statistically significantly different Opinion items, percentage dis- tribution, frequency distribution, and the mean response category. (The small arrow denotes the direction and degree of the differences in attitude at Time II '1971.‘ The broken line indicates the mean response at Time I '1962' and 1971.) The fifty-six Opinion items were divided into nine categories of similar items as shown in Table l and Appendix H. Statistically significant differences in at- titude between 1962 and 1971 were not related to the var- ious categories of items. The division of categories, based on the content of the item, was to determine if changes in attitude were related to certain categories of items of the same kind. No specific generalizations could be made based on the specific categories of items. Analysis revealed that certain categories contained more statistically significant items than others although no 26 TABLE l.--Categories of opinion items, and statistical significance.a No. of Items with Category ¥E° Of Statistical ems . . . Significance I. Causal 12 3 II. Recovery (Including Cure, Prognosis) 9 5 III. Seriousness 6 3 IV. Role of Psychiatrist 4 1 V. Age: Children 7 3 VI. Age: Older 3 1 VII. Men - Women 4 0 VIII. Symptoms 6 1 IX. Miscellaneous 5 3 Total 56 20 aContents of items, mean values for 1962 and 1971, and values of t-statistic shown in Appendix H. bT-test, difference between means of 1962 sample and 1971 sample (P<.05 and P<.Ol). 27 interpretive pattern was found among the various cate- gories. Significantly different opinion items were not evenly distributed among the various categories. I. Causal Item 1: "The best way to mental health is by avoiding morbid thoughts." Although disagreement with this item is prevalent at both time periods, graph 1 shows that this item was disagreed with more strongly at Time II. Item 17: "PeOple who keep themselves occupied with pleasant thoughts seldom become mentally ill." Consider- able disagreement is present at Time I and at Time II, al- though Time II mental attitudes reveal an even greater amount of disagreement with this item, as shown in graph 2. Item 20: "People cannot maintain good mental health with- out the support of strong persons in their environment." Inspection of graph 3 indicates that respondents at Time II tend to disagree with this item to a lesser extent than re- spondents did at Time I. II. Recovery (Cure, Prognosis) Item 9: "Mental patients usually made good adjust- ment to society when they are released." Data relevant to this item appear in graph 4. Inspection shows that agree- ment with this item is centered around the "neutral" or "4" point on the scale. There appears to be slightly less agreement with this item in 1971. Item 18: "Few peOple 28 who enter mental hospitals ever leave." Examination of graph 5 shows that at each time period this item was strongly disagreed with, although in 1971 respondents disagreed with this item less strongly. Item 21: "Will power alone will not cure mental disorders." Graph 6 reveals that at each time period this item was strongly agreed with, although at Time II this item was agreed with less strongly. Item 40: "There is not much that can be done for a person who develops a mental disorder." Data relevant to this item appear in graph 7. Analysis re- veals that this statement was strongly disagreed with at both time periods. Extreme disagreement with this item denotes Optimism for the future of mental disorders. Whereas, at Time I respondents disagreed with this item very strongly, at Time II respondents disagreed to a slightly lesser extent. Therefore, we can generalize that respondents at Time II are less optimistic about the future of mental disorders. Item 49: "Many of the peOple who go to mental hospitals are able to return to work in society again." Inspection of graph 8 reveals that at each time period, respondents agreed very strongly with this item, although agreed with less often at Time II. III. Seriousness Item 2: "Mental disorder is one of the most damaging illnesses that a person can have." Observation 29 shows considerable agreement with this item at both time periods. This statement is agreed with less strongly in 1971. Item 29: "Mental health is one of the most im- portant national problems." Inspection of graph 10 shows that this Opinion item is one of the most agreed with of the twenty significantly different items. At Time II there appears to be a considerable change in attitude. Time II respondents agreed less often with this item. Such a shift in attitude may be attributable to a shift in awareness of recently emerging national problems that were not so prevalent in 1962. Item 55: "People who go from doctor to doctor with many complaints know that there is nothing really wrong with them." Examination of graph 11 reveals a considerable amount of disagreement with this item at both time periods, although 1971 respondents dis- agreed with this item less often. IV. Role of Psychiatrist Item 33: "The main job of the psychiatrist is to recommend hobbies and other ways for the mental patient to occupy his mind." Graph 12 shows that this item was disagreed with highly at both time periods, although dis- agreed with more Often in 1971. V. Age: Children Item 25: "Disappointments affect children as much as they do adults.” Examination of graph 13 shows that 30 this item was strongly agreed with at both time periods, and agreed with to an even greater extent at Time II. Item 51: "Disappointments do not affect children as much as they do adults." Graph 14 reveals considerable dis- agreement with this item at both time periods. As re- vealed, respondents disagreed with this item more often at Time II. The reversed order of items 25 and 51, respec- tively, demonstrates a parallel shift in responses in a most appropriate manner. This response type indicates that at each time period the items were read carefully and thoroughly, demonstrating a possible use of good opinion items. The reverse ordering of these two items, reflecting a parallel shift in the desired manner, may be viewed as a reliability check in responses. Item 47: "Early training will not make the child's brain grow faster." Graph 15 reveals a moderate amount of agreement with this item at each time period, although respondents agreed less often at Time II. Responses to this item shifted more toward the "neutral" point on the scale at Time II. Such a shift in attitude may not be attributable to a direct change in attitude as much as in the manner of interpretation. Ex- amination of this item reveals slight discrepancy as to exactly what the statement means to the respondent. VI: Age: Older Item 11: "Early adulthood is more of a danger period for mental illness than later years." Inspection 31 of graph 16 reveals that responses to this item are centered around the "neutral" point, although shifting toward more agreement in 1971. VII."Men--WOmen This category is concerned with comparisons made with the emotional problems of men and women. Contrary to expectation, of the four items in this category none were statistically significant. VIII. Symptoms Item 45: "Most people can recognize the type of person who is likely to have a nervous breakdown." Graph 17 shows considerable disagreement with this item at both time periods, although at Time II respondents tended to disagree less strongly with this item. IX. Miscellaneous Items found in this category include those items we found relatively difficult to classify. Item 42: "Feeble-minded children are less obed- ient than normal children." This item received consider- able disagreement at each time period, although disagreed with less often in 1971, as revealed in graph 18. Item 43: "Most people who 'go crazy' try to kill themselves." Re- Spondents strongly disagreed with this item at each time period, as revealed in graph 19. Respondents at Time II 32 disagreed less often than did respondents at Time I. Item 48: "Most suicides occur because of rejection in love." Interpretation of this item, as seen in graph 20, reveals a considerable amount of disagreement, although this item is disagreed with less often in 1971. Mean responses to this item were centered around the "neutral" point on the scale. This could possibly denote conceptual ambiguity, resulting from the perceptual context in which the present generation views the term "love." This portion of the analysis proceeds with graphic presentations of the significantly different opinion items, and is concluded with a summary chart (Table 2) of signi- ficantly different opinion items and a brief summary of this part of the analysis. Summary Part I of the investigation has provided statistical data and tests relative to question 1 of this investigation. Results of this portion of the analysis show that of the fifty-six opinion items used in this analysis, twenty were statistically significantly different, although there did not prevail a high degree of significance (refer to Appen- dix D for plotting of means obtained from fifty-six opinion items, 1962 and 1971). Tests revealed that the significant items varied in degree and in direction of change (see Appendix G for plotting of means obtained from the twenty ‘. *v..'l __———— 1:159 33 1 .1 1 ,1 . .1 . . .. 1 1 w _ 1 ,1 1.1 .. 1 1 . 1 H 1 .4 .I...I .. I I ! I: ! A -! . 1! ! I. I ! x ! I. r .. I ., ..I I1 .... i.. .. ! . .. . . . . . 1. e -., . 1-.- -!,!-..,.---1 .11 -. -. . 1 . _ . . 8 . 1, 1 . . 1 1 p . 1 ., 11.. 1 _ V 1 1 1 ., 30... 7- w... 1 . 1 M . 1 1 .10).... 7 1 .1 . 1 1 1 1 , . 1 .... . ”no. . M 1. .1. m .. 1 1 . H o . .1 1 1 1 .. . 1 1 . 4. . . 1 1.. . 1 1 1 .1 1 1 1 .. !l. -- !! s 1.1! I - - I -.. .1 1-! .11 x - ...!!!--.1.-!!!.!1.!! !1.!.!!-!-i ..------ 1! - . -... - - 1--.. .. . . - . --( --1 . . 1 1 . 1 1, 1 1. .. . 11......- .. M 1... 1 .1 . 1. . .. 1 1 .. h 1 . ..Og .. . .1. U. 1 .. .... . .. 1. 9.1 . 1 1 1 1 _ 1 . .076. ....... 1. 11.... .1 17:6. .1 _ .. . 1 . 1 1 1 .2 1 . .1 11 . . . _ 1 . .4 1 . 1 . . . 1 1. .1 1. . 1 , , , , 1 .. . .. . .«n ltlllo! -1! .4!- 1 .-.... v!. I!» (Ila-I 5:! .! 1 -. .. . c . I . . . I 1... !.. Tl 4.!!!-.«!I|o.!.|.v!u!wx!4ly -..1. 7-. n!-Y.T.4|J..4.1!..-.!.!J!L1- !: 3!! - .. . IL‘t .... m. ...“ A . m M . ”Q n . .1. 1. 11'" v“ ....1 .1... .w n .. a m. . . . . 11. H. .... . .. . . . . , . . . .1 .1.- . . .. .. - .. . ... .. 1 . u w u 1 .0 m fa... 5 .11.. ... +.....1.h. . .1 .....fi“. 9 5 .. .1. . u 1 . 1 .1 . 1... 1 O . . . . _ 1 1 1....-. ..---:..--...-.-- 1 .1 .. n. .o. .. .1. .1 1.1;... .1. 1:51 1 :1 ...1 1 . 1. 1 . 11 1 .1!!! . 1 . 1. . -- . ...?! 3.11.31: 4 -1 1 .....1!!. 77-6!) 1.|.. . ... m .. .c11 . ...-..1. .. .....1a .1. ... .. .. . .... 1-...11- ... .1 .1 . . .01.“. “...-...... nl ..1. . ...1 §/...1 0.4. 1:110 1 1 ... 1. 1; 171.2 - 1.x 1.1.. ...... 1 11.3 .04.... 13...... -. -. o 9” .H -.n .1 . g 1 1 . 7.4. -..!!!IJI utilfilw .1 i-“ W v 7 " — . w 9 . o ..1 .. ... .Hh y w.. .W .. .1. ~ . M . 1.1.... .1 . . w.. 1 _ .. .1 1 !¢. 410.. -. M .. . . .. . 1“. 111. n . p... ..r...» 1 .. . ... a .9. H . q n . ..w. m-!d.t 3 ”7. ... t‘ H a. .. .3 .- _ N. 1111‘. .3 3.1L. !. ..Vo .11 1. 1 11!.“ 1 . ... .13 ...WM. 1. .. 10,1 . 1.1.1.. "(wt-1M . . . 1 _ 1 o . V. 14344:; Ylol. 4.4! I!!.n.l. .414... I14. 4! a! v - - .1. J'I‘III'L‘ .r! 1. 4444.4 7 . 't . ..D ..1...1 1 .. 1 .1 ... .2. 1.. t..... . 11.1-11.1. 1. 1o. 1 .1. 1.0 .8... . .dn11u. ......1111-1 ....1 $9.712.- . S . ...-11 _. 1-1.0218- vee .....1 211...... ...... 1.0.21.1. .. o4 .. “0/1 1 .1 m .31 r. ......m1.1!1.. .1 ... 1. ...-1....-. 1!-1 .1 -1 - . - g . . 1. D. 1.!!3... 1 1 1 . !..---.1.._.!!-.. 1 Lu .. .17. w .11.. 1 .a. M...Ua. . .. 0,, .... .1...11..1.+.1 ... 1. f. 1n... 1 _ . 1-rm11.s.. 1...“m 1. 0111.....1...-nO//1. .. .! I 11.. 1 n . . I . .l .. -1 ...» W. . I” ..w. d. . 1 .. . . p. . 1 a 14.). . 1. , . . .1 . m .1 1.. O “we ,. at. .. 1. .. ,1 T!!.--!l. e .luul l.- 1 l 1 4 1 . . - 1 _ . _ . . .1 W. . h w .. 1 . . ... .m. 1.... 1. . . . .. Sb “ 1. . . 1...... 1.1.1.1.... ..... . . -- 1...... 1 . 1 .1 . .11Me 1 1.111111. 11.“. 1 1. ! .1 ‘ M. u . 1. . _ -“~ 1” . . _. . .4 v w v .w. '1”. ......1 V1... -1 . . [It a [...-.1!!! n_a i!‘ 1'1. I'Ltc. !. l I.! ... .. 1 .v . a 1 . . . .. . . . . . ' . 1. n . .. 1 1 _ 1.. . . 1 a . . . 1 . 1t . 11 1 .1 1 .1 11. .. aed . 1. 1. .... . 1.11.11. :1“: 1 . 1 . .. 1.5141 11 ”1.11... ...-... ...-1.1 1.. . . o . 1 . « .. . . ......1. .1 . L . a .... e s .... .. 1. . 1” . .h. m e1. ..... . ... .1.. 1.11. H . .. ...O .m.t 1. .. . . 11.. .....l ... CS. . _. .1. :1... .. .. o. J. .n ..I!-1.-z :!-...! --. --- ...- -I- . . . t !! .e..--O.!!i! .h 1 - _ . ...-... -..!1..--.!!. .mm. .. ... .1 . 1 . ......O... m... that 1 11.. 1.. 1. 1 .11? 1 . 1 . . . . .. .... . .. p .11 1 "U .1 . , .... . . 1 . 0 . . . h .11. o1 7 db. . . ... Duh . .1 ... 1.1.-. . .1... 7. .- ...H .1 .n 1 ; 1 ......1 .AP ...e9 1 ._ .1 Y... -1 1.....-....--!- .--- !z- 41--.---!.1. 1 1 ._ !.. e u . 1 ! .- ...1-..!.-._ . - 1 ..W . . .. 1. .. .. .. 1. .knm 1...... 1.1.17 1,..H!1. ..- ,1 d 1 1 1 , _ 1 7- 1 .1. ..1.1 .... . L9.13 . . .. 1 .1 _ 1 1 .8.6 1. ..o... ....-. ......16 tb . 1 .... . 1. Q]. . 1. ..H h M w . . fl .....1. . . .1. !-.. a w .-.--.-.-- --.- -..1- . . 1 - 1 . wm _. 1 1..- .1 1 ‘ 21 1 10/ 1 .1 ...1. ,1 . 1 .1. ., 6 . 11...-..r .. . .bm 61 1 .1o 1 1175,. ....ea 1 .11 . 1 1... 1. 11.175 ... .. . 0/. 1 .1 , . -1 .v. ... . III S 1 .1. .1 .1. . . ...1 a 1. ...L .. I ... . .. e g .4 l. 1' 1 _ . o 2 . u I'- . .1 v. p a ..... . w .. h .- . w . 1.. .9... . w < p . 2 .!11 M 0: Fill..- l'.4 ..- luv-4! i1!!! '1' v- .. 1 L . . 1 . L. . 1 M . .n n. 1 .. . -. 1 m e 1 1 .1 1. -1 J. .1... . . . O. . . H. . .. .. . ’. a. . 11 ' .. . n. . 1. .. 1.... _ 1.. w. . .. 1. . T L . .1 -... .c. .... 1 1P0. . -.1.. .1 1.111101 ......in. . 1. 1 . 11 1 1 . ..o 3.1.... 11 1 . u. 1 .......o .11..2.H~. -.- ¢ _ . . LT . .4 O _ . 1 1 1 1 . 1 1 1. 1 1 1 *1 . 1 . . . 1 .0; . . . ..1 1 .1. .... 1 .... .9 w .1.. -... h. 1|)!!!I. r . Til!!! . . . 1”! l .1 . . . .. _ M . 4 1 u 4 4 1. . 1 Ill-n11 .. . . .... 1. m 6 . .. . ..l 1.. 7| . .w.. .A_ .. .0 . . ....— ...»..H‘. .- 1. 1.11.” H. ...». .1 .1 ._ 11 . .or- . hf (01.03.10. 1.. 1 ..1 9.. ... 1.1... 11 .1 1613.-.... . ~H .! .1 ._ 0., .1 . ’1. 1 0 _. 1.. . .. 6 .-.... J. .. .... 1....“ 1.. ..1. .C}, 1... ...-.r . . . . 1 . . ”3. .1 1 .... .14... 2 . .mr...1 . . . 11.... l 11“ 1. -....;.. 1...... _ 1 . !. .- Till! - . . . 8...-.. 1 ... 14!. H . .1 ”1. . 1.. . 1. . .1 1n.. 1.. ......1 1.11 O ... . .. 1 . . o 1 . , ., _ 6. 9.. . e . . . . 1 . O .1 . _ . 1 . . . 11“.». z .. 2. .1. . . _ .151 1 .... 1. ...”... . e ._ .. . ..(J .. u. u 1. 1.. .1_ ...1 1 1.5 .1. . .1.-. n . 1. 19“ 1 1. .11 . r... .. .... ..2 .. .1 1 .... .-. .... ..1. . 1. . 1 . ill!!! .1 ! a: . _. . 1 4 1 . . . .1... . o 1 . 1.. a _ 1 . . 1 .n4. ..1... . 1.-.. 1. .. ... . ... . 1 . 1 .. .. . . 1 . . v \j . . . . .. 11 . . .y. 1. 1.... 0.1 11...... 5.. 1- . .11 . . 1.0.1.7111... .11.... 117 .1. . 1.. : .1 .1 9. 1 .5. 1 . . . 1 1 ...-1.41.1... - 1.... 1.1-1... 11-1.1 .1- TID'II‘I «w. IF.'II.6|4.. 1 . « 9M ‘ q . . _ . 1 . 1 1 _ . 1 1 _ 4 1 . . .H. . .I .. _ 1 . .. .... 1.1.... 1- .1 . u. o. u 4 1 . .. .4 .1 «.~ ......1xk ...1. ...-1 . ... . .— 1.. ”1".“ q 1. . 1. . .1. “.... _“ . 1.» a 1 11... *1 ”.1 p ... “.uv.4_1w - u. .."0 1 .1 .1 . 1.1 1. . .11 1. .111 121.-.... .1..._..1.. _ .11 1. F1 1 1 ....” . .1 . 1 .. 1 1. . .. . 1. .11. 11.... .1. .1 1 1 . ..-.r- .. .-. » ...: III! p L . - -» 1 [!L . >rt .» r. L1 r - u. > .r!-. OJ n L :1 1U U . .-.... a f F. 5 4 3 7. 1 O . 1 2 9. n... 7.. 1.1 .1 1. 1.1 1 1 1... 1 1 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1C) 15 14 13 12 11 10 n.1, :inwtvr ’4‘“. ourl'b In the 1.. .1111. . 1 1.. I! .4111! l 1l11M. I 1 . 1 1 1 1 . 1 .1 F 1 1 .. 1 1 1 1. A ll...|.|1lll...llr]{4 44!.1. 4.. .ul..1+. loli‘t! 11!. 9.4 1:11.! 1. 1 1. 1 . _ .1 1 1 1 _ . . - ... .... . 1 ~ . 1 1 1 ...... .1 26 ... .p. 1. 1. 1. ... . ... . . .- ...! .l Ill“!!! lo!!! I I: HI...- ! [111+ llll. . .o r 1!»!!! l6 .. 1. I! 1 - 4.1!».- L 1 1 1 1 1._ e 1 _. .1 r. . 1. . . 0 1 . 1 . 1 _. .. .1 . 1 1M . ...... .1. a 3 _ 4 6 1 . 1 .1 1 1 1 ._ 1 .11. 1 .. .1 IllllollluOlnvll L 4 v6 . 1 III-4.411.. 1.J ... 1 .1 J .. 1 . 1.-.1 o.11 11.. 1 -1 .71.811. 1 H.- ..0.W.7. 1.11 o“.& A. _. 1 h. 5 m -191 .1 .1. .1 . 11. R1 . L 1. 1 . . _ .1 .2 - ori 41 . 1 4 '11.4 14 13 12 34 11 10 1 1 .1 1111x11.-pm.11.1. 1; 11 _.1 . .. * . . . 1 H n . .-. . _ .-.V1.!«. ..l1 1 . 1 1 O 141 . _ .. 1. .1 1 . 1 _ .. 1. .. % . ... . . . . . . . . . . .H .. . . . .. . 9 1... .1 1 fill. . .. ._ _1 .a . . . . .1 1.1” ... .1 fi _. . ~ 0. v1. 1 . “11 . - .... . . . « u .1 a“ 73 1. . . .1 . .1 1.. 1 1.1..“ .1 .... O“... 1.. .1 * - 8 .5 1 ....... 1- r . .. .....H 1...!11. “M . 17. . . 1 .../O .1. . 1.7; ll I I'll ...ol I!I.|!c!. wil1l1W144ll' T’Jlnwl‘l. _ . . 1 1.11;. 111 .11. 111111121111119111.2... . 1 .1.. ._. ...-...; 1. 1 . 1. .. .. _ 0 $ 1 2 .2.- 1 1 1 . 1 . 1.L. H. . . w 11 . a . .6 1 . .... .- H 1. H .. 1. .1 $1 1 u w .m .. _ 1‘1.— 1 — . . 1.1. ..w 1 1 1. . 1— . ..... . 1“. . 1‘. . . 9 . . .. .. .1 .. . ..H . .1 1m . . 1. ..1 . .o 1 . .1 .1. . . H .1 . l 1.; . 11 .1. . 1 .1 1 1 ..r . 1 a . .1. .u . .. 1 .. .1..D 1 .L .1 1 .. ......... . 1.. -_ nu .1 1 1 1 .; w . ..... People cannot maintain good mental health without the support of strong persons in thelr environment. "-if15.6 Mental patlents usually make a good adjust- ment to soclety when they are released. w . . . 4 . n - . v t u u m . .. 1 22 11 ..11.. . — . m H . . . h n . M . h. ..... 5., 1 1A . . 6 — . . ~ .1 .1 "a . . 1.01 h L II: 1 “11%. r J! “Inf-Ir Ill Al- I. ['1an . r h . 1 . . . m 11. 1h. v. _ u a T. 11111 2 . M . 6 a.» . _. u 5 .4 h 4. .2 g 1 . . fl . 1 . . . a 1” . 1! 71/ . 9 . . . . H .. .1 ... . . . U . 3 . . . 1. . . p u . 1 3 .3. . a 1 0 v . . I 15:1 24 1. :1, 12159 A A 60 7W? _ ,. o _ . _ . . . . _ . 11 1.1 ..-. 1. 1 - . - 1... - 1 - . . 1. . .. .. 1.11111 11. 111’1110111 11.1. 111 1|.lvlnv]. ...11.]v1 - - 1]!!! .- . 1|- . . _ .. 11. . 2/ - . W . . . . W . W - . . o . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . W W . v . . . W- W . . 1. .. . 1 W . . A . W _ . - 0 . . . . . . . _ W . . . . . ._ . . . . . . .. - . . W _ . W. W . . . . _ . . . , W . . . . 1 . + W - . H... W . . . v . . _ . _ (0 . W . . . . . . W , .. . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . W 7 106 6 I ...—... .. «w. 4 WW1 14 13 12 11 10 .- — 1 H . _ ..1' N W. r .. .. U . . . . . . 7 .H. ..... 1111 r1]. 1- : r 111 ...-11111. 111.111 11.111 W 1 W W11 nv. .. . 2, . W. O . .1... W W . . W . .8 W . . W . . . . . ..... .. ..H . . W 6.. W -, W W .W8 a)w W. .. ”d W WWW W... 6 .1 2). W . .- 2 W . W 199. - . ..W . . 1 . . . i W W. 1 . 1.. . W . W .. W . ._.W . ..W . -111 s . 3 W .... h _ W . fi 1. .-1 1.- 21.1-- 1 . ..--.11.- 11. m i _ WA. 1.1.; .1 _. a . .16 H2. - _. W. . W . a r W W r. ..v . . . 1 . .. 1 W. t 7* . W . Wr.8 2 .. % .W....WW. ... 8 2. W . W oil. 2» W W .- . W ... W W. W 2 W W WW w] ] p II III ]'l]|lrl]11 m 41 i ..r Ln. 1 AIIIIJi ‘ Q 6 . W. ...-.._. . ... W. W In 0 W _ 9 l .4 r . ...W ...W. ..... Q. 1:“.W W. Z W W .W . . ... u . . ...W. ...“. W l H...W . .. .m - - . . _ _ c .- V 1. . . .111 _ _ .. . . . . . W _. _ ...Wr .- . W.- .. W . v v—.. .. ......W W,...M . _ H WD Wm; ...-Wt ... W . W W . W_;.D...;m.g #1] .W W. W W ”.1 W - W. m U W W . W . .. 1.. m 1...: 11 11 1.1: ..1 111,-.-- W 1 -1. a 1.11 . r u WW W W ... WW W _<. II W W WW . W W .W,. W. . . _ . _ .. _ _ _ . . _ W .... W W ........ __ * W . . . n . 1 . . .. . . .. 1 3 W W . W W . A. P W 2| W W W . AW .WP W _ W . . _ , W . ... . w . ~ W _ .—.. — . ._ .. 711.1.- “ 411.1114 -. . 1 W1- 11-1411-1 -1 1 1 W 11.11% 11.1-11.1.- . .1 ._ W W . - L W e. ; W W. W - _ i - .W .e . W _. W. . _ W .W .W. _. W...0 .4W .._ ..W. .1. . .W4...... .W . .. W . W . u . . . _ .0 n1. . . n -.|_. . . W . . . .W ...? 7.. . W. m . . . .. . .. W W . ... W . . . . w .4” . - . W W WWA W . _ . .u .11.. 1.1.11 1.... fl--.) 111.121- -..-.11 W 11 1.11.1 -..-1.11111111L-111. 11111. _ . 1 _ . W.. W. W ... W4 . . ,1“ W ..W 9 W . . . W W 1 _ .0 .4 .. 4 1 W. . W. . . . ... .. - w. _. .1H1W .4 r a.- ... .‘ 0 ~ . . . .. T1 . e .- .W W . W W W . . W . 6.. ... . .W r w. w W T.— . W . .6 6 W0 W” 1 11 M :I11.] 1 . 11111-m11111111111W. I-]].1111.-1L..-..+11111111 . . 1 . . . . . . . W W— W ”2 wit?!“ ' II II 1| Jill: III. I ll! Ari]!!! - - W7- . W o . WW W W. . W. . W .HV.W ...W W. .4 W . ....7L . ..MW . . ..WH1.11.] a o .. W W. . W . .W W W . . N.- W._ s.“ . ..W.. . W - WW W W W. ..5 W. 0-8 - W.-W.. W. W W ..6. O 5. . . .... r. .. ....Wo ._... W15W _ V .W W. W. . W W . 1... :18 W. ...-3 ... W. 1.517.... 1.111 a 111-111.11.111 +1--. - ----1.11 4. 111 ...-.0 111-1. 2 . - . .. e W .W W W W 2. . ..1. .....r...f4.. .. - W SDI-if”. - F‘ .M W o.“ W .W . .H.. "Ow .W.”. W. .1 a h . . . .4. .W W . W W W W W.. 37.4.... W, ....WW -. W .W-oWWV2.4....4V -...1 m . ...P v W WW. 5 . ... .. .u.“ . .. w W .—HJv .1 r.-+h .W I]... r .1 1 LL - . o 111.111.11.11 1 W . _. 8% W .W .1 6 .1 1.... . W l......... . . -+_W WW1 W .W o } .WW.-..-H.O . ...M. .2 .W. W . ....l. 1 . Um ... 1 W W _8 .W .lflWWWi4 2). W TW-Z .W I W..W.l3-W WW. 1....1D-]-1I1 . . . .... - . _. _. . n . .cl— .H .. W . W . . W_. 1]]1H14. I] 1.11%. II 0' ].l 1.1 . _ l . W . m W“ W 1“ ‘1 r1 5 ]W? ..f _ W. _ . . 1 1.- 1 11 1 11-“. .— W . . “W Y... .W ..u W . . ..u . ..W ....W . .4 W..M. Wqu W lVfith’oIWhlblalbk‘l‘ll‘-‘t .-.-'11,..7“... 2 2W 4. ..W. . . 1. 8 4 .2»-.“- “4 ...-. . W 34 .U.. ... M . _W. . ..6 . ...- . W ..... . W- .1 W.W . “m.»u ..vxL . . W _. W -. _W-. -- . ..- . ; ...-1 71:1,:- 4 a . - . L J L - 1 n .v 94‘-. 1. .1W. .H m . W W. .1. 4.8 .... ..W. WW.” ..... ...W .. .y.W.. WWW“ W..-WM :4“ ..W.” W» .1Wm+ M. W7 1“ ..° .u. .. a ...W .n 1 .W .. _. W. 1 WW. .. . .H... W...” ..W.. W.” ..W. W... .a.. .>.Wn . -_ ..W p»..« 1. ..W-W . .W. .....WW...W-...W...W .... ... .. ..8 1W. ...W .W.... 7.... ....W. ...W WWWW. ...W-W-W ....4 .W......J.4 ..lWWWW. . O ... ..1W. W ...W W. . W.- .W . _ __ _ __ W. W W _ .. ¢ ._ _ .W 4 .. - .. ..W-.. ....1 .. 7.....1 ...Wu 4.. W . . .. _ W . -.L. _. . . 11. . 1_ 11111. 1 11 -.e f. .._ _ W _ . W3... W. W . W1. .W.,W_..WW..W W W . . ... .. . . .. W .. W. .W. ..4. W. .v _ WW .W“ . 5.. W ...;D .....W W _W WW. W_ .1 W W_rOW W: W W . D1. .. WW W: __ W. 1 .... .w W -1 .-1- . __-W1 .: 1:. 1: WW- 0 9 E 7 6 5 4 3 2 n4 1 1 1 1.. 1.. 24 23 2 THAI-"1 [AI M 1”” I; 36 . -IIII-I V V. III-V I III IV. I- I III - II V III-VII.- . V .V V V V I I I I III: V V V V V -I .IV I V. . . . V i. V . - . . V - . V II If. V V V V _ V V V . V .. III-II’YIWIIV‘ 1.- 91133.... IIIYIrI .- w! iIIII- 1;. III. 'I! s. I .II. . . . _ . . V. V VV V V V V . V- ..--.I - --I- . VII - - II V . ..V V V V 26 V. m . . V . III I I V V V V V V. V V o 7 H V .. _ . I II. V . . . V . III-1|..- .-.--[lIIIT-IIIIII . . _ . . . _ _ V :- ----.V I-..-III-:. ---I-- V V . V V V V V V. -V.----- - VV . I--I-VV--I--IV V .V . V V V V V V .. .V V, VV 2 V V .V 4 IIILVVIlI .I.VV ll-..) ipllfllll a V V . VV V. n _ m V 6. . - . _ V . . ..II. V II I IV "VIII .- I .I II.- V V V V V V V . U V V O . 6 V m V V _ V . V V . V V II III..- IV.II-IIIII.IIWi-VIIIII-IVII III_IIIIII-. Vr V V V . V . . V . V . . .- . V m V _ V V .V V. w VVII-I-V-II III-I T -..: V.. V. V ... V V . . .- V . u . . . . r . V V . . 4 oil. 2 V V V V _ V . V. ,V V .42 :V : V II.II.IIIIIII..II III"! I; . V V . . . - . . . . . . u 0 5V V . . . . w . . . . . V .v' II ...II I I'll I V V V .V .V . V V. a . . V . V. _ V II 4V1 I I -.. -lei.|IIIV[I. Iran-I09,“- II III-I . . . . . V V . . 1 . . . y . V V. . V7 - o . V. .V m V V . _ V V V . V. . . V V -I..II.-..III- . V .V. V V. V I. V V H . V VV V .V . V V V V VV. . VIII: r V_ V V. . .. V . V V . u . UV. -. . . ..2 V... ... .V.- .. _V IIIII-Vi-IIVII-II a _ _ V V . V V V V . V. V V V V. .-V _ 7* W’II'I . . ..1 II! I I l. I. V n . . . . . . V — N . h . 7 4 .V . . . ‘ . . I . . h .V V r V 1 VIII-VIIIIIVIII r V V V. V. .V V2 V, .VV; VVVV . V V , V ...V 7- V . V V V V V IE2 V III-V V. .V_ .VV V V V _ V. 0 o 9 I . . . V . . H n w . VII“ .11 . . [III-VIII I--. .V.... CV l_ V V V V V V V V V V. .8 ......8 .V . W... .V. .. VV. a n .VVII' .lv‘. d .1 I .I. . V II Illi I I. I F . m M u . _ u . . .- I 2 3V H . . o . o ..... g . V V er. V V V---V..V.-VIIIIV-; _ 8 V .V, V. V. .V. - V 0. V. V V V . J. V V. I V V V. V. ... V. 0". . .. _ *. “é... . w .._.v .. .. .. “mi 9 . ...... V _ “ III-IIII- I-dolV . V V7“. . .VV . .. .VV 1 .VV .VV ”.VV .VV ed~i.t. VI I II V .. V. V .v. . ”.VHVL I ...1 2 V .... H. ... .b ..I. V. V 0/ VV . V. V V V _ -MIMIH.V4IIIV-V V _ V V V. V V a__ V . .V V V . VSVVS .VV7. _, VV_ . _ IIIIIIVIiII---“ -.IIIIIV nt. V V 8 V V ... V V V. T5 .V....1V V. _ VV V. .V V. . 3 "III! -VIIII VIIIIIII. {IA- . V. V V . . V .VV. ..1 1 ”V. ... .V V V “V CC V V V V V. V r V. V V V V .. . V. V V VV V I . V . u I V . V . V. V V .. mV _ V _ V. V V .. V V ..--IIIIIVII V ._ V V V V .t V _ V. V V V. V V V V I VIIIIII|IIIIOI . V .. V _ a . V. _ . V V... V III-68.....VI-IVIII [II -V V V .VVVV V V. V V V. .... .VVVh V V. I VVV h V V V . IIVTIIII-IIIIII II -IIVT l V. .V V ... V V V. . .V V . . . . . . . V-VV VtSV V V V V _V V V -.. V . VV . V .. p. . V .V . . ... . H ._ .. .VVV . V -V _ V V. V V V V V V...... .VV. V V. V V _ V .V . I IV .- mIoIr-V-.VV-I V V V V .VV V .VV V. V .V V V V. M . . I i o III...V.I ll?‘l|‘||kullll.|. .2. . n V_. VV_ .V .— V... _ _. p ”- VV m m e.— WV w . - 'III' . _ Illlr'l I—rV 0». 3. fi V “ V..- ...... .$x V. V. V. V. V .V V V . .. . V. V. V V II. III... V V V-V V: V V e. _ V V V. V..VVVV .VVV -I.- . ~31-- --IV-IIIIVII t d V. V.-- V . V. V . V V V V V. . V q .M 1 4 . V V V V. . I V: V. m a VI- I V I LII-2.39-. .V V. .V V. V V . 1.5V. .V .VI V V. V V 0V V . V V IIIIIV-I V - V V V .V "V: .V . V H h V V .V . V V. 2 V I - .. V0 V V V V .sw. V V V V. V V. V V. V: V V. .V. V I -I.III-I..I V _ V V . V .V V 14 V .V<. .VV V V . H V. n .7: - .2V.|VIIIIII II I L . V V .- V . ”.VV 0 6 . P. . V V . . V. V V eo 6 . V V V V- V V- I.- .V... _ VV. V. . -rs- 9 V V V .V V VVVVVVV-V -I. I I V... . V--V er. V . .V. V V V. V V .1 IIIIIII '.III|II. . l .. n V . .. ..w 54 o. .vm I. I IIIIheI A V V 6.... _. V VV; . ... . . T IIIIOllIlallllI I I IIII. _ a . .~ H V. . . ID . .V H V .V p. V IV-III; V II . V .VV V. ".1 V V. V. . . . .V V V V . V H l .V V VI V.V V V. V .V o V . V V. V. V V. V .V Vi; . V . V V V V. V . V V V . a V -. V V V w. . V V V V .V V . V14 V .V .V V V f V .V V .V I I-VII- II- --V-IIIV..V- V V V V V. V VVV . .4; .VV. f V. .VV .V V _ .V-II V .. .I., V V V V. V.. V... V V. .VVV ... .V. V .. . . . . V . V V V I. . V. .VV .» . . . ..V . .V _ 'I'IOI rlII . V V .VV V V V . V. . V .._ .V. V V V “V15. V V. V I V V V. LII-V . V. VV ._ V. V V .VVV VVV.V 2 .V .1 .V .VV... _ V. V V. -.-II-.-.I I--. : V VVVVVVV5VV13- V V, V; .. V. V V V V _ V -2 V V , .VVV V V . .. .V . V _ . . .. . i a» V. V V V V V . ....V VV .V V - V H V _ V.. . . . . . V . V . « Ilpfl V... N u 9- M . VV. . .V 3 2.. ._ V. .- V . V V - I-..V.-I- V .V VV. .6 V. I) V. .VV V V V. .22 V V V .V .I III I-I-I.--. - - 5 . . V VV9.V V V V. . .V.-.-4 V.IIVI-. . V V . ..V VV. .V V V ..l. V _ VII6 . . . . ...... . “.43 .1... V .. V w.... .V V V. .. V. V. “VlVVVV ”V. a V- .. V V V. V. V. V ..I V V V V . . n. .. V w m. V.. 9I7‘ .. I ....h ... . um“....“.wlflin .V. 2 ~ h .V MIMI a .. 4 3 All. 1 O rlil W » m. . . . . ..V ..H» 0V .H~owqh o... . . o ..P ..VIIn . Art 2 V V 9 V - V .. ...... _ V .V. 2 2 2 2 .- .. ..-V V. s 3 2 1.0 V‘ V < 1:. 1 1 9 8 If V b I._LI¥ . 1.. 7 V I 1 1 6 ..J 4 3 2 1. Sauna to thc (Lentinwtcr -37 . T . 9-91-99.99.19 .999 ”I'M-W"- FM” . r . . 1 1 ' 1 1 v -—-—~--I_r_ 1 1 L _ _ . . 91 .1141 1 1 - .1? 1 -1 1 1. I ..- .A 9 _ 9 ,_ 1 11. .. _ . .9 9 9 9 1. . 9 . . . . 4 . 1 ...9.-1,111.---- 9 - f- 19.---.. . 9 ._ A . 9 9 . Q 9. u 9 9 9 9 1- 11.1 . . 9 .. II“. 9 . 2 7 .. .. .9 . _ 9 11-1. .1w/ . «a. 1 . 9 5. . 9 i 9 9 9. 9 9_ ,1... .9 9 . . .91 1 ..111..-9 ...9 9 9. . 9 .9. . . ....9 2w 9. . 6 9.-.-...}.111191-119.111-..-11119 9 9 M 99. 9. :41, 7. .9 99 \I . . ._ 9 9. . «101115.191. .. ..9 1 -1 7, 9 9O 6. .9 9 , 9. 9 ..9. 9 .. .11... 19w .-. . _ 9 9 _ ... . 9. _. . ... H 719111111111 _ 19-11.11.11 m}.9 9 _ 9. 9 .9 1 9. .. n .....99 9 .9 . 9 .. 9 3.9 . ....... ... .... . .. 19-2 s .9 a .669 . 2 . . m 5:9 5 9 ............ 9.9 9 o _ .1..--....-.-1.-9..-. 1111.11-11... 9 .. . 9...9 9 ..9 99 . ...o 999 ..9.-....9 9 .2) . ...-...91 5 9 9.9 4 9 9 9. U9. 99 9 MP.) .99 .9919... 9 7599 4mm 9 _. .9 .6. 9 9 9 . 9 . 9 .. 9. 9. 9.1:... CI. 1-- 19.11.-.-9. l 9 22 4.....-_.. 9 9 .9 9 9 .9. 0. ..... 1-. 914.19%. 1111 1 1 9 9 . . _ 9 .. .9. “$9 “”9 1 111.. u .9....9. ..9.. n 9..-.9. 9.. 9w -. O .6 4.9.AO-.9 .9.-f. . w, 9 3 .o 3.9. 9 9 ; m. 9- _. 9 9. _ 3.3.. th- 191----.91- 96 2 T99 _ 9 .. m .9_ 99. 9.1 ..9. 9 ...9.-L91. . 9 . 11.1- ... . . 9 . O ... _ .. . . I!“ 9 9 9 .9 9 . . 9 .. .9. .9. ....p .... 99 ..82/99. 9 a1 9 9 _ 9, 98. 5.9.. 9 9 1..d 91.. ._--11.: ...... .4199; tC111 191 . 9 .9 9. 929 9 .. 1t ..9.,_ ..9 ... 9. ..9 3 9 2 no 911111111911 .9 92 . . l 9 - .._. s n. 99.. .9 9 .. .9. 4.9. . 9...—«J .9.... ...... 1 e s . . . _ 11 1.911 111.91 M .0: H . . 9. o e . 9 9 .. _ .. . - 9 . . O n H .v . 9 91. 3 2 -. 9 . . . .m 9 . . 9 ..- . .. ..--1111111. m v 11119 ..... . O 9 9. 9. . n . _ 9 9 . 9 5 . 9 O . . -.1 4911111 1 11111-1 1 . . . 9 . . . . 9 . 0......r 9 . 9 u 9 9nw .19 9<. 9 em 9, .9 1191.11.19 9 _-. 1 .111--..-1-11.1----9 . _ 9 ..9 . ._ - 9 9... . . .-.. _. . 1 tk.. .9 . 91-11911 -. 1.11.. . .01 9 9h . .4. ...-.92) ...9. r. 9 9 .. . 9 9... 9 ..11 9tnw . .9.9..9._31..9. m. .. . _ 9. . i 9;». 9 ... e -, m. .. ...... m1 9 .. 9. 9 ......L 9 ..-fc-9. .9 .1... _ h: 0 9.11-1-91111119-111111911111 9 9 9 9 9 .91 O .. 9 ..9.. .9.-999111 gm 0 - 9 . . 9 114.11 +1 9 9 .1 . . . 9 . . . 9. e m -9-. 9 . 9 . . 9 . 9 9 D9 . . . 9 O . . .9... _ . . , . -. 1.1111 9 .. .9. 9 .. w t M 9. .9 9. 9... . 9 .. .9.. 9 .9 999 1 m n .1 1 % 1.111111 .9. 9 . + . . . . . .9 ...9... 99 .1- .. 9. .9 . 9 .9 .. . .9. . .. . . .99 . .._ .9 91111.91 .19 Mum-.96 . 9 .. 9 .A9 9,. ..9. 8%. 9-9 9 9.99 .9 . 9.9.... V . w I! w. ... n - .ndv 7A.. . .r McU99.nuo. 9 9 . _ .111911.111911111-11...1 .I 9.. 9 .._. 941A9 9... ””1113 . 9 .71 7...; 9 ... ... 99.. 9.. 9 9......9-199. 9 18 . _. 9 .- . ... at...“ 9... M2. 9.‘ ..... .«999H1M9.99 .1- 80 .9. 9 £119....- 9 9 . MM 1.11.11 9 _. 92.9 .9194 79.999 9 n. 9 1.9.... .9 III. -. 9 . » 99 _ 9 .. .4..1. hr. 9 9 A. 369-9-910...‘ ....94..99. . . .. 9. 9. t e «1111 .11 11 11.. 2 9! l I .l 1 5 r 99 9 9 . on! s . . . G 9 . .1. .- . “ 9 . 9 . - m . . ”111.. 7 . 9 .. .1.. .l 111 Olin “ 91. I .... . . o. .9.. 91A. . _ . .6 9 s I .71 . .9. ... H flI. _ 2 9 . 11.1.0-1.9-111. ..de 9 92. 9 ..9. 9 ..9 99 $6 9...9 °b9 9 .. 9 9 .9 w _ . s r .1 . 9 9 9m 9- a 9.?) 9 .4 5. 95. .. 9 .L \IS. .9 .. .- . 9 ...9 9 Y 111111-11.-.2. 9 5 . 9.. 9 9.9 ea .9 «.39 i _ j 91- .0 De -. 9-. -. . . 9. 99 9.... t"; ..9 9. 9 .9 . - 9.. ...._..... a r. . 9.. _ . . . . 9 9 . “.1 -.. . _ ..9. .9 611.111.111.99 1935 5 9.... .. 9 9 9 9 7. 4., 9. 9..-.. M1. .9. .9- 9; 1.81... 9 111-121-1111- . ..9 1 9 9. _ 9 . . . 98 ., ... .9.. 5 4. 99.. 9. 29 .9 .11- 1.1-901..- 9-9. .9 . .99 9... J 9 .../0....94919 9../O9 . 9. ..9 ., 1.1..9 9 a .9 9. 9. 9192 4:99-999.- . w. 9 9199 n 3. 9 fl 2 . . 1.9 9 ._ 9--.... 11.11.11. . _ . .. . _ . 9 .. . .- ,1 19- 9 1.111.151.1911.-- 1 . 9 5.9 . . . 9 9 .-. .9 .. . .9, 2 9.9 ...4 . 9 . . _ 9. . 11.1 11.111 1.1. #1 9 . . . . . 9 . . 4 , . 99 . . . 9 1 I) . . 9 . - 9. 9 .. . .. 9 ..9. .. 1 H ..uul9F . .91 5 .9.~. 9 9 . 9 .9 . .. . 9 v . A b 1 III .. ... . ... 9 . 9 . _. . .22 . f 9.... 9 .. . . . -.9 1111 19 9 9 .9.. 9o ...?nlH .99 99 9 9 .9. .9. .. . 9 ..3 9 9..--91: 11-1 .92, . .919 99._.9.4.._8969_... 9 9. 9 9 9. ., .. 99 1T . . 9 . ...Rw. . .. 1.. .2. 9.. .9--91 9 ,9 _ _ . .1. .. .. L .. 9... . . 9 _ 0 ... . 9 9 _ _. . . -11119.1..1_1. 9 9 ...-11.9-..-- _.1 . . . :94. . 12 9..... .. ..---11- ... . . .. 9... 9o. . ,9i9 9.. 9,89 _ 9.9 . 1 ..9 3979- m. 9 9. .999. 9.. 9.9.. ..9. .9 . . M_ _- T . 1 AW 9 1L1 H .. 9H9~ 9..... .9.. .11.... 99.....99 . 9 ...9 ..9 ..9-”19 9 999. . ...-101.1 .9 l a, 1-1.1 ,9 . ,9 _. .9 .... 9.99 9.99 . .99. .._. .... . 7 2 a w a -. 99. .....D. 9..... .1.) CJ 4 . .1 . _ 4 9. .- .. . ._ .. ... *1 1 1 3 ad 1 . 1 .9 99 .._191... .. 9 9 1 1 1 1 m 9 8 7 6 . . 9. .9 ..9.-.1.1 ...-9...? r0 4 3 2 1 . , _ . 1'- ‘ .._-..— . .1 ~--...99-_. . \ll :- II.— ,9 ‘, I. . luau-s tu me {.._-nilnlcu'r n . . . . I I s f 1 ,..2 § f . . . , . . w . 7 . , 4 ,.,.._-._..__J..._. .._... ...." -.mn- Mental hea‘th Is one of the most important nationa! problems. 29. . 4 ..... ‘ ‘f i I 1 I D l llilll‘lg. I‘l. I l ‘ A A 'fl V . ‘ ‘ ~ . 7 . ’ii‘lll‘on'lll’“ . . V . 51;8 . ‘. .. Il'l."|ll‘ 62 1p1' 116 . . . _ . .s-v| . ‘1“: ‘Iolllai1 ..ilu‘Tlll‘l . -.....V _. A . u o w . ‘.. v .. ....m‘ . v M. M. ., ......... ....... '11 237 . . lvlal 9.0.17 Q o . . w 7' o w . . . . . fl . -- .._...-._..._. -4-.- -.- }. _.~-»—+-— 1 .V_. ,u.»‘0 M M...wum fl II I‘l“.-J-I -..--. Vx + _ Y , ,. . o 4 . 0 . 5 ‘o 4 . 7 41, 4,1 _ 1 _ v x --..--__.Ur._.r., . . , .. 5.1 —---- --—--r " ;_._L.v-f._,_- qu val-4'!!! ‘lvlll...nl||l ‘1 .._. _,, . o » 0 . . d . . . , . . . .I Y L Ib'r .TDI‘I‘I'IA 4 . fl . . v 9 _ . . .‘ a. . 4 h A . . 9 A § . A . . , _ b . . 1'44: b. o , . . ¢ . v u . _ _ w o . L . . o . 4 . . '. . . . . ‘ _.,_ . .-.7. . . I 11 .._..." -..-..__.____Mh.-*._.fi--._._w __ - o v A 1? b-—._.__.._..-——~_4-.—~-——-_4>_- ‘7 . ,, . ., , , ., . . - » 12 f." 16 13 12 11 39 I 4.1-! ' b III.I.. III w-T -1l.au\ 1“]i!» IIQIJV| yl. .vlllll. I’u . in... ‘ .111: ..- ‘1' I «.i .I- \‘x ..l-Ilil! -l.. .11 V- II. n'Il'lu *1‘5 14 13 12 11 10 m . . . y.” H . m _ fl . . . _ . . a a )‘H. -. .- _ .. . _. M ..A. ... . T. rialf -. -1- ,- I .- ..,- : -- 9 . . _ . k. . 4." 6 [:4 II. {rwtv :81 4 III. 1 ll» .9.. 1 t III; I! If» I 1.31.: 7:171!- wn‘l... ii . n. Y .. I--- 1|: -fl 1...! . . . . fl . _ . _ . h .6. f 7 ...-... .u m w. _ . H m m. ... _ 7:37 _ w h ; . _.... .1247“ . V m 1. _ . . _ « __... .. _ ow .. w Y1 ill-r. It I ... dllf..!ulll.w.uu P t-V1F rub-('71! .! 3| 7”]. _ _ . H m _ .- W ” - .- _. I1. .1. w»..-g-..-:- m;- -.-._.-.-.~.-.-.--- “ __8 _ H h .. T y . _ . 9 . . .... . ....“O/ /O .._ ._ ._- _ W . ..W ... 6... h“- . .2. . m . _. ‘ .. . . . m1 . .- .II 1 13.-Ill“ I! in r I .l - . b {...-91$ -... Itilslflr {Io-#9:. J 491 . N r ills-.8. . {t4 7 ‘ - - . . . , . _ 6 _..4 .. .~a v .. w . .. ......kfi...0 .6 .... .... _ < . . U ~ . u .. . _$. . .5. ... _ w _ . 25.4-17. . .. ._ ..fi .-.... .1-5: ... r “Tia-3-1-:2Fsllfi .7 7.. H“. .... L. ..5 :.. _ . . .. 1 . - . dr- . w Q . o. a ._ M ...q. a ..m. _...-..- . .. .....1 . 7i 4.” . . a ..u .Htw. O .4..- .3 ... .. f w . .1" . 3 __1 .: 1.3.5.71... .54. . g [IE-IL. J ‘ 17¢: . h n _. r . .fl .. ...-IV! I c I... val-rl‘ -. . u . . . . 1 . . n . _ O 111 ... ... ... 7.. .Y.. ... 1 . . ._ ho- _ n. .9 “ MW ...”. .«. m ..«.~. ._ u “P 0. “. ._.. _ «r . th ” N .3“ . 7.33]...- Ot 7.... .“ __...-1.7.2“ “7.2).“.- .mm H- . 21--..1:uic...-.. .. .- -.....-—Nn . KID} .mmj t T _ . m _.2. w . .6 “W . n ... . -..-.....n-fi .... a - . .._ _ ---, ..--+- r _ o .~#-9 2:.2 ...-t O_ . _n 0 w A w _-.- .1 ....H. 2 OS .. 8 m _ ...-8 .._ * d ..1 _ . . - ‘M... ..0 hip»...- to! . 2 , w . .._ .. t5“ ”2). w...... ..... “...I....m.. c I'll -...t.. .. Ly “ . .Mulllll’ vi 3 0.11- . . L w {i110 0e . Alb m: .- W . iwm .J .6. aw “ _ n y...- ....fium. dr 0 . _ M.Ol.~ r." ....o... . H -.-;".4._.._...- H e a 5 p _ 8 .* a t s ... .Q/-_a M H _ ....- ..9.-I1. ..... .Oh M .2 _ _. 5.33n 7.2.. -. . I .-....L tt 1111-...2? ...- .. . _ . . .l 8h .I_- IWWIW!. . . 1. r -. rt. . . M m .“MD. .M. ...-n.“ 4. 7T. _ . ......“D. .. -. 08 H . u W _ .. ...._ .. . “A waw.. _ .... . y‘w..~ .. t h 0 vll? IIHF-bot L [twirl-4!.- O'OHib- 57.2- I I. . . . L... . M u s u Mv . - .m . a . _. _ w. + A- . . . . - Ct W . _ 1.1-... m . ._3 _ - ,1 _ .- 4... _ O m .w u . A ”T-gfiiw- 9M6... _ .. “_ff H ..H: . d “In .- W _W _ .. m __ __ - eamd.. » A . “F w .- . ..4. mt .T--” m ,. MA MU) fh. e _ _ _ .....A ...... . mkh- . 4 “1.1.. _ - .22--.. -- a... tum WW .- .. _r. H _--., Maj t -..- 1 .. _- - -_ . .. . . . . H . tW - _h m m . w. .P OK»...h . . W1... . <7 o n Iiil.‘- u. . .II‘” _ {IV «1. .rl. ”.1: . b n.r. ml < ..llwllbll. Lippi“! .9.-MM..- ..4 M f. __ . . “ ...”.mmfi F 7 .... ,J 01.0 ..«M W Li _ m £66 - “Ida”; . I. 434.61 h Pr ...-t :M-I-r-iI-iL T ,- . - Q 2 _ ._ n n D... N * .. . l W m N n .. - “7:1 .3. - a -.-.--.-i-_.I-.-: . , _ - _ 1; cl. 3 A h .4.- .. . r . . . . . w _ .. _. M w a W .. a '. ... _ ..8 . ... ecv. _ . . . i ..9 5 _ ‘ H j . l . } .l ..w n __ N a w m. 1 . -. m a . .M.- . u. -m. .5. py‘li _. . H . n. A. 6”" - _ q ecm . ... . .9.. _ 4.2 r”. M - m m a film . --i-- .--_..--..-iw.--i a ..;._--.4 w; 4.44.1-1-j m m m _ . 4. . aw . .5- . , fl. - Pmrgys ... We... “ . .04Mw .- . . .V......fi3.3.4.4....7 o Mir-...?!i-LL-ism-I2». . 9 W 2 - ,. b :L. o . .w u. u 9... .. T... 7.7. mu . T M f 2 . H _ .-.j 2» I iwlt-m-Io 9 .-. - . .- ..- h ...-.1} .4.“ .. . h H . 7 - -. . H. - _ . _ . _ . u v. .7- . ... _.,2 .H .m 8 a . ...9 3. .- A l . m 4 .3. .0; _ . . l ..... 2" .... a) n 2 II'I‘I'.I 7f-l...OA-6|l ILIHJFYI‘ . .- .6- .-----....----.-.-....---!-......-u- Iii-«2... w - 1.3-- m 4. .- ... A“: w . Q“. .- 9H ......... 8 . fl. _..m4 .4-M 2 __ _ _ .. 2. . . H .._. g .27...“ MM._ _ W 6 u... My .. .. .. . 56...... {-3,- . 7 + .g r . . ..- 7.. ._ M m _ _ .u . _ . “.6 :; . 75”,... .H. .. .. .. u 71. H . -h .- -.51. 1. . w * 6. “ ......) ..flp-_. :q:.h..-h-.“. .- 721 _ . .2 . A . «L ‘. 4 . . . .. . . . L: .. H _. _ ” D _...: ... 1. ... .973... 31$... fl . _ w . I . _ f . f. .13» 7: ...-3.4.. L . ._.+_ .. _ H _r r- . ; ..9.-L. C W 2 1 O a. 7 0 . . 2 2 2 l .r; 1 w; w M. B M.“ M m 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 quarts to (he Centimeter 40 ..11 A. . .H . 1: ...-I .. . H . _ . _ .. . . . . H - . . . 9 .1 11. -..-11.2-1 11-1- .- -11 - - - _ A . . H wk rL. . . _ . _ _ . _ .H ” . .. 0/ . .. . . H H . . H H 26H. . .- 7 . . . . H _. . . _ _ ; . . 7 . .. . _ .. - - 11...- 1---.-11-_----1 1H 11 . . . . O M H. 5 . . H H .. H .- - $11-11.- .. -z- .... .9 .m6.35 H. _., .. . ...:H. . _H. .. ..2 . .. 111-1.-. 111117) . .- 111..- --1 .- :1-.1 .- . R2 H H....H _....H H. . ... H. H , 6. . . 1... ... H. - -.. 1. 4: 2111-.-11-1111 . . ..H - H H H H. .9“ 7.. .. . . _ -. . .. , . o . ..1. ..1-11- . 1.. 1 , ,- H . .. RU H O/ - E) . H . H _ H . . H . , .1 H -111.- 11111 . H H .HH .. H r3. . . .H ..... .. H .. H5... . ........ 1||Il1s “111111.17 ._ . m H.. _ H ..H H _ H _ .H ..OH H 4 5 . . - 1-111._.:1-11-.- . ..... . . H . . . H . . H . . _ . . - H H . . _ ._ -H . . . . .. ._ .7. 2 .. .1 m...- — ...-.H - ._ H H . .. m...“ _. .. .- .H .. « n . .r .1--- a -- .6 . 3 : . H .xtfif; . H39 4. H _., m . - Hr . ...... .. . ..... ., ... . . . , . e --.-.11. . -.. . ...6 __ 1 . _H . . . . - . M. . . . . . _ . - c H _ . _ .6 H..... m . . H-....f.2 ..H. ....- H . . _ ,_ . . ._ .. . H . .. . . .. . I Full. 1 m wc-.llln.lilll'1-11-1111.Hl . ..6 H. 2 H , a -. _ H .Hw. 8 v” HH H.%/ .3..H.. H _ 1...- 111-- r. . . . . .- .. . f n . . u . . _ . .n 1... . ... 1 :H . . .4. . s . H H. . .H...,.H... .H . H-” m .. 8.1.111-..11-n1alwstvlr. . .- 11.1 . ,6 . . H M. r? l .H . ... .. .- ..-...-|_..1H--..-I-f.-.. o _. n . ...... ....d ._ __..... ...... . .. ._ 11.- .. 11-..- -.-1.- ., l .. .. .l ..4. u. _.... -H .H .. ..1.2...2. . ., n H ._ H---1 .1111”? - H1111.- fol-1...?) H H..... H..H.-H..1 ..-HH..-H e .. . _ . _ H _. .._..n 11-. i . _ .. . L r _ . . . .9 . .1. c ....7... ...-.. ... _. 1.11:1 -..-_d . .H. _. H .../D. O. ..H ...- ...oH...H-H._ H . .. UH.-....H. H . .. III 11- 11-51-111-- - .11 I 1 H1 . H H 1|: . H. 0 . . t . H . _ . . H . - . H . . H . . 8 1 . . . +- - - . 0' H . H . 1 1111- 1.1- 1 - 1111-111 F1.1-1-r|l--.1.l111.1. . _ . 0 . H . H .. . - H y H q . 9 . - H . _- H H .-. . In - .. H H . . . . H <11- .IH1111HILH “ 3 . .H .. . . .1 - . . H . . . . . . ._ . - _ _- . . . H. T ...... .:.. .- . .. .-.... H -. . . .9.. .....H 2.... .......H.. ...D .. 1.1-.t --.---..--.-1..-.-..--.. . H ... ...H H..... ...... H.. H ....-.- J ”H F .H. C . H H -1 171-1.. .1 -H. .a _ .._. ......HT... _..--_...... e _ . . . .. .. .1 . _. .. ...- ,. f , H f H - ._ _ H . H . . . H . a t s _. H . .- n - . . H 11 1. 1.11.11 11: $111111.”- 11111141.... H H H H . H H .3 0t . . .. . .. H H ... .... . f . . . .5. .H.. -. . __- H....- .. H... 111-.- a 11-1- - r - . - . . .H . ._ .. n1... . . ....W . _ .. .-.-_...s . . Aw H . 1. .mr. - . H..-n+3...“ - o . . . ..9 . .m ._ _ .1 1 _ -. .. . . H . .. .. . . . .w .1 . 1‘i 1!} H ...-.5. ..H. . M- H H_..) ... a. H.. . ..-... .... 2/ ....fi-f... 1"] nt -.lull..” . . .. ... _ .... H .‘ ..... . .....H.a ....I..uh .- -. 3‘! 1--.. - H .. .. . so _. . ... u ...... H . 3 7. H1 . .mu- 9..? H _. . . ..- ..Md H .- ... H ........-....7..._.H0.H. .,-.-t.d. . H H . H .. - H .. .- ... 1 ..-.. ... .. .H -. .1--, {.08. .HlHH. H . . .. H.7- H amupvva H. ...-..H H. H.. H71./\- (111' 0. . 101-11 1-IH1‘P, .. . H . .... 6 . .0 . H. . th . H H h . .H . H . n O . . O 6.. HP. .. .- . 1.- . _ ~ . u u H _ u ‘ u - . u . . . my“ H H H 4H .. . .1 H , n t . w 4 _. . . . H . 4 -. .1 - U1 .. - ...- .w-p . ... . ..---._..- .11. .. . ..- _ , -7. . .-av. . .. H 4H . H.494 “5 H.. ”fl H. .7. H.H ..HH .. 111- s e 1.131...-- . 1. . H . . .. ... . -_ 1 .l . . ... J- - ouch H - 11-1-11- I,,.-H. . . _ m . P . ... H... . H....L H. .5 .5. .... . .Dt .. . . ...-DH .. ah ... 1. .... .2.- . z _. ... _ __.H._ .. .sc. .- 1 -..: ..-. H _. H .. . .6.. 2} H H.....“ .H... H ...-7.... _.... .Hl11111 O ...-11.11....- --.....11 H H H H H. .l . .- om ..H... .H“ H..HH.-..7l._o .... if . .. 5 . n .l. i .11 I ...11 ., ..- p H _ H. H H .. H . . .-. O , . 1 14-. 2 H - ,. . H .H . . HH. . H .. O 4 H ...-.. H “:4 .M . H H...» . H .6HH H.“ H H l . .H .6 .4 . 1. - .. H. .. . . .L.H._....%HJ H 5, . . . ...HH....... 9...-H. .1111 . . g . H. . .. H .- , . ... .. H ...2 r .. .. H .1 ..... .-:---.-_ . e . :r. .. . ;.,f.:H: _a - -H MI .H- a ... . M H H H - . . HIIJIHIHJI-o-lllilfllv.l.nvlu.u. ...-HH24.“ H . . _. ..H .. H H4H .. . I -. 4.1.. . . . a .. .... -. . . .flflc‘ulill .‘H __ _, . . .... ...m 2.9.; . .. . .31....- H H . ”1-11.. ...11w111w . - .2 . H.. H H_.... .6 .flW—LHHEHHT. . .. .. H H H H . . . . . 1. 4 H..“ ...H . .. _. .H . . H .H . . . . . ..Hr .5. v...HH " A“... w H .6..~ .m .. .. H . H. _H H‘w “Ha.” I .. .H va J ..~..w. — . . _ . . 1 .. . . .. . ... . ... ...,- Z. .7....,..,. H ”III-110.111.!1I1Hv1111-1l1. ...H .-.Hi. 4~ .. . . ... . _ .6 Hnn. .1 L .-.- H.fl t-h-11-H1- H+.5 olw . u- . _- ‘_v . .3'11 4 s . .2 ...-.1. H w.“ ._ .H-. H. H u H- .. H.- . H l H H. ..H.. .. . . . 1 .. .-.-..-.- -.-4..H .. H.. . . . . . .. . ...-V. . . . .. .. . .. .... _ . . . . n- .. .. .. .._. ”H. ..D H. _ ... ....- L H. H” H.. . .. .. L .... .- .h. . H .1 .H. . H .. H.1Hfi.H.-. - . H.. _ ... .- .. ..HA. .. .. H... ..-HD H..... _- .. . b — . .. .._. .. .. a. _ _ a .9 .13-.1 .1. + H .. H ... . H. . .T. M 3 2 1 _u 9 H.. . 11-.. .._ 1. .. L .- . .. . H... HH.1.._Hq-.«..,.,:-H...H.;H....r. AI. . r-L a}. 1 . 1 >1.. ..1. . H.. _ 1....» «.H..-». v e 1 .- «o. ... H 2 2 2 l .. 1 mm m M B 2 1 0 9 8 7 .1. L1. v-1.- 1H__ __..-H ..H- 1 1 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 15 11 12 13 ~14 10 squares to the Centimeter 41 b _...-__..“.1 1---.. ~ 1 _ . . 11 v 1 . 1 .1 .1 IV! . 1 1 1 1 . _ 1 1 . . _ , 1 . . ! _ ‘"--—1-..-.- ..... ..-... -!. J I‘ll.’.¢l'-\no -6 1 o ” ...-.... 1 I .2 A 1 o 1 . . 1 1 A. 1 .1 1 .. .-.2 1 1. -. 1 . 1 . 1 1 1 1 1 ~~~. 12.6715"? léuziéti . 1 1. .4 "~--~7-¢-.._. . ........... 1 . . I!!I!ll-«.!|l [£11 1 1i . .... . ....... -.. .. -- 14 13 12 .1. 1 d 1....1. ......... I a w v 1 . 1 , ...- o 1 1 , , . -1! w ...m W d .m. ..8 ..1, .n -*1... “1.1%.. “.. . v p H .r. S 1 .. . . . 1 m“ 1 .... ...”.._..1.. _ .1 .u fl .5 . 1 ... ' N .+ . H 1 n ..m". H..?! .z/ 3. e 1. A11bW.M 11 la. «y. ”4 .3.. . d 1 1 11-1 1 . P 1.1.11111r!11. 1 .. ... _ .1 .1 1111- 11-1!!! 1 1 1 , . _ 1 1.- _ 1 1!! ... 1 1 .11 w. 1 1. 11. 1.22.1 11 1ws.11.1. 7.1 ,1 . m 1 .w,...... . .1 1 .... 1. . . 1 r1. ..1. 4J 7.. o... . . . v . ..1. — . 1 . . .2 .. 11 . 4 .m 1 1 1,1 ,1 _, 1 1. 117.111.119.11; x 1 9a 20.1.. 139.11 1 ! 1!!!! l...- ! 1.1.»! l ...!!r.-. !! !.!!l a M. ! !-- . . p 1 1.1111411 .11! n e I. 1 1 . 1 r-.. . a 1. v . . .1 1 . v . . . ... .< . . r» ....- . w . 1 .-w. . . 1. 1 1. .1 1. 1.... 5 O. ”I. am- .1.,- .61 .1 e u!!! .- l: . - L [1! 1.! 1 .. 4 . 1 -0!!! it!!! . ! o ! m ! L. k r fl. . 1. . m .- .1 11.. .1 .. H.. .< 1.11 IolqO.v 1 .. .w .1.” ..... .1.-W11 .1 . .a 11 ,1 .1 1 1 1 1.. 1. D1 .9.” 1, 0'1 .1 11. 11. ,D . “I... m .1. 1. h w a 1. 11 .. .. _ 1 1. . 4 ... 1. q ...1”..-. . .1 18-1 1, 11 1 ---!.!1 1 1.1.1531? .._1,__1o t 1 1 1 1 ..1 1 ! . !.-.!!-1-! a _ 1 _- _ 1 .-.!- o ...11 11. -11, 111 1 1.1 11 1. ..1, 1,1111.o.n1: .1. ...1-1._ 1 .1 a ..V. H . 1 H A o 79" v 1 I 1 «- 1F :4 . 1 e. v .1 11. . . m 15,. ”1, 1 1.. 1.. 1. ,611.11 TIL-11-1713 11-. 1.11 . . _. . ._ . 1.. 1.. . . 9 m a 1 . 1‘1- 1... m_— .._ .71.» .11. 1 .1 ._ 1 1 1 1 . .1. .1. 1!.1 v .11 . 1.» . 1 _ m l H M .1 »|.. +1 . . . 1.. ..D. 1 ...-.1: 1 1.“ a .1 . .1. .w!.. 1. 1. $ _ .1 . .. ....1 .1 .....r-MD. .h .1 . . 4f... - - 1 1 1 _1 11 1 h .1 1, 1 - .1 ,1.!” 2.1!. 1.1.1!-11M..1.11-31.-1 1 K N O 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 16 14 13 12 11 10 rd 81C lf\‘2 Yu 42 15 W1$II~11111 V . 11.11111 .V. V V. 1 17 .V . . - - ..V V. 7 - - 1 7 7 - .- _V 7 V. 1111- - V . 7.1 117-111 V 7 . 7 7 71111.11 . V. 7 V. ... ..- V 7 7 _V 7 1-_- 7 V H 7 H _ .11 7 . . 7 7 11 1 7 7 _ 7 7 7.1- 7 V. 7. 7 1-. -VV - 7 . .. . V. -.-.--1- _ _V. . V 7 - m j 1 a . u ...7 . w H ... 7 ...-11. 17:11 7 . w V 7 7 7 1 1 u 11 v . 7 o .V V .111 7, V 7 .1.... 1 . . V... . V- V. . V 7 V 1-1..-V1 .. 7 . . . . -V _.---1 - 1 -. 7 ..7 7 7 71- 7 0 . 7 . 11.1 7 V 1 1 .1.-.1111 . . C. .7 7 17-..- .- V . V7 ..... ._ .._ V7.7 .1.-71 17 7 V . _ V -7 17111 11-1..1-.-1 V . W 7 7 fl . .1.-1 W .11.: . V 7 _ . 7 . . 7 .. - 1.7: 111 11.11 7 h A H _ V . V7. 7 117111.- .97 _ 1-- 11.1.- _V ..7 ... 7. .. --..-. 7 .7 1.1.- w7 . 7 . .11.. 797 9 .6 7 . . V . .1.-17-11. 7V. 7. . . . ... -. V. .. .. . 7.. ... ....V 7 V. . . ...-111:... V7 . - .V .7. .V-.---1. .5. 7. 7.. . ..5. - .7 .V. 7.7 1..-...V-1VIV. .13 ... .7 ... 7 . .V.... 7 .7 .V V V .V.... 7 . 7.. . n .V 7 .O 3 .7... _ i .....VV7VVV .... -11. 7... V 1.30 V.. _ . _-1 .35.. V . .7 g , . .113. 7 ..VV 7 _ . .V.V 7 7 .. V V . 1V 6 7:11 r V .7 V 87; . V... M V .711... ..7.1 _V . I o W I - . M . . . . . . . - Q”.V u . .. m 7 7 w . .7. n V. . 7 M . .7 N 7 . . n - 1 .lfiv-bt. .5 . 6. . H . . . 7. V.. _ 1111 . 7 . _ 1r 7.... . V. . . . - V 01.7.7.7 _.-...1. V 7 7.14; 7. 117 .7.. V . A. 7 V 1.7V. 11 d . . . :3 ... . .1. .V .7.. .V... .1---. fl“ _... 7. _ V _ C . V . 7 V . . . 7 I11 .- .7 . 7 7 . .7. V. .7 7 77 1 7a.. . _ .. o T111. . . V :2 7 . - g 6. 7 v. a7: 41:-.. 1 .V 7 .V V. t . :YV .1 7535:... .- 677. .7 V5 . . . V2 q M. .7 . . 7.7. 7 _ 4 er ...-...... . . ...-IIIIII . .76 3p“. 7 ... .. . “7., . a .9 11.1-19.0..- ._ . . . -..-..-- ._ 7.V.. 7...)... V. ...-i 1.. V. ..:VV7VO/ 7 . -11I1 . .._ f. .._/7.. .77... :- . _... .VVV-t 1 7 2 .7 7 7 1171.5 . 7- n V V .... V7.7...V..rj. :7- v s 7 . 71- . 7 .-. 7 . 7 V 77 7 . V . 5 . e 7. .5 . V . . . p H . 7! ..4 _ . . _Vv. 771 U -..--7 .6 . . 7......7V2) 77... 2| . 7-or.7w..u 7 _ V 17.7077 7. e 0 7. 7 _ - .- 7 ..9 2 2 ._ .V d 1 . 71.. 1""- ......w .. 7V. ILh v .. 7 . 7. .- . 7 -.. .. . 7 a 1 v .2 ...?n '- I .7 01 . 7:7... 7. . 71 .V. V. -.....T e V V .7.77Vlc 0|. ...-_..1 tr 7.. . V 7. V7 . J - 711.1111 7. .2 7.. 7 V V . 7 1 7.. b V 7 8 . .77.... 6 .2). V . u e .-. . 7 111-11 .- 7 7 . _ . . .... 7 . 7 o 7 . -7 V . .. r 7 _ . . . .- +- e - . . _ 7 V .- - _ V .- V V V. .0 7 7 7 7 T. 7 7 . V . V -zn..;.;7 . 7 V 7 37-1.. V .V 11 . V. 2.73.. . - . ._. T. .V VV._ . V . 8 V V V- s - V -..-.7. . . V V - 1 ... a. . 7 . . . V V V ... - 21 . . . . V . . _ fin .- .7 7 ... . . 7 V .V_.V . 7.7.... m” .V- .7....... 1.7122}. .. -1.-... 90. 7 .V.. 7, .7. .V . 7 . 7 . V. 7.7.. cl. . _7 7 V 7 .. 7.71.2 ... .- V ”- w M -..... . M . . 7 1!..m11 ... 7 . r 7" _ 7 7 7'. .. u H . 7.17.2.7 n 7 7 . 7 . .. . .1-. V 111- .. V .7 . V V L. V..- . 111.. . . . V 7 1... .- ... V... V. - .V 7 V" . .7. 1 1 eh ... 7 _ 7. 7 . V .7 7- m V 7 V .5... - . VT . . 1-. V....r 7 7.. 7 . 7V 7.13 . 7 .1.. ....-.V8.1. .... .. V. 0.. . . . .- , . V”. 7 . .. 1.1.»- - ... ,.. +. . 74 V 7 7HtVVVV.7V 7 .V . 7 7 7... . 77 7. . .V .77 1.111- a 4... V 7. -.71--V1:-V . 7 .V.V. ...74.1 n c 7 .V . _.71 . ...-V V1 V . . .. -1111 . .. V: en V ....... . t. 1.111 CWT . 7 7 7 .7. .-----..1-1 .7 ..V 7 .... re 7.. V 7..- ..77 . ...7IVD V V. ..w.m7V-V 1.11. . 7. V297 -1 ......m 7.7 .V .- 77- $75.7 .-. I .- .. 7. ..11. 7 7 07 7a. .0 . .7 71 7 . . .7 . .7 .111 nOVucl. . . V7 . 1 _ 7 V ..o, 7 ”m I V . . V. .7 V . .77 . V 1111.1 7 . . cl. 711.1 .7 ..V .7. 7. .7 - V 2| 7 _ 7 77 .. 7 . V . .7O-11. ...v e 7.1.7 w m 7 . 7 - V .l\ f Ch ”+7 ... .. 11'7711 .. U 7.”. .. w. . Ps7. -V.---.171 . 7. [3V VVHVHP. 7 dc ..V. . ..-...7 .7. V. .VVA ..VV7<7 V.- .. II. ..V.. 7 7 . rv-V - 7 . .7 0.5/0 .77.. . w . 7.. 77 .77 . 1.:- ... .1 t .. V . . V - L127 . _V .- el- . . ._V 7... _ V... V V1. .DL . 501-7 7 V. V 7 IJ .....VVda 7. .1.-.7 .....773 .V...-1...- .-...+. o 17111 7 7 7 . ..3... V Q .7.-... nm . . . 7 . 5.7. 7 w . . u. 1 viva-‘1. * . 7 .. w . . 1m. -. i 7 ..w- n .—2 7 . ... . .1:- H 1 _ . 7- 1.71- V 7 7 o 5 . V .l . . 7 . 7 -. .. _-_ ... . . .T1.1.1... 3.. 7 _ 7 - V. .27 5V .V. m0_- 7. .V V 7 .7 . . Iii-.11... V .0 .7. Ha” .- . ..-..- 7.. V .7- n7. _7.. 7 7 7. . . ... 4.10111. 7......) .V ,V 7 7 _V I... . 7 7 ..-1 _. V. 35VV7 4 7 V7 7 7 7. . .V.-.-007.. .1.- .V7. 6. . 7....-- .- .. .1--.- .._ -.84 1.1a»... .. V2 377.... V V 7 7 -V- 7 . V7) VV eh .._ V. _ 5. V 7w . .fi . W . CJ . _ .7 . Ft ...7 _.d . .7 ... 1. 7 -. . 7 Q 7 .. . 1.7 . ._ V _ .77V4 ... 7. 7 .. 4 . 7 . . o .. 7 .V ..5 6 7.,1 5 V. V. .7 4 1 .7 .9 2 7. .._r . ...-o. . 7.. . V7 __VVV...- V7 . 7 23. 47VV.V.V. 7.: V. .r . a?” .7111rl_l17 . -7 V . - . 1711-11-71.... ..rTVw 7 2 .V! 7 .. ..--1...... 7: .1- .. 3:4,: V. . _ 7 . 7 ’|'.. . .. .h. ....— .. 7 . .4 +11. .. _ V. . _ V 1111121? V. _ .72 .. - L7 . . 7, V . . Vlv . .7 O 1 7 7.. .77 1.3 -7_VV7V 7 72... _V :7. V. ,1.-.VV. 11'4- . .....~ . * 7. . .. 78 . .V- 1 +-. «777“ 7 7 . ' 1414 . .V..u .1 V. 7 H .. V . .l .- .rrx . .m. .77.. 7 ~. . 7‘9 .1» If."..‘ . ”.3 3., 7. .H .- .. N . . w 7 . ... L . .7.“ 7 -..v 7 l'll, 7, O 4.- VV . ...-.._. 7 V _ 7 .mh 1.. V V 7 ..5. 7.7 77-..-..7. 13.7.. P17 .7 _ 7 7.. 7. 7 7. 7.112 - 7.7 .7 . 7 n .. -.. fl .4 . 77 . _. . V.. 7. . . 7 V . 7 -..- .. 7 .4. . 27 VVV7 1....7 .V V . .770. . . 77..5.27V_-7 _ . . . - 7 7 . 7 7 .0V ....V. .... .. ,1 Q. --rOI. p1 w . >7 7 . 7 u 4 . 41 .u- - . .71 a 7 ... 1w . ._ m H . 7 H . 7 . . H .- . 7 _ 1 5.. . 7 . 4 t 1V1 .- - 7.. 2 . .._ avfiw1‘ 4. .._. 7. . 1411.1.1 H. W» -_7.-.. . .4 7 - V .r . «rh.m .m. H .74 H78 ... 1H- V V. H V. . V. .7? V. 7-7.7....7- .745 .1 .V- 1 1. 77...... .-,.7 {~8 far...» .._. V .44.... .r. 1. 1.. 7.. 77... .... ..VV_ . _ .V -V ... 11. .. .V ... V .17.. V , -.x 7 V V- . 7117 La 1 7 7 H h 79- $1.1».- H w “1” . 11m1D 7 .7 . _ 7 8 .-V . ..9.-r77. 7- 7 7... 11.1 17.... h. . |v17 ..-.7 7 7.7 .‘1 AU 77 ii} 14 11 10 * un Q' I ‘I ' '1 ‘ Q ‘ y r \ xt'ir 43 , ¢ 4 M . An " 7 . A n 7 . . . . _ . m . . “IE. I 1’ .. l9 1 111.3 D 7. I1 11 . 10 till: 0» .T 7. . ,1 ., 1:! III .131... w , _ . H W . . D . _ , _ . . u _. _ . O . . . . w 0 6 M _ o 7' _ _ H w . _ u. . .1 7. .m m _ m ,. . .7 _, 7 w 5 .. Q, _4I-l .IIJIt. 1.: 111$ lluifql- «’1‘174yiilclt .1711! .. ‘11 . i . I - .9 J11} . I. L n , M W. 30 4 M _ a n. .m. ”I .._ , r . . . M .H o 6 __ ...... .7 . 0‘ m . 2 0 v 1 7.“ . . . . 1 w M M 1 6.546.. 4 , I 4. .- t . s at x , [1, 7 .. II.-. 1.1.1.2”?! {13L 1.91:” - $115.71.. Mix! 4:1 u . H o . .4 . M , _ , H_.. , .. 1 .7+ ,7 4... . .6” 0 . ._. ._ . n 7 . . .. . . .4 7|. _ . .1. v4.7. 4., J n _ ‘. .. .u, .. H , _ m .. M ,L a . .ch_ 4. ..r....._8. « ...“.95..f. . m . _ _ . ..n _ _....NJ .. m _. .k .. 1h .1 H,.... 5 . ... . 1-1L .l‘zl‘. .111n 1 394.....t1 L I. lwrlT . . u 7 H . 11.1...11 .7 M h 1 . . w Law/1.5.. 7. . .2. 74.4” _. w m n. _ ...... .. 7;.”243 WW M,__.O .._._X...HWW_,.6.A.L..HH , 7 ,_ ,_ . .. . “.... H .....t-4.-lwl...ww.l-.l-. .. . wt-.. ..aii ”...:LS-.. 7.;5- 7 _ 4 77.: 1 n L 4 2 4 . 7 +mirL ._ \II “ . r.) . . w. .. fl .. 0' .. .7 . ..a. o ‘l m k ,n O .. m ".*M, l .... ".7." . A . O . a 1 ..z/ ...“..37 .. M . 2 . . a. s e, m , 7 -. a. H_. is 3 7| 0K ..... .. linii ll? _.-.. ad . H . . . . . _N . _ . 00! ..... 1 WT . . .. . . . . . . . . O m H ..9 7 .4 ... ,.,.2..U_o L H a ......_.Im..»:f..f .3m _ t. h _9._ . M, ..W 02732; n e ....f..7:....12.._ . y . _7 .A“ .3 a 0 0. . . . H... . u. . , V. m , .7.) H . ..l...H....4_.4.ma “.r1m_ N71...5 _ . 1: w 1 771+ 1 ._ _ I- 7 ill]... r 4 . “.7. . .v r h ”...,w. ..... _.. ...F.. t M m Q ._ .._ .8 . r”. . 7_ ....4..4..,.;..w.€/ ....4._ f 'y 4 u ~ 7‘ a ‘ 7. . .... _ O .. .m H 7m 0, 4 4m _: Z 4 7.- ”177ni-. 7 4., I, _. .l. w..- H _. PM... .4 m _. . . .. m ,w D” ._ 4.1% . L”. ....D w . 4 . _ .. . . _. ... .. .f7 . W. . H.. “W M. H. c w 7 M m , . ;_. _7 4. gisw . Ml. ill. .71: I 7 1.1+- In: I 717,1 I .7: - L . . , . .. . _ . O n M .7 _ M . .7” 7.. _ 1 w ii, c . .1 11111 garzllljo ..... 7 0.. __ . H 4 7 a . _.m 7 .m _.:e ._ __.. “.4 .. . A w ., .747 ._ . A...I0! ..J 7,. , . u 1 n _. N w .. . .75....“ A... _ 51b _ 1% AM ”<4; 7.17 o r1117: La 1 7..-: L. Li: ,H..._.,.7.L«.%.....irz..."-7--.,---M-,-::--.Wi.... m . ..... 1377--..-1.-L7-..i .7...-...£......_77 L. _. 4 W . , . . .. _ ,_. z . r . 7 .m . . . _ w . V. . 1 _, c . . .34 . . . 7 . ..., ..v . 7 7 .1 .. .T .4 71.0. 4 m M . .. m . m. _ 0.7..nw...;.r0w g“. 4 , ,_1.0. 71.; .n _ . w . . . , .~ . 7 " ... . . . . . 0.0.. L I .111. m 5 TI}: .... u :1 J71: ....I. T. 1-; ; i! ,J 3.3!. » 14d1l-i- 7 - 14'] 6.1.11 /\Ilo‘..4. .17 ...I 5 Ir ... 1|... .. _ , ”lilo!!! , .v . . .. _ . . . . ~ .. 4. .. . .. F . .4 . ... .. pad w M 7 7 _ .m.; 49* _P _.. e h. .4 .7 . w 0V m 4 H W 7. “-._ ¢0m46. .W1..d #7 ...“.M. .0 .J, .86 e‘ L c _ ,. 7. M fl "1. . . H .V. i _. . ..,. _ .m.” 8 ...‘ 1 0 .. I}- 98 1-5.1:! -..-nifrsiuL I 1 . ,7, a p 7 " Ll i+lfi.11_1LI.ir c 7 I H 7 . . . 4 , 5 . . . . . _ 7. . 41. 111.!!! {117-1117 t . W h 7 . w n w . 7.. .,7 .0: ‘ . a 0. _ .5 7M4..qm . . . 0.1. n 4 . 1 u A .0 , .7 HS _ w: . .7) .....25 4 M“ _ u .. 7 . . m 2 . J 0 7. _. .. _ 1 . ., ,. .... 4 lull: .. I!!! -4: it I ! 7 a- 7 .. - » - s 7 I. . 1 .ll .13.: w 1 z; m 44. M 7 ... . 54. 0 ......Lol f4 .. .. 4 m .m .7... W ...,7... m 1,, ..MI .5 a . ,;.7. 5.47:. , . .1-- 4.! «i ._I, 7 £15 _ m . 7 2. 77 M ... 4 . 3 . _ ... ..7 7 n W .._0_ . m. .p . 17.0.7.1.1Ju17777m90»: 7 w. _ 7 _H H . M 4.41,; 440/3“ g... Hnfihx..5 31.3: ~ . . “ lm.atril.li.w. , . M . . . 7. . . . . . H . . , _ . _ Th ,4 2 . _ 7. . _ _ 7. . 8" . 7 7 .. 71. 7. . 1 .. 1. W. ... w H __ .m m _ m M ”2-1.... H... .L 7M .7 I Mllx . _ w W . w 87.. 4; 7.. -3. v m ltlllrhv 2... ... . 7; w 0/. H4”- n. .4 .9.: M4” .. ~ _ . u 2_ .. m m ., A.W. _ .. . . l 7.4 . _.VH... 7. ”1 10.1.1111 .. _ .— Ir +1 7 v . . . . .. .0 ani ; _ .. m _ . 0/ ...u _ m 7;;6.. . W“ 4 ...... ., .0 .u . .mr .uV . H a ,_ . .. ... 7 4 m n. . ..4 .4 U» .01. m u . . 0 ”H _.r/D.» m“ .e a. 1, 4 m, if 91:. 14 71....“ . ”0.5%; 4,4,. 3:. 7.41 . r. w . 7 .. H . .n _ , 4... . ._., 72.; .M. ... 7...“ 4“ a It. ,. . 0 J . , . 7 1| r r P 4 7 rff. 4 , ,. M . ..d... m . w, 74*, 1.. . T, .... Q _. 1.77”. M.“ _..." "4,1,: H ._ 4:745 .L9p _tii ._: _D.. . ._.. i0;1;1: ..D 1 M... . _ , _ .7 . w 1 . .. 14.7 . 7 . .._. .. 4 .. 3. IL 7 : .... -. 3;..- 0 n. v _ ... H ._ 4 k. m .70.. > ‘. .—>... v .. a». —2«7 d7... .thi...ww . ~4wL ,l‘l‘ll ». . I‘ll". : g r r 1| 1 wt »-> >_ ,FH ,P > .. 1 Cu ._ 5 ‘4 O 9 , 4|. 1 1. 1 11 15 f ”I 1.. 13 11 10 Squares. to the Centimeter 44 TABLE 2.--Summary of the twenty statistically significant opinion items. Mean Direction of Sig. attitude NO° Item level Change 1962 1971 1971 l The best way to mental health is by avoid- More ing morbid thoughts 3.01 2.37 P<.01 disagreement 17 People who keep them- selves occupied with pleasant thoughts seldom become More mentally ill 2.81 2.44 P<.01 disagreement 20 Pe0ple cannot main- tain good mental health without the support of strong persons in their Less environment 3.42 4.02 P<.01 disagreement 9 Mental patients usu- ally make good ad- justments to society when they Less are released 4.49 4.16 P<.01 disagreement 18 Few peOple who enter mental hospitals Less ever leave 2.04 2.39 P<.01 disagreement 21 Will power alone will not cure Less mental disorders 5.70 5.37 P<.Ol agreement 40 There is not much that can be done for a person who develops a mental Less disorder 1.53 1.74 P<.05 disagreement 49 Many of the peOple who go to mental hOSpitals are able to return to work Less in society again 5.69 5.30 P<.01 agreement TABLE 2--Continued. 45 Mean Direction of $233 $32326 1962 1971 1971 2 Mental disorder is one of the most damaging illnesses that a Less person can have 4.86 4.41 P<.01 agreement 29 Mental health is one of the most impor- tant national Less problems 6.25 5.85 P<.01 agreement 55 People who go from doctor to doctor with many complaints know that there is nothing really wrong Less with them 2.35 2.63 P<.05 disagreement 33 The main job of the psychiatrist is to recommend hobbies and other ways for the mental patient More to occupy his mind 2.60 2.36 P<.05 disagreement 25 Disappointments affect children as much as More they do adults 5.10 5.55 P<.01 agreement 51 Disappointments do not affect children as much as they do More adults 2.72 2.34 P<.01 disagreement 47 Early training will not make the child's Less brain grow faster 5.76 4.91 P<.01 agreement 11 Early adulthood is more of a danger period for mental illness than later More years 3.82 4.25 P<.01 agreement TABLE 2--Continued. 46 Direction of Mean . . $23.1 2523329 1962 1971 1971 45 Most people can recog- nize the type of person who is likely to have a nervous Less breakdown 1.98 2.55 P<.01 disagreement 42 Feebleminded children are less obedient Less than normal children 2.70 3.10 P<.01 disagreement 43 Most people who "go crazy" try to kill Less themselves 1.97 2.27 P<.01 disagreement 48 Most suicides occur because of rejection Less in love 3.23 3.80 P<.01 disagreement 47 statistically significant opinion items). Statistical tests further showed that no indication of change had evolved in the remaining thirty-six opinion items. The following portion, Part II, provides data and tests in support of hypotheses advanced in Chapter II. PART I I Tests of Hypotheses Question 2: Are selected social characteristics of respondents related to knowledgeability concerning mental health? In answering the above question hypotheses were constructed and tested. Analysis and findings relative to question 2 are as follows: Hypothesis 1: Older respondents will be more knowledge able about mental illness than younger respondents. The relationship between knowledgeability and age of respondents is shown by percentages in Tables 3-A and 3-B, 1962 and 1971, respectively (numbers in percentages indicate the number of persons in each knowledgeability score category). Table 3-A shows a statistically significant re- lationship (P<.02) between knowledgeability score and age in 1962. For example, 80 per cent of the youngest age category (18-19) were low or very low, whereas 74 per cent of the oldest age category (30 and over) were high or very high. 48 TABLE 3—A.——Relationship between knowledgeability score and age, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Age N Very . Very .Low Low VHigh High Total 18-19 15 40.0 40.0 13.3 6.7 100.0 20-21 53 15.1 24.4 28.3 30.2 100.0 22-29 81 19.8 27.2 32.1 21.0 100.0 30-above 66 13.6 12.1 31.8 42.4 99.9 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 21.349 df = 9 p<.02 c = TABLE 3-B.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and age, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Age N Very . Very Low . Low High High Total 18—19 39 28.2 35.9 23.1 12.8 100.0 20-21 122 9.8 22.1 44.3 23.8 100.0 22-29 126 21.4 26.2 24.6 27.8 100.0 30-above 32 15.6 28.1 25.0 31.8 100.0 Total 319 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) .x2 = 22.812 df = 9 p<.01 c = 49 Table 3—B shows a similar pattern for 1971 (P<.01), with 64 per cent of the youngest category low or very low, and 56 per cent of the oldest age category high or very high. The hypothesis of a relationship between age and knowledgeability is supported for both the 1962 and 1971 samples. Hypothesis 2: There is no relationship between sex and knowledgeability. (The data relevant to hypothesis 2 appear in Tables 4-A and 4-B.) Table 4—A shows no relationship between knowledge- ability score and sex in 1962. Although there is an indi- cation of a tendency in the 1971 data for females to be slightly higher in knowledgeability score, the x2 test does not reach the conventional significance levels (P<.10). We can say that the hypothesis is not contradicted by the data. Hypothesis 3: Graduate students will be more knowledge- able than undergraduate students. The relationship between knowledgeability and year in school is shown in Tables 5-A and 5-B, in percentages. Table 5-A shows a weak but statistically signi- ficant relationship (P<.05) between knowledgeability score and year in school for the 1962 data. For example, 50 per cent of the undergraduates were low or very low, while 67 per cent of the graduates were high or very high. 50 TABLE 4—A.—-Relationship between knowledgeability score and sex, in percentages, 1962. Sex Knowledgeability Score ., Very . Very Low Low High High Total Male 116 19.0 20.7 31.9 28.4 100.0 Female 99 17.2 26.3 27.3 29.3 100.1 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 1.205 df = 3 Non-significant c = .08 TABLE 4-B.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and sex, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Sex N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Male 140 22.1 27.1 31.4 19.3 99.9 Female 179 13.4 25.1 32.4 29.1 100.0 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 6.646 df - 3 <.1o c = .14 51 TABLE 5-A.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and year in school, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Year in School N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Undergraduates 103 21.4 29.1 29.1 20.4 100.0 Graduates 112 15.2 17.9 30.4 36.6 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 8.960 df = 3 p<.05 c = .31 TABLE 5-B.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and year in school, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Year in School N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Undergraduates 255 15.7 25.5 34.1 24.7 100.0 Graduates 64 23.4 28.1 23.4 25.0 99.9 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 .24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 3.750 df = 3 Non-significant C = .31 52' Table 5-B does not reveal a relationship between knowledgeability score and year in school for the 1971 data, although there is an indication of a tendency for graduate students to be higher in knowledgeability score than undergraduate students. For example, 41 per cent of the undergraduates were low or very low, whereas 48 per cent of the graduates were high or very high. The hypothesis of a relationship between year in school and knowledgeability is supported for the 1962 data, although not supported for the 1971 data. Hypothesis 4: Education majors will be more knowledge- able about mental illness than all other majors. Tables 6-A and 6-B show the relationship between knowledgeability and the academic major of the respondents. Table 6-A shows no relationship between knowledge— ability score and academic major for the 1962 data. The 1971 data (Table 6-B) show a weak but statistically signi- ficant relationship between knowledgeability score and academic major, although there is no indication that edu- cation majors are higher in knowledgeability score. Therefore, we can say that the hypothesis of a relationship is not supported by the data presented in Tables 6-A and 6-B. 54 Hypothesis 5: There is not relationship between mari- tal status and knowledgeability. Data relevant to hypothesis 5 are shown in Tables 7-A and 7—B. These data reveal the relationship between knowledgeability and marital status, in percentages, for 1962 and 1971 respectively. Inspection of the 1962 and 1971 data reveal no relationship between knowledgeability and marital status (Tables 7-A and 7-B, respectively). Thus, the hypothesis is not contradicted by the data. Hypothesis 6: There is no relationship between know- ledgeability and community type Data relevant to hypothesis 6 appear in Tables 8-A and 8-B. These data show the relationship between know- ledgeability and community type of the respondents, in percentages, for the 1962 and 1971 samples. The 1962 and 1971 data (Tables 8-A and 8-B re- spectively) show no relationship between knowledgeability and community type. Examination reveals that at each time period the data fall in accordance with the prediction made by the hypothesis. We can say that the hypothesis is not contradicted by the data. 59 TABLE 10-A.——Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and suburban residence, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score. Suburb? N Very Very Low Low High High > Total Yes 39 20.5 28.2 23.1 28.2 100.0 No 176 17.6 22.2 31.3 29.0 100.1 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64), ((62) .x2 = 1.373 = 3 Non-significant c = TABLE UT43w-Relationship between knowledgeability score and suburban residence, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Suburb? N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Yes 118 16.1 31.4 33.1 19.5 100.1 No 201 17.9 22.9 31.3 27.9 100.0 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55). (83) (102) (79) x2 = 4.362 df = 3 p..20 c = .12 56 TABLE 8-A.-—Relationship between knowledgeability score and community type, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Community Type N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Farm or country 46 17.4 17.4 37.0 28.3 100.1 City or town 169 18.3 24.9 27.8 29.0 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 1.906 df = 3 Non-significant c = .09 TABLE 8-B.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and community type, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Community Type N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Farm or country 63 20.6 23.8 27.0 28.6 100.0 City or town 256 16.4 26.6 33.2 23.8 100.0 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 1.742 df = 3 Non-significant c = .07 55 TABLE 7-A.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and marital status, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Marital Status N Very Very Low Low High High Total Married 110 16.4 22.7 29.1 31.8 100.0 Single 102 20.6 23.5 29.4 26.5 100.0 Total 212 18.4 23.1 29.2 29.2 100.0 (39) (49) (62) (62) Unused - 3 x2 = 1.048 df = 3 Non-significant C = .07 TABLE 7-B.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and marital status, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Marital N Status Very . Very Low Low High High Total Married 106 17.0 25.5 29.2 28.3 100.0 Single 206 16.5 27.2 34.5 21.8 100.0 Total 312 16.7 26.6 32.7 24.0 100.0 (52) (83) (102) (75) Unused = 7 x2 1.884 df = 3 Non-significant C = .08 58 TABLE 9-A.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and community size, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Community Size N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Less than 20,000 109 19.3 23.9 31.2 25.7 100.1 20,000-99,000 48 18.8 18.8 25.0 37.5 100.1 100,000 and over 58 15.5 25.9 31.0 27.6 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 3.038 df = Non-significant c = .16 TABLE 9-B.—-Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and community size, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Community Size N Very . Very Low Low High High Total 20,000 or less 145 20.7 22.1 26.2 31.0 100.0 20,000-99,000 81 16.0 30.9 35.8 17.3 100.0 100,000 and over 93 12.0 28.0 37.6 21.5 100.0 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 11.151 df 6 p<.10 c = .11 57 Hypothesis 7: There is not relationship between community size and knowledgeability Data relevant to the 1962 and 1971 samples are shown in percentages, Tables 9-A and 9-B respectively. These data show the relationship between knowledgeability and community size of the respondents. The 1962 data show no relationship between com- munity size and knowledgeability score (Table 9-A). Al- though there is an indication of a tendency in the 1971 data (Table 9-B) for respondents with community size 100,000 and over to be slightly higher in knowledgeability score, the x2 test does not reach the conventional significance levels (P<.10). Therefore, we can say that the hypothesis is not contradicted by the data. Hypothesis 8: There is no relationship between suburban residence and knowledge- ability Data pertaining to hypothesis 8 are shown in per- centages for the 1962 and 1971 samples (Tables 10-A and lO-B). These data show the relationship between knowledge- ability and suburban residence. The 1962 data show no relationship between suburban residence and knowledgeability score (Table lO-A). Al— though there is an indication of a tendency in the 1971 data (Table lO-B) for respondents who are not from suburban 53 TABLE 6-A.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and academic major, in percentages, 1962. Knowledgeability Score Major N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Social Science 59 15.3 27.7 32.2 28.8 100.0 Education 114 14.9 23.7 28.9 32.5 100.0 All Others 42 31.0 21.4 28.6 19.0 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 6.879 df = 6 Non-significant c = .18 TABLE 6-B.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and academic major, in percentages, 1971. Knowledgeability Score Major N Very . Very Low Low High High Total Social Science 130 13.1 22.3 36.2 28.5 100.1 Education 78 16.7 33.3 29.5 20.5 100.0 All Others 111 22.5 25.2 28.8 23.4 799.9 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 8.009 df = P<.20 c = .16 60 areas to be slightly higher in knowledgeability score, the x2 test does not reach the conventional significance levels (P~.20). We can say that the hypothesis is not contradicted by the data. Hypothesis 9: Persons indicating friends mentally ill will be more knowledgeable than persons indicating no experience with friends mentally ill. Data relevant to hypothesis 9 appear in Tables ll—A and ll-B. These data, 1962 and 1971 respectively, show the relationship between knowledgeability and persons indi- cating friends mentally ill, in percentages. Table ll-A shows a weak but statistically signi- ficant relationship (P~.10) between knowledgeability score and friends mentally ill, for the 1962 data. For example, 47 per cent of the respondents indicating no experience with friends mentally ill were low or very low in knowledge- ability score, whereas, 69 per cent of respondents indi- cating experience with friends mentally ill were high or very high in knowledgeability score. Table ll-B shows a similar but somewhat stronger relationship for the 1971 data (P<.05), with 47 per cent of reSpondents indicating no experience with friends mentally ill low or very low, while 61 TABLE 11-A.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and friends mentally ill, in percentages, 1962. Friends Knowledgeability Score Mentally N Very . Very Ill? Low Low High High Total No 142 21.1 26.1 26.1 26.8 100.1 Yes 73 12.3 17.8 37.0 32.9 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 6.028 df = 3 p~.10 c = .17 TABLE 11-B.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and friends mentally ill, in percentages, 1971. Friends Knowledgeability Score Mentally N Very . Very Ill? Low Low High High Total No 204 20.6 26.5 32.8 20.1 100.0 Yes 115 11.3 25.2 30.4 33.0 99.9 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 8.831 df = 3 p<.05 c = .16 62 63 per cent of respondents indicating experience with friends mentally ill high or very high in knowledgeability score. For the 1962 and 1971 data, respondents indicating experience with friends mentally ill tended to be somewhat more knowledgeable than respondents with no prior exper- ience with friends mentally ill. Therefore, the hypothesis of a relationship between knowledgeability and friends mentally ill is supported for both the 1962 and 1971 samples. Hypothesis 10: Persons indicating family members mentally ill will be more knowledgeable than persons indicating no experience with family members mentally ill. Data relevant to hypothesis 10 are shown in Tables 12-A and 12-B (1962 and 1971, respectively). These data show the relationship between knowledgeability and family members mentally ill, in percentages. Contrary to expectation, the 1962 data (Table 12-A) show only a weak indication of a tendency for respondents with family members mentally ill to be slightly higher in knowledgeability score, although the x2 test does not reach the conventional probability levels (P<.20). The 1971 data (Table 12-B) show no relationship between knowledgeability score and family members mentally ill. 63 TABLE 12-A.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and family members mentally ill, in per- centages, 1962. Family . Knowledgeability Score Members N Mentally Very . Very Ill? .Low Low High High ‘ Total No 162 20.4 24.1 29.6 25.9 100.0 Yes 53 11.3 30.2 30.2 37.7 100.0 Total 215 18.1 23.3 29.8 28.8 100.0 (39) (50) (64) (62) x2 = 3.928 df = p<.20 c = .13 TABLE 12-B.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and family members mentally ill, in per- centages, 1971. Family Knowledgeability Score Members Miggally {gsy Low High EESK Total No 232 18.5 25.0 33.2 23.3 100.0 Yes 87 13.8 28.7 28.7 28.7 99.9 Total 319 17.2 26.0 32.0 24.8 100.0 (55) (83) (102) (79) x2 = 2.319 = 3 Non-significant C = .09 64 Therefore, we can say that the trend of a relation- ship is supported for the 1962 data but not for the 1971 data. Summary The primary purpose of this portion of the analysis was to present statistical data and tests for the ten sub- stantive hypotheses constructed to determine whether a re- lationship existed between knowledgeability and the ten social variables advanced in chapter two of this study. Data and tests, in support of the ten hypotheses indicated weak relationships between knowledgeability score and the ten social variables, with the exception of age. A relatively stronger statistically significant re- lationship (P<.02) was indicated between knowledgeability score and age in 1962. A similar statistically significant relationship was indicated in 1971 (P<.01). The remaining nine hypotheses indicated only weak or no relationship between knowledgeability score and specific social charac- teristics in 1962 and 1971. 65 TABLE 13.——Summary of the relationship between social variables and knowledgeability. Variables: . Sig. . T ' Knowledgeability Hypotheses rend Level ConcluSion Score and Year: 1. Age 28-38 1962 Older—Higher As expected P<.02 Hypothesis 39-42 supported 43-46 1971 Older—Higher As expected P<.01 Hypothesis 47-50 supported 2. Sex 1962 No relation- None .... Data not contrary _ ship indicated to hypothesis 1971 No relation- Weak P<.10 Data not contrary ship indication to hypothesis 3. Year in 1962 Grads-Higher As eXpected P<.05 Hypothesis School supported 1971 Grads-Higher None .... Trend: not indicated significant 4. Major 1962 Education- None .... Data contrary to Higher indicated hypothesis 1971 Education- None P<.20 Data contrary to Higher indicated hypothesis 5. Marital 1962 No relation- None .... Data not contrary ship indicated to hypothesis 1971 No relation- None Data not contrary ship indicated .... to hypothesis 6. Community 1962 No relation- None .... Data not contrary Type ship indicated to hypothesis 1971 No relation- None .... Data not contrary ship indicated to hypothesis 7. Community 1962 No relation- None .... Data not contrary Size ship indicated to hypothesis 1971 No relation— Weak P<.10 Data not contrary ship indication to hypothesis 8. suburb? 1962 No relation- None P~.20 Data not contrary ship indicated to hypothesis 1971 No relation- Weak P~.20 Data not contrary ship indication to hypothesis 9. Friends 1962 Yes-Higher As expected P~.10' Hypothesis Mentally supported Ill? 1971 Yes-Higher As expected P<.05 Hypothesis supported 10. Family 1962 Yes-Higher As expected P<.20 Trend supported Members 1971 Yes-Higher None .... Trend: not Mentally (indicated significant I11? CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary The problem of this thesis evolved through a criti- cal review of literature pertaining to change and stability in attitudes concerning mental illness, and to empirical relationships between knowledge about mental illness and specific sociological variables. Although different inves- tigators did not always find drastic changes in attitudes, or strong relationships between attitudes toward mental illness and specific social variables, the general impres- sion conveyed by most of the literature was that changes in mental health attitudes have evolved in the last decade, mainly: (1) that people tend to be more knowledgeable“ about mental illness today than a decade ago, and there seems to be a better understanding of mental illness and greater tolerance of the mentally ill: (2) that, in most cases, only slight differences emerged between attitudes about mental illness and Specific sociological variables, with minor exceptions. Some investigators found relatively strong relationships with specific social variables, while others found only weak or no relationships with the same or different social variables. 66 67 The specific problem of this investigation centered around two basic questions derived from the review of lit- erature concerning mental health attitude change in relation to specific social characteristics: 1. What changes have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade? (a) In what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? 2. Are selected social characteristics of respondents related to knowledgeability concerning mental health? Two samples were used for this investigation: Sample 1962 consists of students enrolled in selected Michigan State University sociology courses, during the 1962 summer term (N = 215). Sample 1971 consists of stu- dents enrolled in the same sociology courses, during the 1971 summer session (N = 319). The method of data collection consisted of fifty- six Opinion items, with provision for one of seven responses ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." The ten social characteristics used in this inves- tigation include the following: Age Sex Year in School 68 Academic Major Marital Status Community Type Community Size Suburban Residence? Friends Mentally Ill? Family Members Mentally Ill? The analysis proceeded by employing the two specific questions of this investigation: Question 1: What changes have taken place in mental health attitudes in the last decade? (a) In what direction and to what extent has this change evolved? In order to answer this question, the mean re- sponses of fifty-six Opinion items for 1962 and 1971 were statistically tested for significance (by t-statistic). Hypotheses were not constructed for this portion of the analysis. Findings show that, of the fifty-six opinion items, twenty were significantly different. Graphic pre- sentations showed the twenty statistically significant opinion items, percentage distribution, frequency distribu- tion, and the mean response category. The graphic presen- tation also showed the direction and degree of attitude change in 1971, and a somewhat accurate indication of the mean in 1962 and 1971. 69 The significantly different Opinion items were analyzed in relation tO the following nine categories: 'I. Causal II. Recovery (cure, prognosis) III. Seriousness IV. Role Of the Psychiatrist V. Age: Children VI. Age: Older VII. Men-Women VIII. Symptoms IX. Miscellaneous Analysis revealed that, on a whole, the answer tO question 1 is negative. Question 2: Are selected social characteristics related to knowledgeability concerning mental health? In order to answer the above question and determine the relationship between knowledgeability and the ten socio- logical variables, ten hypotheses were constructed and tested (by x2 test). This portion Of the investigation was analyzed in terms Of two types Of hypotheses: "substantive" and "Operational" hypotheses. The substantive hypotheses dealt primarily with the terms "knowledgeable" and "knowl— edgeability," whereas, the Operational hypotheses were con- cerned primarily with the "knowledgeability score." 70 The substantive hypotheses developed to test the .relationship between knowledgeability and the ten social variables are as follows: Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis 1: 10: Older respondents Will be more knowl- edgeable about mental illness than younger respondents. There is no relationship between sex and knowledgeability. Graduate students will be more knowl- edgeable than undergraduate students. Education majors will be more knowl- edgeable about mental illness than all other majors. There is nO relationship between marital status and knowledgeability. There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and community type. There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and community size. There is no relationship between knowl- edgeability and suburban residence. Persons indicating friends mentally ill will be more knowledgeable than persons indicating no experience with friends mentally ill. Persons indicating family members mentally ill will be more knowledge- able than persons indicating no exper— ience with family members mentally ill. The analytical procedure for testing the substantive hypotheses involved a statistical comparison between the knowledgeability score and the ten sociological variables. 71 Findings revealed that, on a whole, the answer to question 2 is negative. Conclusions The results Of this investigation seem tO warrant two major conclusions: First, results show that, Of the fifty-six Opinion items used in this research, twenty showed significantly different means between 1962 and 1971. The statistically significant Opinion items varied in degree and direction Of attitude change. The analysis un- covered no apparent change in the remaining thirty-six Opinion items. Second, data and tests in support Of the ten hypo- theses, indicated only weak relationships between knowl- edgeability score and the ten sociological variables, with the exception Of age. A relatively stronger statistically significant relationship (P<.02) was indicated between knowledgeability and age in 1962. A very similar statis- tically significant relationship was indicated in 1971 (P<.10). The remaining nine hypotheses indicated only weak or no relationship between knowledgeability and the selected characteristics used in this investigation. Contributions A major contribution Of this study lies in the fact that it provides a more precise specification Of change or 72 stability in attitudes concerning concepts of mental health among college students at Michigan State University over a period Of time. A further contribution of importance is found in a more extensive examination Of a more accurate specification Of the relationship between knowledgeability and Specific social variables. Contrary to the author's expectations and probably tO many hypotheses Of many sociol— Ogists, there appeared to be little or no relationship between "standard“ sociological variables for a measure Of knowledgeability about mental health concepts with the possible exception Of age. Although it cannot be claimed that the problem was completely resolved by this investigation, it provided further systematic research in this general area. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research The results Of this investigation are limited to the 534 summer school students enrolled in sociology courses at Michigan State University, composing the samples used. In all probability, cautious generalizations may be made to subjects similar in characteristics to those tested in this investigation. In addition, the results and conclusions Of this investigation may tentatively be extended to other variables and to other aspects Of the society. 73 Assuming that the two major questions asked of this investigation are tenable, several questions and suggestions may be 1. advanced for future related research: TO what extent are the attitudes Of Michigan State University students alike or different from the attitudes Of other college students? TO what extent can we assume that the attitudes Of Michigan State University students are alike or different from the attitudes Of persons in other positions in our society? Further investigation Of knowledgeability in re- 1ation to social characteristics not employed in this research. Further investigation Of the relationship between social characteristics and knowledge about mental illness employing a different measure Of knowledge- ability. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Bates, Josephine A. "Attitudes Toward Mental Illness." Mental Hygiene, LII (1968), 250-53. Dohrenwend, Bruce P., and Chin—Shong, Edwin. "Social Status and Attitudes Toward Psychological Dis- order: The Problem Of Tolerance of Deviance." American Sociological Review, XXXII (1967), 417-33. Freeman, H. E. "Attitudes Toward Mental Illness Among Relatives Of Former Patients." American Socio- logical Review, XXVI (1961), 59-66} Halpert, H. P. "Surveys Of Public Opinions and Attitudes About Mental Illness." Public Health Reports, LXXX (July, 1965), 589-97. . "Public Acceptance of the Mentally Ill: An Exploration Of Attitudes." Reprint based on a paper presented at the 7th International Congress on Mental Health, London, August 12-17, 1968. Lemkau, Paul V. "Evaluation Of the Effect of Changes in Environmental Factors, with Special Attention to Attitudes Toward Mental Health and Mental I11- ness." Social Psychiatry. By Joseph Zubin. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1968. , and Crocetti, Guido M. "An Urban Population's Opinion and Knowledge About Mental Illness." American Journal of Psychiatry, CXVIII (1962), 692-700. Nunnally, Jum C. Popular Conceptions Of Mental Health. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961} Olmsted, Donald W., and Ordway, Robert K. "Concepts Of Mental Health: A Pilot Analysis." Final Report, Project M-5880(A), NIMH, Department Of Sociology, Michigan State University, June, 1963. (Mimeo- graphed.) 74 75 Soddy, Kenneth, and Ahrenfedt, Robert H. Mental Health and Contemporary Thought, (Bibliography), II (1967), Zubin, Joseph, and Freyhan, Fritz A. Social Psychiatry. New York: Grune and Stratton, I968. APPENDIX A MENTAL HEALTH OPINION ITEMS 76 D8pt. 0f Sociolagy OPINIQIS ABOUT METAL HEALTH . HichiganlState Univ. ' 7»? (h the fallout-1g pages are a number of statements about. 132 81811 “"3221222286 We want to know how much you agree or digagree with 88821 8 .z... 182:8. 2; me: right of each statewit 1:3 8 rating 88.918: .:-; D18 agree 1832988 123113237 T7” “.“' i ) ‘2 i 1 w- ~- fim points 8.18129; the 888.18 88.11 be interpratéd as follows: '9 09'?le .813" disagree HOE; 1.13.2‘ (2.71.8 8.21.888 18933888 IYUTG 82383.1 "2"86 328“» trifle c-r 6:: 2:82.283. 8.8 £13236: “idi8..;21'88 ‘ O O 1" .._; 085.22%.» 2°.) H O O . Axgg. 4 ’ I . 320893.}? 1.938882% E. I , ' . garnet-.23 ..-gvizi . J 'A'Z. ' 15. luv- fl“ 1“ - Q|- .1.: Sr. ’1’, Ir . J.'.«":\r:...s:.:.-;, go! -:~‘, ’- 'w' vi .. .. H .. ... 9.. " - fl. .1....- .',.. “ ...." 9.: . be, T88- use of 27418 382.18. can 88 1.1.2.8.; 2.». 9 08.9 82.1.? the: 2.2:- ci‘l....-.....2 83.22.23.232; 3W 08:22:82 «.1 -"~': 13:32:11: 8.87:." 88. 23., u‘vruiy 7.8:). in .82 39.18%;8222‘83 31.8.2 8112.23-23». 22.212 (“8. 9 Che-C . in box If you 89.288 8-12.9231ng with 21128 S‘Lfi’iiflflfi 82. .tz 32221:. 212.22; 7d $13.68: 29 82282:. in low: 5': If yam: 21288113? 1.2.2.1: 3.13:2 8228 82:82; 78.1.81, 3387.1 9232118. 3318.36 8. 3.988}: 72311 b“ 23.11158 Th. ' 13. 2.8 3 91288 . 2‘, 93:8 .- 1 2 3 .2 S 8 t! r ' _ V. ._ ‘,~ ~~mwmmfkb\w'1km ' 1 ’ 1 l 1' ! E I *v/ : I '. 2 " I 2 ) i 1 ,1 ”MIME—8.. -* _— __.. A-V A win-rm M 4‘1 71862828 make 012-. - 82.99 3.1;. 219.1% £82: 882; . .. ..., "1 ‘ A“ .1, -. . , ., .1. DC'H‘ 1; 81.18353. mark?) 141C317. 3? 1E8? 53601732813 Fired." klrtfl €545.31 2‘32: L) ' - " J.‘ " ‘ 1.‘ A. ‘ 1, .. .. - , 9 f "2,, -. 3 ,_ ._ , If it 1.8 2.211.238.1112. no 8.83.88 8.2.; 3'88..." mine», mm: 2.228- H32, per: V011 (“3113218530. {:21 21“;- tm nexi; 2.7.91.8 a. The best way to mental health is by avoid- ing morbld thoughts. Mental disorder is one of the most damaging illnesses that a person can have. Children sometimes have mental breakdowns as severe as those of adults. Nervous breakdowns seldom have a physical origin. The mentally ill have not received enough guidance from the important people in their lives. women are as emotionally healthy as men. The seriousness of the mental health prob- lem in this country has been exaggerated. Helping the mentally ill person with his financial and social problems often improves his condition. Mental patients usually make a good adjust- ment to society when they are released. The good psychiatrist acts like a father to his patients. Early adulthood is more of a danger period for mental illness than later years. You can tell a person who is mentally ill from his appearance. People who become‘mentally ill have little will power. Hanan are more likely to develop mental disorders than men. Host mental disturbances in adults can be traced to emotional experiences in child- hood. CONTINUE ON NBXT PAGE 77 Disagree -._,1 r——-—-—— H..-1 ...-W... The mentally ill pay little attention to their personal appearance. Peeple who keep themselves occupied with pleasant thoughts seldom become mentally ill. Few people who enter mental hospitals ever leave. ' Older people have fewer anotionai problems than younger peeple. People cannot maintain good mental health without the support of strong persons in their environment. Hill power alone will not cure mental dis- orders. Hosen have no more emotional problems than men do. Emotional problems do little damage to the individual. Mental illness can usually be helped by a vacation or change of scene. Disappointments affect children as much as they do adults. The insane laugh more than nonmal people. Psychiatrists try to show the mental patient where his'ldeas are incorrect. Mental disorder is not a hopeless condition. Mental health is one of the most important national problems. Mental disorder is usually brought on by physical causes. CONTINUE ON NEXT PAGE 78 Disagree r” r- 79 it is easier for women to get over emotional problems than it is for men. A change of climate seldom helps an emotional disorder. The main job of the psychiatrist is to room-end hobbies and other ways for the mental patient to occupy his mind. Psychiatrists try to teach mental patients to hold in their strong «notions. X-rays or the head will not tell whether a person is likely to become insane. Almost any disease that attacks the nervous 'systu is likely to bring on insanity. if a person concentrates on happy mries he will. not be bothered by unpleasant things in the present. Mental health is largelya matter of trying hard to control the emotions. Most of the people in mental hospitals speak in words that can be understood. There is not much that can be done for a person who develops a mental disorder. Most ciergymen will encourage a person with a mental disorder to see a psychiatrist. Feebieminded children are less obedient than normal children. ‘Most people ”so “go crazy" try to kill themselves. ' Few of the people who seek psychiatric help need the treammnt. Most people can recognize the type of person eho is likely to have a nervous breakdown. Disagree 2 CONTINUE N NEXT PASS 80 Disagree Agree l 2 3 h 5 6 if a child is jealous of a younger brother it is best‘not to let him show it in any way. Early training will not make the child's l brain grow faster. Most suicides occur because of rejection in L l ; love. L Many of the people who go to mental hospitals l F are able to return to work in society again. i l Children usually do not forget about fright- g ening experiences in a short time. t i i -._} Disappointments do not affect children as 1 much as they do ardiits. i 5. Most of the insanity cases are found in people over fifty years of age. rm" Good emotional habits cannot be taught to 3 children in school as easily as spelling - 1 l ‘ was- '-.-‘ C60 0 The eyes of the insane are glassy. L...“ a... L. onucl People who go from doctor to doctor with manycomplaints know that there is nothing l really wrong with them. ‘ . A person cannot rid himself of unpleasant f i i. alenories by trying hard to forget them. L. _V ....- a-I-P CONTINUE on NEXT PAGE 81 GENERAL INFORMATION Student Number 1. Age . 2. Male , Female 3. Year in School: Fr. , Soph. , Jr. Sr. , Grad. M.A. , Grad. Ph.D. a. Major 5. Married , Single , Widowed , Separated Divorced 6. 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 7. 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. STOOHIO C10 8. Has any member of your family ever been mentally ill? (circle appropriate category). a. No. b. Yes, a grandparent. Yes, a parent. Yes, a husband or wife. . Yes, a son or daughter. Yes, a brother or sister. Yes, some other relative. Yes, several members. tract-noon) THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPENDIX B ‘ MENTAL HEALTH OPINION ITEMS WITH GREATEST AMOUNT OF CONSENSUS AMONG THE PROFESSIONALS 82 TABLE B.l.—-Percentage response to ten mental health opinion items with greatest consensus among the professionals. Expert % Expert It m Ex % . e pert in "4" Category 40 There is not much that can be done for a person who develOps a mental disorder 95 1 1,2 44 Few of the pe ple who seek psychiatric help need the treatment ' 9O 4 1,2 49 Many of the people who go to mental hosPitals are able to return to work in society again 90 l 6,7 46 If a child is jealous of a younger brother it is best not to let him show it in any way 83 3 1,2 43 Most people who "go crazy" try to kill themselves 88 4 1,2 55 People who go from doctor to doctor with many complaints know that there is nothing really wrong with them 72 6 1,2 45 Most people can recognize the type of person who is likely to have a nervous breakdown 77 9 1,2 39 Most of the peOple in mental hospitals speak in terms that can be understood 66 10 6,7 33 The main job of the psychiatrist is to recommend hobbies and other ways for the mental patient to occupy his mind 64 9 1,2 56 A person cannot rid himself of unpleasant memories by trying hard to forget them 59 7 6,7 APPENDIX C DEMOGRAPHIC DATA: 1962 AND 1971 SAMPLES OF SUMMER SCHOOL SOCIOLOGY STUDENTS, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, WITH STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF DIFFERENCES 83 TABLE C.1.--Demographic data: 1962 and 1971 samples of summer school sociology students, Michigan State University, with statistical signi- ficance of differences. 1962 1971. N % N % A e I8-19 15 7.0 39 12.3 20—21 53 24.7 122 38.2 22-29 81 37.6 126 39.5 30-above 66 30.7 32 10.0 Total 2T5 I06.6 319’ 100.6 x2 = 40.737 p<.001 Sex Male 116 54.0 140 43.9 Female 99 46.0 179 56.1 Total 2T5 I00.0 3T9 100.0 x2 = 5.213 p<.05 Year in School Undergraduates 103 49.9 255 79.9 Graduates 112 52.1 64 20.1 Total 2I5 I00.0 3I9' I00.0 x2 = 64.842 p<.001 Major Social Science (Sociol— ogy--Other Majors in the College of Social Science) 59 27.4 130 40.8 Education 114 53.1 78 24.5 All Others 42 19.5 111 34.7 Total 2T5” I00.0 3T9 100.0 x2 = 46.028 p<.001 Marital Status Married 101 47.0 111 34.8 Single 102 47.4 206 64.6 No Response 12 5.6 2 .6 Total 2T5 100.0 3T9 I00.0 x2 = 11.129 p<.001 84 TABLE C.1.-—Continued. ...1962__ . ..., .1971 ._ N % N % Community Type Farm or Country 46 21.4 63 19.7 Town or City 169 78.6 256 80.3 Total 2T5 I00.0 3T9 I00.0 x2 = .212 Non-significant Communit Size 20,000 or Iess 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 Total TIE 100.0 319 I00.0 x2 = 1.454 p<.so Suburb? Yes 39 18.1 118 37.0 NO 176 81.9 201 63.0 Total 2I5 I00.0 3T9 100.0 x2 = 21.987 p<.001 Mental Illness Experience Friends? No 142 66.0 204 63.9 Yes 73 34.0 115 36.1 Total 715' 166.6 310' 166.6 x2 = .246 Non-significant Mental Illness Experience Family Members? No 162 75.3 232 72.7 Yes 53 24.7 87 27.3 Total 2'15 106.6 3'1'9' 166.6 x2 = .455 Non-significant APPENDIX D SCATTERGRAM: PLOTTING OF ITEM MEANS OBTAINED FROM FIFTY-SIX OPINION ITEMS, 1962 AND 1971 IllNl‘l Nfl! 85 i2189 i . l _ Li _ a + i - Ii 1 n 1 . i l W t . :I l. l l -i H . 7 _ filly I Ill! ii 1;- l 3:: _ m l . i_ . _ l m i . , L . l , ii . M . iw W . . fl H . .-...- --i - -i . i i i ,_. l r. _ a a l M iii _ . n T. - l i a 4 Hi i 7 _ 1 Si _.5 i r- M a a T. m _ . l _ u ..... . 1. A i . ... T. _ ..-. A--i-fi.i- iii! * . T ll ii. 1 ,. ,. t. t lint! - 4 3 0.. l. U n 2 7. 2 .i.. ... i 7.0 M ii l1 1962 A. . I‘ h a A“ . r i ii i ii i . «I \ .4 a.” n\ w W \ i i - - . up. 4r - I‘ H ...w . am, -- I; i . . i i- ..‘I , till av . i _ I1 I 1" ' ill" [‘7‘ lil‘ I ll l. i a!» .lill'lliilii ”1 i..,llliL.l.il'.i.ill. llllli _ l . . i i ..-ililliiulii iiiii- is iiili ii is: i . _ o . H . ~ 1 ~ ii.» 1e i l 1..-!!! .il .- ,2. 1.. fl. 4 4.0 .758 Y: 373’ ,2- in 3.0 7.0 6.0 4.0 5.0 j.O 2.0 1.0 1071 APPENDIX E RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN KNOWLEDGEABILITY SCORE AND TEN SOCIAL VARIABLES 86 TABLE E.1.—-Relationships between knowledgeability score and age, 1962. Knowledgeability Age score 18-19 20-21 22—29 30-over Total Very Low (28-38) + 6 - 8 +16 - 9 39 Low (39-42) + 6 +14 +22 - 8 50 High (43-46) - 2 -15 +26 +21 64 Very High (47-50) - 1 +16 —17 +28 62 Total 15 53 81 66 215 N = 215 x2 = 21.349 0 = .30 p<.02 TABLE E.2.-—Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and age, 1971. Age Knowledgeability Score 18—19 20-21 22-29 30-over Total Very Low (28-38) +11 -12 +27 - 5 55 Low (39-42) +14 -27 +33 + 9 83 High (43-46) — 9 +54 -31 — 8 102 Very High (47-50) - 5 -29 +35 +10 79 Total 39 .122 126 32 319 N = 319 x2 = 22.812 c = .26 p<.01 87 TABLE E.3.—-Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and sex, 1962. Knowledgeability Sex Score Male Female .Total Very Low (28—38) + 22 - 17 39 Low (39-42) - 24 + 26 50 High (43-46) + 37 - 27 64 Very High (47-50) - 33 + 29 62 Total 116 99 215 x2 = 1.205 C = .08 Non-significant TABLE E.4.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and sex, 1971. Knowledgeability Sex Score Male Female Total Very Low (28-38) + 31 - 24 55 Low (39-42) + 38 - 45 83 High (43-46) - 44 + 58 102 Very High (47-50) - 27 + 52 79 Total 140 179 319 x2 = 6.646 c = .14 p<.1o 88 TABLE E.5.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and year in school, 1962. Year in School Knowledgeability Score Undergraduates Graduates Total Very Low (28-38) + 22 - 17 39 Low (39-42) + 30 - 20 50 High (43-46) + 30 + 34 64 Very High (47-50) - 21 + 41 62 Total 103 112 215 x2 = 8.960 c = .31 p<.05 TABLE E.6.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and year in school, 1971. Year in School Knowledgeability Score Undergraduates Graduates Total Very Low (28-38) - 40 + 15 55 Low (39-42) + 65 + 18 83 High (43-46) + 87 - 15 102 Very High (47-50) - 63 + 16 79 Total 255 64 319 X2 = 3.750 C = .15 Non-significant TABLE E.7.—-Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and academic major, 1962. Academic Major Knowledgeability Score Soc. Sci. Education All Others Total Very Low (28-38) - 9 - 17 + 13 39 Low (39-42) + 14 + 27 - 9 50 High (43-46) + 19 - 33 - 12 64 Very High (47-50) - 17 + 37 - 8 62 Total 59 114 42 215 x2 = 6.879 c = .18 Non—significant TABLE E.8.-—Relationship between knowledgeability score and academic major, 1971. Academic Major Knowledgeability Score Soc; Sci. Education All Others Total Very Low (28-38) — l7 - 13 + 25 55 Low (39—42) — 29 + 26 - 28 83 High (43—46) + 47 - 23 - 32 102 Very High (47—50) + 37 - l6 - 26 79 Total 130 78 111 319 x2 = 8.009 c .16 p<.20 90 TABLE E.9.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and marital status, 1962. Marital Status Knowledgeability Score Married Single Total Very Low (28-38) - 18 + 21 39 Low (39-42) - 25 + 24 49 High (43-46) — 32 + 30 62 Very High (47-50) + 35 - 27 62 Total 110 102 212. x2 = 1.048 c = .07 Non-significant Unused - 3 TABLE E.lO.—-Relationship between knowledgeability score and marital status, 1971. Marital Status Knowledgeability Score Married Single Total Very Low (28-38) + 18 - 34 52 Low (39-42) - 27 + 56 83 High (43-46) - 31 + 71 102 Very High (47-50) + 30 - 45 75 Total 106 206 312 x2 = 1.884 C = .08 Non-significant Unused = 7 91 TABLE E.ll.——Relationship between knowledgeability score and community type, 1962. Community Type_ Knowledgeability . s°°re §§fi§63§ C$§£n°r TOtal Very Low (28—38) - 8 + 31 39 Low (39-42) — 8 + 42 50 High (43-46) +17 - 47 64 Very High (47-50) -13' + 47 62 Total 46 169 215 x2 = 1.906 C = .09 Non-significant TABLE E.12.—-Relationship between knowledgeability score and community type, 1971. Community Type Knowledgeability . S°°re iiifitii w C$§£n°r Total Very Low (28—38) +13 - 42 55 Low (39-42) -15 + 68 83 High (43-46) -17 + 85 102 Very High (47—50) +18 - 61 79 Total 63 256 319 x2 = 1.742 C = .07 Non-significant 92 TABLE E.13.--Re1ationship between knowledgeability score and community size, 1962. Community Size Knowledgeability 5“” 3.31322.- 331883" $33832... Total Very Low (28-38) + 21 + 9 - 9 39 Low (39-42) + 26 - 9 + 15 50 High (43-46) + 34 - 12 + 18 64 Very High (47-50) - 28 + 18 — 16 62 Total 109 48 58 215 x2 = 3.038 C = .16 Non-significant TABLE E.14.-—Relationship between knowledgeability score and community size, 1971. Community Size Knowledgeability Score 20,000 20,000- 100,000 Total or less. 99,000 a and over Very Low (28-38) + 30 - 13 - 12 55 Low (39-42) - 32 + 25 + 26 83 High (43-46) - 38 + 29 + 35 102 Very High (47-50) + 45 - l4 - 20 79 Total 145 81 93 319 x2 = 11.151 c = .11 p<.10 93 TABLE E.15.-—Relationship between knowledgeability score and suburban residence, 1962. Suburb? Knowledgeability Score Yes . No Total Very Low (28-38) + 8 - 31 39 Low (39-42) +11 - 39 50 High (43-46) - 9 + 55 64 Very High (47-50) -11 + 51 62 Total 39 176 215 x2 = 1.373 C = .08 Non-significant TABLE E.16.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and suburban residence, 1971. Knowledgeability Suburb? Score Yes . . . No Total Very Low (28-38) - 19 + 36 55 Low (39-42) + 37 - 46 83 High (43-46) + 39 - 63 102 Very High (47-50) - 23 + 56 79 Total 118 201 319 x2 = 4.362 c .12 ‘ p-.20 594 TABLE E.17.-—Relationship between knowledgeability score and friends mentally ill, 1962. Friends Mentally Ill? Knowledgeability Score No Yes Total Very Low (28-38) +30 9 39 Low (39-42) +37 13 50 High (43—46) -37 27 64 Very High (47-50) -38 24 62 Total 142 73 215 x2 = 6.028 c = .17 p-.10 TABLE E.18.—-Relationship between knowledgeability score and friends mentally ill, 1971. Friends Mentally Ill? Knowledgeability Score No Yes Total Very Low (28-38) +42 -13 55 Low (39-42) +54 -29 83 High (43-46) +67 -35 102 Very High (47-50) -41 +38 79 Total 204 115 319 x2 = 8.831 c = .16 p<.05 95 TABLE E.19.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and family members mentally ill, 1962. Family Members Mentally Ill? Knowledgeability Score No Yes Total Very Low (28—38) + 33 + 6 39 Low (39-42) + 39 + 11 50 High (43-46) - 48 - 16 64 Very High (47-50) - 42 - 20 62 Total 162 53 215 x2 = 3.928 c = .13 p<.20 TABLE E.20.--Relationship between knowledgeability score and family members mentally ill, 1971. Family Members Mentally Ill? Knowledgeability Score No Yes Total Very Low (28-38) + 43 - 12 55 Low (39-42) - 58 + 25 83 High (43—46) + 77 - 25 102 Very High (47—50) - 54 + 25 79 Total 232 87 319 x2 = 2.319 c = .09 Non-significant APPENDIX F MEAN DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES OBTAINED FROM FIFTY-SIX OPINION ITEMS, 1962 AND 1971 96 TABLE F.l.-—Mean distribution of responses for fifty-six Opinion items at Time I and Time II. 1962 , . .1971 Mean Frequency Mean Frequency 7. 1.50 - 1.74 3 1.50 - 1.74 2 1.75 — 1.99 2 1.75 - 1.99 1 2 00 - 2 24 4 2.00 - 2.24 3 2.25 - 2 49 4 2.25 - 2.49 8 2 50 - 2.99 12 2.50 - 2.99 11 3 00 - 3.24 6 3.00 - 3.24 4 3.25 - 3.49 2 3.25 - 3.49 3 3.50 - 3.99 3 3.50 - 3.99 1 4.00 — 4.24 0 4.00 - 4.24 3 4.25 - 4.49 2 4.25 - 4.49 2 4.50 - 4.99 2 4.50 - 4.99 2 5.00 - 5.24 3 5.00 - 5.24 2 5.25 - 5.49 2 5.25 - 5.49 5 5.50 - 5.99 5 5.50 - 5.99 4 6.00 - 6.24 0 6.00 - 6.24 0 6.25 - 6.49 2 6.25 - 6.49 l N = 56 N = 56 APPENDIX G SCATTERGRAM: PLOTTING OF MEANS OBTAINED FROM TWENTY SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT OPINION ITEMS, 1962 AND 1971 97 _ . . . i . « . .. . .._.“ —.—+.__.._._4,__~—-q—+ - . -7. .. r .. Ihlclill - ii - W - i i i 1 ......W 1. iii iv [till it i ill i i I i .1 l 4 III ii I ll}. .l. iiillllliy-.ii.iill:. ... ii i i .-.:l ...l.i.... . 1 _ . . . . . l i ll.llj‘iil ill i l l. i ii . . . . . _ . h- A . _ ll Iliilliil liiliii l- 5 1 3 1. . 1|. mil i \l. 4.0 1962 4.80 5.0 . O 1.0 10'71 APPENDIX H CATEGORIES OF MENTAL HEALTH OPINION ITEMS: CONTENTS OF THE ITEMS, MEAN VALUES FOR 1962 AND 1971, AND VALUES OF T-STATISTIC 98 TABLE H.l.—-Categories of mental health Opinion items: the items, mean values for 1962 and 1971, and values of t-statistic. Contents of I. Causal No. Item Agree Disagree Mean Diff. 1962 1971 '62-'71 Sig. Level 13 15 17 2O 30 36 The best way to mental health is by avoiding morbid thoughts Nervous breakdowns seldom have a physical origin The mentally ill have not re- ceived enough guidance from the important people in their lives People who become mentally ill have little will power Most mental disturbances in adults can be traced to emo- tional experiences in childhood People who keep themselves oc- cupied with pleasant thoughts seldom become mentally ill People cannot maintain good mental health without the support of strong persons in their environment Mental disorder is usually brought on by physical causes Almost any disease that at— tacks the nervous system is likely to bring on insanity Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Disagree 3.01 3.18 4.38 2.70 4.72 2.81 3.42 3.03 2.48 2.34 3.13 4.53 2.63 4.75 2.44 4.02 .64 .05 -.15 .07 -.03 .37 .01 -.25 .Ol .01 .01 TABLE H.1.-—Continued. 99 Mean Diff. . Agree Sig. NO' Item Disa ree Level 9 1962 1971 '62-'71 37 If a person concentrates on happy memories he will not be bothered by unpleasant things in the present Disagree 2.16 2.12 ..04 ... 38 Mental health is a matter of trying hard to control the emotions Disagree 2.83 2.84 -.01 ... 56 A person cannot rid himself of unpleasant memories by trying hard to forget them Agree 4.96 5.22 -.26 ... II. Recovery (Cure, Prognosis) 8 Helping the mentally ill per- son with his financial and social problems often im- proves his condition Agree 5.00 5.00 .00 ... 9 Mental patients usually make ~ good adjustments to society when they are released Agree 4.49 4.16 .33 .01 18 Few pe0p1e who enter mental hospitals ever leave Disagree 2.04 2.39 -.35 .01 21 Will power alone will not cure mental disorders Agree 5.70 5.37 .33 .01 24 Mental illness can usually be helped by a vacation or change of scene Disagree 3.05 3.16 -.11 ... 28 Mental disorder is not a hopeless condition Agree 6.32 6.31 .01 ... 32 A change of climate seldom helps an emotional disorder Agree 3.88 4.13 -.25 ... TABLE H.l.-—Continued. 100 No. Item Agree Disagree Mean Diff. 1962 1971 '62-'71 Sig. Level 4O 49 There is not much that can be done for a person who de- velOps a mental disorder Many of the people who go to mental hospitals are able to return to work in society again Disagree Agree 1.53 5.69 1.74 5.30 .39 .05 .Ol III. Seriousness 23 29 44 55 Mental disorder is one of the most damaging ill- nesses that a person can have The seriousness of the mental health problem in this country has been exag- gerated Emotional problems do little damage to the individual Mental health is one of the most important national problems Few of the peOple who seek psychiatric help need the treatment People who go from doctor to doctor with many complaints know that there is nothing really wrong with them Agree Disagree Disagree Agree Disagree Disagree 4.86 2.00 1.71 6.25 2.57 4.41 2.04 1.81 5.85 2.57 2.63 ..45 -.04 -.10 .40 .00 -.28 .01 .01 .05 101 TABLE H.l.--Continued. IV. Role of Psychiatrist M ' . . Agree ean Diff Sig. Disagree 1962 ‘1971 '62-'71 Level No. Item 10 The good psychiatrist acts like a father to his patients Disagree 2.86 2.92 -.06 ... 27 Psychiatrists try to show the mental patient where his ideas are incorrect Disagree 3.62 3.68 -.06 ... 33 The main job of the psychia- trist is to recommend hobbies and other ways for the mental patient to occupy his mind Disagree 2.60 2.36 .24 .05 34 Psychiatrists try to teach mental patients to hold in their strong emotions Disagree 2.26 2.27 -.01 ... V. Age: Children 3 Children sometimes have men- tal breakdowns as severe as those of adults Agree 5.70 5.64 ..06 ... 25 Disappointments affect children as much as they do adults Agree 5.10 5.55 -.45 .01 46 If a child is jealous of a younger brother it is best not to let him show it in any way Disagree 2.06 2.14 -.08 ... 47 Early training will not make the child's brain grow faster Agree 5.76 4.91 .85 .01 102 TABLE H.l.-—Continued. Agree Mean Diff. Sig. Disagree 1962 1971 '62-'71 Level No. Item 50 Children do not usually forget about frightening exper- iences in a short time Agree 5.28 5.35 -.07 ... 51 Disappointments do not affect children as much as they do adults Disagree 2.72 2.34 .38 .01 53 Good emotional habits cannot be taught to children in school as easily as spell- ing can Agree 4.68 4.62 .06 ... VI. Age: Older 11 Early adulthood is more of a danger period for mental illness than later years Agree 3.82 4.25 -.43 .01 19 Older people have few emo- tional problems than younger pe0ple Disagree 2.88 2.89 -.01 ... 52 Most of the insanity cases are found in peOple over fifty years of age Disagree 2.80 2.67 .13 ... VII. Men-Women 6 Women are as emotionally healthy as men Agree 5.47 5.25 .22 ... 14 Women are more likely to de- velop mental disorders than men Disagree 2.93 2.93 .00 ... 22 Women have more emotional problems than men do Agree 4.62 4.62 .00 ... 103 TABLE H.l.--Continued. v—v “Mean Diff. . Agree Sig. No. Item Disa ree Level 9 1962 1971 '62-'71 31 It is easier for women to get over emotional problems than it is for men Disagree 3.11 3.09 .02 ... VIII . Symptoms 12 You can tell a person who is mentally ill from his appearance Disagree 1.68 1.72 -.04 ... 16 The mentally ill pay little attention to their per- sonal appearance Disagree 3.30 3.25 .05 ... 26 The insane laugh more than normal people Disagree 2.53 2.50 .03 ... 39 Most of the people in mental hospitals Speak in words than can be understood Agree 5.23 5.32 -.09 ... 45 Most peOple can recognize the type of person who is likely to have a nervous breakdown Disagree 1.98 2.55 -.57 .01 54 The eyes of the insane are glassy Disagree 2.88 2.26 -.02 ... IX. Miscellaneous 35 X-rays of the head will not tell whether a person is likely to become insane Agree 5.76 5.67 .09 ... 41 Most clergyman will en- courage a person with a mental disorder to see a psychiatrist Agree 4.93 4.78 .15 ... TABLE H.1.--Continued 104 ‘ Mean, ,Diff.' . Agree Sig. NO' Item Disa ree Level 9 1962 1971 '62-'71 42 Feebleminded children are less obedient than normal children Disagree 2.70 3.10 -.40 .01 43 Most people who "go crazy" try to kill themselves Disagree 1.97 2.27 —.30 .01 48 Most suicides occur because of rejection in love Disagree 3.23 3.80 -.57 .01 APPENDIX I STANDARD DEVIATION FOR FIFTY-SIX OPINION ITEMS, 1962 and 1971 105 TABLE I.l.--Standard deviation for Opinion items, 1962 and 1971. Standard Deviation .Standard Deviation Item NO. Item NO. 1962 1971 . ' .1962 1971 l 1.67 1.41 29 1.20 1.22 2 1.94 1.94 30 1.35 1.18 3 1.49 1.46 31 1.36 1.39 4 1.66 1.61 32 1.51 1.49 5 1.63 1.52 33 1.43 1.28 6 1.68 1.75 34 1.42 1.36 7 1.30 1.17 35 1.72 1.78 8 1.44 1.30 36 1.56 1.51 9 1.21 1.23 37 1.23 1.17 10 1.50 1.35 38 1.60 1.60 11 1.64 1.60 39 1.61 1.60 12 .97 1.12 40 .89 .99 13 1.59 1.58 41 1.72 1.53 14 1.61 1.66 42 1.51 1.43 15 1.44 1.35 43 1.20 1.19 16 1.46 1.44 44 1.59 1.39 17 1.48 1.27 45 1.24 1.41 18 1.17 1.28 46 1.14 1.10 19 1.55 1.44 47 1.76 1.84 20 1.64 1.50 48 1.66 1.69 21 1.35 1.34 49 1.29 1.30 22 1.74 1.74 50 1.56 1.43 23 .91 1.05 51 1.66 1.34 24 1.54 1.49 52 1.28 1.23 25 1.80 1.47 53 1.87 1.82 26 1.38 1.22 54 1.35 1.28 27 1.78 1.67 55 1.32 1.45 28 1.16 .91 56 1.76 1.59 NICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES llll 3 ii IIIHI 9 12 3 ililiilllllllllllllill llllllli llil 10 7 3259 70